2009 Legislative Session: First Session, 39th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 6, Number 2

[ Page 1613 ]

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2009

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

H. Bains: We have about 16 members from BCGEU. These are the folks that represent workers who provide us the road and highway maintenance all around British Columbia. Here today: Mike Nuyens, Local 1007; Mike Prystae, Local 1009; Lloyd Gibberley, a staff member; Rory Smith, Local 1004; Kelly McDonald, 1006; Fred Street, 1005; Don Danroth, 1011; and Keith Jansons, Local 1007.

I ask the House to please join with me and provide a very warm welcome. My colleague from the north will be introducing the rest of them.

Hon. R. Hawes: In the gallery today are Gavin Dirom from the Association for Mineral Exploration B.C. and Allen Wright from the Canadian Coal Association. They're here to take part in the minister's council on mining. Could the House please make them both welcome.

G. Coons: To continue the list of the BCGEU members who work hard on our highways: Gordon Hollingsworth, Local 1001; Ted Olsen, 1012; Jim Manson, 1008; Dave Cumming, 1003; Kevin Staneland, 1008; Sandy Fellers, 1010; Daniel Cross, 1002; and Maureen Leclaire.

My colleague from Surrey-Newton and I had some very productive meetings with these members of the BCGEU. With winter season coming up, we plowed through quite a few issues and sanded the way for productive communications. Please make them welcome.

[1335]

S. Hammell: There are 96 students, plus parents and teachers, in the precinct from Queen Elizabeth Secondary School in Surrey. They are here to learn about government. I spent time with them in the classroom and know they are looking forward to today, so would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. S. Bond: All of us are always delighted when we have the opportunity to have our family and friends join us here in Victoria. I'm very pleased to tell you that I'm lucky enough to have my husband of 30 years here with me today, so I'd ask that you please make Bill very welcome to the precinct and to the gallery.

D. Routley: I'd like the House to help me welcome Gaylene Winchester and Roseanne Shuey. Earlier this year a young man from Ladysmith, Tyler Mackie, was hit by a car in Nanaimo. He was severely injured and lost a leg. A fundraiser was held, and I offered as an auction item lunch in the Legislature and gallery seats here for two so that we could support the fundraiser for that young man.

Young Sonny Brisky, nephew to Ms. Gaylene Winchester, bought the auction item and gave it to his Aunt Gaylene for her 65th birthday, which was October 2. I'd like the House to help me make them welcome and thank them for supporting the effort to help Tyler Mackie.

N. Macdonald: I want to join with my colleagues in recognizing, in particular, Jim Manson from Revelstoke. Anybody who knows Revelstoke…. If you can keep the highways clear in Revelstoke, you can do it pretty well anywhere in the world. I just want to say hello and salute him and ask you to join me in making him welcome.

D. Hayer: I would like to announce the birth of Marcelo Santos, whose proud parents are Manuel Santos, my CA, and my financial agent, Marilena Santos. Marcelo was born yesterday, October 27, at 7:40 p.m. He weighed 8.4 pounds and measured 52 centimetres. Would the House please make them — the parents and grandparents and the rest of the family — very welcome and congratulate them on behalf of the House.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

Bill 19 — Lobbyists Registration
Amendment Act, 2009

Hon. M. de Jong presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Lobbyists Registration Amendment Act, 2009.

[Applause.]

Mr. Speaker: Unanticipated excitement, Attorney.

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: Bill 19 makes significant amendments to the existing Lobbyists Registration Act. They are the first major reforms to the act since it was introduced in October of 2002. The bill will significantly strengthen the lobbyist registration regime in B.C., and it will bring it in close alignment with the existing Alberta legislation.

The changes being proposed include the following: harmonizing an expanded definition of lobbying with Alberta; providing for only two streams of lobbyists in B.C., with parallel, strengthened reporting requirements;
[ Page 1614 ]
prohibiting contracting with government and lobbying on the same subject matter; providing the registrar with specific powers to conduct investigations and a requirement to report the results of those investigations to this Legislative Assembly; introducing administrative penalties of up to $25,000 and, in some cases, $100,000 for a second or subsequent offence; and extending the limitation period to two years.

It's proposed that the legislation will come into force on April 1, 2010.

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

[1340]

Bill 19, Lobbyists Registration Amendment Act, 2009, 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.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
IN WOOD PRODUCTS INDUSTRY

D. Routley: I rise today to speak about FPInnovations, and Forintek, their division for research and development. With offices in Ladysmith and labs in Vancouver at UBC and in Quebec City, they do R and D in the forest sector. We all want a green economy. What could be more green than an industry whose products sequester carbon and whose raw material absorbs it and creates oxygen in growing?

FPInnovations creates solutions from forest to market. Their main obstacle to innovation and entrepreneurialism in the forest industry is fibre access. FP is working with first nations to utilize 40 million cubic metres of wood to create high-value products in new markets. Efforts result in better quality, higher-value products, lower production costs, improved productivity and enhanced competitiveness in the marketplace.

Since April 1, 1979, Forintek has operated as a non-profit corporation conducting focused research and development, touching every key element of the wood-product-sector value chain. Forintek is a powerful, highly responsive team of professionals with high quality and high capacity to guide the wood industry towards higher value.

We all, as British Columbians, have a sense that we need to conserve our forests, even while we enjoy the benefits of a thriving wood products industry. We know that we must add value to our resources in order to create jobs and maximize the benefit to British Columbians from the resources that we do harvest.

We ask ourselves: why Ikea? Why not B.C.ea? The answer to that question is being offered by many entrepreneurs throughout this province. The ideas are out there. The energy resides in British Columbia. The obstacles are many and varied, from fibre access to technological development, product research, market research and development, finance, and commercial advice.

FPInnovations and Forintek lead the way in providing those answers to our entrepreneurs. We as legislators should support the research and development of products and marketplaces that will revitalize our industry for the benefit of all British Columbians.

AL ETMANSKI

S. Cadieux: Just as entrepreneurs change the face of business, social entrepreneurs act as the agents of change for society, seizing opportunities other miss for improving systems, inventing new approaches and creating solutions that change society for the better.

I'd like today to take a moment to pay tribute to one such social entrepreneur. He's president and co-founder of Planned Lifetime Advocacy Network, PLAN, a non-profit social enterprise assisting families by addressing financial and social well-being for their relatives with disabilities. He's proposed and led the successful campaign to establish the registered disability savings plan, RDSP, the world's first savings plan for people with disabilities.

He's authored two books: A Good Life — For You and Your Relative with a Disability and Safe and Secure. He admits to having played air guitar with Randy Bachman of Bachman-Turner Overdrive in a rock video.

He's the founding member of the J.W. McConnell Family Foundations Social Innovation Generation collaboration, which is an initiative to explore new methods of financing for the social sector. He's one of the first two Canadians accepted into Ashoka's prestigious global fellowship of social entrepreneurs.

This month, in honour of Community Living Month, Burnaby Association for Community Inclusion hosted a celebration in his honour. His name is Al Etmanski. He's a source of inspiration, conceiving of new and innovative concepts yet remaining grounded and practical, inspiring us to understand what is possible.

I'm honoured to represent Al Etmanski here in the Legislature, and I look forward to many more years of remarkable contribution.

HISTORY OF SOUTH ASIANS
IN NORTH AMERICA

R. Chouhan: Earlier this month, on October 12, a very important event took place in the South Asian community. Mr. Sohan Pooni launched his book called Canada De Gadri Yodhay. In English it means "Canadian heroes of the Ghadar movement." Usually when a book is launched, only a handful of people attend, but in
[ Page 1615 ]
this case, 1,000 people participated in a two-hour-long ceremony.

The book is about the history of South Asians in North America in the first half of the 20th century. There were several hundred active members of the Ghadar movement, but due to the time constraints or other challenges, Mr. Pooni was able to write only about 41 Ghadarites. I'm sure Mr. Pooni will write about all of them in the near future.

[1345]

Most people have heard about the Komagata Maru incident that occurred in 1914, but not too many know about the leaders and the members of the community who fought against the racist policies of the provincial and the Canadian governments of that time.

The first South Asian arrived in British Columbia around 1895. Despite the fact that Indians were British subjects, they were treated as second-class citizens upon their arrival in Canada. Every possible step was taken by those governments to stop immigration from India.

These men realized that the main reason for the discrimination against them was that India was not a free country, thus they decided to start the Ghadar movement and to participate in the struggle to free India from British rule.

I hope to see this book translated in English soon so that more people can read it. Congratulations and thank you, Mr. Pooni, for the wonderful job that you have done. This book looks so beautiful.

Mr. Speaker: Members, I remind members not to use props.

NORTH SHORE YOUTH SAFE HOUSE

J. Thornthwaite: On Saturday I had the pleasure of attending the 8th annual North Shore Rotary Wine and Food Festival benefiting a very important cause: the North Shore Youth Safe House.

I'm told that they made approximately $34,000. It was great to see so many people come together to raise money and awareness for a place that inevitably saves and reshapes lives.

The North Shore Youth Safe House is a place where youth between the ages of 13 and 18 can go to find a warm, comfortable and, most of all, secure place to stay. Open 24 hours a day, seven days a week, the safe house provides youth in need with warm meals and a clean place to sleep.

What makes the safe house so special is that it offers support, mediation and advocacy to meet the needs of high-risk youth in a safe environment by discouraging violence or discrimination of any kind and encouraging respect, solution-seeking and structured meal and sleep times.

The Ministry of Children and Family Development contracts Hollyburn Family Services to provide the safe house with workers specialized in family support as well as transitional youth. Support is also there for youth with drug and alcohol issues, and there is ongoing aftercare assistance from the community outreach workers.

Without organizations like the North Shore Youth Safe House, teens at risk on the North Shore would have very little to turn to. Offering both emergency and long-term help, the safe house truly is a great asset to our community. I would like to thank the North Shore Rotary for their continued support of the North Shore Safe House, giving at-risk teens a chance at creating successful and fulfilling lives.

DAY OF ACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE

M. Mungall: This past Saturday, on October 24, I participated in the international day of climate action by attending a 350 event.

This event was organized by a powerful group of youth from LV Rogers high school in Nelson. Hanna Okidan, Olivia Mansfield, Asia Lamb-Hartley, Sarea Carmichael, Amanda Chouinard, Shandrea Lavoie, Emily Newbury, Isolde deMontignay, Neufeld Cummings, Sheena Young and Hanna Astall all decided that Nelson couldn't be left out of this global day of action and so banded together to get their community together to say that we are going to be a part of a global change for sustainability.

And 350 people turned up in Nelson for 350. For 350 — 350 parts per million of CO2 in our atmosphere. That's the magic number: 350.

Nelson wasn't alone this Saturday when we said that 350 is achievable. From Addis Ababa to Afghanistan, from Cape Town to Cebu in the Philippines, from the base of the pyramids in Giza to the tops of ice peaks in Antarctica and the bottoms of the oceans in the Maldives, all across Europe, Asia, the Americas, Africa and, of course, down under in Australia — 5,248 events in 181 countries made for the most widespread day of political action in human history, and Nelson was a part of it.

To know that we are a part of a global movement for a global change is truly awesome. With that much energy and that much passion, we can achieve anything, including reducing our carbon emissions to 350. This is only the beginning.

[1350]

COMMUNITIES IN BLOOM AWARD
FOR WHITE ROCK

G. Hogg: The White Rock Communities in Bloom committee, after winning the national award in 2008, competed this year internationally with and against England, Ireland, Scotland, Japan and the rest of Canada. They received a five-bloom rating, the highest rating to be awarded.

The two judges, Lorna McIlroy and Jack Clasen, made special mention of White Rock's sparkling waterfront,
[ Page 1616 ]
its promenade, its beautiful Marine Drive and, of course, the rock. They added that the entire area is "splashed with colour by luxurious planters and vivid hanging flower baskets." They noted the participation of volunteers who keep the area litter-free, the environmental guides who offer interpretative walks and the artists who have created public art sites.

At night LED lights twinkle in the waterfront trees, further enhancing the natural beauty of the area. With the city, they have been responsible for foreshore restoration planting, native plant demonstration gardens and many other creative beautification programs.

This has happened under the dynamic leadership of their chairperson, Mr. Moti Bali, and his devoted committee. They have been supported by the White Rock Business Improvement Association and the Semiahmoo First Nation.

I ask this Legislature to join me in congratulating and thanking these people for their commitment and for their accomplishments.

Oral Questions

EMERGENCY SERVICES
AT MISSION MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

A. Dix: Contrary to what the B.C. Liberals said in the election campaign and contrary to what the minister himself said a few months ago, the Fraser Health Authority is proceeding to downgrade the emergency room at Mission Memorial Hospital.

However, last night the Mission council unanimously rejected the minister's plan for the hospital. Instead, the council passed a motion that the hospital and the ER stay intact.

Will the minister listen to Mission city council and abandon his plan to slash basic health care services in Mission?

Hon. K. Falcon: You know, even with a record budget increase of 20 percent over the next three years, the health authorities are still challenged to deal with the record utilization and use of the health system. One of the things that the public demands and expects is that the health authorities utilize their dollars — the massive dollars that we put into health care — as appropriately as possible.

When I met with Mayor Atebe from Mission, one of the discussions we had was to make sure that the community was fully involved in the consultative process before decisions got made. That's exactly what's happened — to make sure that before a decision gets made, all of the facts are on the table.

There are a couple of facts that might interest the member. The first is that during the overnight period between 11 p.m. at night and 8 a.m. in the morning, the Mission community hospital receives, on average, one ambulance visit in the overnight period.

If you consider the fact that we've just opened a new $355 million Abbotsford Regional Hospital and Cancer Centre with a quadrupled emergency department, 20 minutes away in one direction, and that the Ridge Meadows Hospital with a tripled emergency department just opened in the last twelve months, that is the foundation on which they make a decision.

A. Dix: Perhaps if the minister had actually read the report, he wouldn't be so quick to downgrade the work being done by the nurses and doctors at Mission Memorial Hospital. The night shift gets 3,500 visits a year. So when you're downgrading it, when you're telling people inaccurate facts, as the minister just did…. Perhaps he could include that one.

He might also include the words of his own chair of the board, who says that they're getting a 2.8 percent lift this year — well under the utilization and population increases. The minister said in July: "This is not a decision driven by saving money."

Yesterday he told Mission that if they wanted to save their ER, they'd have to find $400,000 in savings in patient services elsewhere in the hospital. Will he give up on this outrageous shakedown and protect services in Mission?

Hon. K. Falcon: I tried to explain the facts to the member — the facts that are a part of the consultative process that is going on with the community right now.

[1355]

I know that the member doesn't believe anything should ever change in the health system, and I understand that. Even with record funding increases, according to the NDP, nothing should ever change.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Falcon: Perhaps I'll try another tack that might work with this member. The member has a community hospital that serves people in his own constituency, called the Mount St. Joseph community hospital. In the entire ten years that the NDP were in government — in fact, that member was the chief of staff to the Premier at the time, Glen Clark — at not one time did they decide that that emergency department should be open 24 hours. Why? Because it's got VGH on one side and St. Paul's on the other.

That was appropriate for them. It's appropriate in this case that the Fraser Health Authority look at the facts and make sure they make a decision based on the facts in front of them — recognizing the $355 million investment in a brand-new state-of-the-art regional hospital and cancer centre with a quadrupled emergency department
[ Page 1617 ]
on one side, 20 minutes away, and another expanded, tripled, emergency department at Ridge Meadows, 20 minutes on the other side. It is appropriate that they do that, given the facts that they have available.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a further supplemental.

A. Dix: The people of Mission know change, B.C. Liberal–style. It's the sixth major downgrade of that hospital since the B.C. Liberals came to office. Acute to sub-acute. They closed the ICU. They cut one set of beds. Then they cut another set of beds — 60 percent of the beds in the entire hospital. They cut the emerg, the maternity ward. They downgraded acute care beds just a month ago, residential care beds.

Interjection.

A. Dix: Yeah, I'd say the hon. member from Mission…. He finally speaks. On the sixth downgrade, the member from Mission finally speaks. During the election, where was he?

Why doesn't the Minister of Health take account of the risks made clear in his own report, listen to the community and abandon this hammer blow to health care in Mission?

Hon. K. Falcon: We hear all the hysterics and the theatrical performance of the member opposite, but they conveniently ignore rather important facts. One of those important facts, actually, is that the community of Abbotsford, for ten years, was clamouring for a new facility. They never dealt with that at all — nothing.

What we did was constructed and built a $355 million state-of-the-art facility with a quadrupled emergency department. That's on one end. At the other end, with Ridge Meadows Hospital, a tripled emergency department.

I recognize that this is never an easy thing for a community. But actually, when you've got an emergency department that receives, on average, one ambulance visit per night during the overnight hours and, on average, eight to nine walk-in visits that are not high-acute visits, it is not inappropriate, given the facilities that have just been constructed and expanded, that that decision could be made.

We still deliver first-class, exceptional health care for all the folks in the Fraser region.

EMERGENCY SERVICES
IN FRASER HEALTH AUTHORITY

S. Hammell: Here are some other facts. Fraser Health's own data confirms that emergency services need to be improved, not decreased, in the region. This spring the health authority reported that both the ER in Mission and the ER in Abbotsford, which the minister keeps insisting can take patients from Mission, are not meeting the benchmark to admit 80 percent of their patients within ten hours.

They are not reaching that benchmark of 80 percent within ten hours. At the Abbotsford ER, only 43 percent of patients are being admitted within that time frame. Will the minister start basing his decisions on sound policy that improves, not worsens, access to emergency care in the Fraser Valley?

[1400]

Hon. K. Falcon: That's exactly what's happening, because actually we have a health system. It is a system; it is not an individual, isolated emergency department that works on its own without any connection to the other regional facilities.

I can tell the member — the member's from Surrey; she should know — that the $239 million being invested in the new out-patient hospital, which I recently visited — a major milestone…. That hospital is part of the system of care for folks in the Fraser region. So when the $355 million Abbotsford Regional Hospital and Cancer Centre was built, that actually helps the Surrey Memorial emergency department. That's why we've been making those investments — to ensure that the entire system works in tandem with each other.

But where we have a situation that, in spite of 20 percent health funding increases, we still have pressures in the system, it is appropriate that an emergency department that sees on average one ambulance visit per night between the hours of 11 p.m. and 8 a.m…. It is appropriate that they recommend those kinds of changes to ensure that dollars go towards patient care — exactly where it should go.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

EMERGENCY SERVICES
AT MISSION MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

S. Hammell: The minister's own report presented to Mission council last night details the risks of cutting emergency services to the community of Mission. The risks include — and this is detailed in the report presented — a lack of physician coverage for emergencies during the night shift, sustaining other services within the hospital such as labs and pharmacies, delay in care of trauma patients and increased congestion in other sites. These are the problems that the minister's own report identifies.

Will the minister reconsider this ill-thought-out plan and agree with Mission council that reducing hours in the emergency ward at Mission Memorial Hospital is unacceptable?

Hon. K. Falcon: I'll go back to what I said earlier to the Health critic. You know, there is a hospital that serves many of that Health critic's constituents called Mount St. Joseph's.
[ Page 1618 ]
It also has an emergency department with no overnight hours. That doesn't mean that health care is compromised in Vancouver. It is not. They've got the St. Paul's facility and the VGH facility also there. It is no different in this case.

In this case, we have opened a brand-new, state-of-the-art $355 million Abbotsford Regional Hospital. When you've opened up a $355 million state-of-the-art hospital 20 minutes away from a community hospital emergency department, with an emergency department that is quadrupled in size and 20 minutes in the other direction, you've tripled the emergency department for Ridge Meadows.

It actually begs the health authority to make sure they utilize all of these brand-new, expanded assets appropriately. That's what they're doing. I know those members oppose every change ever contemplated, thought about or made, but we are going to make the right decisions for the folks in the Fraser Valley. That's what we're doing.

SPEECH PATHOLOGY SERVICES
IN INVERMERE AREA

N. Macdonald: In July of 2008 Norm Gagatek, a 39-year-old firefighter from Invermere, suffered a devastating brain stem stroke. He had a family depending on him and a child on the way, and since the day of his stroke, he has struggled to make some kind of recovery.

It was when a speech therapist in Invermere started to work directly with Norm that he started to regain the ability to swallow and the possibility of saying his new son's name. But the speech-language pathologist who was providing Norm and others with direct therapy on a consistent schedule is now being cut by the IHA.

The question for the Minister of Health is: will the minister restore the speech therapy services that Norm and his family desperately need?

[1405]

Hon. K. Falcon: Again, the member is characterizing this wrongly. He's trying to say that speech pathology has been cut for the individual in question. That's not the case.

The fact of the matter is that there was a speech pathologist that served in Invermere three days per month. What has changed is that it is operating out of East Kootenay Regional Hospital on an out-patient basis, just as it has in the Elk Valley for many years very successfully. They will continue to go to Invermere and go to Golden to provide the services for the folks that need it.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: Well, what the minister describes as a change, he's not describing accurately. It is a suggestion that there's going to be some television linkup. The fact is that this change, as the minister describes it, is actually driven not by good practice or innovation or anything other than a $40 million deficit that the Interior Health is struggling to find ways of making up for.

This is a cut, and a cut that the minister talks about. It's a cut to direct, hands-on therapy delivered on a regular basis that has allowed progress for Norm. That's the fact of the matter. To quote Norm's spouse, Kim: "Being able to say Quinn's name and his son Braeden's name is huge for Norm and their family."

Now this cut that the minister is making is taking away the chance for that family. That is what is at stake here, and the question is: will the minister do the right thing and reverse that cut?

Hon. K. Falcon: We've covered territory like this before. I've tried to explain to the members that a 20 percent increase in the Health budget, an additional $2.4 billion, is not a cut. It's a dramatic, record increase. That's what we've done. I've said very publicly — I've been very clear to the members opposite — that even with a 20 percent Health budget increase over the next three years, there are still pressures.

All of the health authorities are challenged to make sure that they look at how they deliver services and do it in a manner that is most efficient and most respectful of the massive record dollars, taxpayer dollars, that go into that service.

In this case, I can tell you that the speech pathologist that served three days a month in Invermere will continue to serve Invermere out of East Kootenay Regional Hospital on an out-patient basis.

Now, he keeps saying that the person is gone. No, the person will continue to serve from East Kootenay Regional Hospital. The service will continue to be provided by a speech pathologist, just as it has been, very successfully, in the Elk Valley for a number of years.

FUNDING FOR SENIORS SERVICES
IN SURREY AND WHITE ROCK

H. Bains: White Rock/Surrey Come Share Society serves thousands of seniors every year, providing critical services like outreach, meal programs, driving seniors to medical appointments, weekly phone checkups and services for seniors in crisis. Now this government and this minister hit them with $161,000 funding cut, eliminating most of those services. It means that some of the most vulnerable seniors no longer have the support that they desperately need, and it will cost the system more through higher acute care costs.

My question to the minister is this. Will the minister stop running roughshod over our seniors in Surrey and White Rock? Will he reverse those cuts?

Hon. K. Falcon: Again, I know that the members opposite want to create a situation where they can talk about: "Oh, every change is a cut." Even though the budget
[ Page 1619 ]
is going up 20 percent, even though they can look and see the additional $2.4 billion going into the system, in the NDP world nothing can ever change. It's a good lesson for the students that may be listening here today, because in their world nothing ever changes, no matter what the facts tell you, no matter what the situation is.

The fact of the matter is that for the Come Share Society, Fraser Health will continue to fund them a million dollars a year to deliver important medical supports like a meal program and adult day care. Where there are changes being made and services no longer being provided, it is typically in the socialization area for many senior services.

[1410]

They are important programs, but they are focusing their dollars on direct medical care at a time when even a 20 percent budget increase is never enough. That's an appropriate decision to make.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

H. Bains: You know what hasn't changed? This minister's and this government's refusal to be respectful and to stop showing contempt to the very people that built this province. That's what you're doing.

Here are some of the recent examples of how Come Share serves seniors in our community: helping an elderly couple find a care facility where they could live together, helping a senior find a donated bed he couldn't otherwise afford, helping a senior access her finances after she was forced to move out of assisted living, connecting seniors to basic services like baths and delivering groceries. Thanks to this minister and thanks to these Liberals, they are now forced to turn seniors away with no place to go.

Again to this minister: on behalf of those seniors, will he show some respect to the seniors in my community, and will he promise to restore the funding for the White Rock/Surrey Come Share Society today?

Hon. K. Falcon: That member's comments are just ridiculous. The fact of the matter is that it was this government that actually delivered over 6,000 new assisted-living and residential care beds for seniors right across the province.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. K. Falcon: You can sense the sensitivity over there, because they also had a record. It was a disastrous record when it came to actually doing more than talking about what they want to do.

What we are doing is delivering change that's of real benefit to seniors. I get, I understand and recognize, that some socialization programs that provided referrals to handyDART service or to socialization and get-together programs are important for seniors.

I understand that. But I also recognize, as does Fraser Health, that the most important thing for them to invest in — at a time when even a 20 percent budget increase cannot fulfil every demand out there — is to focus on direct medical care, bathing programs, food programs. That's what they're doing. I support that they're doing that.

MEDICAL LABORATORY SERVICES
IN NORTHERN B.C.

D. Donaldson: What we can sense is the nonsense coming from this side from the Minister of Health. The Northern Health Authority just cut microbiology lab services at the Bulkley Valley District Hospital in Smithers. The same funding cut was done at Wrinch Memorial Hospital in Hazelton.

Medical professionals in Smithers and Hazelton say these cuts in services will increase risk to patients. NHA says they'll send samples by bus elsewhere — by bus. Important samples to be sent on the Greyhound. Road conditions can be treacherous. Delays will result. Cold weather can destroy microbes, giving inaccurate results.

Why will the minister not provide adequate funding to the Northern Health Authority for the important microbiology lab services in these communities, instead of putting patients at higher risk?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, classic NDP. The world as we know it is coming to an end. There are, apparently, cuts everywhere, in spite of the fact that we've actually seen the health budget double. I know math has never been their strong point, so I'll try this with the member.

In 2001 when I first got elected, the health budget was $8.4 billion. Today the member might be interested to know that the total health spending in the province of British Columbia is $15.7 billion.

[1415]

Only in the NDP world is a doubling of the health budget a cut. Only in the NDP world do you somehow take a doubling and talk about a cut.

Lab services are being consolidated. There is actually lots of medical efficacy that will demonstrate that you can get better results for the public. It's safer when they're doing more volume. You've got the people that are doing that service getting the experience of volume and delivering better service. That's what they're doing.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

D. Donaldson: What the minister doesn't seem to understand is that when operating costs go up more than funding, it's called a funding deficit. This govern-
[ Page 1620 ]
ment should know something about that, because this minister helped increase the funding deficit, the deficit in this province, to the highest level in history.

Let's talk about change. These government cuts to lab services…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Member.

D. Donaldson: …take what is working well now and introduce a more convoluted testing process where more things can go wrong. It's needlessly increasing risk to patients. That's the kind of change they're doing on that side of the House.

Will the minister reinstate these lab services instead of destroying something that is working?

Hon. K. Falcon: I thought that the member's question at the beginning was quite instructive of the NDP mentality. Really, what it is suggesting is that you shouldn't even think about trying to do anything different in the health system. God, no. We should never even dream of that. Hit the spending accelerator and just spend and keep doing whatever you've been doing. Don't even think about doing things differently. That's the NDP response.

That's not our response. We recognize that with a 20 percent funding increase, there is still a responsibility on government, recognizing that taxpayer dollars are not unlimited. It is hard-working folks that contribute those dollars. We have a responsibility to deliver the services he pretends to care about as efficiently and effectively as we possibly can. That is what they are doing.

GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION SIGNAGE

K. Conroy: Can the Minister of Transportation explain why she feels it is appropriate to buy signs from companies outside of B.C., while we have excellent companies right here in B.C. that produce exactly the same signs?

Hon. S. Bond: We do have a very extensive sign program in British Columbia. We make every effort to utilize British Columbia's services and British Columbia's products. In fact, we're proud of the program that we have in this province that makes sure that we emphasize the use of British Columbia products wherever possible.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

K. Conroy: Proud? Well, in the last four years, Zumar Industries in Tacoma, Washington, has received over a million dollars in contracts from the B.C. government — over a million dollars of B.C. taxpayers' dollars.

We know that sign companies here in B.C. can produce exactly the same signs as the minister has contracted with them. So how can the…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

K. Conroy: …minister condone this?

When the ministry staff was asked why, we were told that an answer would be forthcoming from the minister. Well, how about it, Minister? Why is this government's policy Buy Washington, not Buy B.C.?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, this government's policy is that we're going to get the absolute best value for every taxpayer dollar we spend.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

[1420]

Hon. S. Bond: Once again, the NDP doesn't bother to do any homework. They simply walk into the Legislature. In fact, we have our own sign shop. Wherever possible and whenever possible we look at the best competitive advantage, and the vast majority of what we do is British Columbia products and British Columbia workmanship.

FUNDING FOR
VANCOUVER ISLAND CHILDREN'S FESTIVAL

L. Krog: The Vancouver Island International Children's Festival celebrated its tenth anniversary this year. More than a hundred thousand students, teachers and families have attended that event over those years. Indeed, some schools travelled over two days to attend that festival.

The cutting of B.C. gaming funds has left the society now with no option but to wind up its affairs. So my question to the Minister of Tourism, the person responsible for arts and culture at the cabinet table: is he prepared to let this happen, and if so, why?

Interjections.
[ Page 1621 ]

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: We've canvassed this in this House before with regards to tough decisions that had to be made about grant programs within the gaming grants and charitable grants of B.C. this year.

We actually focused with regards to children and meals in schools and services there. We focused on search and rescue and the importance of public safety with regards to that. We focused on issues in and around food banks and on the issue of the social development side, because we felt that at this time, during difficult times, the priority dollars should be going to those people who need it the most.

