2010 Legislative Session: Second 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)

Thursday, April 29, 2010

Morning Sitting

Volume 16, Number 4

[ Page 5023 ]

THURSDAY, APRIL 29, 2010

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. G. Abbott: We are joined in the chamber today, on the floor of the chamber, by some very special guests from Haida Gwaii who are here for a very special and historic occasion.

They are Guujaaw, president of the Haida Nation; Chief Iljuuwaas, Reynold Russ, of the hereditary chiefs council; Chief Gaahlaay, Lonnie Young, the hereditary chiefs council; Allan Davidson from the Council of the Haida Nation; James Cowpar, Skidegate Band Council; Ken Rea, Old Massett Village Council.

These gentlemen have been extraordinary leaders for the Haida Nation. I want the House to please make them welcome and salute their efforts in recent months to reach a historic agreement.

Hon. M. de Jong: I don't know her name, but I want to introduce the brave young lady in the gallery who is sporting a hockey jersey that belongs to one of the two Canadian teams still in the Stanley Cup playoffs.

[1005]

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

Bill 18 — Haida Gwaii
Reconciliation Act

Hon. G. Abbott presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Haida Gwaii Reconciliation Act.

Hon. G. Abbott: I am honoured to introduce this bill today, the Haida Gwaii Reconciliation Act. This legislation will enable the commitments made by this government in the historic Kunst'aa Guu–Kunst'aayah reconciliation protocol with the Haida Nation, which means "the beginning." It will also restore the name Haida Gwaii, meaning "islands of the people," to the Queen Charlotte Islands.

This is indeed a new beginning for the Haida Nation, the people of Haida Gwaii and the province. The Kunst'aa Guu–Kunst'aayah reconciliation protocol creates new certainty in land use decisions through a unique shared decision-making process. It will increase prosperity on the islands by promoting responsible economic development, and it commits each party to continue to travel together on a path that we hope will lead to lasting and comprehensive reconciliation in the future.

I again want to thank and salute the leaders who have joined us in the chamber here today: Guujaaw, the president of Haida Nation; Chief Iljuuwaas; Chief Gaahlaay; Allan Davidson; James Cowpar; and Ken Rea. They have been extraordinarily wise in their leadership in these matters, and I do want to thank them again for that and for that opportunity to prepare this reconciliation protocol.

It's a proud moment in our history to share the floor with the Haida leadership. I would like to say háw'aa — thank you — to them for making the journey here today and celebrating together our mutual commitment to improve decision-making on Haida Gwaii and to support the Haida Nation as they decide what opportunities they wish to explore and how they will explore them.

It is an agreement that builds on mutual recognition and respect and embraces one of the ancient Haida sayings: "Everything depends on everything else." Haida Gwaii is a unique place, the Haida are a unique people, and this is a unique agreement.

I move first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

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

Bill 18, Haida Gwaii Reconciliation Act, 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.

Bill Pr401 — Horizons Unbound
Rehabilitation and Training Society
(Corporate Restoration) Act, 2010

J. Horgan presented a bill intituled Horizons Unbound Rehabilitation and Training Society (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2010.

J. Horgan: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

J. Horgan: This is a private bill, and it's one of the rare opportunities members have to bring forward legislation on behalf of constituents. The House was petitioned by Dr. Philip Ney from Sooke in an effort to have the Horizons Unbound Rehabilitation and Training Society
[ Page 5024 ]
returned to the registry of companies. This bill will do that.

The next stage of this bill will be an opportunity for members to review the good works of the society, which is primarily directed at rehabilitating young people by introducing them to marine activities, sailing and other various activities in and around the area of Juan de Fuca.

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

[1010]

Bill Pr401, Horizons Unbound Rehabilitation and Training Society (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2010, introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Bill Pr402 — Vancouver Foundation
Amendment Act, 2010

G. Hogg presented a bill intituled Vancouver Foundation Amendment Act, 2010.

G. Hogg: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

G. Hogg: This amendment will update the definitions to provide greater clarity and to align current business practices with the foundation. It will expand the objects to allow the foundation to more broadly assist in remedying charitable circumstances and benefiting communities. It will update provisions regarding the constitution of the board of directors to permit optimal composition and professional expertise.

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

Bill Pr402, Vancouver Foundation Amendment Act, 2010, introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call, in Committee A, Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of Children and Family Development — and, in this chamber, continued committee stage debate on Bill 9.

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 9 — Consumption Tax Rebate
and Transition Act

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 9; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 10:14 a.m.

On section 19.

B. Ralston: We're beginning with section 19. Can the minister confirm that this section of part 5 — section 19 is the first of this part — comes into effect, should the legislation pass, on July 1, 2010?