[End of question period.]

Hon. K. Heed: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

Hon. K. Heed: Joining us today in the gallery is a longtime-serving police officer from the Vancouver police department. He's served over 31 years in the community of Vancouver, and matter of fact, he took over my command when I left the Vancouver police department. I ask that all of us welcome Supt. Andy Hobbs.

Hon. M. de Jong: With leave, I move that the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth be appointed to be empowered to foster greater awareness and understanding among legislators and the public of the B.C. child welfare system.

Leave granted.

Motions Without Notice

POWERS AND ROLE OF
children and youth COMMITTEE

Hon. M. de Jong: I have provided a copy of the motion to the Opposition House Leader. It includes the same powers that accrued to the committee last year.

[That the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth be appointed to be empowered to foster greater awareness and understanding among legislators and the public of the BC child welfare system, and in particular to:

1. Be the committee that receives and reviews the annual service plan from the Representative for Children and Youth (the "Representative") that includes a statement of goals and identifies specific objectives and performance measures that will be required to exercise the powers and perform the functions and duties of the Representative during the fiscal year;

2. Be the committee to which the Representative reports, at least annually;

3. Refer to the Representative for investigation the critical injury or death of a child; and

4. Receive and consider all reports and plans delivered by the Representative (if any during the time period of these terms of reference) to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.

In addition to the powers previously conferred upon Select Standing Committees of the House, the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth be empowered:

a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;

b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;

c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and

d) to retain personnel as required to assist the Committee;

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.]

Motion approved.

M. Mungall: I seek leave to introduce a petition to the House.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

M. Mungall: This petition was signed by 276 people last week at a rally to reinstate the funding cuts to arts and culture. These are artists and arts lovers. The funding represents not only their enjoyment in this community and throughout British Columbia, but also, of course, their very lifeline, their jobs. They want that funding reinstated, and so they signed this petition.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call Bill Pr401, Verigin Memorial Park Amendment Act, 2009. In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the ongoing estimates of the Ministry of Housing and Social Development.

[1425]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill Pr401 — Verigin Memorial
Park Amendment Act, 2009

K. Conroy: I move that the bill be now read a second time. This private bill was initiated by the Union of Spirit-
[ Page 1622 ]
ual Communities of Christ, the Doukhobor community, more commonly known as the USCC. The Doukhobors' original spiritual leader was Peter V. Verigin, Peter the Lordly. When he succumbed to an untimely death on October 1924, he was interred at Verigin's tomb in Brilliant, just outside of Castlegar.

Over the years other family members have also been laid to rest in this beautiful and spiritual site. It has come to the attention of the community that there needed to be an amendment to the original act, allowing for the interment of these descendents. This amendment simply ensures all who rest there now and in future do so with the proper authorization.

The Doukhobors' history spans over a hundred years in this province. I welcome the opportunity to sponsor this bill that will allow the suitable interment of the leadership of these industrious people who truly lived their philosophy of toil and peaceful living.

It has been one year since John J. Verigin Sr., the former honorary chairman of the USCC, passed away and was also interred at the Brilliant site. I want to take this moment to remember him and the incredible contribution he made to our community, our province and, indeed, our country.

The USCC and the Verigin family have established the John J. Verigin memorial fund to advance the principles and values he championed during his life. I join with the many constituents who joined with his family to remember John one year after his passing, and all who hope that this bill passes.

Mr. Speaker: Move second reading.

K. Conroy: Mr. Speaker, by leave, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House….

Mr. Speaker: Member, first we have to move second reading.

Seeing no further speakers, does the member move second reading?

K. Conroy: I move second reading.

Motion approved.

K. Conroy: By leave, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill Pr401, Verigin Memorial Park Amendment Act, 2009, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Committee of the Whole House

BIll Pr401 — Verigin Memorial
Park Amendment Act, 2009

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill Pr401; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 2:28 p.m.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

K. Conroy: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:29 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

Bill Pr401 — Verigin Memorial
Park Amendment Act, 2009

Bill Pr401, Verigin Memorial Park Amendment Act, 2009, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Abbott: I call second reading debate on Bill Pr402, Trustee Board of the Church of God, Richmond Municipality, B.C. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2009.

[1430]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill Pr402 — Trustee Board of the
Church of God, Richmond
Municipality, B.C. (Corporate
Restoration) Act, 2009

R. Howard: I move that the bill be now read a second time.

Inadvertently, more than ten years ago reports were not filed, which caused the society to be stricken from the register. Having discovered this, they now seek to be restored to the register. Because it was ten years ago, it requires legislation, which is before us now.

I move second reading.
[ Page 1623 ]

Motion approved.

R. Howard: Mr. Speaker, by leave, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill Pr402, Trustee Board of the Church of God, Richmond Municipality, B.C. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2009, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Committee of the Whole House

BIll Pr402 — Trustee Board of the
Church of God, Richmond
Municipality, B.C. (Corporate
Restoration) Act, 2009

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill Pr402; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 2:31 p.m.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

R. Howard: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:32 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BIll Pr402 — Trustee Board of the
Church of God, Richmond
Municipality, B.C. (Corporate
Restoration) Act, 2009

Bill Pr402, Trustee Board of the Church of God, Richmond Municipality, B.C. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2009, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Abbott: Continuing this furious pace of passing legislation, I call second reading debate on Pr403, intituled Victoria Foundation Amendment Act, 2009.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill Pr403 — Victoria Foundation
Amendment Act, 2009

R. Sultan: I move that the bill be now read a second time.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Member.

R. Sultan: Mr. Speaker, Pr403, the Victoria Foundation Amendment Act, 2009, pertains to the wonderful institution of the Victoria Foundation, the second-oldest foundation in British Columbia and a key building block in the philanthropic institutions of this part of British Columbia.

The directors of the Victoria Foundation have requested amendments to their act, principally to do with two issues which have arisen — namely, the flexibility with which they can make bequests and grants in difficult financial circumstances, both from capital and income, and, secondly, to clarify any possible ambiguity in the interpretation by the Canadian Revenue Agency of enduring property under their statutes. This bill will clarify these matters and allow the Victoria Foundation to carry on.

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

Move second reading, Member.

R. Sultan: I move second reading.

Motion approved.

R. Sultan: Mr. Speaker, by leave, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill Pr403, Victoria Foundation Amendment Act, 2009, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Committee of the Whole House

Bill Pr403 — Victoria Foundation
Amendment Act, 2009

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill Pr403; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 2:34 p.m.

Sections 1 to 10 inclusive approved.
[ Page 1624 ]

Title approved.

R. Sultan: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:35 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

Bill Pr403 — Victoria Foundation
Amendment Act, 2009

Bill Pr403, Victoria Foundation Amendment Act, 2009, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Abbott: I call committee stage debate on Bill 7, Police (Misconduct, Complaints, Investigations, Discipline and Proceedings) Amendment Act, 2009.

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 7 — Police (Misconduct,
Complaints, Investigations,
Discipline and Proceedings)
Amendment Act, 2009

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 7; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 2:38 p.m.

On section 10, section 101.

M. Farnworth: This section is about the member's duty to cooperate with the investigating officer, answer questions and provide written statements, and it seems a pretty straightforward thing. I just want to confirm and ensure that if there are new provisions in this particular section, how much is new, and how much is out of the report?

Hon. M. de Jong: Just cross-checking the old act. My best information is that the positive statutory obligation that this creates is new.

Section 10, sections 101 and 102 approved.

On section 10, section 103.

[1440]

M. Farnworth: I understand the member from Prince George's enthusiasm. However, we still have a few questions left.

"Investigation powers in relation to other premises." If the minister can confirm that this is a new section in the act…. I think it's also important in the sense that what this section is saying is that in relation to an investigation in regard to a complaint, it's not just the working environments that the commissioner is allowed to conduct the investigation, but if there is a sense that there may be evidence in premises outside the working environment, then the commissioner or the person doing the investigation has the ability to go to those premises or to that place and to either seek or obtain evidence. Is that correct?

Hon. M. de Jong: With the single exception that it would be the investigating officer as opposed to the commissioner himself or herself, I think everything the member pointed out in description is correct.

It is new, and the final comment I would make is that the ability to obtain the kind of authorization, court-ordered authorization or warrant, contemplated here would also be subject to the usual tests around establishing reasonable and probable grounds for the expectation that relevant evidence would be found.

Section 10, sections 103 and 104 approved.

On section 10, section 105.

M. Farnworth: Section 105 deals with copies admissible in evidence. Just to clarify this section, then, that in the case of the investigation, a copy of a record is something that will be admissible, and the fact that it is a copy is not going to impede in any way an investigation from taking place.

Hon. M. de Jong: That is, I believe, an accurate description. It is new with respect to this part of the act, and it finally, I think, follows a trend that we see emerging around the assumed reliability, where properly attested to, of photocopies of documents.

M. Farnworth: I'll just make one observation. It would be nice if we could have this particular piece of policy in other areas of our day-to-day existence — where a copy of a certificate would suffice in order to obtain a licence or something like that.

Section 10, sections 105 and 106 approved.

On section 10, section 107.

M. Farnworth: Again, this one appears to be fairly self-evident, but I just want to…. "Duty of investigating officer
[ Page 1625 ]
to keep records and produce them." That is a requirement from the moment the complaint is received, or from the moment the complaint is starting to be investigated?

Hon. M. de Jong: It wouldn't be upon receipt of the complaint, necessarily. It would be from the appointment of the investigating officer, because only at that point would the individual know that they are the investigating officer and, therefore, have the obligation set out in section 107.

[1445]

Section 10, sections 107 to 109 inclusive approved.

On section 10, section 110.

M. Farnworth: The member from Richmond shouldn't look quite so surprised that I stood up on this one.

This section is an important section. It deals with the member's reassignment or suspension pending investigation and hearing. The discipline authority has the power to reassign, transfer or suspend the member if they feel that not doing so will cause harm to others, discredit the department or that the member is not able to carry out his or her regular duties.

The board can decide whether the suspension is with or without pay. Prior to making a decision, the member must be given the opportunity to speak to the board. At any time the board may reconsider its decision.

This section, then, is in essence saying that it's the police board that will make that decision. Is that correct? Or does the commissioner have the ability — or the person doing the investigation — to say it's appropriate or that they feel that the individual under investigation should either be reassigned or suspended? I just want to make sure, to clarify exactly who makes that decision.

Hon. M. de Jong: The two individuals or agencies that are assigned the authority the member speaks of are the discipline authority or the board. The sections do not contemplate the Police Complaint Commissioner rendering the decision around suspension with pay or without pay.

Section 10, section 110 approved.

On section 10, section 111.

M. Farnworth: Section 111, "If police complaint commissioner considers that member or former member has committed offence." My reading of this relates back to the issue I raised earlier — that if, during the course of an investigation, something else is uncovered, then this is the section that would deal with that. Is that correct?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm sorry. That took longer than necessary for me to say yes.

Section 10, section 111 approved.

On section 10, section 112.

M. Farnworth: Section 112, "Discipline authority to review final investigation report and give early notice of next steps." This section, then, would deal with…. Once the report is done, the discipline authority has the ability to review the report before it goes up to….

The investigator has done the report. The report goes to the disciplining authority, or does it go to the commissioner first? What is being anticipated with this particular section?

[1450]

Hon. M. de Jong: The answer with respect to section 112 is that it goes to the discipline authority first. But I am reminded that pursuant to a section we already covered, section 98, the Police Complaint Commissioner will have a copy of the report.

M. Farnworth: That's what I want to confirm — that the complaint commissioner has the report basically at the same time that it goes to the disciplinary authority. I assume, then, that when it also goes to the disciplinary authority, that's also the time in which it goes to the complainant but also to the individual against whom the complaint is lodged. Is that correct?

Hon. M. de Jong: Within the ten-day period that is listed there, both the member who is the subject of the complaint and the complainant would also receive the report.

Section 10, section 112 approved.

On section 10, section 113.

M. Farnworth: Under this section once the report is in the hands of the disciplining authority, the commissioner will have a report, the complainant has a report and the member against whom the complaint is made has a report. The complainant then, upon the receipt of that report and reviewing that report, in this particular section, within ten days has the ability to make further submissions to that report.

Would that be, for example, if they feel that certain issues were not addressed or if there is further information? Is that the intent of this particular section? Or if they take issue with what they are seeing in the report at this particular point?

Hon. M. de Jong: The member is correct. It does contemplate further submissions following the receipt of
[ Page 1626 ]
the final investigation report, broadly speaking, in three areas: in respect of the complaint itself, the adequacy of the investigation or the appropriate range of discipline that would be available. So broadly speaking, additional submissions in those three categories.

M. Farnworth: How would this section work either in the context where a number of complaints have been condensed into one or in the context of a third party? Would they have the same ability to make comment and submissions? How do you deal with the issue where the individual complaints have been condensed into one? Would those individuals all have the same opportunity?

[1455]

Hon. M. de Jong: It all sort of hinges on what the status is of the individual involved. The right accrues to the complainant, so in the case of a consolidation, those complaints consolidated may still each have a complainant within the meaning of the act.

In a circumstance where there is a third-party complaint and subsequently someone more directly involved brings a complaint and the action of the third party is discontinued, then whilst the third party may continue to receive updates on the progress of the complaint, they wouldn't necessarily be a complainant any longer. Therefore, the right that exists here would not accrue to that individual.

M. Farnworth: But there would potentially or possibly be circumstances where they would have that right, even though in the general sense they wouldn't. Is that correct?

Hon. M. de Jong: If they remained a complainant. That would be the key.

Section 10, section 113 approved.

On section 10, section 114.

M. Farnworth: This section is basically the opposite of the preceding section in the sense that in this particular case it's the member who is being investigated who has got a copy of the report and then is saying: "Okay, I think there are issues here that haven't been addressed properly or need to be addressed." So if the minister could clarify how this section is intended to work — in the same way that the last one is, is my understanding.

Hon. M. de Jong: A couple of things. This is new. It does flow from the recommendations of Mr. Justice Wood. It is built, I think, around the principle of fairness, because for the member involved, the disposition of these matters can have huge ramifications — career ramifications, in many cases.

The objective — as the member of this House fairly pointed out — is to ensure that a member who is the subject of a complaint would have an opportunity to examine the record and, if he or she felt necessary, say: "Hold on. Before this is ultimately dealt with, my view is that there is an incomplete record or that the examination didn't properly consider or look at evidence that I am aware of and want to make sure is before the investigating officer."

It is an attempt flowing from the recommendations of Mr. Justice Wood to recognize the serious ramifications that can follow and that a member have an opportunity to make input to ensure that the investigation is as complete as possible.

Section 10, section 114 approved.

On section 10, section 115.

M. Farnworth: Again, this section follows on from that in the sense that if that is taken…. The minister is right. One of the key things about this particular piece of legislation is that it needs to be deemed fair from the point of view of the complainant but also fair from the individual who is being investigated. One of the key issues in the Joe Wood report was that that, in fact, take place.

If the member who's being investigated gets the report and says, "Okay, there are issues here," then the next step is how that's dealt with. So if the minister can just indicate how this section is intended to work, particularly in terms of….

If a member introduces or gets a report and says, "I don't think this is complete. I don't think this particular issue has been considered" or "I think this piece of evidence has been ignored or not looked at," and the member puts that forward, then I would presume that the complainant then has the opportunity and the investigator also has the opportunity to investigate thoroughly those new facts or the issues that have been raised.

If that's not correct, please tell me.

[1500]

Hon. M. de Jong: That is the intention, with this added caveat. It is not intended to represent a mechanism by which investigations go on forever. That is why there is the 15-day period within which that additional examination and investigation must be completed.

Section 10, sections 115 and 116 approved.

On section 10, section 117.

M. Farnworth: "Appointment of new discipline authority if conclusion of no misconduct is incorrect." So the discipline authority says that no misconduct occurred.
[ Page 1627 ]
Subsequent investigation reveals, in fact, that that is not the case.

What this section is saying is: "Okay, there will be a new disciplining authority in place that will deal with the facts in the final report." That is to ensure two things: fairness and that everything is aboveboard in regard to the complaint itself, but also that the disciplining authority is not biased in any way and is making a decision based on the actual facts of the final report before it as opposed to the issue around the disciplining authority that was incorrect in its no-misconduct assumption in the first place.

Is my understanding of that the right one?

Hon. M. de Jong: It's an important section, not just with respect to extended examinations. It can go to the heart of the decision about whether or not there has been misconduct.

In his report Mr. Justice Wood spoke of his preference that the Police Complaint Commissioner have an ability to look at the record, look at the report and take action if he or she profoundly disagreed with the finding.

I should say this to the member and the House. My recollection is that his report suggested that the Police Complaint Commissioner be able to substitute his or her decision for that of the investigating officer. The act does not quite chronicle that, because the notion is that the complaint commissioner, as the overseer of the process — an independent officer — not simply step in and substitute his or her view.

What the section is designed to do is provide the complaint commissioner with the ability to appoint, as I recall, a retired judge. It specifies the nature of the individual. I'm trying to find the subsection — subsection (4) of 114 — where the Police Complaint Commissioner would say: "Look, I've got some problems here, and I am going to appoint a retired judge to conduct an examination of this within a further ten business days."

In those circumstances it is the retired judge who, in effect, becomes the new discipline authority. It's a slight variation on what Mr. Justice Wood recommended, but it is for that reason that it has been crafted in this way.

[1505]

M. Farnworth: In essence then, if the finding comes out and there's an issue, a problem here, or there's a feeling that there was a problem with the disciplining body in the final report…. If the commissioner takes issue with that, rather than….

In the initial report, the Joe Wood report, the Police Complaint Commissioner would be the individual who could step in. He has the authority then, under this act, to say: "Okay, I've got a problem with this. I think there's an issue here that has not been addressed." Then it is a judicial individual who will sit and adjudicate, and it will not be anybody other than a judicial individual. Okay.

Who will make that appointment? Who will decide who the judge is?

Interjections.

M. Farnworth: The clarification to the thing…. It says: "…consult with retired judges of…the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, and (b) recommend one or more retired judges…." When I read that, it's like, okay, you're going to get the judge recommending one or two or three.

Is the commissioner the one who will choose which of those judges, or does the commissioner have to consult with anybody else, such as the ministry, to determine which judge is going to be chosen?

Hon. M. de Jong: Pursuant to these provisions, the discussion takes place exclusively between the Police Complaint Commissioner and the associate chief justice.

Section 10, sections 117 and 118 approved.

On section 10, section 119.

M. Farnworth: Section 119 is also an important section. "Member or former member may request permission to question witnesses at discipline proceeding."

If the minister could outline the intent of this section. Is this an opportunity for the complainant to question…? Is it the issue around the discipline itself or the review of evidence provided by the complainant, for example? Exactly how is this intended to work and function?

Hon. M. de Jong: Inadvertently, perhaps, I think the member referred to "the complainant." This provision refers specifically to the ability of the member who is the subject of the complaint to engage in certain activities.

M. Farnworth: I guess I'm talking in the context of witnesses. If someone is a witness at the discipline proceeding, that means only those people involved in the discipline itself — not those who have been a witness in the investigation itself. That's what I'm trying to establish here.

[1510]

Hon. M. de Jong: Again, it's an important section because it relates to the procedural fairness of the proceedings, and these are newly specified and enumerated.

The member who is the subject of the complaint, by virtue of section 119, is provided with the ability to conduct cross-examinations. There are, I am advised, certain expectations around how that would take place, especially when it relates to the complainant themselves — for example, not at the police station. There are means by which the procedural fairness for the complainant
[ Page 1628 ]
is also protected. This section refers to the rights of the member.

Whilst the complainant achieves, by virtue of this act, important participatory rights, I don't want to leave an incomplete answer. I am advised that those rights do not include the ability to cross-examine witnesses. In fact, an officer will be appointed to ensure that those activities…. It won't be left to the complainant to run the proceedings from the point of view of the complaint itself.

While the member has the ability to cross-examine and call and examine witnesses, the participatory rights of the complainant are slightly different than they are for the member who is the subject of the complaint.

M. Farnworth: I think it's important, so that we fully understand how this is going to work. The issue of natural justice and fairness — I think that's understood.

The question then becomes if I as the member who is the subject of the disciplinary action…. I've got the report, I see this, and I'm not happy, or I think there are some issues that have not been addressed or need to be addressed. I have the ability to question people who were deemed to be witnesses or provided evidence against me, as the member. That may be another police officer, it may be the person who's done the investigation, or it may be the complainant themselves. Is that correct?

[1515]

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the way, in practice, that these sections operate is that — following through on the member's example — the member who is the subject of the complaint shall have the right to cross-examine anyone who is bringing evidence against that member in the proceedings. That would include the complainant.

A complaint that moves forward and is relying upon information or evidence being presented by the complainant…. A necessary part of that will be that the complainant in those circumstances will be subject to cross-examination, under a certain set of conditions, by the member whose conduct is being complained of.

M. Farnworth: Then how would that work with regards to situations where, again, you had a series of complaints condensed into one or by third-party information that the commissioner deems to have merit of investigation, but where the information is provided anonymously? How is that situation dealt with in regard to this?

Hon. M. de Jong: The procedural protection that is created here is designed with respect to evidence that is called. So the member is correct. There could be any number of original complainants and then consolidations, but the procedural protection is that the member who is the subject of the complaint shall have the right to cross-examine the source of evidence that is being heard in those proceedings.

M. Farnworth: In essence, if it is third-party information that's provided anonymously and the Police Complaint Commissioner deems that to be a valid reason to do the investigation, would the member then be able to cross-examine the Police Complaint Commissioner as the individual who received the information? Is that how that would work? Is that what I'm hearing?

Hon. M. de Jong: Here's, I think, the important distinction. An original complaint is not evidence. It is, as I am reminded, what appears in the investigation report that goes to a disciplinary proceeding. That lies at the heart of the matter. So in that sense, it becomes less relevant with respect to the original complaint. That is not evidence per se. It may evolve to that as part of the investigative report.

Section 10, section 119 approved.

On section 10, section 120.

M. Farnworth: The pre-hearing conference is the initial stage in terms of how it takes place. It sets out the guidelines and the methodology and the steps and the procedures to be followed. Can the minister explain how much of this is new, as compared to existing? Are there any significant changes compared to the current practice of pre-hearing conferences?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'll answer that question right after I alert the member to a very technical amendment that exists. I'll send over the amendment that I'm presenting.

[SECTION 10, in the proposed section 120 (4), by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the text shown as underlined:

(4) Despite subsection (3) (b) (ii) (i), the discipline authority may offer a prehearing conference to a member or former member if, in the police complaint commissioner’s opinion, it would not be contrary to the public interest.]

[1520]

On the amendment.

Hon. M. de Jong: It relates to section 120(4). As the member can now see, there is an incorrect reference to 3(b)(ii). That reference should be 3(b)(i).

I wonder if we can deal with that amendment first.

M. Farnworth: The amendment is an appropriate one for that section.

Amendment approved.
[ Page 1629 ]

On section 10, section 120 as amended.

M. Farnworth: I just want to ask the minister: in terms of the section on the pre-hearing conference, what are the key objectives in terms of that? What does the section anticipate being able to accomplish?

Hon. M. de Jong: The notion of a pre-hearing conference, I'm reminded, is not entirely new, but there are some new elements being introduced here.

Broadly speaking, the idea is that, except in very serious cases, there would be an opportunity to consider — outside of the discipline proceeding — what the appropriate sanction might be. But as the member will see from the lengthy provisions of the section, there are some procedural protections for the complainant as well. First and foremost, there must be a statement from the complainant, and there must be an awareness on the part of the complainant about the proceeding.

Mr. Justice Wood also made clear his thoughts that a pre-hearing conference and a discipline proceeding should not be presided over by the same individual. So there is an attempt to provide an outlet through which a matter can be resolved — except, I should say, in the most serious types of cases — but at the same time to ensure that that does not become a shortcut for discounting the views of the complainant who initiated the process in the first place.

M. Farnworth: What I hear the minister saying is that under this section on the pre-hearing conference, you have the…. It is designed so that the issues around witnesses by the member are addressed. The procedures and protections are in place for the complainant and in terms of how that's going to take place and how those issues are dealt with at that particular point.

[1525]

It's also a point in the complaint process, in essence, where an issue can be resolved at that particular point as opposed to moving further down the path. In essence, you would have gone through the possibility of mediation prior to this to see if that resolves the complaint. The complaint continues along down this particular path.

Excepting the very serious complaints — let's just for the sake of argument say either physical abuse, assault or what have you — at this particular point, at the pre-hearing, you can still use that as an opportunity to resolve the complaint before it goes further down the track. Would that be the right assessment of the way in which this section is going to work?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think probably my explanation varies slightly from what the member has suggested. I don't want to leave the impression that this is some manner of mediation that is available at every step along the way. In fact, what triggers this, primarily, is a finding by the DA or the investigating officer that there is sufficient evidence to warrant going to a full disciplinary hearing. I think that's probably an important step along the way.

At that point the discipline authority has the option of saying to the member involved that there is an opportunity to have a pre-hearing conference to consider things like an admission of misconduct or an alternate means of resolving the matter. It's an option. It won't happen in the most serious cases, and it doesn't need to happen in every case.

My understanding is that it's not an entitlement on the part of the member, but there is that important step where the discipline authority has said: "I think there's enough evidence here to go to a discipline hearing. Are you interested in pursuing another path to try and resolve this?"

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

M. Farnworth: I thank the minister for that explanation. Assuming that takes place — and assume for a moment that there is a resolution at this particular point — how is that dealt with in terms of being communicated to the public if in fact it is communicated to the public? In terms of the complaint process, a lot of times at the end of the outcome there is an issue publicly or an acknowledgment of some sort, either written or oral.

In a process that anticipates or may anticipate it going to the full length, and at this particular point there is an admission, how is that communicated out to the public? Or is it?

[1530]

Hon. M. de Jong: Two points. First, before it becomes final and binding, the nature of the disposition we've been discussing as part of a one-session pre-hearing conference would need to be approved by the Police Complaint Commissioner. That's one component.

Secondly, that settlement arrived at during a pre-hearing conference must be communicated to the complainant; obviously, the Police Complaint Commissioner; and the member involved.

M. Farnworth: The follow-up question to that would be…. I understand all those individuals. How about the public? How are they notified, or are they not?

Then a second question would be…. Under section (16), the resolution is "final and conclusive and not open to question or review by a court on any ground." Is there any concern by the ministry around issues such as a legal challenge or a court challenge to that? Because that is a pretty definitive statement.

Hon. M. de Jong: I've been alerted to a section we haven't come to yet, which is 177(d), which imposes a posi-
[ Page 1630 ]
tive obligation on the Police Complaint Commissioner to establish and maintain a record of each complaint, investigation and disposition.

But I also want to say this, in fairness to the member. It's not contemplated that the disposition of each and every complaint will give rise to a press release that alerts the world. Some of these may turn out to be more serious. Some of them may turn out to be far more minor. There is an obligation to maintain a record of disposition, but I don't want to suggest that every single decision or settlement is going to give rise to a widely circulated public statement.

M. Farnworth: I understand the minister's explanation. I guess the key is that there is a public record. The interest in the minor ones, I think, is not likely to be there. However, for others, I think that's a different story, and I just want to make sure that that ability is there — that there is the ability for the public to see exactly how something was disposed of and the consequences thereof.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think that assurance, in part, is contained at section 177(f) where, again, the positive obligation to maintain the records and reports respecting all of these matters and the statement "and make those reports available to the public" is contained. So there does seem to be positive statutory assurance that the public will have access to the decisions that are being made.

Section 10, section 120 as amended approved.

On section 10, section 121.

[1535]

M. Farnworth: This section deals with if the member's or the former member's request to question witnesses is accepted. As the minister said, we dealt in earlier sections with the ability to ask questions of former witnesses, and this particular section deals with issues around legal representation. I just want the minister to clarify this section in how it's intended to function and how it will apply to both the member and the complainant.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the long and the short of it is that this section — and the member correctly references some of the early sections…. Once that decision has been made and the prerequisites have been met around allowing for the cross-examination processes to begin, this sets out the basis for which legal counsel will be appointed to assist in the proceedings.

I think the upshot is that you end up at that stage with a far more formalized process than may often be the case. In many cases that will be entirely appropriate, given the gravity of the situation or the allegations involved, but what we see here is the evolution along the continuum of formality, where legal counsel will be appointed to assist the discipline authority with the conduct of the proceedings.

Section 10, section 121 approved.

On section 10, section 122.

M. Farnworth: This section deals with fees and expenses, and it's related to the fees and reasonable expenses of a witness required to appear or appearing and also the issue around fees and expenses related to the member — if the member may also be liable for part of or all of those costs. So what circumstances would trigger that?

[1540]

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the short answer is that if it became apparent at the conclusion of the proceedings that the member was calling witnesses that added virtually nothing to the proceedings, then this would provide the authority with the option of apportioning those costs. It is admittedly designed to at least make people think a little bit about creating the parade to the post of witnesses.

M. Farnworth: I thought that that might be one of the parts of that section.

The other question that flows from that, then: is it also intended to be part of the disciplinary process as, for example, in a trial awarding costs? Is that the concept behind this as well — that particular section?

Hon. M. de Jong: I may not have understood entirely, but there are no costs per se or hearing fees or anything of that nature. The only cost that I'm aware of would relate to the witness fees.

M. Farnworth: In the context of a regular court case, at the end, the judge may award costs. The question was in the context of…. Is this also seen in that same light? You've been calling all these witnesses. The fact is that you've been found to have committed an offence. You've called all these witnesses, and as a result of that…. By the way, you have a disciplinary penalty, but you're also going to pay for the fees of the witnesses.