Hon. C. Hansen: Yes.

B. Ralston: This section refers to designated property. Will the minister confirm that designated property is defined in section 205 as "a vehicle, boat or aircraft"?

Hon. C. Hansen: That's correct.

[1015]

B. Ralston: Given that this part deals with vehicles, boats and aircraft, can the minister then advise of the application of this particular part? In particular, if a business buys a used vehicle — that is, doesn't buy it from a dealership as a brand-new vehicle, boat or aircraft — will that purchaser be exempted from the HST?

Hon. C. Hansen: If the vehicle is sold by a private individual or an entity that is not a registrant under HST, then this section would apply. If it is being sold by a registrant under the HST, then the HST would apply.

B. Ralston: Sorry. I didn't hear the last words of the minister's answer.

Hon. C. Hansen: If a vehicle was being sold by a registrant, then HST would apply.

B. Ralston: Then there's no distinction. Perhaps the minister could just briefly explain again the definition of "registrant." It's in the definition section in section 1, but it's a very broad definition. Can the minister then explain if there's any instance when a vehicle is sold, either new or used…? I'll confine it to vehicles, because that's probably the bulk of these transactions. Is there any circumstance in which a person will not pay the HST?

Hon. C. Hansen: Yes. If a used vehicle is being sold by a non-registrant — in other words, a private citizen
[ Page 5025 ]
or a company or an entity that does less than $30,000 of sales and has chosen not to register for HST — then that vehicle would not be subject to HST but instead would be subject to this 12 percent tax that's set out in this section.

B. Ralston: So regardless of whether a person is a registrant or not, on any transaction there will be a 12 percent tax. Is that fair to say?

Hon. C. Hansen: In some cases it would be HST — in the case of sales by motor dealers, for example. In other cases, where it's by a non-registrant, then it would be the 12 percent fee that would be assessed pursuant to this section. There are some exceptions to that, which are currently in place for the exceptions to the 7 percent transfer tax that currently exist. Those exemptions and exceptions will continue under this new 12 percent fee that will be assessed pursuant to this section.

B. Ralston: The minister makes mention of exceptions to the 7 percent tax. Can the minister elaborate on that? As the minister can appreciate, there is some public interest in the effect of this particular section on the private sale of secondhand vehicles.

[1020]

Hon. C. Hansen: Some examples of situations where the 12 percent transfer fee would be exempted are in the case of a vehicle that's transferred pursuant to an inheritance. In the case of a vehicle that is gifted — for example, if an individual was to give a vehicle to their son or daughter — that would not be subject to the 12 percent fee.

Another one would be settlers' effects. A vehicle that has been owned by somebody for more than 30 days, someone who moves into British Columbia, would not be subject to the fee. The other one, which is actually an expansion from the existing exemptions that are in place for that existing 7 percent fee, would be vehicles that have been modified for disabled drivers.

B. Ralston: Just to confirm that the settlers' effect exception the minister refers to is the case where, say, if someone is moving to British Columbia from another province and they already own the vehicle, when the transfer that's required is effected from whatever motor vehicle registry in another province and is moved onto the registry here in British Columbia, there will be no transfer fee at that point. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Hansen: Yes, that's right.

B. Ralston: This probably will be dealt with in section 26, but perhaps this is a good point at which to mention it. The other area that appears in the legislative scheme to be exempt is if a vehicle is bought, say, in Washington State and imported into Canada. As I read section 26, it would not attract this tax. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Hansen: If somebody purchases a vehicle from outside of Canada, then it would be subject currently to the GST. It will be subject to the HST, and that would be administered by the CRA, regardless of whether it was purchased from a private vendor or purchased from a motor dealer in another country, presumably the United States.

Because it is subject to the HST through the CRA, it would not be subject to this transfer fee under this section that would apply to the sale of motor vehicles by private individuals in Canada.

B. Ralston: In the case of a vehicle imported, say, from Washington State, that tax would be due at the point that the vehicle entered Canada and would be collected by the Canada Border Services Agency. Is that correct?

[1025]

Hon. C. Hansen: The answer is not as simple as I would have initially thought. It depends on circumstances. Generally speaking, if a vehicle is bought in the United States and transferred into British Columbia, the 5 percent federal portion of the HST is collected by the Canada Revenue Agency at the time the vehicle is brought in. If that vehicle winds up being registered in British Columbia, then ICBC, at the time of registration, would collect on behalf of the CRA the additional 7 percent provincial portion of the HST.