Hon. M. de Jong: I understand better now. It's not designed to be punitive in that sense. It is conceivable, for example, that the member may have called a number of witnesses whose evidence was relevant but not persuasive in determining the final outcome. In that case, it's not contemplated that the member would be saddled with the costs of calling those witnesses.
[ Page 1631 ]

Section 10, sections 122 to 125 inclusive approved.

On section 10, section 126.

M. Farnworth: At the conclusion of the hearing is the imposition of disciplinary or corrective measures in relation to members. There are a number of factors that are taken into account. In section 2: "Aggravating and mitigating circumstances must be considered in determining just and appropriate disciplinary or corrective measures in relation to the misconduct of a member of a municipal police department, including, without limitation…." And it lists that.

This list of aggravating circumstances — are they only the ones here that are prescribed, or can other factors also be taken into account?

Hon. M. de Jong: The listing contained in 126(1) in terms of sanction, if you will, is taken and adapted from the current code-of-professional-conduct regulation. So it's there.

[1545]

I think I heard two concepts being mixed. Is the member's question: can there be sanctions that extend beyond what is described here? Because down below, in subsection (2)(h), there is clearly an ability to consider "other aggravating or mitigating factors" in determining what the appropriate sanction is.

Is the member's question whether or not, in imposing sanction, the discipline authority is restricted to those options listed in sub (1) of the section?

M. Farnworth: To the latter question I would say yes, that is one of the questions.

The other question is in terms of aggravating circumstances. I just want to make sure that that either is dealing with the existing code of conduct, which a member is to abide by — so the violation of that…. I'm thinking of issues such as racism, homophobia, sexism. That's what I'm thinking of in terms of aggravating circumstances.

Hon. M. de Jong: To the member: there are no limitations on the factors that can be taken into account. I think the member has listed two or three that would be relevant to the determination of a just and appropriate disciplinary action.

Section 10, section 126 approved.

On section 10, section 127.

M. Farnworth: This section deals with disciplinary or corrective measures in relation to former members. Given, in many cases…. For example, an individual leaves the force. Many of the penalties or the disciplinary action would relate to if you stayed with the force — either a reduction in rank, loss of pay, reassignment. All those things are not applicable in this particular set of circumstances.

How does the ministry see this particular section working, and what type of penalties would be able to apply under this particular section?

Hon. M. de Jong: The member is correct in the case of a former member. The conventional employment-related actions are of far more limited utility. In fact, the act recognizes that and the section recognizes that by saying that the discipline must approach this as if the member were still employed.

Practically speaking, the sanction, therefore, and the impact of that relate to its presence on a service record when the member seeks employment elsewhere. There is a record of the proceeding that can be cross-referenced by a future employer.

[1550]

M. Farnworth: So in essence, then, what would happen is that it would not just be the case of: "Okay, an individual has left the force." If that were to happen under conditions today…. If you were at a new employer…. It would be that I left the employment of X organization, and the prospective employer now phones up. They may or may not get the full story about exactly why the individual left the force or why the individual left the department.

Instead, what's anticipated, then, under this section is that the disciplinary hearing and the outcome of that hearing would in fact be accessible to that employer. It would be on the record. If they asked, for example, if that individual had left, it would not be discretionary in terms of saying whether or not they left because of this hearing. It would be there, and the prospective employer would have the ability to see the whole issue that had taken place. Is that correct?

Hon. M. de Jong: An important question. I'm reminded that these provisions, combined with some subsequent provisions, ensure that other policing organizations have guarantees of access to this information. The consent of the member to access the service record — or the former member, in the example we're talking about — is not required.

That does not extend to employers outside of the policing community. So the guaranteed access exists for a situation where the former member of police force A decides to leave and take up an offer of employment with police force B. Police force B would have a guaranteed right, a statutory right, to access the service record without the consent. And yes, the member is correct. The idea is that the record of the discipline hearing and its disposition would exist on the record, and the subsequent policing employer would have knowledge of that.
[ Page 1632 ]

As I look through the range of available sanctions, for example, the notion of reducing a member's rank would be, I think, relevant to a member who sought employment elsewhere and might want to present themselves as holding a particular rank when in fact that had been altered.

So there is that access to information for policing organizations, but I don't want to suggest that it extends automatically beyond that.

M. Farnworth: I thank the minister for his explanation. It does raise, I think, one question. I understand the issue, I think, in relation to the other police forces. How would that apply to, for example, other government enforcement agencies outside the police? I'm thinking within the province — for example, sheriffs at the federal level — but I also think, importantly, of security-related private sector firms where the misconduct may be a key component of whether or not to hire an individual.

I'm wondering: has thought been given to that particular issue, and is it addressed in legislation?

[1555]

Hon. M. de Jong: The best way I can answer the member's question is to look ahead to section 180(4), where reference with respect to service records is made, specifically to law enforcement agencies, the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and police forces.

I can't tell the member off the top of my head whether law enforcement agency…. Whilst it would certainly capture some of the border control agencies, sheriff divisions, I rather suspect it does not extend into the private sector. I would have to check. My guess is that it does not.

M. Farnworth: That may be one of those issues that we address at a later date. But certainly, I do think that in the immediate term a clarification around those other services — such as border services, for example — would be helpful.

Section 10, sections 127 to 129 inclusive approved.

On section 10, section 130.

M. Farnworth: This section deals with if a member fails to attend a discipline proceeding. My interpretation of this section is that if an individual fails to attend a disciplinary hearing without a legitimate reason, that is, in essence, almost an admission of guilt and weighs heavily on the proceedings in terms of the fact that the member has failed to appear. Is that correct?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'd probably stop short of characterizing it as an absolute admission of guilt, but it does provide for a trial in absentia and the ability to draw an adverse interest, which undoubtedly would accrue in a very negative way if there was not a legitimate explanation for that absence.

M. Farnworth: It is in the scope of this legislation that a member can and will be compelled to attend the hearing — is it not?

[1600]

Hon. M. de Jong: I wanted to be clear on this, and I am advised that within the ambit of the entire act, whilst witnesses are compellable, a member whose conduct is the subject of the complaint is not compellable to give evidence at the proceedings, though as the member has pointed out, adverse inferences can be drawn from that member's refusal to participate or attend.

M. Farnworth: The minister's answer is pretty clear, but in essence, the member is not compelled to testify against themselves as a witness. So that ability to compel someone, because they are going to be a witness, isn't there. Okay.

Section 10, sections 130 and 131 approved.

On section 10, section 132.

M. Farnworth: This deals with the adjournment of discipline proceedings for further investigation. This section deals with the ability to adjourn the hearing if something comes up that is determined would have an impact on the investigation or on the disciplinary hearing or on an aspect of the case.

It can come to light, and if it's deemed that this needs further investigation, then that can take place. There is the issue around timing. That is that it's not intended to use this as a way to drag something out, but that there are specific timelines in place and that only under specific circumstances could those timelines be extended. Is that correct?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the answer to the member's question or his submission is yes. I think he's correct. The test in this section, to diverge from the general requirement, is that the determination be made that it is necessary in the public interest. Then the subsequent 15-day test applies to avoid a circumstance where what is designed to be a specific timeline extends indefinitely into the future.

Section 10, sections 132 and 133 approved.

On section 10, section 134.

M. Farnworth: Just a brief question. Under what circumstances is the delegation of disciplinary authority
[ Page 1633 ]
functions to the deputy chief constable or the senior officer anticipated?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think there are a couple of factors at play here. One is a very practical one. Whilst one hopes that there isn't going to be an avalanche of complaints, obviously it is equally true that chief constables have a myriad of responsibilities. We don't want them completely consumed by working through this process.

I'm further advised that in a number of instances, the police forces involved tend now to have personnel with specialized legal training around some of the notions of procedural fairness and how to conduct these things.

[1605]

The third rationale I can think of is if a situation occurred where a chief constable had any kind of close or family-based relationship with a member who was the subject of a complaint.

M. Farnworth: I think the minister has pointed out clearly some of the obvious ones. I guess the concern I have is wanting to make sure that the individual who is engaged in that and who gets that authority is in fact fully familiar with the entire case that has taken place and that, for that delegation of the authority that goes with it, the understanding is that this is not a delegation or a subjugation or lessening of responsibility but is in fact a very serious duty that the individual will be performing.

If the issue that the minister raises is that it's intended that these individuals have legal training — for example, specific legal training in this particular area — then I think I would be satisfied with that answer.

Hon. M. de Jong: Valid point. I would add to that the following. Where a delegation takes place, it in no way abrogates that officer's responsibility to adhere to all of the provisions of the act. The second, probably best, assurance one can offer the member in response to the question is to point out that the delegation is subject to the oversight of the Police Complaint Commissioner. If there was anything deemed inappropriate, the commissioner has the jurisdiction to step in.

Section 10, section 134 approved.

On section 10, section 135.

M. Farnworth: This is the power to designate another discipline authority in the public interest. I just want to ask the minister: what's anticipated in terms of what the test is around public interest? How is that being looked at in terms of taking place?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm not sure I actually have a convincing answer on this one, lest I assume I've had convincing answers on any of these sections. There is obviously a situation in which there may be a perceived conflict, and the commissioner has the opportunity to step in and address that.

I think part of the construct here is to say to the Police Complaint Commissioner: "You are the independent officer of this Legislature who has the oversight and responsibility for determining at what stage of the game it becomes necessary to appoint someone other than the person generally assigned those responsibilities. You as Police Complaint Commissioner are going to determine when a matter is of such a nature, whether…."

These, I guess, would generally be high-profile cases, but sometimes they're not high-profile. Maybe they just involve people who are related in a certain way that it may give rise to a concern around a perception of a conflict.

[1610]

I'm not sure I can lay out for the hon. member an ironclad test, except to say that when we in this chamber select the Police Complaint Commissioner, that's probably one of the questions we may want to put to him or her around how they, in advance, see that public interest being served by virtue of this section.

M. Farnworth: I think that is a good point. It's one that I think we need to reflect on. I don't necessarily think there is a test in terms of what is of public interest. I think the key is the individual who makes that decision, which is the Public Complaint Commissioner.

I think the easy way sometimes is in the high-profile cases, where there is considerable public attention, and that concern about how some thinking is being done, is being considered or decided on is part of the public discourse, the public discussion and the public debate. We hope the individual we've hired to do the job takes that into account.

Sometimes it is those smaller cases where it is equally as important, because those smaller cases sometimes can be the real problem or, in some cases, precedent-setting.

I guess this is one of those issues where, if there's not a ready answer, I do think it's important that we at least acknowledge and recognize that in terms of this particular piece of legislation, it is an important role that we are giving to the complaints commissioner.

It is an important question that I think, in terms of how we hire, we in this chamber at least acknowledge is an important power that we are giving them.

Section 10, section 135 approved.

On section 10, section 136.

M. Farnworth: I just want to confirm in this section that even though the issue around the time limit for requesting public hearing or review on the record….
[ Page 1634 ]
I am assuming that this is, in essence, in relation to a request to make a review of the decision — that even outside the fact that that has to be done within 20 days, if the commissioner deems there is a valid reason, then that time period can in fact be extended.

Am I reading that right?

Hon. M. de Jong: If I understood the question and observation correctly, that is true. The rule is 20 days subject to the ability to obtain an extension for the reasons laid out in subsection 2(a) or (b).

Section 10, sections 136 to 138 inclusive approved.

On section 10, section 139.

M. Farnworth: This is one of those issues: "Reconsideration on new evidence." I'd just like to ask the minister to explain how this is intended to work. Is there a time limit in the sense of if something comes to light a year or two later, it can still be dealt with?

[1615]

Hon. M. de Jong: The decision operates in concert, as the member knows, with 138, where initially the decision has been made not to proceed with a public hearing. Evidence comes to light, and the commissioner — either of his or her own volition or on application — has the ability, pursuant to 139, to reconsider that on the basis of new evidence.

There's no time restriction associated with that, though presumably it would be timely to do it before proceedings got underway. But there's no restriction per se on when that reconsideration can occur.

Section 10, sections 139 and 140 approved.

On section 10, section 141.

M. Farnworth: I'd just like the minister to explain to the House this section dealing with a review on the record and how it would be implemented.

Hon. M. de Jong: A fairly lengthy provision creating the means by which an adjudicator can be appointed to conduct a review on the record. In allowing for that to happen and contemplating the possibility that that will happen, it sets out that the record to be reviewed includes, obviously, the final investigation report but also all supplementary reports and all records relating to the investigation and the discipline proceeding.

What I think is also important to recognize is that under subsection (4), an adjudicator may also in exceptional circumstances or special circumstances decide to accept further evidence. It also speaks, the section in its entirety, to who is entitled to make submissions, and it establishes that the standard of review to be applied is correctness. So lengthy provisions that speak to how, when, where and what gives rise to the appointment of an adjudicator.

M. Farnworth: This is, in essence, an appeal process of the decision that's been made if someone feels that it's not fair. You can have a review of the record, and in essence, it's similar to an appeal process.

Hon. M. de Jong: To the member's point, that's essentially correct and three possible triggering mechanisms. First and foremost, the commissioner can undertake the process on his or her own initiative or upon the request of either the complainant or the member whose conduct has been investigated.

Section 10, section 141 approved.

On section 10, section 142.

M. Farnworth: This section 142 around the appointment of an adjudicator for the public hearing or review on the record is similar to what we talked about in an earlier section whereby it is a retired judge. In consultation with the chief justice, it's the same process, and you would arrive at a judge the same way as we've dealt with in the previous sections.

[1620]

Hon. M. de Jong: That's correct, hon. Chair.

Section 10, section 142 approved.

On section 10, section 143.

M. Farnworth: Section 143 deals with a "Public hearing" and is different from the "Review on the record." Can the minister explain under what circumstances the public hearing is likely to take place, as opposed to a review on the record? Or is this, in essence, a final step after a review on the record?

Hon. M. de Jong: The reason I took a moment there is that I wanted to make sure I wasn't leaving the impression that the public hearing contemplated here represented the end of some appeal process. In fact, the public hearing can occur at any time in these proceedings. The discretionary authority exists with the Police Complaint Commissioner, and the test is set out in 143(1)(b) where the commissioner comes to the view that it is necessary to preserve or restore public confidence in the investigation of misconduct.

So there is discretion, but this is not restricted to the final stage in a proceeding. It can actually happen in extraordinary circumstances much earlier on.
[ Page 1635 ]

M. Farnworth: I thank the minister for that explanation. I wanted to get that clarification on the record because just the way…. When you go through legislation section after section, it can give the impression that this is in fact a step that takes place after that.

In essence then, the trigger point, as the minister stated is…. Clearly, it is a public interest component that I think is one of the key things that trigger — relating to, I think, high-profile cases where clearly there is a considerable amount of media attention, public attention.

I suspect the one that springs to mind — even though it's not covered by this particular legislation, for example — would be the Dziekanski case and the events that subsequently led up to the point where there was a hearing. There was considerable public interest, and there was considerable public concern over what had taken place. It's that type of event, and I'm not going to use…. But it is that type of event that could in fact trigger this particular provision of the bill around the public interest, if I'm correct in that.

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm going to leave it to the Police Complaint Commissioner to ascertain the appropriate test. The member has some thoughts, and legitimate thoughts, on when that threshold may have been met. I'm not sure I should be speculating with respect to existing proceedings or things that have happened in the recent past.

But the Police Complaint Commissioner obviously will be obliged to make some of those decisions based on the test that we set out for her or him in this legislation.

[1625]

M. Farnworth: I thank the minister for that answer, and I understand. It is up to the commissioner. But in terms of just sort of public understanding of how the processes work, it's important that we try and have at least some comment around the types of circumstances — and, I understand, without necessarily referring to a specific.

Clearly, I think public concern and media interest are going to be those types of issues that figure strongly in something like this, and the Police Complaint Commissioner will in fact make that determination.

Section 10, sections 143 to 148 inclusive approved.

On section 10, section 149.

M. Farnworth: I just want to pause here on this particular section in relation to public hearings, because in terms of how a public hearing is operated, there's a pretty standard approach in terms of how people come, how they either present or give evidence or participate in a public hearing. From what I'm seeing in this legislation, there's nothing untoward in that.

Around the issue of "to enforce summons and punish for contempt." This is a judicial public hearing with an adjudicator, and the adjudicator has all the powers to compel someone to appear and testify — subject, of course, to all the rights and protections that we as individuals enjoy in basic common law. But this is a very strong power that the adjudicator has, and I just want to make sure that is on the record in terms of how a public hearing is conducted.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the term generally applied in circumstances like this is "quasi-judicial," but the effect is the same. It is a significant power vested in the adjudicator to compel people to participate and appear, and there is the possibility of significant sanction for anyone who chooses to ignore that.

Section 10, section 149 approved.

On section 10, section 150.

M. Farnworth: Prohibiting or limiting attendance or access. The questions I have around "to prohibit or limit attendance or access…." Is that in terms of public access and media access?

[1630]

Hon. M. de Jong: The language, I'm advised, derives from provisions of the Public Inquiry Act and, in general terms, makes clear that the adjudicator…. To the point the member raised earlier, this is a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding, so there are fairly broad powers vested in the adjudicator to manage those proceedings. There may be an evidentiary component to that, where there may be concerns around contamination of evidence. It's hard to think of specific examples.

There are also, perhaps, obligations under, as listed here, the FOI legislation. There may also be — the member may have heard me say — a crowd control aspect to this.

The upshot is that the adjudicator is being provided with fairly significant and broad powers to manage the public hearing that is contemplated here.

M. Farnworth: I guess the question, then, is that…. I want to ensure…. Is it a public hearing? Is there public access?

I understand the issues around crowd control and the evidentiary issues that the minister raised and the contamination of evidence. Then there is also the ability for the media to still attend, in much the same way that they currently are able to attend a trial, but the adjudicator would have the ability to put, for example, a publication ban on some or part of the proceedings.

Would that be one of the ways in which they would be able to deal with some of those issues the minister raised but still have public access?
[ Page 1636 ]

Hon. M. de Jong: The section does — theoretically, at least — provide broad discretion to the adjudicator to determine who is in the room at a public hearing and by implication, therefore, who is in a position to report on proceedings.

[1635]

I hope the member will excuse my taking advantage of his question, though, to provide this short editorial comment. I think there is an obligation on all of us connected with the administration of justice to facilitate the entry of the media into those venues where justice is being dispensed.

We lament the fact that public confidence in the justice system declines, and yet we make it very, very difficult for the public — in an age when electronic transfers of information and the means by which we do that are expanding — to access what is taking place in the very institutions that are charged with dispensing justice. So if I have a bias….

Sorry, now I'm delving off the page. But I think it is fundamentally important that unless there is a compelling reason relating to the contamination of evidence or the protection of an individual or young person or whatever it is, that we facilitate that flow, and the media tend to be the conduit by which we do that.

M. Farnworth: I appreciate those comments. After all, we are members in this House. We are politicians, and if we didn't editorialize on issues like this, we wouldn't be doing our job. I think it is important, and that's one of the reasons the question's been asked. It's because, I think, there is an expectation, particularly when you're at the public hearing stage, that it is just that: as much as possible that it is public and that we have the ability, unless under exceptional circumstances, to know exactly what's going on.

So I thank the minister for his comments, because that's my interpretation of the section. And that's the way that I hope the section is administered — in that way and in that spirit of openness and public accountability.

Section 10, sections 150 to 155 inclusive approved.

On section 10, section 156.

M. Farnworth: I'm dealing with division 4 of this section. This series of sections deals with resolution of complaints by mediation or other informal means. My sense from these particular sections is that if it is possible, it's desirable that complaints can be resolved by mediation or other informal means without having to go through what, over the long haul, can end up in very much a quasi-judicial, or almost judicial, set of proceedings which are extremely formal, and that, wherever possible, it's desirable to accomplish things through mediation or other informal means.

I'd just like the minister to confirm that and to outline some of the newer sections on this particular division.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the general assertion is correct, with the exception of those complaints concerning situations that resulted in death or serious harm, for which this option doesn't exist. I think there is a general preference to explore mediated resolution of complaints wherever possible.

You tend to find, when there is a mediation, at least the possibility that the parties will both leave feeling a sense of satisfaction. That is not always the case when there is an adjudicated resolution and one party feels they've won and another party feels they've lost. So on balance, where that is possible, there is a desire to promote that manner of disposition.

The member's second question related to which provisions are newer or new, and I'll endeavour to get that information now.

[1640]

Probably the most significant factor here is the fact that the act includes reference to and specifically calls for the creation of guidelines around mediation. That, in and of itself, is new. I'm also reminded — and I didn't mention this earlier — that there needs to be agreement between the Police Complaint Commissioner and the DA before this option can be taken advantage of, so it's not a unilateral decision by the DA.

M. Farnworth: There's no sort of compelling either the complainant or the member to participate in a mediation process, or is there?

Hon. M. de Jong: The best example I could think of, off the top of my head, was a settlement conference in a small claims proceedings, where the presumption is — where it's deemed appropriate — that the parties are actually required to participate, but there is, for example, a means by which the complainant can make submissions.

Maybe there's a situation where the complainant genuinely feels intimidated and says: "Look, I really don't want to be involved." It will be for the folks involved in the adjudication of this to make a determination around that.

I think the way this is designed to operate is to recognize that there is value in a number of these complaints, to see if they can be resolved by way of mediation and to say to the parties: "Look, you're coming, unless you can provide a very, very good reason for why you should not participate." In the most serious of complaints involving death or serious harm, there is no question there. That's not a mediated area.

M. Farnworth: It raises the question, given some of the other sections that we've dealt with around compellability, particularly around the issue of the member who is involved, who is being investigated.
[ Page 1637 ]

Does a failure to attend or to participate in a mediation hearing…? Is that something that is carried over and viewed negatively in the rest of the process? You're going to a more formal set of hearings where the member, for example, may decide that yes, in fact, they are going to go to that because they feel, for whatever reason, that that is how they want to have their day in court take place.

[1645]

Hon. M. de Jong: We've discussed the means by which this mediation effort can be initiated and approved by the Police Complaint Commissioner. You've then got to go down to subsection (2)(b) which requires, in that case, the discipline authority to "order the member or former member to attend" in the manner prescribed there. Subsection (3) requires the member concerned to comply with that order. That's sort of the progression, once the decision has been made.

Interjection.

Hon. M. de Jong: Sorry, 158. I think that's the section we're on — 158. Those are the relevant provisions as to how this is designed to.…

The Chair: Minister. We're on section 156 still, Minister.

M. Farnworth: Just in terms of clarification. Given the nature of this section and the overall concept of the issue, I would appreciate, Chair, that we be able to talk about the different sections in the context of the overall issue. That will actually speed up the passage of the individual sections, if people are fine with that.

Hon. M. de Jong: I certainly am — having caused the confusion in the first place. I've referenced ahead to 158(2) and (2)(b). Once that decision has been made, the discipline authority must order the member to participate.

M. Farnworth: It's interesting that we are able to compel to participate in a mediation, but we are not able to compel in the more formal process in the context, for example, of giving evidence which relates to the version of events, as to what happened. Yet, that is anticipated in the mediation process. I find that just slightly incongruent.

Hon. M. de Jong: I suppose one explanation for that is the fact that, at the heart of a mediation lies the assumption that it is taking place on a without-prejudice basis, if you will, whereas in the other proceeding — I think the member used the phrase — you can't be compelled to testify against yourself. That might be the appropriate distinction.

Section 10, sections 156 to 167 inclusive approved.

On section 10, section 168.

M. Farnworth: With 168 we've actually moved out, in terms of complaints, when we enter this particular division: "Division 5 — Process Respecting Department Service and Policy Complaints."

In essence, we've moved out of the complaint process in regard to an individual member and into what we talked about in the opening comments around this particular piece of legislation — that is, complaints regarding police service and, I guess, just as importantly, policy complaints. I just want the minister to sort of confirm and to clarify the difference between the two, on the record.

[1650]

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, I think the member, broadly speaking, highlighted the important distinction. We have, to this point in the discussion, been focused in on conduct by individual members that gives rise to a complaint.

These provisions, which closely mirror what exists presently, relate to…. Well, you can see in 168(1)(b) questions around staffing and resource allocation, training programs, internal procedures. They're sort of enumerated in the section there. But they are systemic and policy-related as opposed to tied to the individual performance or conduct of an individual member.

Section 10, sections 168 to 173 inclusive approved.

On section 10, section 174.

M. Farnworth: Internal discipline matters — the definition of "internal discipline matters." Can the minister just outline how this differentiates from the issues that we have dealt with in the bulk of this legislation to this particular point in time — the difference between the complaint process against a member of a police force as opposed to internal disciplining matters?

Hon. M. de Jong: The most accurate way for me to highlight the distinction here is by pointing out that "internal discipline authority" is a defined term under the act and "means a matter concerning the conduct or deportment of a member that" either "(a) is not the subject of an admissible complaint or an investigation under Division 3…and (b) does not directly involve or affect the public."

I'm going to sit down and try to think about an example, because one doesn't spring to mind at the moment.

A couple of examples that the always very helpful staff have mentioned to highlight this: a member who comes to work late all the time; a member who, despite
[ Page 1638 ]
repeated warnings, isn't properly holstering their weapon in accordance with safety regulations. That's the kind of thing that doesn't directly involve a member of the public but certainly relates to the conduct of an individual member.

M. Farnworth: I think it's important that we clarify and just sort of make on the record exactly the difference, because at first glance this could be seen to be something dealing with things more serious than they are, and those examples are helpful.

In essence, then, internal discipline matters are those issues where the individual is not in contact with either the public or a public body and are issues very much of a…. They are important, but they are of a minor nature in terms of the carrying out of the employment of their duties. As a result, they are best handled internally as opposed to needing to go through a police complaints process.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think, by definition, these tend to relate to matters that the public would, broadly speaking, be unaware of. Because members are also governed by the terms of a collective agreement, I use the next term cautiously, but "employment issues" might be one way to describe many of the matters that would be covered here.

[1655]

Section 10, sections 174 to 176 inclusive approved.

On section 10, section 177.

M. Farnworth: Division 7 in general is the general responsibility and functions of the Police Complaint Commissioner. I just want us to get on the record, and the minister can confirm and add further, that basically what this, in essence, is doing is outlining the role of the Police Complaint Commissioner in terms of carrying out their function.

In many ways, it's the issues that we in this House discussed in terms of when we go out and hire the Police Complaint Commissioner. It's dealing with a lot of those things that we intend them to do in the execution of their function as the Police Complaint Commissioner. Would that be an apt way to sum up this particular section?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think that is an accurate summation.

Section 10, sections 177 to 181 inclusive approved.

On section 10, section 182.

M. Farnworth: I just wanted to touch on this or explore this. The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act does not apply, and it lists a number of areas where it does not apply. I just want to ask the question. These particular exceptions — are they in line with the existing exceptions or has there been an expansion of the exceptions to where they do not apply under this particular new piece of legislation?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm advised that similar provisions exist in section 66.1 of the current Police Act. I'm also reminded that discussion did take place with the Privacy Commissioner around these specific provisions and that the Privacy Commissioner was content with how this is presented and that the effect of these provisions is similar to section 66.1 of the Police Act.

M. Farnworth: Just to clarify. The Information and Privacy Commissioner did not have any concerns with the section dealing with privacy protection in this legislation.

Hon. M. de Jong: I can advise the member, as I have been advised, that the Privacy Commissioner did have an opportunity to review the provisions and did not register any specific concerns.

Section 10, sections 182 to 184 inclusive approved.

Section 10 as amended approved.

[1700]

On section 11.

M. Farnworth: Section 11, under "Transition." In essence, these are almost definitions of the following terms that are moved in this particular section: "discipline authority," "effective date," "former enactment," "former member." So wherever these are heard in previous text, that's what they refer to — correct?

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Hon. M. de Jong: Here's the intention. These are truly transitional, in the sense that when these provisions of the act come into force, it will be for the Police Complaint Commissioner to look at existing proceedings and determine where they should be placed in the new proceedings.

They won't continue under the old act. They'll actually find a home in the new procedures and the new places, but it will be for the Police Complaint Commissioner to determine where along that line existing files should be placed.

Section 11 approved.

On section 12.
[ Page 1639 ]

M. Farnworth: Section 12 is the commencement. This deals with when the act comes into provision. I have an amendment that I would like to move. I'll provide a copy to my colleague.

[Section 12 be amended by deleting the words highlighted by strikethrough and replacing them with the words highlighted with underlining to read:

The provisions of this Act referred to in column 1 of the following table come into force as set out in column 2 of this table:

On the amendment.

M. Farnworth: In speaking to the amendment, it's the opinion of the opposition that this particular piece of legislation was tabled in the last session of the last parliament. It was a bill that died on the order paper, but at that particular point in time it was the intent of that legislation that particular elements of the bill come into place, notably that an investigation against people departing a force can still continue.

By making this retroactive, we're ensuring a complete transition from the time that the bill was tabled initially, on March 4. I think that's in keeping with the government's intents around its original introduction of the legislation.

Retroactivity is not a new concept in this province. In fact, the government has a number of pieces of legislation before it right now where retroactivity is one of the key components. In fact, we've just passed a bill dealing with that with regard to UBC, and at some subsequent point we will be debating another piece of legislation that has the ability to retroactively look at the past criminal records of individuals — around social assistance, for example.

[1705]

The issue is not new. It's certainly not without precedent, and we think that this will make a much more effective piece of legislation if it is backdated to when the government initially tabled the bill, back on the fourth of March.

Hon. M. de Jong: Two parts to my response. I think that one always needs to be cautious about endeavouring to legislate retroactively. The member is correct. There are times when it has occurred. The member's colleague from Nanaimo spoke rather passionately, as I recall, a few days ago about the negative aspects of so doing.

This is a circumstance where I am inclined to conclude that it would be inappropriate to try and impose rules and standards retroactively that didn't apply at that time and that people would not have necessarily been aware of, notwithstanding the fact that many of those rules were proposed in legislation that came before the House. So I am hesitant in the extreme about taking that step with respect to this legislation.

I should also say that I am relatively certain that…. Whilst I appreciate what is being communicated by virtue of this, I think it's the wrong mechanism, even if that step were going to be made. From a drafting perspective, I think the amendment is problematic, though I appreciate that the hon. member has chosen this to highlight his view that the legislation should operate differently than the government intends for it to operate.

M. Farnworth: I guess the point that I want to make is that this legislation has come out of a public document, which was the Josiah Wood report. That was one of the key recommendations in that report. It received considerable public discussion around as to when and how an investigation takes place and to whom it can apply. It was a key issue around when an individual does leave a force.

At that time it was clearly communicated that this was the government's intent in terms of the bill that was tabled before the House. There had been considerable public discussion both in the electronic and print media on this particular issue, so it's not something that was a surprise. It's not something that was not known to members of the public and, certainly, was not something that was not known to members in the law enforcement field.

So we disagree and think that what we are creating by doing this is a gap — in essence, a loophole. I think that it's one that should be closed.

The issue of retroactivity is one that's not taken lightly. But I'll again make that point — that we have dealt with that in this session. We have dealt with it on issues such as parking tickets. We are going to be dealing with it on issues around criminal background checks.

Therefore, I have a different view of this than does the minister and think that it is appropriate that we do this over on this particular bill, and that it will, in fact, make a much stronger bill and will increase public confidence that we, in this House, have the best interests of the public at heart with the changes that we've made in this particular piece of legislation.

[1710]

Hon. M. de Jong: One last short kick at the can.

Probably another functional difficulty is that to simply substitute this law retroactively would mean that the proceedings that have been underway since that
[ Page 1640 ]
date would not have been conducted in accordance with the law that would then be deemed to have existed in March.

There are all kinds of functional and technical issues, but I think the member has placed on the record his and the opposition's rationale for why they would prefer a different enactment or commencement proceeding than the one proposed in section 12.

[1715]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

Section 12 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move the committee rise, report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:20 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

Bill 7 — Police (Misconduct,
Complaints, Investigations,
Discipline and Proceedings)
Amendment Act, 2009

Bill 7, Police (Misconduct, Complaints, Investigations, Discipline and Proceedings) Amendment Act, 2009, reported complete with amendment.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, with leave, now.

Leave granted.

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 7 — Police (Misconduct,
Complaints, Investigations,
Discipline and Proceedings)
Amendment Act, 2009

Bill 7, Police (Misconduct, Complaints, Investigations, Discipline and Proceedings) Amendment Act, 2009, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call second reading of Bill 17, the Health Statutes (Residents' Bill of Rights) Amendment Act, 2009.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 17 — Health Statutes
(Residents' Bill of Rights)
Amendment Act, 2009

Hon. I. Chong: I move that Bill 17, the Health Statutes (Residents' Bill of Rights) Amendment Act be read for a second time now.

I am very pleased to be able to speak to second reading and to introduce this residents bill of rights to the members here. This is an amendment to the Community Care and Assisted Living Act, with consequential amendments to the Hospital Act.

As I said in my introduction and first reading of this bill, it's important that residents in care facilities have a publicly available, comprehensive list of their rights that are displayed in a place that is easy for them to see. As there are many more types of residential care than just long-term care for our seniors, our government has proposed a bill of rights for all adults in residential care.
[ Page 1641 ]

The residents bill of rights will further protect and promote the rights of adults in care facilities, while it also strengthens our government's commitment to quality care. Our plan to legislate a residential bill of rights for adults in a residential care facility builds on our already impressive investments.

These investments support the rights of people in care across the province. They include government's over-5,000-bed commitment for seniors across the province, which now is, I believe, around 6,000 net new beds since 2001.

A significant drop in average wait time for a residential care bed, which is now 15 to 90 days compared to a one-year wait in 2001. I recall those days in 2001 when I had people come into my office time and time again who indicated that the year-long waits were causing very much concern for families and family planning. So a 15- to 90-day wait time, on average, is a marked improvement.

A 40 percent increase in residential care funding, to $1.6 billion, since 2001.

Public reporting of community care facility inspection reports that are available on health authority websites and the Ministry of Healthy Living and Sport website.

Patient care quality review boards, which were launched last year to promote quality care along with transparency and accountability.

The residents bill of rights will be available in all residential care facilities licensed under the Community Care and Assisted Living Act, as well as those regulated under the Hospital Act, to further protect all adults who live or are cared for in them. These include facilities such as those that are long-term care or designated as long-term care; mental health and substance abuse; community living, including hospice; and acquired injury residential facilities.

Also what's notable is that they cover private and extended care hospitals which are regulated under the Hospital Act.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

The residents bill of rights will be publicly displayed inside facilities and will do a number of things.

[1725]

They will promote the health, safety and dignity for all residents in care facilities. It will state that residents should be free from abuse and neglect. It will also state that we must ensure lifestyle and choices be respected and supported, and then we'll support social, cultural, religious, spiritual and other interests. It will also ensure that we respect the privacy of persons in care, including their personal records, their bedroom, their belongings and their storage spaces.

The residents bill of rights will also improve transparency and accountability in care facilities, including a resident's right to have access to copies of all laws, rules and/or policies affecting a service provided to the resident. They will have access to a copy of the most recent routine inspection record made under the Community Care and Assisted Living Act, the Hospital Act or any other applicable act. They can be informed in advance of all charges, fees and payments that the resident must pay for accommodation and services received through the facility.

The residents bill of rights also meets a throne speech commitment. It will promote the health, safety and dignity for adults in residential care facilities, along with the rights to participation, freedom of expression as well as transparency and accountability, and support government's new residential care regulations that came into effect on October 1 of this year.

These regulations also better protect adults in residential care by holding care facility licensees more accountable and for providing new protection for older residents through fall-prevention measures and assessment for risk of wandering, and strengthening health precautions on communicable disease.

Our government supports a strong commitment to quality care and the individual rights of adults living in residential care facilities. I'm very proud of the work that our government has done to build a residents bill of rights that will be used in care facilities across our province.

I am interested in hearing comments from members opposite and would hope, through their comments, I can see that they will find this bill worthy of support.

J. Brar: I rise to speak to Bill 17, the Health Statutes (Residents' Bill of Rights) Amendment Act, 2009. It's always a real honour to stand up in this House and speak for the seniors and other vulnerable residents in care. We're all blessed to live in the most beautiful country and in the most beautiful province on the earth.

Interjection.

J. Brar: I have some support there.

It s a country that truly believes in equality, justice, fairness, equal opportunities for all Canadians irrespective of the age, gender, race and health conditions. This creation just didn't happen itself. This beautiful country and this beautiful province is the outcome of the hard work, dedication, commitment and a positive vision of the people who came before us. They did the work, and we are enjoying a high quality of life that is a rare blessing on this globe.

They gave us the universal health care system, which makes us proud in the global community. They gave us the vision to become peacekeepers, which makes us unique in the international community. The list goes on. Therefore, we have a responsibility to recognize and
[ Page 1642 ]
respect our seniors for the superb job they have done building this beautiful country and this beautiful province of British Columbia.

[1730]

We must treat our seniors and other vulnerable residents in care with respect and dignity. We must give them the rights and the services they deserve. We must be honest in our dealings with them and their issues. We must deliver on our promises made to those seniors and others vulnerable residents in care. We must not make promises to them we cannot keep, because that would be an insult to the seniors as well as other vulnerable residents in care.

The purpose of this bill as defined by the minister on the other side is to give a bill of rights to adults living in care. This includes seniors and other vulnerable residents in care, which includes long-term care, mental health and substance use, community living, hospice and acquired-brain-injury facilities.

To be more specific, the key purpose of this residents bill of rights is to clarify the rights of adults when they move into residential facility care, as that facility becomes their home. Therefore, this is not a completely new creation and new list of rights.

Those residents already have the majority of the rights listed in this bill. Therefore, the intent of this bill, to be more specific, is to streamline the process already in existence to provide better clarity, transparency and accountability. I hope this is a sincere effort to improve the care of the residents, and with that understanding, I will say at the outset that I will support the bill.

Before I say anything further on that, we must look at the past record of this government when we talk about the rights of the seniors as well as the other vulnerable people who live in the care facilities. It is absolutely clear that the rights of seniors have been under attack since the Liberal government took over in 2001.

A newly available Statistics Canada report reveals that B.C. provided the lowest number of paid care hours in residential facilities of any Canadian province during 2007 and 2008. This came to light when many seniors remained in hospital waiting for a bed in a residential care home setting as the Liberal government imposed a fee increase on residential care and as health authorities cut many programs in place to support seniors health.

Despite what the Liberals promised our seniors, they have suffered under this government. In 2007 B.C. had the worst rate of paid hours per resident day in residential care facilities in Canada. That rate is 4.2 hours per day. This is compared to a national average of 4.8 hours per day and much higher rates in other western provinces if you look at it. In Alberta, 5.5 hours as compared to 4.2 hours in B.C.; 6.2 hours in Saskatchewan; and 5.7 hours in Manitoba.

The seniors and other vulnerable residents in care have been hit from all sides by this government. Promises were made, and promises were broken, if we look at the history. I will give you a few examples of the pattern that we have seen since 2001.

Once upon a time, a promise was made to the seniors of this province to build 5,000 long-term care beds. I'm saying 5,000 long-term care beds. As soon as that election was over, this government betrayed the seniors of this province by refusing to build 5,000 long-term care beds. According to the B.C. Medical Association, there was a net decline of 553 beds between 2001 and 2007.

[1735]

Interjection.

J. Brar: The Minister of Health is saying something, but I will repeat: these are not my stats. This is according to the B.C. Medical Association. There was a net decline of 553 beds between 2001 and 2007. If that is wrong, the former Minister of Health should say so.

British Columbia has the lowest number of residential care beds per capita in Canada and spends less per capita than any other province. It has been almost eight years now, and seniors are still waiting for those long-term care beds they were promised almost nine years ago.

Now, the question is this: why should the seniors of B.C. now believe the B.C. Liberals that this bill, Bill 17, is a sincere promise to give them the rights they deserve when all the promises made in the past were broken? That's an important question that seniors of this province are asking of this government.

How is this different than the promise of building 5,000 long-term care beds? Those are important questions the people, and particularly the seniors, of this province are asking this government.

Another story. Once upon a time the B.C. Liberals made the promise to the seniors of British Columbia: health care when you need it and where you need it. That was the promise made. As soon as the election was over, they started closing the hospitals and emergency rooms.

H. Lali: All over the province.

J. Brar: All over the province, as the member on this side says, and that is still continuing. There is still ongoing cutting in the whole province when we talk about health care. Mission emergency is another example, which we have seen just recently.

So how can we explain to the seniors of this province that by closing hospitals and emergency rooms they have made health care more accessible and efficient — as they said: "Health care when you need it and where you need it"? Clearly, they betrayed the seniors of this province on that promise as well.

Let's talk about another promise which is more recent. In the last election this government made the promise to
[ Page 1643 ]
the seniors of this province that they had no intention, no plan, to impose HST on the people of British Columbia. That was the promise made to the seniors and all other British Columbians by this government just during the last election. They not only made that promise; they gave that commitment in writing to the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association. They also gave that commitment in writing to the Greater Vancouver Home Builders Association.

But that was before the election. After the election was over, they betrayed the seniors of British Columbia by doing just the opposite. In less than two months they broke the promise they made to the people of British Columbia, and particularly to the seniors of British Columbia, to not impose HST. Clearly, they didn't tell the truth to the seniors during the elections.

HST is going to hurt the seniors the most. HST is going to hurt the seniors the most because….

Deputy Speaker: The member will bring his remarks back to Bill 17.

J. Brar: Madam Speaker, Bill 17 talks about giving more rights to the seniors. The end outcome of that bill is simple: they want to improve the care for seniors of British Columbia. That is the intent of this bill. In that light, this new tax on people who have fixed incomes, very fixed incomes…. They don't have even a dollar more to spend. This new tax is going to hurt them the most.

[1740]

Let me tell you as to how it's going to hurt them. The cost of their hydro bill will go up. The cost of haircuts will go up. The cost of movie tickets will go up. The cost of restaurant meals will go up. The cost of taxi fares will go up. The cost of funerals will go up. And the list goes on. That will certainly not improve care to the seniors of British Columbia. That, in fact, is going to hurt….

Deputy Speaker: Minister of Aboriginal Affairs rises on a point of order.

Point of Order

Hon. G. Abbott: Thank you, Madam Chair, for the guidance that you have provided. I do find the discourse fascinating around the future debate we'll have around the HST, but I'm not hearing any debate in reference to Bill 17. I wonder whether it would be possible for the member to address his comments to that area.

Deputy Speaker: I thank the member for his point of order.

I have checked in some detail, Member, and I would ask again that you bring your comments back to Bill 17.

Debate Continued

J. Brar: I thought the former Minister of Health was enjoying my comments, but that is certainly not the situation here.

Madam Speaker, I would like to continue my comments. Now, this is the B.C. Care Providers Association. I hope that's relevant. The B.C. Care Providers Association is very, very upset with this new tax of HST. This is the B.C. Care Providers Association, and they are saying that this will hurt seniors. This will particularly hurt the quality of care of seniors.

This is a letter written by the CEO of the B.C. Care Providers Association to their own members. I would like to read from that letter, which talks about the impact of HST on the quality of care for seniors.

Deputy Speaker: Member, if the letter does not reference Bill 17, the member will know that he needs to take the advice from the Chair.

J. Brar: Madam Speaker, this letter talks about the quality of care to seniors. So that's my request, because this is a letter to Bill 17.

Bill 17 — I'll just go back to that. If you listen to the minister, the key intent of the bill is very simple — that this bill will improve the quality of care of seniors of British Columbia. That's the intent of the bill.

This letter, if you allow me to read, says exactly the opposite. This is not me; this is the B.C. Care Providers Association — the people who provide care to seniors. This is a letter written by the CEO of that organization. This is not written by any NDP MLA.

So I will continue to read from that letter, if I am permitted.

The CEO says:

"Last week the B.C. government announced a plan to harmonize their provincial sales tax with the federal GST. The 12 percent harmonized sales tax, HST, is effective July 2010. While we congratulate the provincial government for securing $1.6 billion in new revenue from the government of Canada, we are very disappointed. We are very concerned about the direct negative financial impact the HST may have on many seniors care providers in B.C."

That's what it says. So this is exactly related to Bill 17, because it talks about care.

I will continue reading the letter:

"While we were not consulted about this plan, it was our understanding assurances had been given by the B.C. government to various stakeholders prior to the election that the HST would not be accepted here. Our concern" — the letter says — "is substantiated by the experience Ontario's long-term care homes are having with the HST in their province. Initial estimates suggest the Ontario HST could cost care providers over $12 million, with layoffs likely."

And the letter goes on to say….
[ Page 1644 ]

Deputy Speaker: Minister of Aboriginal Affairs rises on a point of order.

[1745]

Point of Order

Hon. G. Abbott: I certainly am trying to be a cooperative listener here. I was pleased to hear the member's account from the B.C. Care Providers Association, and I appreciate that I'm sure the member has a written speech here that he's reading from. But it is important when these speeches are being constructed that they actually address the content of the bill which is being debated in this Legislature, which is Bill 17.

There is absolutely nothing in Bill 17 which deals with the issue of HST, never mind HST in the province of Ontario. The member needs somehow to bring his comments back into line with the substance of this debate.

Deputy Speaker: Responding to the point of order, Member.

A. Dix: The point the member is making is the gap between the rights that are being evoked here and the reality on the ground and that the rights in the bill very specifically address care levels.

What we're talking about is the decline in care levels, which is a normal thing that one would do in a piece of legislation such as this, which is to examine the connection between a bill that wants to establish in law certain sets of rights and the reality against which those are measured. So that's, I think, what the member is doing quite eloquently, hon. Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: I appreciate the submissions, hon. Members. However, I have been very clear in my commentary to the member on his feet, the member for Surrey-Fleetwood, and he will bring his remarks back to the consideration of this bill.

Debate Continued

J. Brar: Well, the strange thing on this one is that Bill 17 talks about the right to have an individualized care plan. That's what Bill 17 talks about. This letter says that there will be a compromise of the quality of care, and I'm going to list a few items where it is going to compromise, as this letter suggests.

This is the letter, by the way, from the B.C. Care Providers. If we are not even willing to listen to the B.C. Care Providers on this one — the people who actually provide care to the seniors — I don't know what else we can say in response to this letter.

Actually, I thought I was doing some sort of favour to provide that meaningful input into this debate from the B.C. Care Providers. But that certainly is not something the former Minister of Health would like to hear.

I will continue on this debate. They did make a point as per their final assessment that since that could cost some care providers over $210,000, that will impact the care to the seniors at the end of the day. But I will move on to my next topic, which hopefully will be acceptable for the debate on this very important bill.

Another promise made to the seniors as well as to the vulnerable residents in care in the last election was that there will be no funding cut. Again, there will be no funding cut, particularly to health care. Health care is very, very important to the seniors and the other vulnerable residents we're talking about in this particular bill.

Actually, health care is the key service they need. I think in the absence of quality health care, I don't know whether we can even talk about the quality of care for seniors. So that was the promise made in the last election, but as soon as the election was over….

[1750]

There are number of programs, particularly for seniors, which have been eliminated after the election, and I think that those programs directly impact the quality of care for seniors.

I will talk about one program which I have seen in my own riding. The Ministry of Health has decided to cut outreach service for the White Rock/Surrey Come Share Society — senior support services, it's called. This is a low-cost program and provides valuable services to 900 vulnerable seniors during one year. Why is a program being cut that serves 900 seniors per year for the cost of just 69 cents per day to have the outreach workers available to the seniors? That's the question.

Deputy Speaker: Minister of Aboriginal Affairs rises on a point of order.

Point of Order

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, I think the question which the member raises is a fascinating one. However, it appears to me that it is entirely divorced from the content, which is quite clear in Bill 17 in relation to these matters. While it's always fascinating to hear from the member, I think it would be important that we actually have a debate around the content of Bill 17.

Deputy Speaker: I appreciate the minister's interjection, and the member on his feet for Surrey-Fleetwood will know that this bill refers to the residents bill of rights. I would ask him to bring his remarks back to the bill.

Debate Continued

J. Brar: Again, this Bill 17 talks about the rights of seniors. I will read one more. One of the rights which is
[ Page 1645 ]
listed here says, "to be treated in a manner, and to live in an environment," that promotes the individual's health, safety and dignity. That's one right listed on this particular bill of rights.

Treat individuals in a manner and in an environment to promote an individual's "health, safety, and dignity." That's what this says. When I'm talking about these seniors, I'm talking about programs which exactly promote those kinds of rights. They are being eliminated.

I would like to share a couple of letters sent to me by the seniors who got cut from these kinds of programs. This is impacting their lives. This is one letter, and it says: "To whom it may concern." This is from a senior. "I think it's a terrible mistake that the funding source for the senior support program has been eliminated. I am a senior myself, with multiple health problems…."

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member, does the program you are citing…? I cannot find a reference to an out-patient program in the residents bill of rights. I have asked you to bring your remarks back to Bill 17 on more than one occasion.

I would ask him to do so now.

J. Brar: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I will continue with my next point.

I know the Minister of Health is still watching there.

An Hon. Member: Ex-Minister of Health.

J. Brar: Ex-Minister of Health, yeah.

There is a facility in my riding that's called Newton Regency residential care facility, and I hope that will be part of this discussion.

I'm talking about a care facility, Madam Speaker. Again, I will go back to Bill 17, and one of the rights it talks about is this: the right to have an individualized care plan.

[1755]

Last year seniors at this facility — it's called Newton Regency Care facility — were given the promise to stay at that facility if that was the wish of the resident and their family. That is about a care facility. We are talking about the seniors' rights.

That promise was given in writing before the election, and a letter was sent to those seniors in writing. I would like to read from that letter. I hope that Madam Chair will allow me to read from that letter. This is from the care facility — a letter written to them making a promise that they will not be moved forcefully from that facility. This letter was sent to them on May 22, 2008, sent by the Fraser Health Authority.

This is a long letter. I'm not going to read the whole letter, but the second page, second paragraph. This is the commitment that was made, and I will read from this letter. It says:

"We believe the least disruptive way is by closing beds through attrition at Newton Regency. By 'attrition' we mean when a bed is vacated by a resident, Fraser Health will not fill it again. While the operator of Newton Regency is able to maintain financial viability and able to provide safe and appropriate resident care, Fraser Health is committed to support any resident in a permanent or temporary bed at Newton Regency to remain at Newton Regency if that is the resident's/family's wish."

That promise was made in writing in May 2008. What it meant, basically, is that they were able to stay in that facility if they wished so or their family wished so. Well, what happened, though? What happened is that after the election, things completely changed. This is about the care facility.

We are talking, under Bill 17, about giving rights to the seniors so that we can provide them their respect and dignity. After the election was over, this was the second letter, sent to them in August 2009. This letter is completely opposite to the letter I read earlier. This is again from the Fraser Health Authority, and it says: "Please be advised that Fraser Health will begin closing temporary funded beds within your facility over the next few months."

It's completely a U-turn. Now those beds will be closed. Previously it was said that they can stay there as long as they wish. Now it's a different kind of decision — that they have to move from there.

Subsequent to that, the owner of this facility sent a notice to all the residents of that facility, and I would like to read a few lines from that as well. This was sent on Friday, September 4, 2009. "To all families and residents of Newton Regency Care Home," it says. "With much sadness and disappointment, I have to announce that Newton Regency will be closing permanently by Friday, November 13, 2009, at the latest." It's written by Zarine Virani, the owner of the facility.

What I mean, Madam Speaker, by telling these stories, which I could only read partially because of the objections from the former Minister of Health…. Probably he's quite attached to the health care file.

[1800]

My point is this. If we look back, the track record is this: promises were made and promises were broken time and again. Now, this is a new promise where we say that the seniors bill of rights will basically crystallize the list of rights they have — which they already have, by the way — and they will hang it on the wall. Will that change anything? Or will they keep that promise? That's the question, because seniors have been betrayed time and again.

Therefore, there's a big question whether the Bill 17 promise will be kept. They talk about long-term care beds. They talk about health care cuts. They talk about Newton Regency. They talk about Zion Park, which was closed as well. They talk about many other senior care facilities being closed time and time again.

That's the question which seniors are asking: how will this bill of rights change or improve the care for seniors? That's the question.
[ Page 1646 ]

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

J. Brar: I'm the designated speaker, Madam Speaker. I hope you enjoy my comments.

What's happening in the province is that care facility after care facility is being closed without enough information, without enough notice to seniors, and that's a huge concern. That's a huge concern in my community alone. I have seen two in my community alone, but I know there are many other care facilities in the province being shut down without sufficient notice to the seniors.

How come this bill of rights is going to change anything for those seniors? That is the question. That's a very genuine question. That's a very rational question. How will this bill of rights, when you hang it on the wall, change those things which have created huge anxiety for the seniors of this province?

The other thing I want to say on the same topic is that in many other facilities, when there is a change of ownership — one facility is bought by somebody else — what happens is that just like that, all the staff members change. A lot of changes are made in one day, without any notice to all those seniors living in those facilities.

How is this bill of rights going to change anything in that situation? It's completely silent about that situation as to how, when one employer buys the facility from another one — when you change the owner — they change everything.

You know, it takes a lot of time to build a relationship with staff members. I have seen that in my own facility, Newton Regency, which is being closed. It takes a lot of time for seniors to build those relationships. Once you build those relationships and the trust, and you're told in just one night that all the staff members will disappear tomorrow morning…. This bill of rights is completely silent about that.

Certainly, if we look at the list of rights, this says, "(a)to be treated in a manner, and to live in an environment, that promotes…health, safety and dignity" of the individual. That is not the case. That is not the case in that situation, where you change everything just overnight. This is completely silent.

Similarly, the list of programs. I'm particularly talking about the care facilities. Just to make my point, when the minister made the comments…. The minister did mention about 6,000 new beds and also a 40 percent increase in residential care.

[1805]

Those were the comments made by the minister, so I'm talking about something opposite to that, just opposite to that, and I hope that will be accepted.

The list of cuts goes on. The Fraser Health Authority, for example, announced a 25 percent reduction in a day program for seniors, as I said before — a 25 percent reduction; that's huge — and ended contracts with community agencies that provide outreach to isolated seniors. Vancouver Coastal Health is following a similar plan. In the Interior Health Authority 30 community health workers providing support to seniors in Kelowna have been laid off, and similar cuts are pending throughout the region as well.

In October of '09 the government announced an increase to the residential care fee from 70 percent to 80 percent of after-tax income for the majority of the residents. That is also going to impact the quality of care to the seniors. In 2008 it was reported that one in nine long-term care facilities in B.C. has been classified as a high risk for a violation of health and safety regulations. I think that's related to this bill. I'm talking about one in nine, and that's a big number in the province. One in nine is not meeting the standards.

How is Bill 17 going to improve the overall quality of care in those facilities? How that's going to change with the introduction of this bill is completely unknown. I don't think this bill is going to change anything for those facilities, and that is shameful.

Madam Speaker, I will move on to my concluding remarks. I got a lot of support from the other side. I will continue my comments.

We support the intent of the bill. Anything this government tables which supports the improvement of care for seniors — we support that. That's a good thing. The question from the very beginning has been whether the promise being made here today is going to be kept or not. That's the key question, and if we look at the history, that is not the case.

We support the intent of the bill where this bill is going to clarify and make it more clear — which is already there in the books, by the way — as to what the rights of those seniors are. They're going to hang it on the wall. It may help the families and the seniors understand what their rights are.

Then once they know their rights — and hopefully that list is complete — where do they go? Where do they go if they have any complaint, and what happens there? What are the steps to be taken in that particular situation? This bill has very vague information for them.

As for the Canadian standards, there must be an independent place to go where you can make complaints if complaints about your concerns…. And if you're not satisfied, there must be an appeal process. Those are the steps taken, and Bill 17, of course, has that list of rights which will be hung on the wall in every facility, as set in this particular bill. But what happens after that? We are not sure about that.

[1810]

We have a number of questions about this when we go to committee stage to clarify how this list of rights is going to change or make life better for the seniors — if it will. There are a number of questions I and my fellow members want to ask at committee stage.
[ Page 1647 ]

I was trying to read a letter from the B.C. Care Providers Association, and I was successfully stopped by the former Minister of Health.

The other question is: how much consultation has been done on this bill? How much consultation? Who has been consulted? Who are those stakeholders? We don't know. We don't know whether the government has consulted anybody. We don't know about that or whether their input has been taken into the bill. It's completely unknown.

At least, the bill doesn't say anything as to who was asked and what information they got, what feedback they got, and how it's going to improve and help the seniors.

The minister, in her own comments, didn't make it very clear as to how this bill came into existence. Who asked for it, and who gave the input? Did they contact all the seniors?

Interjections.

J. Brar: This is about Bill 17. Hopefully, this is about Bill 17.

That is a question on how it's going to be enforced. We are going to ask those questions at committee stage, of course, when we move into that.

From the bottom of my heart, I do support every right we are going to give to the seniors and other people in care. They do need support. As I said at the beginning, those are the people who built this beautiful province and beautiful country, and it's our time to give back. It's our time to support them.

They need help. The last eight years have not been very happy for them, and this bill of rights is one step, I think, which may be a little support to them. We will find that out when we go to committee stage and ask all those questions as to how this is going to make a difference for seniors.

Having said that, thanks for your time, Madam Speaker. Thanks for listening very patiently, particularly the former Minister of Health, to my comments.

M. Karagianis: I'd like to take my place in the debate around Bill 17. I spent a great deal of time reading this bill over and particularly scrutinizing the list of rights that this is now going to bestow on seniors.

I have to admit that I'm a bit puzzled by some aspects of this bill and by the list that is contained in this residents bill of rights. I'll explore in my comments some of the things that do concern and puzzle me. I am puzzled, really, by generally why government feels it's necessary to draft a bill that lays out a residents bill of rights.

It would seem to me that the government has had eight years in which there have been significant changes in how seniors care is delivered here in the province. It just begs the question: why at this point in time are we suddenly looking at a residents bill of rights? Some of the things I will explore here are perhaps some of the reasons why this is necessary.

[1815]

Certainly, I would say that my first reaction to reading through the bill was that this is in response to the opposition members' and the Leader of the Opposition's call for a seniors advocate in the province of British Columbia. Perhaps this is the government's rather poor excuse for not putting that position in place.

A seniors advocate certainly would be responsible for ensuring many of the things that are touched on very lightly in this bill of rights. It really does beg the question: is this the government's answer to this call for a seniors advocate not only from the members of the opposition or from the Leader of the Opposition but, frankly, from seniors organizations right across British Columbia?

There is certainly a need for seniors rights to be defended in the province of British Columbia, and perhaps this is some kind of attempt to do that. I think the member for Surrey-Fleetwood outlined very clearly that, yes, a step forward for seniors…. As small and meagre as it may be, any step forward is better than the direction we have been taking — the steps backwards we've been taking — for the last eight years here.

When I read through the list, in section 3 where it outlines the rights of seniors that are being embedded in this, certainly it does raise for me a lot of very interesting concerns and questions about the full ramifications and meaning of some of what is promised to seniors in here. I think that seniors deserve to be promised a great number of things that have been stripped away from them in the last eight years, not least of which is some kind of rights around the kind of residential care that the government is providing.

The seniors in my community — like in every community across British Columbia — worked very, very hard their entire lives, paying taxes and supporting this province to create the very health care system that we enjoy right now, to ensure that their senior years were protected and were lived out with dignity and security, and that there was some assurance for them that if they needed it, there would be some kind of care provision for them in their later years once they left their home or perhaps their health began to fail and they became frail in some way.

All the seniors that have worked here in British Columbia their whole lives, paying taxes and planning for that kind of dignified treatment and a safe and secure environment in their senior years, will certainly be affected by the decisions the government has made over the past eight years and, I think, will look to this residents bill of rights and say: "Does this reflect what we spent our whole life working for?"