B. Ralston: Would that same sequence then apply to the import of new vehicles in bulk? You see them on freighters that come into New Westminster and the Port of Vancouver — the similar sequence of the 5 percent collected at the port of entry and then the 7 percent, if they're registered with a view to selling them in British Columbia.

Hon. C. Hansen: If you had a new vehicle that was being brought into British Columbia on a freighter, as the member indicated, and it was being purchased by a private individual — a private individual has purchased a brand-new vehicle from somewhere else in the world and had it shipped in — then it would be dealt with as we discussed in response to the previous question.

If it is a freighter load of new vehicles that's coming in, say, from the Toyota plants in Japan and it's going eventually into dealerships and being sold through motor dealers in Canada, in British Columbia, the possession and ownership of those vehicles after they arrive in Canada would be a registrant under the act. Then the HST would be collected as that vehicle is transferred from one owner to another.
[ Page 5026 ]

The registrants that transfer the ownership of that vehicle on a commercial basis would be entitled to their input credits, and the HST would only ultimately be collected at the time of purchase by an ultimate consumer.

B. Ralston: The same circumstances as importing from outside Canada but a used vehicle in this circumstance, say a right-hand-drive vehicle. Obviously, this is a policy shift, and there are some implications to it.

The minister has answered previously about the car from Washington State. Is that the same procedure that's followed in the case of importing from — I don't know — some other jurisdiction by boat? A right-hand-drive vehicle, for example, a private sale — would the same sequence follow in that case?

[1030]

Hon. C. Hansen: Any vehicle, right-hand-drive or otherwise, that comes into Canada would not be subject to the 7 percent transfer fee that is outlined in this section. What they would be subject to today, before July 1, is a 5 percent GST. When they then registered that vehicle in British Columbia, they would be subject to the existing 7 percent fee that would be applied to used vehicles being registered in British Columbia.

After July 1 what would happen is that the 5 percent federal portion of the HST would be collected by CRA at the time the vehicle enters Canada. Then the 7 percent provincial portion of the HST…. It would be the HST that would be applied to those vehicles coming from outside of Canada, not this transfer fee that is set out in this section. That would be assessed at the time they register it with ICBC, and ICBC would collect the 7 percent portion of the provincial HST and transfer it to CRA, which would, in turn, transfer it to the province.

B. Ralston: Obviously, this part 5 is a shift in policy, particularly as it affects private sales. Can the minister explain the policy reasons behind this particular change?

As I recall, the minister may have alluded to it in a response to a question in question period. There's a category of, I suppose, retailers or unofficial retailers known as curbers who may have been avoiding tax, or there's a perception that they were avoiding tax. Is that the reason for instituting this policy?

Hon. C. Hansen: There is no change in policy. What there is a change of, with respect to the rate that would be charged for the private sale of used vehicles, is that that fee, that transfer tax, if you would, goes from the existing 7 percent rate to the 12 percent rate.

The reason for that change in rate is, as the member mentioned…. Well, the primary reason is to level the playing field so that the tax that is applied to the purchase of used vehicles in British Columbia is the same 12 percent amount, whether it's a sale from a motor dealer or whether it's a sale from a private sale. It is to ensure that we have fairness.

It is a change that actually brings us in line with other provinces, including Ontario, and one of the side benefits of it is to reduce the propensity for entities to be selling vehicles without being properly registered as motor dealers. By levelling that playing field, there is less of an incentive for entities to be tempted to engage in the sale of vehicles when, in fact, they should be registered as motor dealers.

B. Ralston: Given that it falls in provincial jurisdiction, what will be the agency or arm of the provincial government that will attempt to enforce this part on tax on designated property? There is a motor dealership authority. I'm not sure I have the title exactly correct but an authority that regulates motor dealerships in British Columbia. Is that the agency that would be charged with enforcing this transfer fee?

[1035]

Hon. C. Hansen: For the transfer of vehicles that are provincially registered — this would include cars, trucks and all-terrain vehicles that need to be licensed pursuant to ICBC — it would be ICBC that would collect this at the time of registration. I guess the penalty is that you can't register a vehicle and get it insured and licensed without paying the appropriate fees.

With regard to unregistered vehicles — for example, boats or airplanes — if they are sold through dealers, then currently there is a mechanism to ensure that the tax is collected for the private sale of vehicles. It would be enforced through the Ministry of Finance, and that is the situation currently today. Again, as I mentioned, this is not a change in policy. It's a change in rate. The same mechanisms that apply today will be applied later.

There are some changes that will come forward in terms of later in this piece of legislation with regard to the powers of government officials to seek information from entities such as marinas with regard to boats, for example, that were not previously required but would be required under the new process.