Frankly, it is their blood, sweat and tears that have built the province that we currently enjoy. I do think
[ Page 1648 ]
they have a right to health, safety and dignity, as it lays out in this bill very clearly.

But you know, it would seem to me that there are so many other structures around this bill of rights that need to be examined, because so many of the promises made here may or may not be real. They may not be tangible promises. They may not have the rights outlined here in the same depth and breadth that they might expect when reading Bill 17 and especially this list of provisions for their care.

One of the things that I've seen over the last eight years…. In fact, I spent some years working in building affordable seniors housing prior to being elected in 2005. So I do have a bit of intimate knowledge of the kind of seniors care and the provisions for seniors care that have been developed and evolved over the past eight years in particular under the current government.

So it would seem to me that many of the inherent promises in this bill of rights being discussed in the House under Bill 17 will be affected by the kinds of decisions this government has made in the past and is likely to make in the future.

[1820]

I specifically would like to talk about the ever-changing terminology and the ever-changing scope of care that seniors have had to adjust to over the past number of years. The terminology and scope of what residential care in British Columbia is has changed so much and so often under this government.

There have been terms in the past, and I know that the former Minister of Health will recognize some of these things — the terminology that was previously used about complex care and long-term care versus complex care. Residential care, which has now become kind of the new word, came out of a program for assisted living. When does assisted living morph into long-term or complex care? And what does each of these terms mean in reality for seniors on the ground, out there in communities?

When we look at promising seniors, under a bill of rights, that their rights to things like choice will be respected and be embedded in this, we have to be careful that we are not in fact allowing choice to be compromised by ever-changing criteria for what is or is not a level of care that seniors can anticipate.

I know now, from watching assisted living become the catch-all for seniors care…. Seniors go in thinking that assisted living is a small amount of creature comforts and supports around them, but in fact they end up aging in place until their care becomes much more long-term or complex in their needs. When we provide a bill of rights for seniors that says, "Here's what you can expect in your choices," I think we have to be very careful that those choices don't change.

I know that the previous speaker, my colleague from Surrey-Fleetwood, talked about how reliable any of the government's promises in the past had been to seniors and how that stacks up against a bill of rights that clearly outlines that these are the things we are promising seniors.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The list of rights to health, safety and dignity, I think, is very comprehensive, very clear. I think they're the kind of statements that everyone would expect are already in place for seniors in whatever level of care they are currently experiencing, whether it's assisted living or residential care or more in-depth than that.

I would expect that every person in British Columbia would automatically assume that adult persons in care are being treated in a manner and live in an environment that promotes their health, safety and dignity. Who in the world would imagine it would not be that way, regardless of the fact that so much of the care has deteriorated here in the province of British Columbia for seniors? I think everyone would expect those basic tenets — that they would be treated in a manner and live in an environment that promotes their health, safety and dignity.

Whether that means that services are eroded before their very hands or that costs have gone up…. In fact, that's exactly what's happening here in the province of British Columbia. While we are drafting a bill of rights that promises seniors they will be able to live in dignity and safety, what we're saying to seniors in most recent changes in the province is that there was a time when it would only cost you 70 percent of your income to live in assisted living, or you might have to age through into complex care.

But now changes in British Columbia say that no, we're going to jack that up. It's now going to cost you 80 percent of your income to live in assisted living, which is likely to morph into complex care. You will probably stay there until such time as you require a much more complex form of care.

I think if we're going to continue to kind of squeeze seniors, we have to be careful in the promises inherent in this bill that we are going to protect them, that we are going to make sure they live in a healthy, safe and dignified environment.

I think we have to be sure in ourselves that we are not squeezing them financially, that we are not reducing the number of services they receive, because that's what they've seen for eight years — fewer services, more costs, no home supports or the other things that would have allowed them to in fact live longer in their homes before they required a residential care situation and therefore a bill of rights that had to protect them.

There will be, I'm sure, many other opportunities to discuss this further in this debate. So noting the hour, I move adjournment of debate.
[ Page 1649 ]

M. Karagianis moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

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

Hon. G. Abbott moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 tomorrow afternoon.

The House adjourned at 6:25 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
HOUSING AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); H. Bloy in the chair.

The committee met at 2:30 p.m.

On Vote 36: ministry operations, $2,714,603,000 (continued).

S. Simpson: Just going back to some questions that related to income assistance. In the service plan — and this is the September 2009 service plan, page 15: "Goal 3: British Columbians in need have access to income assistance." Under the first objective, the strategies, it says to "conduct regular reviews of rates, regulations, policies and processes to ensure ministry supports are responsive to British Columbians' changing needs." Could the minister tell us: how do those reviews go on, and are they formal? Are they informal? How does this strategy get invoked?

Hon. R. Coleman: It's done as part of the annual review going into the budget cycle. We look at where we're at, what we're spending and what those rates are. In 2007, for instance, all income assistance clients received an increase of at least $50 per month to the maximum shelter portion of their income assistance, a benefit that went to about 135,000 individuals.

That was the first across-the-board shelter rate increase since 1992, and it gave employable singles the second-highest shelter rate in Canada. For example, a single expected-to-work client is eligible to receive the monthly maximum of $375 for shelter, which was a 15 percent increase at the time.

So we do that as part of the budget cycle. We make our presentation through Finance and the Treasury Board, and all of those things come into the same discussion, as would the Select Standing Committee on Finance report — into the budget cycle process. It all gets discussed through that process down to where we work out what our budget numbers are going to be.

S. Simpson: The minister will know, as he said, that that's the only increase in the better part of 18, 19 years. It's been a long time. I do believe, and the minister can confirm, that in 2002 there was in fact a rate reduction that occurred.

I'm not sure whether the $50 restored what was reduced. I don't have that number in front of me. But could the minister tell me, in this review, has the ministry determined how far behind the cost-of-living increases that people on social assistance have fallen over the last decade?

[1435]

Hon. R. Coleman: I'll read this for the member:

"The ministry reviews its income assistance rates on an annual basis. In April 2007 we raised the rates across the board for all ministry clients for 2009-2010. This fiscal year the ministry has budgeted $1.5 billion for income assistance. In reviewing this rate, the ministry takes a number of things into consideration: cost of living, studies, inflation, welfare rates in other provinces, the dietitian's report on the cost of eating, recommendations by the B.C. Progress Board and suggestions from British Columbians and advocacy groups as well as presentations to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and those who have participated in provincewide budget consultations.

"When setting rates, our government is obligated to take a balanced approach, one that is a realistic undertaking between what is fair to our clients and what is affordable for working British Columbians and the taxpayer. The government has to set rates that are sustainable and not fixed at a level that makes them distinctive for employable clients to find and keep full-time jobs. Compared to June 2001, the ministry's average monthly payment for an income assistance case has climbed by almost $140 per month, or 20 percent, to $827.50 in December of 2008."

S. Simpson: Coming back to the question, the minister said that the reviews look at cost of living. They look at inflation. They look at those factors. I assume that the ministry has been doing that since the government came to power, in 2001 or so, or shortly after that. I assume that maybe it started in 2002 at least, when the decision was made to reduce rates at that time.

The question to the minister, again, is: has the government determined how these rates have compared to cost-of-living increases in, say, real dollars — 2002 dollars? How have these rates compared in terms of keeping up with the cost of living and inflation?

Hon. R. Coleman: There was no across-the-board reduction in welfare rates in 2002. There was one category
[ Page 1650 ]
with regards to shelter rates, and we'll get that information for the member so he can come at it from the factual point of view. We don't have that data at that level at this discussion. We'll get that for the member.

S. Simpson: Can the minister tell us: in the deliberations, has there been consideration of indexing welfare rates, and has the minister looked at the cost of indexing welfare so it stays constant with the cost of living? If so, what would that cost?

Hon. R. Coleman: No, we're not doing that. At this time indexing rates has the potential to impede the ministry's ability to control its budget over the long term and to target increases to the most pressing needs of our clients.

It may also alter the relationship between income-assistance rates and average earnings, which recent research has shown reduces employment and increases income-assistance dependence. B.C.'s income assistance rates are reviewed annually in the context of the budget and other spending priorities would continue to do so….

[1440]

S. Simpson: Just as an aside, maybe if the government had chosen to raise the minimum wage, that wouldn't be such an issue. But that's another matter.

In the question in regard to the review that…. The minister said that the regular review of rates, regulations, policies and processes happens as part of the budget process. Has there been any review of the decision on the two-year independence test, where applicants are required to provide documentation showing that they had earned $7,000, I believe it is, a year for two consecutive years before eligibility?

Hon. R. Coleman: We haven't changed it and have no intention of doing so. We have, however, added some additional exemptions over time as we found vulnerable people that may be affected by the policy. But there's no intent to change it.

S. Simpson: Could the minister tell us what those exemptions are?

Hon. R. Coleman: Given the number of pages being flipped, we will find that and give it to the member as soon as it's available.

S. Simpson: I'll take that as a question somewhere down the road.

Another area that, and particularly at this time…. There's the three-week job search. The question I have is in regard to people who are employables. We spoke earlier about folks who may make the application for assistance. They may have assets that exceed the eligible asset levels of the ministry.

For somebody who then chooses to dispose of those assets in order to be able to live for the period of time until their assets either fall under the level or they find a job, and they continue to look, does their job search trigger at the same time?

So if I come in…. I've lost my job; I've run my EI out; I've got a $10,000 car. The ministry tells me that I need to get rid of the car because of the value of the asset, so I do that. I get $5,000, $6,000, $7,000, whatever dollars for that. I'm living on that for a couple of months or so. I've applied. Does my job search trigger there, if I actually go out and I'm looking for employment there? Or do I have to exhaust the asset, come back and apply and then wait three weeks after that?

Hon. R. Coleman: I'll get to the answer to that question in a second, but I'll go back to exemptions for the member first.

There are several categories of persons who are exempt from the two-year independence requirement, including applicants who (1) are persons with disabilities; (2) are pregnant or have dependent children, including foster children and children in the home of relatives; (3) are under 19 years of age; (4) have been supported by an employed spouse; (5) are caring for a disabled spouse; (6) have been incarcerated for at least six months of the two-year period immediately preceding the date of application; have been in care until their 19th birthday; are fleeing familial or spousal abuse; have a medical condition or persistent multiple barriers to employment that prevent the applicant from working in the next 30 days; due to factors beyond their control, could not have achieved two consecutive years of financial independence and the applicant would experience undue hardship if eligibility were denied; or finally, have a two-year diploma, bachelor's degree or higher.

[1445]

With regards to the applications, we made some regulatory amendments to the employment assistance regulation and employment and assistance for persons with disabilities regulation, effective April 28, 2009.

Applicants for assistance may now search for employment either three weeks following the date of application or demonstrate that a search for employment, satisfactory to the minister — which means it's a delegated authority, so it would be the person running the office — was completed prior to the date of the application. Sole applicants with a child under the age of three are now exempt from the three-week work search requirement.

S. Simpson: What I'm going to do at this point, noting the time and knowing that in a short while some members will be coming to ask questions, is to move off of the basic income assistance questions.
[ Page 1651 ]

I will note to the minister that for part of tomorrow — I think that it was in the note — we'll be having some discussion. I have some questions related to the broader scope of poverty reduction — not the regulatory side of income assistance but poverty reduction — for a bit tomorrow. I'll just flag that. I don't know what the minister's staff requirements are, but I'll let them know.

At this point — and there may be a staff change — I'd like to talk a little bit about grants before some of the members come in to talk about their own constituencies.

We know that in this year there were significant changes around the direct-access grants and how those grants were funded. That included — and I'm sure the minister will correct me if these numbers aren't correct — about $156 million, $157 million last year that went to roughly 6,800 organizations in some form.

This year that budget was reduced by about $17 million. About $60 million was allocated to programs that previously had been funded under other ministries, primarily community link and arts and culture funding.

Then the remaining $80 million is being allocated or has been allocated to those 6,800 groups or some portion of them. A number of those groups will not receive funding this year. But a portion of those 6,800 groups that were funded previously will be funded, and those who had three-year funding will have those contracts honoured. Can the minister tell us, is that essentially where we stand right now?

Hon. R. Coleman: In the '08-09 budget $156.2 million was allocated for community grants. In the February budget '09-10 there was $159.6 million allocated. Since that time there was a request across government to fund some other programs, so $68.2 million of that came out of that $159 million, and then subsequently another almost $30 million was restored to the program through access to contingencies.

The total grant envelope this year is $175.4 million, with about $112.6 million going out to applicants to the direct-access and bingo affiliations side, which will cover money in varying amounts — because they're not all getting 100 percent — to about 6,100 groups.

[1450]

S. Simpson: Just so I've got the numbers right here. I think that the minister said $62 million is going to programs that had previously been funded through other government sources or other ministries. So those dollars are off the table now. There's the money to honour the upcoming year's commitments on three-year grants.

Maybe the minister could tell us: if we take that money, how much is it taking to honour those agreements? The question I have is: for groups that are making application for this year that don't have agreements in place for another year or two, how much money is available in the pot for those 6,100 groups — or however many that number will be that are making new applications versus ones who have sustained funding because of a three-year agreement? How much money is available for those applications?

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm going to try and quantify this for the member because it's a bit confusing. The reason it's confusing is because of how this thing worked its way through the system.

The number is $112.6 million left after the other ministry programs were funded. At the stage that we were at with that, that $112.6 million was then added to…. No, sorry, that was the net number. Let's do it again.

So $159.6 million was the budget in February. Another $27.9 million was added in from contingencies, which took the total pool from $159.6 million to $175.4 million. Then that fund paid or was already paying out to some of the other ministry requests that had been passed over to the gaming grants to take care of some budget pressures of $62.8 million. That left $112.6 million for the balance of charities.

[1455]

Out of that, there are a number of breakouts. The first would be the bingo affiliations, which were paid earlier in the year. They were $47.1 million out of that pool of money. Then there were commitments to people that had three-year commitments. A bunch of them — hundreds of them, actually — were getting a portion of the funding, so that money was already within the system for them. Then we added in money to fulfil the three-year commitment.

So the money added to the three-year commitments to fulfil them was actually $13.7 million. That was added in to basically top up the three-year commitments, and then the balance goes out to the rest of the charities.

S. Simpson: If the minister could correct that, and maybe I misheard him, the minister said that we started with $159 million. Then I thought I heard the minister say they added about $27 million to that out of contingency. That tells me we're at about $186 million, not $175 million. Maybe the minister could just clarify that number, because that obviously would have an affect on the $112 million.

Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, you're right, except there's one other piece of the puzzle. When we needed to find, in government, across all grant programs…. All grant programs were initially asked to find 8.5 percent saving upfront. That 8.5 percent saving came off the $159-point-some million over the period of time through the budget cycle from February through to the new restatement of the budget.

That had already been notionally allocated as part of one of the transition costs for all STOBs. What we call discretionary grants in government were told to take
[ Page 1652 ]
that cut. We all took that cut, and then after that cut was taken, the pressures from other ministries were brought in to apply to the grant program. That's why the discrepancy between the $180 million the member is adding up to versus what we have today.

We took the 8.5 percent reduction. Then we added in the $27-point-some million that got us to $175.4 million, and then we had $62.8 million that we flowed out to other ministries — the B.C. Arts Council funding and the communityLINK programs, particularly, were the two largest ones — which then brought us down to the $112.6 million, because of the adding-in of contingencies. That's where the other dollars are.

S. Simpson: Okay, I think I get it. The bottom line maybe is this, and the math is fine. So this amount of money in this instance includes the bingo affiliation money. I think $47.1 million the minister referenced of bingo affiliation dollars in this pot.

Could the minister tell us: in the last year the $156.1 million or $156.3 million, or whatever it was, that went out to the roughly 6,800 groups, was that money not all direct-access dollars, that pot, and bingo affiliation money was a separate pot? Could the minister confirm that?

Hon. R. Coleman: No, it's not a separate pot. The total money was $156-point-some million, including the bingo affiliation. They've always been included in that number in the grants. There is discussion within government that they probably should, at some point, transition to one program. There's been a bingo affiliation relationship within this fund and a direct-access relationship within this fund. Direct access was the amount of money that was put into that grant program after the bingo affiliations were paid.

[1500]

As we came through this fiscal cycle, bingo affiliations are paid usually in April- May of the fiscal year. Most of the bingo affiliation money was paid out prior to any of these changes to the program. They were paid out because there was no freeze in place during the period of time they would normally get paid. So they were paid out, and then we were left with the balance of the pool of money. That's why, for instance, all bingo affiliations received 100 percent of their money this year.

S. Simpson: I want to make sure that I've got this right, because I may have a misunderstanding on this. I want to make sure I'm correct. Could the minister, then, tell us…? There are the two streams of money. There are direct-access dollars and bingo affiliation dollars, the two streams of gaming grants, of some form. Prior to the crunch when the funding was reduced last year, how much money went out in direct-access dollars, and how much money went out in bingo affiliation?

Hon. R. Coleman: This will take a minute, but I'll read it all into the record for the member to understand. The direct-access grant program last year gave out $97 million to 4,778 charities. The breakdown of that was $33.5 million to arts and culture; $1.3 million to the BC150 program; $3.2 million to environment; $41.4 million to human and social services; $11.9 million to parent advisory councils and district PACs; and $5.6 million to public safety. There might be some other numbers that would be smaller categories, which would add up to the balance.

Under the bingo affiliation last year we spent $48.8 million. Again, just so the member knows, that's also broken out by category. In the bingo affiliation grants last year arts, culture and sports received $13.7 million; environment was $500,000; human and social services was $31.7 million; parent advisory councils that had bingo affiliations, $1.7 million, and we did have a rule that if you had one, you didn't get paid the other; public safety was $1 million; and bingo associations, the organizations that run the bingo affiliations, received a grant of $200,000; for a total of $48.8 million.

S. Simpson: Okay. Now that's $145 million, $146 million. I'm sure that there was another $5 million or $6 million that went out there somewhere.

Hon. R. Coleman: Capital grants and playgrounds.

S. Simpson: Fair enough.

Now this year, then. If I look at the numbers that the minister gave me for this year, we have, with bingo affiliation and direct access all in, $112.6 million in the pot, and $47.1 million of that is bingo affiliation dollars that are committed, that are going out. You're funding the organizations that had that money, and those funding commitments are being met. I believe that's what the minister said. The three-year contract commitments for the year of $13.7 million or so are being met, the obligations around the three-year agreements.

Would I be correct, then, that these organizations are sharing? There's about $52.6 million remaining there, which will be the amount of the grant money that those people who have applications in for this year…. Those people are getting letters today saying: "Yes, you did get your money," or "No, you didn't get your money." They are sharing in a pot of some $52.6 million, when you take out the bingo and the three-year contracts that are continuing commitments. Would that be accurate?

Hon. R. Coleman: No, not necessarily accurate. What I'll do is I'll give what the anticipated funding estimates are this year by the same categories. Maybe that will help the member.

[1505]

Arts, culture and sports this year under the 2009-2010 estimates in the present program are anticipated to
[ Page 1653 ]
receive $17.6 million. The BC150 program wraps up, so its last million is spent, and there's nothing to be spent there. Environment will receive $1 million; human and social services, $33.3 million. Parent advisory groups and DPACs would receive around $6 million; public safety, $5.5 million; and the balance, $1.3 million, for a total of $65.7 million in the direct-access program this year.

Bingo affiliation grants. The funding in them was almost stagnant, as is the number of groups. So arts, culture and sport would be $13.7 million. Environment would be $600,000. Human and social services are $30.2 million, and PACs and DPACs are $1.6 million. Public safety is $900,000. For bingo associations it's $200,000, as it was last year.

The difficulty is then extrapolating out what is three-year and what isn't, but that's the number of groups. If the member wishes, I can…. Well, actually, I will do this so that he knows.

This year we anticipate, under direct access, sending grants of some moneys — not all 100 percent, obviously — to 3,975 groups, which is the total for direct access. Last year the number of groups we funded was 4,778. With regards to the bingo affiliations, last year we did 1,668 groups, and this year we'll do 1,600.

S. Simpson: Then the number that I had, it's roughly accurate to say…. The minister said that a little more than $65 million was going out under direct-access money, when you tally that all up. That's roughly the $13.7 million of three-year contract commitments plus the $52 million-and-something that's available for one-year agreements. Those numbers are roughly correct.

We know that this has, financially, been a difficult year. The minister has talked on a number of occasions. I've heard the minister make comments about having to make difficult choices in priorities in regard to spending because of challenging economic times.

Could the minister tell us…? I understand the budget process, and that he doesn't have full control of these matters, but is it the view of the minister, in making these decisions to reduce the amount of money that went out to grants, that this is a reflection of a difficult economic time and that it would be his intention or his hope that those fund levels will go back up in the next year or two years, whenever we start to see the economic turnaround? Or does he see this as now being the new base that we work from?

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, we're in that budget cycle now, so we're looking at it and making our recommendations to Finance, which haven't been finalized because we're working on that now.

There's no question that the difficult times that we have — with the drops in revenues, increases in expenses and having to set government priorities — led government to say: "We have some programs that will put pressures on other ministries' ability to deliver on some things, so we should look within our overall spending envelope where there might be funds that we could re-target." That's what happened here.

The CommunityLINK program of $48-point-some-million was sent over for us to deal with on the funding side but not on the operational side. If, going forward, that were to continue, then we in government would like to make sure that the efficacy of that program exists — how it matches up to measurements and stuff like that that we have within the grant program sort of thing.

Whether they would be totally restored or not is difficult to say. I think that there have been overtures made to the Select Standing Committee on Finance with regard to this as well, and we'll do our budget process.

The difference, though, quite frankly, is this. I think the toughest thing that happens in government in this particular province versus many others is that every four years you end up, because of the fixed election date that we have, going into a budget cycle in the Legislature and are unable to complete it before the writ period. It's because all the estimates and stuff have to be done. Then we go to interim supply, and then there's a requirement on the change of government to have another budget and restate the whole thing.

[1510]

The challenge with that, though, is you are now trying to do a budget four or five months into a fiscal year, and money that's already been spent cannot, obviously, be adjusted.

I think that even given this envelope and some creativity around it, if that was the number given in February that the ministry and the branch were to manage through an entire fiscal year, we would be able to manage it differently because we would have all of it in front of us as far as being able to adjust and spread money around the groups in as fair a manner as possible.

Whether that will be the case or whether the funding will go up in the next fiscal year is hard to say, since we're in this session now doing estimates. As soon as we finish this, we start the whole budget process for the February budget, which actually has already started with the select standing committee and presentations by us to Treasury Board and Finance, which are confidential at this stage.

With regards to future funding, we'll find that out as we come through this budget cycle. We would like to be in a position to have more efficiency around this. I think that whatever happens, we will have that because we'll have an entire fiscal year to deal with it.

S. Simpson: I thank the minister for his comment. The minister and I — we've had this debate sort of indirectly, anyways — have some disagreement about what we think the obligations around this money are or
[ Page 1654 ]
aren't. That's a political disagreement, and we don't need to have that today. I'd rather kind of stick with some of the questions I've been given.

I understand the nature of the timing, and I agree with the minister that bringing down a budget and then calling an election — having an election period commence shortly after that because of fixed election dates — has turned out to be a bit of a complication.

I know that the opposition has said that a move to the fall might be a good idea, and I know that the government is also giving some consideration to whether a change in the election date would be better in terms of budget consistency, or whatever you want to call it. In terms of dealing with our budget, I think we all might agree with that.

Part of the challenge that has been brought to my attention by some of the organizations that are involved in this — organizations that did or didn't receive money, as well as the Association for Charitable Gaming — was the way that this kind of came upon them with a bit of surprise at some point, some concern there. We know, of course, that we're now heading into the next year, and I understand that there was quite a scramble after the election to deal with a number of matters.

The question I have for the minister is: what kinds of consultation — not about whether groups get the money or don't get the money; that'll be an adjudication of some sort — are being done with ministry staff with organizations in the community to help get their input on what the priorities should be and how those priorities should work?

Once you reduce the pot, obviously, and assuming that the pot's not going to grow for a little while, there's a question about how you set those priorities. My question is: what consultation is going on at the community level regionally or in other ways to get a sense of what those priorities maybe should be for adjudication in the future?

Hon. R. Coleman: That's an ongoing process. We get feedback from charities on a regular basis. The director or the ADM responsible for the branch was actually at the association's annual general meeting when I was sitting in forums — 15-minute meetings for three days at UBCM — and actually took all the questions they had. That's been the relationship for a long time.

I think, though, that one of the challenges is that we find each group has their own priorities. For instance, the B.C. association of community gaming is largely made up of bingo-affiliated charities, and one of their issues is that they should continue to get the lion's share of the money that goes to charities in B.C. from gaming. For instance, the arts and culture groups say: "Well, you cut us in arts and culture, but at the same time the arts and culture and sports groups with bingo affiliation received 100 percent of the same money as that they received the year before."

[1515]

One of the challenges we deal with this particular pool of dollars is that today 1,668 groups receive $48.8 million, and actually this year will receive $47.2 million, and another 3,975 are sharing $65.7 million. You have charities saying to us: "That's no longer fair, because that's just a subsidy to bingo. The reality is that bingo doesn't make you any money, so why are you continuing to subsidize it?"

It is a fair argument, because although we will have spent almost $48 million in charity donations to the 1,600 groups supposedly affiliated with bingo halls over the next year, they will actually net government, out of that particular form of business, $1.8 million.

The subsidy is about $46 million that goes to that select set of groups. The other groups and charities are saying to us: "Why don't you bring that together and spread it out fairly among all of us, because the rest of us don't have a bingo affiliation, and that business has gone the way business goes?" Whereas at the same time in arts, culture and sport under the direct-access program, last year was $33.5 million, for example, but this year it's $17.6 million.

In actual fact that means that arts, culture and sport actually receives $31.3 million from this program last year. The challenge with it is how the program will develop. I am confident, though, that given a full fiscal year we can balance this thing to their charities fairly and make a lot more of them whole and bring a lot of them back into receiving, maybe, a bit more funding as a result of repositioning some of the program.

At the same time as we do that we have to also go through the financial process to determine what our budget will be. We're working towards that with Finance with regards to what the direct-access envelope — when I say direct access, I mean the entire gaming envelope for charities — will be and what happens to those two programs that we were asked to fund this year with regards to using some of the money for those programs because of budget pressures. That discussion has to take place as well.

S. Simpson: I had the opportunity to attend the session where Mr. Sturko presented to the symposium of the charitable gaming groups, and Mr. Sturko did a good job. I thought that he was very open with his answers, and he was very clear on those matters that were outside of his authority to make comment on and was forthright in saying that those were outside his political authority, because they were matters of political decision or policy decision that he wasn't authorized to be making decisions about.

It's some of those questions at that session that there weren't answers to that people felt some frustration with because they couldn't get those answers, and they are answers that clearly only the minister has the authority to provide.
[ Page 1655 ]

With the money, and the minister has talked about direct access and bingo affiliation…. Some of the questions that arose at that symposium were about the potential in the future of blending those into a single grant program, as one program, without this discrepancy about where the money comes from — one single pot of money, presumably with one application process, and everybody is on that level playing field that the minister talked about.

My question to the minister is: at this point — and I don't know if this is regulation or legislation or what it is, and I know that we can't talk about future legislation — is it the position of the minister that bringing that level playing field and one pot of money that comes from both those sources is the way of the future?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yes, it is. Basically what we would try and do is make that decision within the next 30 to 60 days. We don't need the regulation to change it. It would just be a change of the parameters of the grant program. We would honour the outgoing bingo affiliation. If they have a three-year or two-year remaining, whatever, we would continue to honour that.

[1520]

We would work towards or we would transition to what the member describes, which would be fair to all charities — to have one grant process where they can apply into the pool of money that is identified by category, like we do with direct access, and make it fair for those who feel that they should have a fair opportunity to access the entire pool of money, not just a portion of the pool of money.

S. Simpson: I could have lots of questions here, but I'm going to focus on two questions around this process that have been raised to me. The first one is the matter of appeal. As the minister will know, these decisions that are made under this funding program are final. There is not an appeal process available at this point.

A number of groups have said that part of their concern is…. As the minister has noted, we have thousands and thousands of organizations across this province, many of them smaller organizations that deliver unique programs in communities. It's probably not reasonable to expect the staff of the branch who have to deal with this to know the intricacies of every one of those programs in terms of dealing with thousands and thousands of applications there. There will be things that will get missed in the mix, and that's to be expected.

[J. McIntyre in the chair.]

The question is: is the minister contemplating any process of appeal for organizations who believe that they deserve a reconsideration — it could be a long list, of course — or that they have additional information to contribute to the discussion that might change the ministry's mind?

Hon. R. Coleman: We've always had a reconsideration process, but given the dramatic change we had to adjust to with the programs that came in and how we had to do it, we knew that the volume of reconsideration would be such that it would swamp our staff's ability to actually manage the program for the balance of this fiscal year. It was a decision that there be no reconsideration allowed on this program going forward from the day we announce what the program would look like for this fiscal year.

All the processes with reconsideration are being reinstituted for the next fiscal year. Anyone that made a grant application last year will be back in the normal reconsideration process. If they get turned down for the basis that their board of directors or their society act isn't in place, or whatever the case may be, the appeal that they've been allowed to do in the past is reinstituted.

It's only for this period of time during which we knew that we were having to make some dramatic changes to manage the fiscal pressures that we did that, but next year the whole process will be exactly as it has been in the past. That was really a conscious decision made because of the challenges we were going to be handling with regards to changing from 100 percent grants to maybe 30 percent or 40 percent, the work that the staff had to do with regards to that.

This is a very well run operation in government. I must say that. The people that work in this portion of the gaming policy and enforcement branch are people that I think have done the job we asked of them when we set up this program back seven or eight years ago. Its credibility for its application process, its rigour, its diligence with regards to information, how they work with charities to change and streamline the process of applications as best they can as they tell us about things we could improve on…. I think they've done a very good job.

Just so the member knows, there's no reconsideration. That was a letter that went out for those who got turned down this year because there is just no money to reconsider within. Going into a full fiscal year, we would now spread the envelope over the four cycles, whatever that envelope would be, and we would allow the reconsiderations to come back and be done.

S. Simpson: As Mr. Sturko pointed out at the symposium, at this point in time there will be no more three-year funding, except in those organizations that are already in a three-year cycle. When it's completed, it will be completed. But there's no more three-year funding. Everything is on an annual basis at this point in time.

As the minister will know, certainly, it makes good sense in terms of planning, particularly for organiza-
[ Page 1656 ]
tions that are trying to be efficient, if they have some sense of their funding clearly over a couple years, to be able to plan out for that.

[1525]

I understand that the minister's position is that it's a unique situation because of the economic times. My question to the minister is: in the longer term would the minister be of the view that three-year funding makes more sense in terms of supporting the efficiencies of these organizations to be able to plan, to be able to deliver their services, whatever they are?

Hon. R. Coleman: No, I'm not anticipating going to three-year funding envelopes again. The reason for that, actually, as we learned through this cycle, is that it reduces the flexibility to adjust to certain types of economic times.

The other challenge with it is that if you have a three-year cycle, you actually take out of the system new charities or groups that have new programs, that have been charities in B.C. for a long time — for their accessibility on a program that may be good for a community, after maybe one that's gotten old and tired. The other challenge is that…. We did this thinking that it would be a good thing to do. Of course, when we hit the fiscal issue, it wasn't so simple — right?

This is a grant program. It's not an entitlement program. It's not meant to fund annual operations on an annual basis. It's meant to fund programs that people justify to government to get the grant for.

The grant process is not onerous. It's not complicated, and a lot of people are successful year to year and have been on different programs for years that didn't have three-year funding requirements.

A lot of the folks that I've spoken to since we did this said: "Either you give us all three years, or you don't give anybody three years." Actually, that's probably a fair comment. Of course, if you gave everybody three years, then what you'd do is end up eliminating all the new things that could happen in communities for charities that some group — whether it be a Rotary club or a Lions Club or a social agency or whatever — would come up with, with regards to programs for children or issues like that. There are things that are pressured because of the economic changes and that sort of thing.

There's no plan, frankly, to go back to three-year commitments. I guess that's the short answer for the member.

S. Simpson: If we have any time left at the end of the day, we'll come back to a few of these questions. But right now I know that there are a number of members who have issues in their constituencies. I'm sure they'll be getting up and taking a few minutes now to ask the minister questions in relation to that.

R. Chouhan: In the last few years, under the refugee program, many families have moved to the Burnaby-Edmonds area. Many of them are quite large families, in fact, with five, six children. If you look at the resource directory for affordable housing, you will note that there aren't very many larger units available, especially in the Burnaby-Edmonds area. One example that comes to mind is Hillside Gardens. These families have been asking to move into larger units for the last many years. They're on the waiting list.

My question for the minister is: are there any steps being taken or any steps planned to be taken to address that shortage and to help these families while waiting for years to move into larger units?

Hon. R. Coleman: As we move along here, just for the information of members opposite, I'm not going to introduce each staff person that keeps running back and forth. Because I don't know what issues you all have, I have people for social services — we don't have Community Living B.C. here this afternoon, but I think that we canvassed that pretty well this morning — housing, liquor, gaming and other issues in and around that.

I warn you that somebody might pop up, because you asked a particular question, that sits over here and isn't the person that answered or gave me information on the previous question. It's a fairly complicated almost $3 billion operation.

A Voice: As long as you stay in your chair, we're good to go.

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, sometimes I think that maybe they should do this chair too.

[1530]

The reality is this. In our direct-managed suites that we have, which total about 7,000 units of B.C. Housing, we don't have a lot of large suites. We do have a relationship with non-profits, who maintain their waiting lists.

We made a significant shift in 2006, where we decided that we were not going to be building the units the member describes, whether it be for refugee claimants or other people that are in need of social housing — that the market would be needed to actually deal with that, because it's an ever-changing demographic.

What we said we would do is put in place a rental assistance program. The rental assistance program today has 8,000 families on it. It's directed to families so that they can go find a home in a community that meets their needs — bedrooms, size, etc. — within a formula that says we will subsidize the rent on that unit to a certain level. They can apply and get funding sometimes. Sometimes they may be ineligible, so there are always eligibility criteria.

The rental assistance program is there for that purpose — to deal with that cohort. Since we've put it in
[ Page 1657 ]
place, we've seen the waiting list at B.C. Housing drop by about 8,000. What we try and do is work with individuals who go on application. They can apply for rent assistance. They could apply to B.C. Housing. They can go on their waiting list. They can apply to non-profits. We try and let people know which non-profits are active in the communities they're interested in.

Sometimes we find people that say: "I want a unit." I think there was one, actually, in the member's own riding, if I recall a letter awhile back, where the unit wasn't in that community, so they turned it down. That's another challenge. We try and accommodate as best we can within the stock we have available for the fixed stock. But at the same time, the reason we brought the flexibility of the rental assistance program into place was for that — what the member describes.

B. Routley: The Cowichan Valley Hospice Society is one of the groups that provides caring and compassionate help to families dealing with end-of-life issues. Last year the Cowichan Valley Hospice Society received $29,000 in bingo funding, $40,000 from direct access and over $11,000 from service club gaming accounts. That money was leveraged, and they were able to come up with a total of $165,647 last year by using that funding for leveraging additional amounts. There are all kinds of volunteer hours that go into this.

My question to the minister is: will the Cowichan Valley Hospice Society have future funding levels at the same levels as previous years?

Interjection.

B. Routley: Yes, Cowichan Valley.

Interjection.

B. Routley: Yeah, it's in Duncan.

Part of that question also includes the gaming funds to service clubs. The minister may already be aware that funding comes indirectly through service clubs as well, and that represents almost a quarter of their funding. All of those various funding envelopes provide the ability to leverage additional amounts from the community. So they're very concerned, and there's a lot of uncertainty right now.

Hon. R. Coleman: We'll have to confirm whether they're listed as a group that gets a bingo affiliation, because they're not on the groups that were bingo affiliations earlier this year. We'll double-check. It may be the naming of the society that could be the challenge.

On the second piece, which is the direct-access grant. In the case of that particular group, they are presently in the application process. What we did is kept money for human and social services to try and keep all those groups 100 percent whole. If their application is suitable and they've met the criteria, chances are that they're in pretty good shape.

[1535]

What happens is that we take an intake, where we close off the applications at a particular date. In this case, in this cycle, it was August 31 that the applications came in. No, I'm sorry. Human and social services is actually later than that. The intake is to November 30, and the payout is between November 30 and the end of January, February. So those groups are in process.

What we do is take the intake and the grant process by quarter. I can tell the member that we have money in that particular envelope for the human and social services because we try to protect as much of that as possible. So their application will be in process as they apply, and then it would be paid out, as it would any other year, on the approval of the application.

B. Routley: The next question I have is in regards to the Cowichan Historical Society. My question to the minister is…. The three-year cycle, as it so happens for that group, is up next month, and they're going to be reapplying. Their question is: will the three-year-cycle, direct-access grants funds continue, or has this program been eliminated?

I think I may have heard the minister in previous answers talk about going to one-year funding. If that's the answer, then that's the answer, but we would like an answer to that. This is also one of these bingo affiliation grants.

Hon. R. Coleman: The culture society is receiving the money for this year's grant because they had a three-year commitment. There will be no more three-year commitments, so they will have to apply every year, like all the rest of the charities. In addition to that, they also received an arts and culture and sports grant of $25,000 for one grant and another $17,000 from the bingo affiliation. Next year, if their three-year commitment is up, they have to reapply like everybody else does.

B. Routley: I assume the answer to that is: "Yeah, they just have to apply like everybody else." Okay.

My next question is the Cowichan Independent Living group. Are they going to have cuts to their funding, or when will they know if they're going to have an ongoing grant? This is Cowichan Independent Living, again in Duncan.

Hon. R. Coleman: Same issue as the first one, actually. That's the hospice. Maybe I'll explain it for the members opposite.

What happens with grants is…. There are four quarters. In each quarter we do intake on a particular group of grants. Human and social services is the last quarter
[ Page 1658 ]
of the fiscal year, so the closing of the applications takes place on November 30. Then we approve the grants by, obviously, looking at them, seeing if they meet the criteria, see if their board of directors is still in place, see if they're in proper standing as a societies act and all that sort of stuff.

That pool of funding is sitting there, basically in its entirety, for that group this year. However, we won't know how many apply into that particular envelope of funding until we close applications on the 30th of November. Then they will be processed. The processing will go through, the applications will be done, and if they're meeting the criteria, there's no reason they shouldn't get a grant this year.

But it's not possible to say today what that is, because we're in the intake period now. Until we finish the intake period at the end of November, we don't know how many applications we have in that particular category and how many will qualify. Some may fall off because they aren't qualified for a variety of reasons. Others may be fine.

Right now they're in no different place than they would have been a year ago, because that's the same quarter they would have applied in and the same intake period they would have had last year.

B. Routley: The next question I have is…. The Cowichan International Aboriginal Festival of Film and Art is coming up in April 2010. It would be helpful if we know if they will be receiving the funding that they expect. Or will there be a cut to funding for the aboriginal film festival?

[1540]

Hon. R. Coleman: April is the next fiscal year. The budget for the next fiscal year for grants has not been established until we go through the next budget cycle. I do know that this organization applied for $75,000 in the last year and were turned down.

B. Routley: Just to make my pitch, this is a very worthwhile group that brings in aboriginal groups from throughout British Columbia and certainly the Coast Salish region. They're very proud of the event they put on, and it's been growing in popularity in the Cowichan Valley. Certainly, I would want to put my pitch in that that event should be looked at carefully for economic opportunity, because it does bring people in from other regions. I'm sure the tourism operators would agree with me on that.

My final question. I've heard a number of groups say that their funding is cut anywhere from 40 percent to 90 percent in some cases. The theme that comes back is either that these cuts are taking place so that the minister can redirect funding to the Olympics…. That seems to be the feeling out in the community. Certainly, I can't imagine this is just mean-spirited on your part. If the funding has actually gone up…. I understand that gambling proceeds have actually been higher this last year.

Could you help us out in explaining to the community exactly how these priorities came about? Somebody jokingly said: "Maybe they use a dartboard or had a bin, and they reached their arm in and picked out names, and some groups got a 90 percent cut, or whatever."

It would be helpful for all of us if you could lay out exactly what the process was that you went through and how you came about priorities for these various groups.

Hon. R. Coleman: Unfortunately, the member wasn't here earlier. I did this entire explanation with the critic, but I will give you a quicker summary, because we actually canvassed it for about an hour. I don't know that we want to go back into that level of discussion.

(a) None of it's going to the Olympics.

(b) What was asked of the ministry, through the priorities of government, was to look at funding to programs. One was the B.C. Arts Council for $10-point-some million for the Arts Council grants this year.

(c) Funding was to be applied for the CommunityLINK program, which is a program that has counselling for kids in after-school care, meals for children and that sort of thing.

Basically, what happened, hon. Member, was this. That was about $62.8 million asked to pay for other priorities in other ministries out of this program. Prior to that taking place, across government there was a $159 million program for community gaming grants. The $159 million program, like every other discretionary grant program in government, was to take an 8.5 percent cut to meet budget pressures coming through to the budget this year.

As that happened, it brought the fund down by about $13 million. This is all on the record, Member, so you can probably look it up, or your critic has it written down. That took the fund down to a certain level — to whatever the number was, $159 million less $13 million — so you're down to $146 million.

Then there was a request across government for us to fund $62.8 million in pressures and programs that people felt that we should set as some priorities against. As we came through that, we recognized the challenges of the number of charities that were going to be affected by this change, because earlier in the year we paid the bingo affiliations out, which was $47 million. That left very little for the other charities in B.C.

[1545]

We went and got contingency access for another $28.7 million, which restored some of the funding into the grant program. Then we had to manage the program from there.

I'll give the member a couple of examples. For instance, there's one set of groups out there that have what we call bingo affiliations. There are 1,668 charities that have
[ Page 1659 ]
what we call bingo affiliations. They're in the same pool of funding as the direct-access money but called a different category.

In that group last year there was $48.8 million spent. This year it's $47.2 million, because there are a few less groups. In actual fact, the bingo affiliation grants, which were paid out earlier in the fiscal year because they're always paid out in April, took that amount of money off the table. That was for 1,668 groups.

In that, there was $13.7 million that went to arts and culture this year, which is the same amount of money that went to arts and culture the year before. In that, there was half a million dollars that went to environmental groups, and it went up to $600,000 this year.

Human and social services was $31.7 million last year and $30.2 million. This is just in bingo affiliation money that went out.

Then the other smaller categories. They all basically got the same money as they got last year, prior to us adjusting the budget in the summer of 2009.

On the flip side of that is another 4,778 charities that last year got money from the direct-access program. They accessed a pool of about $97 million. So $48 million going to 1,600 charities, and you've got $90 million going to almost 5,000 charities. That pool was more dramatically affected because money hadn't been paid out in all categories in that this year.

For instance, in arts and culture this year it's estimated that we will spend $17.6 million for the arts and culture groups versus $33.5 million under direct access. That would probably be other than the PACs, which were reduced from $11.9 million to $6 million and were probably the most hit group of that package. There were other groups that are not in there. There aren't that many. There wasn't that big of a dramatic change for them because they were smaller amounts of money.

So we had to take a program and then take a pressure, fund the pressure, add in some money to try and deal with additional pressures on the charities and then make the decision: what are the priorities for what's left?

Having looked at the fact that there was already $13 million that had gone out to arts and culture and having looked at the fact that there was another $17 million that was also going out to arts and culture…. For $30 million it was decided that the balance of the arts and culture grants, which weren't going out because they didn't have an affiliation or hadn't already been expended, would not go out because that $13.7 million, or whatever the number was, was needed. It was less. It was about $13 million.

Then the next decision was that we needed to deal with some things like sports groups and stuff like that. I don't think anybody only got 10 percent of the money. I think we were down to about 30 percent for some groups.

We said: "Children, youth sports — that sort of thing. See what we've got in the category that we could spend some money on to give them something this year." We made the same decision with the PAC groups. That was per-student funding, which we cut from $20 to $10 per student.

Then we looked at the balance and said that this year we won't fund things like adult sports. We changed priorities and said that we can't afford the environmental group funding this year at $3-point-some million, although about a million went out to those groups this year, and we will protect human and social services and public safety.

So in the envelope, like the member's talking about, there's money in the human and social services for this year's budget that should take care of those groups. We said that food banks, things like hospice and human and social service–type programs should be a higher priority than some others. We said we would protect that envelope.

We also protected the envelope in public safety, particularly because it has a significant effect on search and rescue, where we have thousands of volunteers in B.C., like the North Shore search and rescue, that receive a grant on an annual basis, pretty much. That helps fund equipment and stuff for their volunteers to be able to be there when there's an issue in the back country, whether it's there or in Golden or whatever.

[1550]

At the same time, we decided we would fund what was becoming a significant issue of losing search and rescue groups in B.C., because they were told after one incident in the Kootenays that they had a significant liability. The board of directors had the liability for a wrongful death if somebody didn't move fast enough or somebody determined there was some negligence on somebody's part. So we stepped in and did the insurance plan, frankly, for those guys.

That's how the priorities evolved with regards to that. The explanation on the rest of it is even longer than that was. That's sort of like the Reader's Digest version.

G. Coons: Thank you, Minister, and to your staff for coming in. I'm going to try to expedite the situation. I think I have two questions. I'm going to try to consolidate two or three areas into one.

Basically, Prince Rupert Minor Hockey, the Prince Rupert Amateur Swim Club and Prince Rupert Minor Basketball all took the initiative of presenting to the Finance Committee either in person, on video link or through a written submission.

I sort of have ties to Prince Rupert Minor Hockey. About 30 years ago I was the head coach of minor hockey, played many years for hockey, worked for B.C. Amateur Hockey doing coaching clinics and was head coach for about ten or 15 years.

Prince Rupert Minor Hockey gets about $29,000 in gaming grants. They say in their presentation that they
[ Page 1660 ]
would be devastated. They would see their fees increase by 64 percent per player, and they could just sort of see the decimation of minor hockey in the community.

Along with all of these groups, there's the HST that has to go onto it. So when the swim club, which gets about $36,000…. They send many kids to the provincials and some to the nationals. They have about a hundred kids involved. They predict that if they lose their funding — along with the HST, which will impact thousands of more dollars — they will lose 50 percent of their kids and the whole program will be gone in Prince Rupert.

Along with minor basketball. Their registration has doubled over the past couple of years, and they see, with their fees, basically being forced to shut down.

So three integral, strong programs in the community, and all of them think and have the perception that in tough times you need to stabilize communities, especially the volunteers, who put in dozens, if not hundreds, of hours working for the benefit of the community. They feel they're being cut off at the knees.

I'm just trying to look at the current status of these three groups — because some of them haven't heard what their status is yet — and potential status for next year.

Hon. R. Coleman: Thanks to the member. I've heard descriptions of how pesky a hockey player the member was in his heyday, as well, rather than just coaching. I know some people that actually played against him over the years. I never actually had the pleasure myself, prior to concussions messing me up.

The Amateur Swim Club has received $40,000 this year; the minor hockey association, $29,333. Then they also got a $900 grant with regards to the BC150 volunteer program, as I understand it. That's the data I have in front of me. If the member knows differently, he can let me know.

I think it's worthwhile that they did submit to the Select Standing Committee on Finance, because we're in the budget cycle for next year. I can also tell the member that given a 12-month cycle…. I went through this with the critic earlier. Even with the envelope that exists, I think we can manage it on a 12-month program a lot easier than we have on a seven-month program, because we'd already expended all the bingo affiliation well in advance of the new budget cycle being done in August to September.

We feel that there are some issues in and around this as we discuss it — whether the programs that we were asked to fund this year would continue to be funded here or whether government will put those back into the existing ministries again, which has an impact on the funds for here, because the envelope would change and probably go up; if they do stay, whether we can look at their efficacy and the dollars spent; whether the CommunityLINK program, for instance, has dollar value for every dollar; whether there could be some savings found to put back into the charities, and that sort of thing.

[1555]

What we don't know is whether we're going to be able to do that, because we don't have that budget cycle completed. We have to get through these estimates, this budget, and as we're doing this, we're already into the next budget cycle. As you know, the select standing committee is out there doing hearings now.

All of that will be taken into consideration, and we will be making our submissions to Finance and Treasury Board in the building of the budget going into next year, which we're working on now.

G. Coons: Thank you, Minister. Yes, I encouraged a lot of the groups to present to the Finance Committee, and they found it very interesting, let's just say, and intimidating in some aspects.

My last two questions. I realize that you've probably canvassed PAC money and DPAC money, but I just wanted…. I did get a letter from our DPAC, who were very concerned about the impacts, especially on school district 52 in Prince Rupert where they see the quality of education greatly suffering because they're a have-not district.

One last comment. They see that the government has now "off-loaded an increased financial burden onto the parents and guardians whose pockets are already empty with the struggling economy here and throughout the province." I thought I needed to get that on record on their behalf, the DPAC in Prince Rupert.

As you push forward in Finance, just realize the integral part, especially, that these societies and organizations play.

My last question is about the Bella Coola Valley Museum Society, who basically had a small grant through your ministry. I'm just wondering what their status is. You already mentioned the status for next year, but what was their status for this year, please?

Hon. R. Coleman: We don't have them on our list as rejected or applying or otherwise. We will look into that and see if we've got some more information for the member. It may be in a different cycle, but it's not on the list of people that have actually applied, sent in applications and have either been approved or rejected or what amount they could anticipate getting or have gotten.

On the PACs, just to touch base on that. A little bit of history on the PACs. Back in about 2002 one of the issues in and around PAC funding was that there were winners and losers. The groups that could do the sophisticated application process at the time were getting the money, and other groups were not.

We made the conscious decision that we would go to a per-pupil dollar, and we did that because we had schools
[ Page 1661 ]
in some ridings that never applied simply because they couldn't. Or they didn't even have a PAC.

So what we made was a decision that the per-pupil funding would go out on an annual basis to every school either through a PAC or, if no PAC existed, to the principal of the school for the school. That was to balance the fairness of that pool of dollars. It's been $20 a student for years.

This year we cut it in half for this year's because of the other pressures that I talked about earlier so we could give them something, with the intent that as we work into this program next year, we'd be able to restore that number.

G. Coons: Just to follow up, Minister. A letter was written to you from the museum society: "We've been fortunate to receive funding from this program for the past five years and are presently waiting for approval." It's through the direct-access funding. That was written August 13.

Hon. R. Coleman: The note that I now have is that the Bella Coola Museum Society was denied for an $18,000 grant this year.

J. Kwan: I have a series of questions as well. Seeing we're on PACs, I'm going to ask the question around PACs. I'll use one example, particularly, involving the Britannia Secondary School, but more to the point, it applies to actually all of the inner-city schools in my riding.

As the minister knows, Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has the distinction of having the poorest postal code in all of Canada. To that end, our students are in particular need. Not to say that other students are not as deserving, but I do want to highlight the particular circumstances that the students in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant face.

[1600]

The PAC from Britannia Secondary School wrote to me, and of course, they raised the issue that Britannia Secondary is pulling from one of the poorest postal code areas in Canada

"It will come as no surprise that a 50 percent cut in the PAC gaming funds from $20 per student to $10 will have far-reaching effects on our students.

"While Britannia offers an extensive variety of options to the students in terms of service clubs, etc., it is a very sports-oriented school. Many of the students that participate on sports teams at our school do not participate in activities outside of the school. There are many factors involved, but lack of funds for many families is, beyond a doubt, one of the main factors. For many of our students, school is the only opportunity to involve themselves in structured and supervised activities.

"While a cut in gaming funds of upwards of $7,000 may seem like a trifling sum in the grand scheme, our ability to assist our students has been cut in half. Our direct access funds serve, amongst other things, to send our school teams and debating teams to much-needed exposure to cultural events in the city and to local and provincial sports tournaments. Last year our senior boys' basketball team placed second in the province. In the previous year they won, and we have an ultimate team that does extremely well."

So the 50 percent difference in moneys received by the PAC from the direct-access gaming funds will weigh heavily on the meagre budget that they have.

It goes on, of course, to list a variety of hardships and so on. This is one sampling of the impacts for inner-city schools and their PACs.

I'm wondering: in the government's evaluation of slicing the budget in half, generally, from $20 to $10, did the minister take any consideration of the fact that there are different demographics throughout the province of B.C.? In inner-city schools particularly, what consideration was taken in evaluating their needs?

Hon. R. Coleman: This actually goes back to the original assessment to try and figure out how to be fair to PACs in B.C. with regard to gaming funds — to those that could apply and be successful, and those that didn't apply and probably needed help. We did try and do the average across the funding.

There have been different discussions over the years as to whether you could get a definition of a school that would get one level of funding, and a definition of another school that would get no level of funding or some funding, because there are different socioeconomic levels and that sort of stuff. We've never actually been successful in the first go-round, and we haven't done anything with it this year to come up with it. We've never been successful in finding an acceptable formula for a provincial PAC organization, district PAC organizations and PACs in general.

Having said that, one of the beneficiaries of some of the decisions in gaming were the inner-city schools on the CommunityLINK program, by keeping it in place, by having it funded for the issues in and around some of them. That does help some inner-city schools on issues like that, but this is one of those years where the decision was made that we had to cut it in half in order to fund CommunityLINK and the B.C. Arts Council and some other issues that were in other ministries.

That was the decision that was made, and we've communicated that decision with the intention of trying to restore the funding next year.

J. Kwan: I don't want to get into a big debate with the minister, because we really don't have time to do that, but I do just want to point this out. CommunityLINK was actually funding that didn't come out of gaming before. It came from different ministries and different places previously. To blend the two and all of a sudden to say, "There are a whole lot more programs that need to come out of this fixed pot of money," is kind of doing a disservice to a lot of these programs.

I could go on about other discretionary funding, other priorities and so on, but I won't. I'll refrain from that.
[ Page 1662 ]
That's not the purpose of this debate. What I want to do is to really impress on the minister the government's approach to their priorities and how it's impacting the students and the people, the families on the ground. They're real impacts.

With that, I just want to put one last sentence on the impacts of the PAC funding. A parent actually writes this: "While our students themselves work hard at fundraising, the ability of many parts of our community and parents to subsidize their children's involvement in extracurricular events at school is minimal, if not impossible."

That's the reality which our community faces, the family faces and the students face. When they lose this money, the ramifications for them are enormous. It may well mean they may not actually be able to participate, and they have few other options available to them. I just wanted the minister and the government to understand that.

[1605]

The other piece that I wanted to get into with the minister, I guess, while we're on the gaming funding…. I have a long list of gaming funding cuts impacting the arts and cultural community. As I made a statement earlier this week, Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has the distinct pleasure of having some of the highest number of arts groups and artists, in my riding. As a result, when you have cuts in that area, the impact and the ramifications are huge.

Let me just put on record some of the concerns. Helen Pitt Gallery, an artist-run centre, lost $35,000 this year, I believe, in their gaming grant. As a result, they had to lay off the director, and in fact, this week they'll be closing their door. Thirty-five years of service in the community lost because of this cut.

AMSSA did not receive their $66,000 grant application, which they had been receiving for some time, and they were particularly disappointed in not knowing that the priorities for gaming had actually been changed. Had they known that, they would have actually applied for a different program for them. It might have been useful for the government and the staff to communicate that to them in advance so they could actually do their planning for the application in advance.

Access gallery lost their $12,500 funding, and that's a 12 percent cut. They had to cancel public programming, including artist talks and special events, publication programs which are generally free, particularly in my riding. That's particularly important for people in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

The other ones…. The Chinese Cultural Centre lost their direct-access grant. Again, the implications are significant where some of their programs have been cancelled as a result. The Vancouver Japanese Language School and Japanese Hall also lost their funding. The loss of the funds is devastating to them, as they wrote to me. It means that the budget cuts and a lot of the fundraising work on the part of the volunteers….

They do not have the ability to raise those kinds of funds. Then, in return, they may well have to transfer those costs to the end user, which would be increasing tuition fees and the like. They, of course, also see the situation…. The implication with the Japanese Language Hall is that they also rent spaces at minimal costs to other organizations in the riding. It's an attempt to share their space, and with this cut, they may well have to end up, again, increasing the costs for these organizations.

Other ones. Kidd Pivot Performing Arts Society — $7,500, which is really a drop in the bucket within the scheme of everything — is a highly sought-after dance company, and they were hoping, in fact, to grow, for young people to engage in this society and their programs. With this cut, they're not able to, of course, provide that service to young people.

Another one: Seismic Shift Arts Society. Their funding — a $5,000 cut. Again, the impact would be on the society's ability to provide for presentation opportunities for the artists to showcase their work.

Vancouver Society of Storytelling — their direct-access money for 2009 was eliminated, and this funding issue resulted in the possibility of them having had to close up their office. Amongst other things, they're now only operating on volunteers.

City Opera. While City Opera is not in the Mount Pleasant riding, they were actually planning on a number of programs for the Downtown Eastside, including the Downtown Eastside recital series, their ongoing new chamber opera workshops, including a commissioned first opera with Margaret Atwood's Pauline that was set to be produced. All of that will now be lost for the Downtown Eastside residents.

NOW Orchestra, denied access with the direct access gaming — that's a $15,000 loss for the organization. The impact, of course, is significant for the operations leading to decisions to shut down their office as well, cut their programming and reduce the number of artists and staff that they engage.

Ripple Effect Arts and Literature Society — their funding was also impacted, and it forced them to suspend their youth literacy in arts program for 2009-2010. They're also considering closing their organization for good.

[1610]

Julia Whittaker, the director of the B.C. Choral Federation and northeast B.C. representative society as well…. They are faced with a funding cut of $37,000. The implication is that their member choirs would be unable to provide for the youth initiatives across the province, including a mentor youth council initiative as well. There is choral conductor training from the grass-roots level on up, to a variety of website development
[ Page 1663 ]
and publications, newsletters and workshops, and so on. They would be severely impacted with this cut.

Another is the Urban Ink Productions Society. They lost $15,000 with this direct-access gaming grant situation. The cut, again, would force them to reduce a variety of programming with their organization.

Rumble Productions, which has been in operation for nearly 20 years, and now is being forced, of course, to reduce staff, cancel programs and eliminate opportunities for a variety of artists to develop their programming.

The Neworld Theatre, which deals with particularly young people — and I know the woman who runs this program as well — had to cancel their tour to Toronto in the fall of 2010. This represents 13 weeks of contracts for nine artists and technical workers, generating $95,000 in direct wages and $10,000 lost in direct revenue for the company as well.

The implication of that is that it also has a rippling effect not only just to our economy but also for their ability to lever other funding opportunities from other sources as well. They had to, in addition to that, eliminate positions and then cancel community-based programming and also eliminate their designer and cast positions on their main stage, which is a show called Peter Panties — very popular amongst young kids, actually.

Artspeak will have to cancel their publications. Cineworks have had to cancel their major exhibitions, amongst other things. Gallery Gachet had to reduce a number of their programs in their gallery this year and reduce staffing level as well. Gallery Gachet, by the way, deals with mental health issues and people with mental illness to showcase their challenges with mental illness as it impacts them and their family.

The grunt gallery also faced cuts, and they've had to scale back their publications, their performance and their exhibition budgets.

The Malaspina Printmakers also received cuts, and as a result they had to cancel a number of educational programs, student studio scholarships, print research residency and their semi-annual journal.

Open Space, a $31,000 cut, and they've had to cancel four projects, including their fundraising opportunities as well.

Or Gallery, a $30,000 cut. The core programming was suspended after October to focus on fundraising efforts, and of course, their publication was also put on hold.

The Western Front lost $37,500. The Projectile Publishing Society also lost their funding, and as a result, again, their programs are severely impacted. Also, space has become a problem for them.

This is just the basic synopsis of some of the impacts of the cuts in this area.

Now considering the fact that the arts and culture community can generate up to $1.36 in return for the economy, I'm wondering whether or not the government had taken that into account when they made these cuts and whether or not the government had taken into account the ripple effect of what cutting one organization's funding through the direct-access funds would mean for them in terms of them leveraging other dollars from other government agencies and foundations and the like.

Finally, the question related to this is: will the government reinstate the funding of the arts and culture community to $20 million, which is their level at the moment? Will the government consider doing that for next year?

Hon. R. Coleman: The member is right. The CommunityLINK program was funded in another ministry before, but the choice had to be whether you could find the funds somewhere else or shut it down. Government decided that program would be a priority for finding money and not shutting it down. We can argue about whether that should come from out of this envelope of money or not.

[1615]

I don't know where the member's $20 million figure comes from in arts and culture. So I'm just going to read what we do in arts and culture through the community gaming grants — and that's this year.

This year, out of a direct-access program, $17.6 million has gone out to arts and culture groups, and out of the bingo affiliation side of the arts and culture and sports, another $13.7 million has gone out in that category. Those two categories amount to about $30 million of a $100 million program, or about one-third of the money that goes out under direct-access this year for all the charities in B.C. That's the portion that goes out to arts, culture and sports.

In addition to that, through the grant program, this year we've picked up another $10 million pressure on behalf of the Minister of Tourism, Culture and the Arts for the B.C. Arts Council, which would mean that this envelope has actually spent basically the equivalent of what it spent plus on culture last year, from the gaming grants, from this particular portion of the government's fiscal plan.

I recognize the list of the things and the member's concerns, and all I can tell the member is that our hope would be, as we come through this fiscal cycle, through this budget cycle — given an entire fiscal year versus having to make adjustments five months into a year, as I went through in detail with the critic earlier before your arrival — that we would be able to take this envelope and share it differently.

Or, if it's restored at a different level or additional funds come into it, we would actually be able to take our envelopes of commitments, whether it be to arts and culture, human and social services, environment or public safety, and look at them through to February, as we receive the budget, and be ready for next year to let
[ Page 1664 ]
charities know what the envelopes are — what's been restored, what they can apply within and what would be available.

This year, because of the budget cycle being twice and the changes that had to be adapted to and the funds that had already been spent prior to the changes being requested of the ministry, we weren't able to be that adaptable with this. I would suspect that we would be able to do a better job with regards to how we spread the money across the organizations on next year's grant program because we'd have a 12-month cycle to do it in.

J. Kwan: I'll just add this one other piece. For a lot of these organizations, particularly the smaller ones, once they've lost this funding, there's a real question of whether or not they can survive it.

Some have existed in the community for 20, 30 years, and they may not be able to open their doors again. That's the risk in which we're losing, in terms of the value of what these organizations do, provide and add to our community. That infrastructure, once it's gone, I don't know if we can get it back. That's the reality which we face in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and I'm sure with other organizations throughout British Columbia as well.

I want to move off to another topic just quickly with the minister. I met, actually, with the co-chair from Urban Core, which is basically an organization in my riding that meets with a variety of non-profits in the community that provide services to those who are faced with difficulties in the area of housing, mental illness, etc.

They were trying to get someone to address their concern regarding the Olympic transportation parking restrictions. Their general concerns are around parking and stopping restrictions that will impede their ability and their outreach workers, particularly from different organizations, to move around the city. They write, and it says:

"We need to be able to get clients from point A to point B, whether this is a doctor's appointment, a court appearance or checking out a room in the SRO on Granville Street. If we get a call from a hotel on Granville Street letting us know that they have a room available, we may have a two-hour window to get there.

"Waiting until the Olympics are over is not an option for any of the folks who are living in the shelters or living rough. They're already in crisis, and part of our job is to try and help them to take the next steps away from that.

"We also need to be able to visit clients who are living in SROs. Many who have physical and mental illness would not fare well without that regular contact. That consistency is required for their well-being. Three Bridges health clinic on Hornby Street is one of the few clinics that has doctors who can prescribe methadone. It is very tightly regulated and, as a result, is not available anywhere else.

"Organizations are also having issues around making other arrangements for deliveries due to non-stopping restrictions in what are currently loading zones. I know that the Salvation Army Harbour Light is trying to work with our suppliers to rearrange delivery schedules, but not all of them are going to be able to accommodate the many requests they're getting.

"We don't have the ability, financially or spatially, to order and store a two- to four-week supply of food. We feed hundreds of people each day, and again, waiting until the event is over is not an option.

[1620]

"Urban Core member organizations are all looking at staggered work hours, as well, busing if possible, as well as alternate transportation recommendations made by VANOC. Many of us are already opening 24 hours a day, seven days a week, meaning that the staggered work hours are a must anyway."

All that they are looking for is support from the city, the province and VANOC in the way of parking passes or designated parking and stopping areas of some kind during the transportation restrictions that are required for this huge event, so that we can continue to look after the city's most vulnerable population.

My question to the minister is this. I know this is not directly the minister's responsibility, but it impacts the clients which the ministry serves. So my question to the minister is: will he actually work with VANOC, the city and the minister responsible for the Olympics to address their concerns?

They have gone to everybody, they've met with people, and everybody just said to them: "Oh, just wait until the Olympics are over." They cannot afford to do that. There are real lives who are dependent on the outreach workers and the services of these organizations. If the parking restrictions and the transportation restrictions prevent them from doing their work, then the clients are going to be severely impacted, for the minister's ministry.

Hon. R. Coleman: We're aware of this concern, and the ministry has actually developed a number of strategies to ensure the continuing availability of services to inner-city clients during the Winter Olympics and to ensure that vulnerable and homeless clients have access to the supports they need, including income assistance and access to moving to housing and those sort of things.

That work is ongoing. So far it's progressing at a level where we think we'll have the issues that the member identified dealt with well in advance of the Olympics. We take very seriously that we want to be able to effectively have the services for our clients through the Olympic window as well as they have today. We have been working on that, and we'll continue to do so, so that we will be able to service our clients both in the Downtown Eastside and throughout the rest of Vancouver.

Before we get to another question, I actually need a five-minute recess.

The Chair: Thank you. The committee will recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:23 p.m. to 4:28 p.m.
[ Page 1665 ]

[T. Lake in the chair.]

J. Kwan: I wonder if the minister, then, could put on record for me who the staff is that Sharon McFayden of the Salvation Army Harbour Light, who is also the co-chair of the urban corps, should contact to address these concerns that she has on behalf of the urban corps?

Hon. R. Coleman: Lynda Cavanaugh from the Ministry of Housing and Social Development, who is the regional director, will be in touch with the person and the group that the member mentioned in her question — provided by her in the previous question and in Hansard. So that will be passed on to her today, to get in contact with them on the specific issues you've raised.

J. Kwan: If his staff needs further information or whatever information he needs, I'd be happy to provide that as well.

I'm going to move on quickly to another question related to housing. Back in June, I understand that the mayor of Vancouver, Gregor Robertson, had sent a letter to the minister requesting that the tenancy act loopholes be closed to prevent evictions leading up to the Olympics and that the Geneva-based NGO, the Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions, has argued that tenancy rights need to be protected before large mega-events take place.

[D. Hayer in the chair.]

So my quick question is: will the minister bring forward enhanced tenancy protection for the period leading up to the games and during the games period itself?

Interjection.

J. Kwan: Okay, the minister is saying that he can give me an answer on that tomorrow, and I'll be….

[1630]

Hon. R. Coleman: There are no changes in process for the act. The act will stand through the Olympics with regards to how the process is done for non-payment of rent and those sorts of things.

If we're going to get into a technical discussion in and around residential tenancy, I'd prefer that the director be here. That wasn't on the list of staff we were anticipating having here today, so she's not here. But I can certainly have her here tomorrow afternoon, because I think we'd run out of time before she came from her office in Victoria this afternoon.

We could call her and see if she could run down. If we're going to get into issues and a discussion of residential tenancy, I think it would be appropriate that she would be here.

J. Kwan: Maybe I could have an off-line discussion with the minister quickly, and then we'll sort of sort that out.

My other quick question — and this I can also just give to the minister as well. I just received this overnight last night. This is regarding a situation in my riding, the Hoko Japanese restaurant, and this is to deal with the liquor licensing branch of the ministry. It's a very long situation. Basically, there seems to be some allegation that the restaurant itself is running a nightclub — which, based on the information, they are not. I want to pass this along to the minister and ask the minister to look into it and, hopefully, resolve the problem — 362 Powell Street, which is the 300-block Powell Street.

I know that block well, and the restaurant is working hard to create economic activities in the riding and provide a service. It seems that some of the arguments that they've advanced appear to be valid to me, and so I wonder if the minister can take a look at this and direct his staff to take a look at it. I hope that the situation can be resolved.

Hon. R. Coleman: If the member wants to leave the information with me, I will send it to the director of the liquor licensing branch. When I say it that way, I mean it that way. I don't direct the director. That's a statutory office like a quasi-judicial operation, so if there is an issue with regards to liquor licensing control, that branch deals with it. I will pass it on to the director, who's here and has heard your concern. We'll look into it once the information is made available, or we'll actually see if there's an active file on it when she gets back to her office.

With regards to liquor…. This is sort of like asking the members from Vancouver to consider helping the rest of British Columbia out with regards to some initiatives that are taking place in the city of Vancouver, although it's a bit off-line with regards to this debate today.

But the city is anticipating that they want to basically create their own liquor licensing enforcement branch with rules that would mean that if a restaurant was selling a bottle of wine and a lower-priced entrée, they would actually not be able to do it in that city for premium wines like B.C. wines, because they want to have a 50-50 ratio in food-to-liquor sales.

What I read in the paper this morning would actually be counterintuitive to the idea that we want to actually encourage our premium wine industry to have an opportunity to be in restaurants across British Columbia — well, actually, particularly in Vancouver.

So we will be looking at how we can deal with that provincially. But I think if you have a colleague or friend or someone that's on the council in Vancouver, it might be a good idea to mention to him that this is a bit — a step backward, quite frankly, with regards to establishing or taking a fee from every meal in Vancouver so
[ Page 1666 ]
you can pay for an enforcement regime on top of what already exists under the thousand dollar vote and that's financed by fees and licences provincially in B.C.

J. Kwan: I just want to say this on the record for the minister. The letter was actually written to the minister directly, so I would hope that, at a minimum, the minister would read the letter and then pass it along to his staff. I should also note that the person who wrote the letter, who is the manager of the restaurant, has stated very clearly that they have some trust issues related to the situation, and if the minister actually takes a look at the circumstances of the case, he may well understand why.

So I'm just going to pass this along to the minister so that he has that. If he would take care to read that and work with the staff on it, I would appreciate it. Thanks.

[1635]

Hon. R. Coleman: Thanks. If that type of letter came into the office, I would read it. I would prepare a response that said that it's been referred to the branch because the branch is a licensing enforcement branch and the minister doesn't direct them to do anything with regards to their capacity as a statutory authority. So that's how we would handle it. Then, if there's an enforcement action or something going on, we don't interfere in that process in any way whatsoever.

V. Huntington: I've rather refrained in the last month or two from saying too much about the cutbacks that have taken place. I think all the ridings are reeling with them. The government seems to have been fairly non-discriminatory in that respect, which doesn't mean to say that I think any of us find it easy to have to defend our groups or to represent them in this manner.

I do, however, want to say that Delta also has had an enormous amount of heartache over the last month or so, and it goes to everything from the Delta Youth Orchestra, which is one of the finest opportunities for talented young musicians in the city, to the Delta Arts Council, which is a 30-year organization that runs two municipally owned facilities — one in the north of Delta, the other in the south — both of which appear to have to be closed down. Their two permanent employees have just been laid off, and we no longer know the future of the Delta Arts Council.

These cutbacks are impacting communities in an enormous fashion. One of the things I did want to follow up with was the minister and his department, in deciding the priorities…. I think the priorities you went with were difficult choices, but I did ask a question of the minister in the House about OWLS.

What I would like to ask at this point…. In determining your priorities, was there any consideration given to those organizations that were in the business of supporting life and rehabilitating life and in essence doing the jobs that ministries themselves ought to be doing or had a mandate to do? Was there any consideration at all, or did the ministry neglect to look at organizations that deal with wildlife?

Hon. R. Coleman: Actually, when we did this choice, it was — as the member knows, and as I said in the House when she brought this up — a difficult choice with regards to the envelope on environment. The entire envelope of grants for environment was actually deemed to be one of the envelopes of application processes that we were not going to fund this year.

It wasn't that we were discriminatory against or in favour of any group. It was that the environmental groups were — unless they had a three-year commitment or a bingo affiliation — not receiving funding this year because of the funding priorities. It was not taken in any way to say that one group would be eliminated over another. It was really a tough decision, quite frankly.

When we did that…. The same thing with the arts and culture. The arts and culture decision had a bit more look at it because in the direct-access program we're funding $17.6 million to arts, culture and sports this year out of direct-access versus $33 million, so that's a cut in that group. They're getting less; some are getting none.

But on the flip side of that, the largest number of groups, with the exception of human and social services, which had $30 million in the bingo affiliation…. The largest amount of money going out to any groups of people was the $13.7 million that went out in bingo affiliation to arts, culture and sport, which had already been spent. So that group had already been spent.

Then, because one of the pressures we were asked to take on was a $10 million transfer of money to the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and the Arts for the B.C. Arts Council, we looked at it and said: "If we've got $13.7 there, $17.7 there and $10 million going over there, then we better hold some back for human and social services, so we have to cut there. We have to adjust immediately on that."

That was the issue in and around that. I'm very familiar with the organization that the member talks about, and I would expect that given a full fiscal year and the ability to manage these funds in a twelve-month versus a six- or seven-month cycle, we'll be able to restore some of the funding, if not all of it, next year for these organizations.

[1640]

I think the lesson, if we've learned a lesson, is that we'll put some rigour around a bit of the description the member put to what she put in, say, the environmental window of funding. We might add some categories — whether they are animal rescue, that sort of thing — as additional points an organization could receive over another organization that isn't providing that service.
[ Page 1667 ]

The member's right. There's a very good organization in my own riding called the Mountain View Conservation and Breeding Society, which has done some tremendous work for animals nationally, internationally and locally in British Columbia. They didn't get any different treatment than the OWL Society in Delta.

I think the whole thing for now is that we have to recognize that we've spent the bingo affiliation money early in the fiscal year. We were handed a budget pressure that we needed to do with regards to CommunityLINK to be able to fund this program that may otherwise have been cut within government for the after-school programs and the meals for kids in schools and that sort of thing. We were asked to pick that up.

We were also asked to pick up the B.C. Arts Council and some other smaller things for some other ministries. We managed to get access to contingencies to at least keep some groups whole that may have been more dramatically affected in numbers than we wanted.

But the challenge, as I described it to the member who is the critic for the opposition earlier, is that if you said to a ministry in February, "Here's your pool of money; it's reduced, and this is why, and this is how you have to manage it," you'd have 12 months to do it in. When you have seven months, effectively, to do it in, and in the first five months you've expended, you know, almost 45 percent of the total dollar envelope, it's an entirely different adjustment process for us.

So it was not easy; it was very difficult. I know that your community has concerns over that. I do know other things that have gone on in Delta. I'll just do one pitch, because they were one of the beneficiaries of the housing endowment fund last year for $1.5 million for the hospice. So it's not like I would ignore Delta at the expense of other communities. It's just that in this particular case, we had to make a tough decision in and around the environmental window.

V. Huntington: I think that looking at the categories more rigidly would go a long way to solving some of that problem. I remain disappointed that that wasn't done this go-round, even though I know that the window was short for you.

One quick question. CommunityLINK — I think the minister's department has been funding it for a couple of years now, but it shows as revenue in the Education Ministry. Is that correct, and why is this sort of circle funding showing up on your books?

Hon. R. Coleman: I will undertake to the member to look at putting that rigour into that application process next year with regards to what she describes. If she wants to drop me a note on it, I will give it to my staff to have a look at.

On the other side of it, no, CommunityLINK has never been funded by this ministry before this summer, actually. What happened was CommunityLINK came into this envelope as a $48-point-some million commitment, and $15 million-or-so of it had already been spent in the last quarter of the fiscal year in that school year, and the balance is into this part of the school year through to the end of the fourth quarter, which is March 31.

We were requested by government to undertake this pressure and try and do it within the envelope of the discretionary grants that we had with regards to the gaming grants. That, plus the 8.5 percent adjustment on all discretionary grants that was taken across government, which I discussed with the critic earlier, actually made the pressure pretty difficult.

That's why we did go back to government and make the case for some additional money to be put back in for three-year commitments and, also, for another $15 million back into the grant program. Because of the piece of the year we were into, it wasn't a sustainable change for us to be able to accomplish that in that short number of months in a fiscal year versus the entire year.

We're now doing the work with regards to CommunityLINK and future issues in and around the arts and culture with the B.C. Arts Council funding that we've been asked to handle this year. That will go into the budget cycle discussions, as will what level of funding there should be for the direct access program next year.

[1645]

Hopefully, we can come out with a formula that makes a lot more sense for the 12-month cycle, and we can manage this in a way that we don't have to do entire category changes, because we can now average our money over the entire 12-month cycle. I'm confident we can get there one way or the other.

V. Huntington: I have one last question, because I know there are many other members here. The minister mentioned that no funding from his department was going into Olympics or benefiting the Olympics. However, Legacies Now, which is a program or non-profit group, has received $21½ million dollars from the province this fiscal, $750,000 of which came from the minister's department.

I think the deadline closed mid-October, but they were actively soliciting applications from organizations whose programs were at risk because of direct-access cutbacks. I wondered how the minister feels about subsidizing a non-profit organization which is set up to provide a leverage of benefits for the Olympics with provincial funds.

Hon. R. Coleman: At the risk of opening a can of worms on discussions in and around the Olympics, the question that was asked to me by the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant was: was there money from
[ Page 1668 ]
the community gaming grant program going to the Olympics? The answer was no, and it still is.

The $750,000 that the member refers to was capital grants, and they were part of our disability strategy. Basically, what the funding went to was three disability playgrounds: one playground in Vancouver, one in Richmond and one in Whistler. It is part of our disability strategy to show how those playgrounds can be developed, how they could work in other communities and how people could match up funds and grants.

Legacies Now was the organization that requested the capital grant. It's not any different than any other capital grant we do. We have measurements and outcomes that we require for those. If there are capital grants done under this program, they're done at the end of the fiscal year. If there's money left over, we'll take the capital grant applications, review them and deal with them at that point in time.

These weren't Olympic-related. They're disability playground–related. They were done because part of the disability strategy, which we have a lot of responsibility for in the ministry…. It was felt that if we had capital at that particular time, that would be a good investment. We actually had money last year and were able to do that, so that's where those funds are.

V. Huntington: Sorry to my colleagues. I just wanted to follow up on that a bit. Does the minister's ministry…? I always want to call it a department. Does the ministry have a large capital grant program? What amount of money is it using for this fiscal?

Hon. R. Coleman: No, we don't have a large capital grant program. Over the last number of years, off the top of my head, the numbers that might have been available for capital grants at the end of the year would range between $3 million and $5 million.

We will do a grant commitment for the capital, matching dollars by communities. There are a few examples out there that I could probably try off the top of my head, but they're traditionally things like….

[1650]

Last year, through the capital, we spent a large portion of it in $20,000 grants to schools for playgrounds. So if a school applied for a playground grant, they got that. A piece of it, about $400,000-and-some-odd of the last year's capital grants….

Originally, when we did the playground grants, we would say to the school: "You have to raise some money, and we'll match it up to $20,000."

Then we had a place like Dunster, a small community in the Robson Valley, where for seven or eight years this small community with one little fine arts school in it that really isn't incorporated had raised money in their school. They had put up their money to match to be able to do a playground, which basically emptied their coffers.

I remember going through there and having a visit with some people in the community in one of the community visits I did. This lady explained to me that really, in Dunster that was a big hit for them.

I had just received that particular portion of the ministry at that point in time last year. So when I came back to look at how we did those capital grants, I said: "Let's make them whole. Let's do two things. First of all, give them all the same amount of money if they apply and then not demand a match, because some schools can afford it, and some others can't. For those that did match, let's give them the other half of their money back so that they're whole as we change this."

That's what we did last year, and that could have eaten up some of that capital. It was really that.

Last year, for instance, on what we call PAC playground grants, we spent $2.5 million, and on the capital side we spent $4.279 million. If you use that on a major dollar comparison, for instance, at B.C. Housing right now we're doing $261 million in capital on housing for mental health, addiction and homelessness. We're doing another $120 million in housing for 1,305 seniors housing in British Columbia — $60 million of ours, $50 million for the feds — and in another program about $160 million, which is renovating and upgrading old existing stock.

On the general capital side it would not be considered a large capital pool. Those aren't discretionary. They have to go to specific projects. They're not something that somebody applies for.

M. Karagianis: The Special Olympics here in British Columbia have been particularly devastated by the government cuts. I'd like the minister to please explain first, I guess, the scope of the funding package for Special Olympics, what the degree of cuts to that program has been and, given the concerns that communities are now voicing, whether or not the government will revisit the Special Olympics cuts.

I know there have been reconsiderations of arts funding cuts. I'm here to ask, on behalf of this community, whether or not the government will revisit and reinstate the Special Olympics funding.

Hon. R. Coleman: We haven't reconsidered and done anything with arts. If arts didn't have a three-year commitment or have a bingo affiliation, they still get zero. That hasn't changed. That hasn't been reconsidered or changed.

On the sports side, the adult sports were kept to zero. New sports and disabled sports got 30 percent of the money they requested this year, unless they had a three-year commitment, and then their three-year commitment was continued at 100 percent of the money.

[1655]
[ Page 1669 ]

If it's about B.C.'s paraplegic…. I don't know what site — the B.C. Summer Games or the B.C. Disabled Games…. This ministry and these grants have nothing to do with that.

M. Karagianis: Well, I would certainly hope that the government will rethink their position on Special Olympics funding because unlike other forms of sports, like Paralympics or adult sports or any of the other things that have been cut…. I mean, these are particularly devastating cuts to a group of individuals who don't necessarily have all of the same resources that many other organizations do.

I think it's been very clear from members' questions and from debates in the public arena here that all of these cuts are quite devastating to many communities. But I would just plead on behalf of the Special Olympics community and say that if government does have an opportunity to revisit this, this would be one area that I know the public would support having funding reinstated to. I would hope the minister will give that some other thought.

I do have a number of other constituents that have had some very specific cuts. I'd just like to kind of group them together and make it easier, perhaps, for the minister to answer this. The Canadian Earth Institute is one of the organizations that has had its funding cut. This organization has served 1,500 capital….

Hon. R. Coleman: Sorry to interrupt you. If you could, as you mention the group, tell us what community, then we can locate them on our list so that we might be able to respond to you immediately. Or at least we can then collect the information for you to have it sent to you if we don't have it immediately, because there are 6,000 groups on the list. We have them grouped by community, not by name necessarily. That would just help us to give you the answer.

M. Karagianis: I'd appreciate that very much. Thank you to the minister.

They are located here in the capital regional district, called Canadian Earth Institute. They do a specific service in working on educating the public on sustainability, and to the best of my knowledge, we are still looking at a climate action plan here in the province of British Columbia.

The Canadian Earth Institute spent several years persevering to get some money through direct access. They have received exactly one year of grant money, and now that funding has been cut. This is a program that certainly takes us forward and does courses on sustainability and a whole variety of related climate action initiatives.

I think the most disturbing thing perhaps here — and I know one of the other members touched on it earlier — is that these funds not only will reduce their program ability, but it also impacts their ability to leverage other funds. So the cuts to organizations like this, and very specifically the Canadian Earth Institute, mean that it curtails their ability to access other funds that are contingent on things like assurance that their Gaming Commission funding is in place. It's really important to that organization because it has such a devastating effect on their other funding capacities.

I have two PAC organizations…. I know the minister has canvassed this at great length with both the critic and other questions. David Cameron Elementary School and Eagle View School, both in my constituency, have had their PAC funds cut in half, as the minister has talked about.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

In this case, you know, they've outlined the fact that the items they are funding are essential items to their curriculum. Therefore the cuts are very devastating when they cut into core items for their curriculum. Certainly, they would love to be able to get back to the kind of funding that PACs originally embarked on — things like playground equipment updates and other things that would help our children get out and play outdoors and become healthy, active individuals. So devastating grants to both of those. The minister has canvassed this at great length, but I did want to make that point.

[1700]

I also have a request here on behalf of the Rotary Club in Colwood. They have received no word whatsoever on their gaming application and are very concerned. The fact that they have heard nothing is perhaps indicative of the fact that they will get no money.

The Rotary Club in Colwood does tremendous work. I think it would be appropriate, at least, if they could have a confirmation one way or the other on their gaming grant application.

The last group I have here, in fact, is not in my constituency but is in Cloverdale. This is Cloverdale child care. They did not receive a three-year grant, so they have applied this month and are looking for $25,000.

I would like the minister to perhaps address what happens to those organizations like Cloverdale child care that are looking for new applications. Is it pretty hopeless for them? Should they be given a signal now that they need not apply or in any way count on those funds because the cuts overall to all of this funding mean that even their applications will be denied outright?

Hon. R. Coleman: Two of the last ones…. Basically, the Rotary Club is probably an application under human and social services. If they just applied in this cycle, that means they're in a cycle of application that closes on November 30. The approval for those grants takes place
[ Page 1670 ]
after November 30 and gets paid out between November 30 and the end of January. That's the cycle for human and social services. There is about $30 million sitting there for that cycle of applications, which is our largest category. So those groups we've tried to keep whole.

On the second one, I suspect the child care is also falling into that same cycle, which is the cycle of human and social services. As the member knows, there are four quarters that we divide this into. Earlier in the year it's bingo affiliation and arts, culture and sports. Then it goes into environment and some others, and then it goes into public safety. Then it goes into human and social services so that we can handle the intake of the applications over a period of time.

That's the situation now. With regards to the one that had a one-year grant, there is be something that we should be clear about with grants. If you don't get one, one year, and you got one last year, that is not a cut. It means that you may not have made the cut, because the organizations don't always get it every year. About 2,000 groups a year over every one of the last number of years have not received grants. It could be any variety of reasons that they're not accepted.

First of all, they could be up against an organization that has a better score with regards to the services they're providing within their envelope of money. There could be an overapplication of groups in a particular envelope of money. It could be that something has not been submitted correctly. Then they have the opportunity for reconsideration. But if they're rejected because their program doesn't fit in the criteria as well as other programs…. That happens all the time, because that's just the way that the grant program is supposed to be.

We did discuss the three-year commitments earlier with the critic. Just for the member's information, you've described a reason that we shouldn't be making three-year commitments on what is an annual grant program, in that people start to think it's an annual entitlement of dollars versus having to stay on top of their programs and apply and justify what they're doing with the money for their non-profit group.

The comments that the member made about the two PACs disturb me only from the standpoint that if they were using it for core curriculum, they were actually breaking the rules of what the money is allowed to be used for when they get it. The grants are not for core curriculum uses. That is not the intent of the PAC funding, so we will check into that one so that we can….

[1705]

M. Karagianis: I may have mischaracterized it. They did say "for essential items."

The Chair: Through the Chair, Member, please.

Hon. R. Coleman: I'll let the member clarify it.

M. Karagianis: I just wanted to correct my comments. I may have misspoken in the words I used. They have categorized this. They say: "The items that we fund are essential items to the curriculum."

Hon. R. Coleman: I'll just take that sort of on advisement, and we'll check into it for the member through the branch with regards to that. I think that covers off the member's issues.

Of course, those that were in arts and culture and didn't get funded won't get funded this year. As with the other ones that didn't get funded, and the same thing with environment, they have the ability to reapply for a grant next year.

R. Austin: I just wanted to ask a couple of questions about CommunityLINK funding. I listened to the minister's comments a few minutes ago to my colleague the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. My initial question was going to be: what was the rationale for moving LINK funding from the Ministry of Education over to gaming?

I don't want to put words into the minister's mouth, but I did hear him earlier say, essentially, that it was a program that would have been killed had it not moved over. My question is: is that the rationale for moving it from the Ministry of Education to gaming?

Hon. R. Coleman: I think this is how the reality is. There was a program within government called CommunityLINK, which sat with the Ministry of Education. As we did our entire review of all grants and discretionary grants across government, ministries were asked which ones were priorities, which ones they would cut and which ones they might, because of other pressures in their ministry, not be able to do.

You have a number of layers that start with this. It starts with thousands of categories from small numbers to large numbers across ministries because we had said, if you remember, in the budget in February that we were going to find $1.9 billion in discretionary spending across government over the next number of months. That's what led to this process.

That process takes place, and as it comes through…. I mean, the Education Ministry had set some priorities and said: "This is one that we think should be funded, but we don't think we can handle it within our fiscal plan, given our pressures of X, X and X." There were a few of those. What government looked at was to say, "Where else in government could some of these be funded from?" — not moved to, because CommunityLINK still sits with Education. It was just the funding.

It was mandated to us through our processes within government that we should take this on as funding out of this particular envelope of dollars. The challenge with it, as I described to your critic earlier, is that if that was done
[ Page 1671 ]
in February and you knew what your envelope of money would be, you'd manage it one way versus if it were done in the middle of a fiscal year. Because of how this fixed-election-date thing works or doesn't work — whatever the argument you might have on that — now you have seven months to absorb a full year's funding of something.

In actual fact, we absorbed the $15 million that had been spent in the last quarter within the program plus the $33.36 million for the balance of this year to the end of March 31. As we did that, we said: "Fine. We're all on the same team fiscally." I mean, my dollars aren't Education's dollars, and Education's dollars aren't my dollars, or whatever the case may be.

You do that, and as you do it, then you say: "How does this affect what we want to deliver here?" As we went through that, we identified some challenges and said: "These are sort of the adjustments we have to make to the program and how many groups would be affected."

As we did that, we went back to Finance through the processes of government and said: "We actually think we can't absorb it all, so we think you need to restore or put some additional funding into this envelope of funding so that at least we can keep this portion of the grant program whole."

Basically, we said: "If we absorb all of this, this is the impact. If you can give us this much — in this case it was $28.7 million — this is how we can mitigate this challenge to the rest of the grant program." We were fortunate in the fact that we were given access to contingencies to deal with that.

[1710]

As it arrives on your doorstep, you bring it into your fiscal realities, you manage it within the envelope of money it's supposed to come out of, you look at its impacts, and then you make counter-submissions, for lack of a better description, back to what the impacts are and what you'd like to be able to mitigate if you could find some additional dollars in the fiscal plan.

That's the description of how that happens, and then we basically did that. We mitigated, and then we had to make the tough decisions on which ones wouldn't get 100 percent funding and which ones wouldn't go ahead, based on what we had.

R. Austin: I understand the process that the minister describes. My concern with LINK dollars being funded through his ministry is that most of the grants….

[The bells were rung.]

R. Austin: I guess we have to take a recess to go and have a vote.

The Chair: The committee will recess for a division.

The committee recessed from 5:11 p.m. to 5:24 p.m.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

R. Austin: As I was saying before we stopped to go and have a vote, my concern about the funding moving over to gaming is this. I think the minister would agree, because he's made lots of comments in the House and again this afternoon.

[1725]

Most of these grant applications are discretionary. The minister has said many times that nobody who applies for a grant and has it even for one year or two years should expect this to be ongoing.

However, LINK funding is something that, when it was funded through the Ministry of Education, was certainly seen as being core dollars for core programs. I'm sure that the minister would agree that when you're providing dollars for things such as meal programs and after-school programs for inner-city kids, there's not much point in us putting all the money in the public education system to have teachers and teachers' assistants there if kids are arriving at school hungry, because not much learning is going to happen.

To that extent, I'm hoping the minister would agree that this really is a core service, not one that should be at the discretion of: "Well, this year we have the money for it, but next year we don't."

My question to the minister is this. If next year we are still fiscally challenged in this province, when we look at LINK funding — if it remains in this minister's bailiwick — will we then see the minister getting up in the House and saying: "Well, unfortunately, this year we couldn't even afford to provide the dollars for LINK funding, because there are challenges, and there are so many people requesting money for all kinds of other programs, whether they be for sports programs or whether they be for the environment"? Could we potentially see LINK funding, while it's in this minister's bailiwick, actually being cut?

Hon. R. Coleman: We were advised when this was coming that we would have this for a year — for this fiscal year. There's been no decision on next year. Although the member describes this is as being core funding to education, it fell within the same STOB as all other discretionary grants. It actually started out as a discretionary grant and has continued on as a discretionary grant over the years.

Having had some experience with CommunityLINK, I think that over the next number of months we'll have a discussion with Finance and Education and with ourselves as to how it fits in and where it should be and all that sort of thing.

But I can tell the member that the feedback I've had since we've funded it, not because we have any operational relationship with the money…. The money goes to school boards, and we send the money to Education,
[ Page 1672 ]
and they fund it. What I have had, though, is feedback about whether it's effective in each category of what CommunityLINK does.

For instance, I had one treasurer of a school district say to me, "The breakfast one is pretty good. What you do at lunch is really wasting money in our particular school district. Unless it's a particular thing like pizza or something on a given day, they're not eating it, particularly in the secondary schools or even in some of the elementary schools." They said: "Maybe you need to decide whether it's breakfast, so they're coming with nutrition through that, and what it is that you have to do with the meal program."

One school district person I also bumped into said to me: "You know, there's some duplication that takes place through CommunityLINK with regards to counselling and stuff where there are counsellors in schools, and this is also providing some counselling, and there's a duplication. So as you look at CommunityLINK in the future, maybe this is a good time to have a look at it."

Whether the dollar value is what it is next year or not will be up to Finance and through the budget process. At the same time, I think it certainly has, in my mind at least, raised the level of discussion to say: "Is the entire program — the whole $48.5 million — effective?" Is it effective dollars spent, or is some of it ineffective? And if that's the case, should it be repositioned into other things within the school system that CommunityLINK would be better off investing in, or should some of that go into other grants? That will be a discussion, I would think, that will take place as we come through the budget cycle.

I think it's more a discussion for Education to have with their school districts versus us. We're just the funder. But it does lead to.… When you say: "Can you tell me whether CommunityLINK will be cut next year?" I couldn't tell you. It may be that there's some spending in CommunityLINK that needs a good look. I don't know if that's true or not. That's a question that Education would have to ask.

But at this point in time our understanding is that we were to deal with having money available by finding it within these programs for this year and that the discussion with next year's budget will take place as we get through this budget and then into December, January and the budget presentation in February and March.

[1730]

R. Austin: Of course, the formula upon which LINK funding is distributed throughout the province — certainly this was the case when it came through Ministry of Children and Family Development — was basically looking at regions of the province that had harsher social conditions, and then sending money to try and augment those school systems or those particular schools in order to help them deal with those lower-socioeconomic conditions. I would hope that funding formula continues, no matter who funds it.

I guess that my final point would be this. Again, it is considered to be core funding by people who've have had it for a number of years. Whether secondary students who don't eat pizza…. That's certainly something that each school district needs to evaluate, but I would hope that the eventuality would be that this funding would go back into the Ministry of Education, because it is core funding to the extent that it supports basic education in the sense that, you know, if kids are hungry, we've got problems here. So I would hope that we don't see any situation where next year, when groups are applying for this kind of funding, they have the opportunity to see this thing cut.

You know, I represent an area in northwest B.C. that's been devastated economically for a long period of time. I can tell you that every single dollar that comes into northwest B.C. through LINK funding is so, so important. I'm sure that the minister, if he has travelled up to the northwest, would know that. I'm sure that there are other parts in inner cities, as well, where there are lots of kids.

I just want to mention one other thing, and that is that this isn't just a food program. This program also does things. For example, in my community it has summer programs for kids who would otherwise have nothing to do all summer, and idle minds create havoc and cost us a lot in society further on. So I would hope to see that this funding continues and goes back into the Ministry of Education or MCFD — at least to a ministry where it's considered to be core funding.

Hon. R. Coleman: Obviously, government decided and determined, as this thing was moving around government with regards to funding pressures, that it was important to the point that we found it somewhere else to make sure that it got funded this year.

I just want to correct one thing for the record. I said that we send the money to Education. We actually send it directly to school boards, based on exactly what happened last year. The criteria that the member discussed have not been tinkered with at all. Those criteria are in place. I have heard no discussion about the changing of the criteria to identify what the schools and the need were — and all of that stuff that the member describes — or of the cohort of people that would need the funding.

I have had no indication from Education otherwise, but obviously, we're not doing that piece of the business. When government did this evaluation of the discretionary grants….

How that happens is that in government we have what they call STOBs, which are basically categories of funding, and within certain STOBs it's always considered discretionary funding. This has always been in a discretionary STOB, whether it be in Children and
[ Page 1673 ]
Family or Education or whatever the case may be. It's been in a discretionary program for 15 years or something like that, so it goes way back. I think that when we went through our processes, we decided that needed to be funded. Then the question was: where can we find the money this year?

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

It was, "You guys will try and do this," and then we had to adjust our grants and go back to contingencies and balance it off as best we could, so that we do could both as much as possible. As we go through this budget cycle, it's just as likely as not that this would go back to Education, because it really isn't a program that we would be evaluating in a ministry and from our expertise over here, with the exception of the fact that we do have people in our branch that used to be the Ministry of Education and are pretty qualified people, people capable of evaluation.

So we will basically work with government through to the next budget cycle to work this one through.

K. Corrigan: The questions I'm going to ask are actually not about PACs and CommunityLINK, but I did want to make a quick comment.

[1735]

First of all, having been on the school board in the Burnaby school district for the last nine years, the piece that I think was missing…. I've heard this from PACs in my constituency like Chaffey-Burke School and Maywood School — one of which is more affluent and one of which is in a more challenging neighbourhood — and I've heard from the school board, and I've heard from other educational constituents in Burnaby–Deer Lake. The piece that was missing was consultation.

I would hope that the minister and the various ministries, if looking at cuts next year, would consult. I think if you look to school boards, for example…. School boards are the ones that can talk to you about if there are going to be cuts, how they should be done and probably would actually come up with some pretty good ideas. If there is a year that is difficult, they can come up with some pretty good ideas about where the cuts should be and where they absolutely can't be.

I would say, as well, that in terms of grants, I know a frustration when I was on the board of education in Burnaby was that the ministry essentially centralized the decision-making about playground grants, and you know, it was a mess for a few years. It was going through BCCPAC, and then there was a formula that didn't work and was unfair to inner-city schools. Then the ministry decided they were going to set the priorities.

Well, the best people to make a decision about what their priorities should be, using the example of school playground grants, are local boards. They can work with the ministry to make those kinds of decisions.

It's the same thing with funding for lunch programs. I know that the lunch program in the Burnaby school district has been around for literally decades now. I took a look at them when I first came onto the board. I said that I want to know about the efficiency, and I was astounded at how effectively and how equitably that program was distributed — how the lunches were distributed and how fiscally responsible that program was.

I think that consultation could go a long way to address a lot of the huge problems that have happened as a result of these cuts.

Finally on that, what I have heard from the PACs in my constituency is a real concern about the lack of equity as well. Simply cutting them in half…. Some of the school PACs that contacted me were not from schools that were particularly challenged, but they were worried about the schools that are less affluent. I think that needs to be taken into account. Again, I think that it's local school boards working with the ministry that are the best ones to perhaps work through some of those problems.

That's not what my questions were about. I wanted to ask a few questions on social assistance and particularly on the impact on women of social assistance rates.

My first question is whether the ministry has specifically studied the impact on women of the present and, I would submit, inadequate social assistance rates that are paid in this province. If the government has, I would love to see that research tabled publicly. If it hasn't been done, I'm wondering why not.

I would just point out that government was asked to do so by the United Nations in 2003. Our understanding is that that work has not been done yet, or wasn't at the time. I wonder if that work has been done.

[1740]

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm going to try and answer the member's question. I may have to get some more information for her, because one of the staff members that was here when we did social services earlier today has now moved on. We thought we were going to be doing this other thing for the next half hour.

Before I move on, though…. Because I happened to be the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General when the grant program for direct access was designed, one of the things that we did look at was whether we could give differential funding for PAC groups in lower-income situations or sociodemographic issues. We tried to work through that…

We had the reverse happening when we became government. There were very few PAC grants, but those that were going out were to those who knew how to write a grant application. That was the first concern when we redesigned the direct-access program back in 2001, 2002 — somewhere in there.
[ Page 1674 ]

The second part, though, is what we did back then. Most of those people wouldn't be there today. The B.C. association of parent advisory councils was consulted, and we tried to get to where they would accept a formula that a school in X neighbourhood would get less versus one in another neighbourhood getting more. We, frankly, ran into a pretty significant wall of resistance to that not being fair, based on a per-student funding.

If they came to us today with a proposal to say, "We'd like you to look at this as differential funding differently," or we may even engage with them…. If that's the feedback that the member is getting, I'd be happy to engage in that discussion with regards to next year's grant program and whether there's something we could put to a similar rigour that we could do with CommunityLINK.

The other piece the member was talking about…. CommunityLINK hasn't been cut. It's 100 percent funded this year, so there have been no dollars taken from that particular program.

With regards to women on social assistance, in addition to regular services and benefits available to all clients, the ministry provides additional supports to women to assist them in building a better future for themselves and their families. These supports include offering meaningful employment programs that assist women to move into good jobs, and investing $3.8 million this year in our bridging employment program to assist survivors of violence and abuse to overcome employment barriers that prevent them from making successful transitions to sustainable employment.

Client groups include, in that category, women who have experienced violence and/or abuse; women who have experienced violence and/or abuse and also faced barriers to employment due to language or culture; and former sex trade workers, either women or men, leaving the sex trade.

Up to 800 ministry clients and eligible non-clients per year will access the bridge employment funding services under the revised program this year. Many of the participants have multiple barriers and require pre-employment support, because oftentimes they come from not just the abusive environment. If it's a sex trade worker, there could be drug addictions involved, mental illness, abuse — multiple issues that they need to be helped with so that they can be bridged over.

For women leaving abusive or violent situations, the following considerations are provided. They get immediate assessment for income assistance. They have an exemption from any work search with regards to that assistance. They have an exemption from a two-year independence test and the limits that we have in place for people that are employable under social assistance today.

The other cohort that is also exempt is pregnant women. They are also exempt from time limits and a two-year independence requirement.

K. Corrigan: I appreciate those programs that have been mentioned, but I was wondering specifically whether there have been studies done to look at what the impact on women is of various social assistance rates, particularly the rates that are being paid in this province.

[1745]

Many other organizations and researchers have studied the impact of welfare rates on women, and they find that women who are trying to live on the current welfare rates often are living in inadequate housing or on the streets. They're returning to abusive partners because they cannot support themselves and their children — and we had exactly that situation, recently, with a woman that was actually murdered in my community — or they're having their children apprehended because they can't adequately support them.

Indeed, these organizations, or organizations like the Dieticians of B.C., the Social Planning and Research Council of B.C., the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and many others have confirmed that single families and children who must rely on income assistance cannot afford adequate housing or healthy diets.

Indeed, the B.C. Healthy Living Alliance published a recent report. This is not a wildly left-wing organization. It's supported by the Lung Association of B.C., the Canadian Cancer Society, Canadian Diabetes, Dietitians of Canada, the B.C. Recreation and Parks Association, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of B.C. and Yukon, the Public Health Association of B.C. and the Union of B.C. Municipalities.

Their report says, among other things: "The social determinants of health include the basic financial resources and supportive environments necessary for a healthy life." They also say, pointing out the connection between adequate resources, "There is significant evidence confirming that health inequities in B.C. are most pronounced among children and families living in poverty, the working poor, the unemployed and the underemployed," and the sentence goes on.

Given the wealth of research and reports on this issue of the inadequacy of welfare rates and the impacts that they have, will the minister tell us how income assistance rates have been set and determined and what justification the B.C. government provides for setting them at a level which apparently does not permit recipients to meet basic needs and which jeopardizes the security and rights of women and their children?

Hon. R. Coleman: I don't want to bounce all over the place for the member, because we actually canvassed this earlier today. So I'll read back into the record for her how the rates are set. It's in Hansard, but I'll do it for…. It may actually formulate some of her additional questions.

I will then talk about the issues in and around not just families on welfare but also families in low-income
[ Page 1675 ]
brackets and what's being done with regards to that and also issues in and around rent assistance for families and what we do.

I won't get into…. There's a whole bunch of other things we do, like premium assistance and stuff for people on low income and what have you. There's a long list, but again, we're going to have to go through the binders, because one person has moved on here.

Basically, for the member's information, as I read into the record earlier today, the ministry reviews its income assistance rates on an annual basis. In April 2007 we raised the rates across the board for all the ministry clients. For 2009-10, the fiscal year, the ministry has budgeted $1.5 billion for income assistance.

We also raised the rates for the shelter allowance around the same time, or it may have been a year earlier. It was the first time they had been raised since 1992. There had been no raises in welfare rates in either the shelter or the rates since 1992 until we raised it.

In reviewing its rates, the ministry takes into consideration a number of things. It takes into consideration cost-of-living studies, inflation, welfare rates in other provinces, the dietitians' report on the cost of eating, recommendations by the B.C. Progress Board and suggestions from British Columbians and advocacy groups who participated in the provincewide budget consultation.

When setting rates, the government is obligated to take a balanced approach — a realistic undertaking between what is fair for our clients and what is fair for working British Columbians. The government has to set rates that are sustainable and not fixed at a level that makes them a disincentive for employable clients to find and keep full-time jobs. Compared to June 2001, the ministry's average monthly payment for an income assistance case has climbed by almost $140 a month, or 20 percent, to $827.50.

[1750]

On the low-income side for families with children, in addition to doing that and adding things like additional medical needs and other supplements for people on social assistance over that same period of time, we have also recognized that the reduction efforts for low-income families with enhanced supports could help weather the current recession for them with greatly improved opportunities for them to improve their economic well-being.

Effective January 2010, the basic personal amount income tax credit will be increased to $11,000 from $9,373 — an increase of $1,627 — and the spousal credit will increase by the same amount. Provincial income tax has now been eliminated for 325,000 low-income British Columbians since 2001. We have the lowest provincial income taxes in all of Canada for the first two income tax brackets.

MSP premiums will be eliminated or reduced for about 180,000 people with the enhancements to the premium assistance program in January 2010. Income thresholds for premium assistance are being increased by $2,000. A family of four with income less than $39,000 will not pay MSP. With the introduction of HST in July 2010, a new HST tax credit will be put in place that will more than offset the sales tax paid by the 1.1 million low-income British Columbians that could have been affected.

In addition to that, there are a number of dollars we invest in child care and income threshold — stuff like that. On top of that, we spend tens of millions of dollars a year in a program called rent assistance for families, where they can live in a community anywhere in British Columbia and get rental assistance which offsets their rent.

Just for the member's own information, in the community of Burnaby itself, there are 618 families that receive $2.638 million a year in subsidy towards their housing on the rent assistance program alone.

K. Corrigan: I appreciate hearing the factors that are determined, but what I did not hear was that there was comprehensive research done on how women and their families are doing and the relationship between the levels of social assistance and how they're doing. Obviously, many, many organizations in this province feel that we are not doing well.

B.C. has a combination of rules that are particularly harmful to single mothers, who are a third of the social assistance caseload in B.C. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's my understanding. Single-parent families are the family type with the highest level of poverty in the province, and the overwhelming majority of these single-parent families are headed by women.

But the policies and rules that apply to single mothers and their children are difficult. The combination of rules which affect single mothers are: being deemed employable when their youngest child is three, even when they can't afford it; disentitling welfare recipients from collecting assistance while attending post-secondary colleges or universities, even though it's clear that single mothers are best able to support themselves and their children and to become independent when they have post-secondary education. That combination of effects is difficult for single parents.

So I wonder if the minister could tell me: what policy goals regarding single mothers does the B.C. government have in mind or is it planning? How do the rules and rates that are there help to achieve those goals, and again, have studies been carried out as to the effectiveness of the policies and the rules and the rates for single mothers?

[1755]

Hon. R. Coleman: You are incorrect on the percentage of single-parent households. In actual fact, it's the reverse. Our highest cohort is actually single men.
[ Page 1676 ]

Just some statistics for the member to frame her understanding of what I'm talking about. Since 2001 there's been a steady decline in employable single-parent families receiving income assistance from nearly 24,500 cases in June 2001. That was 24,500 cases of single-parent households in June of 2001 versus…. That is down to 6,150 cases of single-parent households in June of 2009.

This decline represents one of the most rapid declines in caseload in the income assistance program in history. Many of those, of course, are single-parent women, because the member is correct that most single-parent families are headed by women.

In March 2009 there were 34,000 children who needed support from the Ministry of Housing and Social Development. That 34,000 number is 50,000 children less than there were in 2001.

M. Mungall: The Kootenay branch of the Canadian Mental Health Association responded to a call from B.C. Housing to develop and provide supportive housing for people with mental illness and addictions in Nelson.

B.C. Housing bought the property on Anderson Street in Nelson and put significant funds into the development of a 35-unit LEED-standard project for seniors with mental illness and addictions. Not only has CMHA put a quarter of a million dollars into this project, which is a community partnership, but Columbia Basin Trust and the Real Estate Foundation have also contributed a total of $325,000. The city of Nelson has also been very supportive, expediting zoning and waiving the city's affordable housing levy on this development.

Hoping to break ground on the shovel-ready project in 2008, they came to a halt because of a funding freeze in B.C. Housing. All the partners were ready to go, but they couldn't move ahead on this community partnership because of a freeze in B.C. Housing. Of course, this is a major project in Nelson that's going to respond to our strategy to end homelessness.

There is a meeting on November 10, and I would like the minister to reassure both myself and, of course, the citizens of Nelson that he and the ministry, of course, are committed to seeing this project go forward and that it will go forward in a timely fashion.

Hon. R. Coleman: Great group — Canadian Mental Health Association in the Kootenays. They were advised when they brought this project to us that there was no confirmed funding for the project. They were told that up front. We did invest some predevelopment funding in the project for them to proceed down through zoning to get a project ready.

When the site was in danger of not being able to go ahead, we stepped in and bought the site. So that now sits as one of the projects that could be possible if there's a capital envelope for investment and construction for these types of projects next year.

[1800]

The funding for this year, the $261 million in capital that's going into projects across British Columbia for mental health and addictions and homelessness, is committed this year. What we do is we work through our capital funding from year to year, so I would advise the member to let them know that, obviously, we have a commitment to the project if we spent the money for the predevelopment funding and we bought the land.

If we get the capital as we go through the capital side of the budget process going into February, and if the funding can be found within government to give us a capital envelope, it would be one of the projects that would be considered for construction next year.

M. Mungall: My next question is actually something that my predecessor had brought up to the minister. On heading out of his office, he passed it on to me and asked me to follow up, and I duly did.

It's about the Trinity Housing Society in Creston, regarding their Catalpa housing. They're in quite a predicament. They want to build more affordable housing units to address the growing demand among low-income seniors in Creston. However, they are strapped with a Canada Mortgage and Housing, CMHC, mortgage dating back to, I believe, 1977. To put that into perspective for everybody, that's actually before I was born.

So it, of course, being negotiated in 1977, and it being 32 years later…. It was a 50-year mortgage at 18 percent interest, is my recollection — not uncommon for that time, but it is an affordable housing project. They want to renegotiate but were told by CMHC to go deal with B.C. Housing. Then B.C. Housing told them to go deal with CMHC, so they're kind of doing the runaround.

They asked me to get involved in this. After some considerable running around, talking to both CMHC and B.C. Housing, the conclusion that I've come forward with is that CMHC, in devolving its responsibility for these mortgages through the social housing agreement to B.C. Housing, also said to B.C. Housing in this agreement that if B.C. Housing wants to renegotiate, that's fine, but they'll have to absorb any loss.

Here we are in a situation where B.C. Housing, of course, doesn't want to absorb any loss. We don't want to absorb any loss to the taxpayers. At the same time, we desperately need affordable housing in our rural communities. We have an affordable housing crisis.

To me, it seems like the solution here is to go back to the negotiating table, work with provincial and federal counterparts on housing, look at new agreements that remove these constraints to non-profits, allow them to renegotiate their mortgages, and get new units on the ground.
[ Page 1677 ]

Hon. R. Coleman: You're correct that the member for Nelson-Creston at the time, Corky Evans, brought this up to us last year. I'll tell the member where we're at since then.

First of all, it's unconscionable that CMHC decides to hide behind the comment that this was devolved to the province and that we could pay out the interest and take out the mortgage. That is unconscionable from this perspective. It is because of the way this mortgage is written — okay?

It's a 50-year mortgage. They're not at 18; they're usually at about 8 percent interest. CMHC has no prepayment provisions in these mortgages. In actual fact, every one of these mortgages that exists with a non-profit group in B.C. was signed by the group in a legal document back when the mortgage was put in place, whatever year they built the project. This isn't the only one.

[1805]

I think there's a second one in Nakusp that Corky actually talked to me about, and the penalty is not three months' penalty interest. The penalty is the interest payable until maturity of the mortgage at 50 years. For them to say, "Province, you just go ahead and pay out that penalty and keep us whole," is not in the devolution contract to start with. So it had nothing to do with the devolution of the management of these things, and we have been bringing it up with the federal government.

I'm meeting with the federal minister on Friday again. It will be one of the subjects on the table. But the CMHC's position on this is that they have floated long-term bond holdings guaranteeing interest to people relative to these mortgages, and therefore, they have to pay those. Therefore, that's why they're not prepared to do a penalty appeal.

For them to say that it's us is nonsense. We have actually tried to get them to think about this thing and change their mind on how they're prepared to do business on this. We'll continue to do that, and we will. Frankly, they have been not in any way cooperative in negotiating a settlement on this particular piece of the package, which we have no control over.

K. Conroy: It is our constituency — the Nakusp situation. I'm not here to talk about that, but have put on the record that there's a letter at the minister's office to talk about it, and we're waiting for the response.

Interjection.

K. Conroy: I said that I just want to put on record that we have corresponded with your office about the situation in Nakusp with the Nakusp housing society. I'll talk further with you — not today. I have another issue that I'm going to bring up, but I just want that on the record that it is my constituency, and it's Nakusp.

I want to talk to you about the Trail Smoke Eaters. I know most of us in the room were alive and born when they won the World Cup in the early '60s and were into gaming. The Trail Smoke Eaters are world-renowned. They are known everywhere. They used to have a bingo. They don't anymore. They've applied for direct-access gaming grants, like many other sports groups and non-profits in the province.

They have been getting annual grants of $25,000. This year they asked for $36,000, as they are struggling with a number of issues. They were rather shocked when they only got $7,500. They thought they'd at least get the $25,000 that they've applied for every year and have got since they started this. They are struggling to make ends meet. They've got the support of the community. They do fundraisers. They do all kinds of things to help to support this team.

It's just a real shame that they had no notice that their grant was being cut. They might have tried to do things differently if they had had any notice that, in fact, they were being cut from $25,000 to $7,500.

This is a well-respected team in the community. It's people in the community. It's affordable. It's something for people to go to. Many of the NHL players have come from the Smoke Eaters. They're reeling, and they're afraid that they're going to have to shut their doors. They are just in shock that they got absolutely no notice that this was going to happen, and they're asking why.

Hon. R. Coleman: Actually, I was at a funeral in Nelson last week for my Uncle George, who played for the Nelson Maple Leafs, who regularly, after the one good year Trail had, pounded them in hockey — according, at least, to my uncle, anyway.

First of all, we don't fund junior hockey teams in British Columbia from the direct-access program. There's a society that's called the Trail Smoke Eaters Hockey Club Society that received $7,500 this year. It is not the intent ever to fund money to sustain what should be a commercial junior hockey franchise in any community, whether it be there or the one that's in my community in Langley or the one in Surrey or across B.C. where these teams compete.

I'm not sure what the society's programs were they would have applied for, but they would not be for the Trail Smoke Eaters hockey club. It would have to be for a non-profit society that was delivering a program relative to their grant application within the community. I will get more information on what the application is about and all that stuff for the member.

[1810]

Just for the record, we don't give grants to junior hockey teams across B.C., whether it be the Penticton Vees…. By the way, that's the hometown I grew up in. They also won the world championship as a hockey team back in the '50s. We've been dining out on that like Trail has for about the same period of time, I think.
[ Page 1678 ]

We do, if there's a non-profit society that does things like player development or programs for kids or something like that…. I'm not sure what they would have applied for specifically, but I'll get that information for the member. But we don't give grants to operating hockey clubs, whether it be tier 1 or tier 2 junior hockey teams in B.C., because it's not our intention to subsidize one hockey operation in B.C. over another.

That would be my understanding. Derek hasn't nodded his head yet, but I think that's my understanding. We will suss this one out for the member, because I don't have the details here today.

K. Conroy: Just for information, then, the Beaver Valley Nighthawks, which is a Junior B team, received $25,000 this season. So we will discuss this further and find out what's happened with the money.

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm happy to get the details. They may not be considered to be different, because of a different delivery of service or how they're structured corporately, but I do know, on the grant to the Trail Smoke Eaters society, that it was a society that got it, not the hockey club.

I don't know if they're two operating entities and if they're a non-profit society that actually charges attendance. That may bring some interesting discussions around what the efficacy of those types of grants in the future would be versus one community over another, because I can just imagine every Junior A hockey team in B.C. applying for a grant, if they thought that one got one over another.

I think we have to sort of measure this one out carefully to make sure that we're dealing with a grant application that's for a society, which is what I indicate here. I'll check all that out and get back to the member.

S. Fraser: I realize we have very little time, so I'll just get this on the record very quickly — one issue. It's fortunate that the minister was the former Minister of Forests and Range, as he knows of the Alberni industrial review. It was authorized by the minister, as Forests Minister, to analyze and look at some of the problems and solutions in the Alberni Valley, with the downturn in the forest industry.

One of the solutions was specifically dealing with diversifying the economy. The tourism economy was part of that, and part of the solution in Alberni is the Western Vancouver Island Industrial Heritage Society. They've had their gaming funds cut, and they run the McLean mill and the steam locomotive system that's there. They lever every dollar with a huge amount of volunteerism, for which, I think, the society should be congratulated.

The loss, then, by gutting the funds for that, directly affects the entire economic recovery for the valley and the plans that the government has actually helped put into place to do that recovery. I would ask the minister to please consider reinstating those funds, because every dollar is levered into so much for the community, and it's a very integral part of the economic recovery for the Alberni Valley.

Hon. R. Coleman: We're trying to find the information with regard to that group as quickly as we can. I'm noting the hour, so we'll dig something out for the member for tomorrow.

The member should recognize, as everybody should recognize, that in a grant program, some years you get it, and some years you don't. Some years there are different pressures on grants, and that's why people shouldn't think that this is an annual entitlement. They should remember that it is actually an annual grant application that's measured against other grants in the same category for the purposes of deciding which funds should go where.

Noting the hour, hon. Chair, I move the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:14 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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.

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2009: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN 1499-2175