B. Ralston: The minister has mentioned that this is not a shift in policy and is merely a change in rate. Sometimes these decisions by government are driven by a change in principle, an internal review. Sometimes they're driven by public complaints or by public pressure from other entities or groups in the industry. One might think of the New Car Dealers Association. Can the minister explain, if he chooses, what was the motivating force for introducing this shift in the rate from 7 percent to 12 percent for these vehicles that are sold privately?
[ Page 5027 ]

Hon. C. Hansen: As outlined earlier, it is a question of fairness and having the transfer of used vehicles treated the same, whether they're coming from motor dealers or whether they're coming from private sales. It also is in line with bringing us into consistency with other provinces in Canada.

The other side of it, to be frank, was that at the time of the budget process we were looking for revenue opportunities. This measure results in an additional $50 million in revenue in the fiscal year that we're currently in. On an annualized basis, it results in about an initial $70 million.

Obviously, at a time when we are facing the fiscal challenges that we are — in a time of deficit, in a time of trying to make sure that we can fund the health care and education and other programs that government offers — that revenue is an important part of our fiscal plan.

Section 19 approved on division.

On section 20.

B. Ralston: This, again, refers to the section that we just dealt with in its more general application. This section sets out who this applies to. Can the minister briefly explain the purpose of this section?

[1040]

Hon. C. Hansen: Section 19, which we just discussed, was the application of this new charge on vehicles that are transferred within British Columbia. In our exchange and questions and answers, we got into a fair amount about vehicles that are brought into British Columbia from outside of British Columbia. Quite technically, it is section 20 that really pertains to that, not section 19. So we were a little ahead of ourselves there. Section 20 really sets out the parameters for vehicles brought into British Columbia. Essentially, it is not a change from our current practice.

B. Ralston: In subsection (1)(a)(ii)(B) it refers to the position of a lessee, and the lease term has to be at least five years. If a lease term, then, is three years or four years, which are very ordinary or quite prevalent lease terms when people lease rather than buy a vehicle, this would not apply? Or would it apply?

Hon. C. Hansen: As this pertains to cars, for example, this is not a change from existing policy. Just to give an example, if you had an individual who normally resides in Calgary but had a cottage in British Columbia, and they had a motorhome that they either owned or leased and kept it parked at their cottage in British Columbia, this really provides for when the provincial tax would be applicable in those cases. So it's really meant to make sure that vehicles that are ordinarily kept in British Columbia are treated the same way, regardless of whether the owner of that vehicle normally resides in British Columbia or not.

B. Ralston: Subsection (2) appears to introduce some principles of agency when the person is carrying on business on behalf of another person. Can the minister explain the purpose of subsection (2)?

Hon. C. Hansen: This is the same language as in the existing Social Service Tax Act. It really is just to clarify the definition of when a person would be deemed to be carrying on business in British Columbia. If somebody, for example, is engaged in activities in British Columbia and not physically in the province but actually having staff members act on their behalf, this would clarify that, in fact, that person is still deemed to be carrying on business.

[1045]

B. Ralston: Subsection (5) sets out an exception where the person is not required to pay tax and makes reference to section 21. Can the minister explain the basis of that exception?

Hon. C. Hansen: Sections 20 and 21 both provide for circumstances where an individual would need to pay this tax. Really, what this subsection (5) clarifies is that if the person has to pay the tax under section 21, then they don't, in addition, have to pay the tax under section 20. So it is just to clarify, then, that in fact this tax will only be collected once.

Section 20 approved on division.

On section 21.

B. Ralston: The minister has just referred to this section in his remarks immediately before the vote, but can the minister give examples of circumstances where section 21(1)(a) would apply?

Hon. C. Hansen: The example would probably be one that would be driven by ICBC's rules around how long an individual can be in British Columbia and work in British Columbia before they would no longer be eligible to have their car insurance from outside of the province.

For example, if you had a worker who was coming in from Alberta and he's going to take a temporary job — let's say in Prince George, where his permanent home is still Calgary…. So he's in Prince George. He's got his vehicle there, with Alberta plates on it, and he's working for two years. But he goes back to Calgary to see his family every second weekend, so Calgary is still his permanent residence.

There would be rules that would click in that would basically say that at a certain point you can no longer
[ Page 5028 ]
have a vehicle that solely operates in British Columbia and still have your Alberta plates on it. There's a point at which you have to get B.C. plates, and hence this section would trigger it.

[1050-1055]

Section 21 approved on the following division:

On section 22.

B. Ralston: Speaking to section 22, this refers back to our previous discussion about the change of use of designated property, which in this case is a vehicle, a boat or an airplane. Can the minister explain how this section interacts with section 26? Because it appears, as we discussed earlier, to grant an exemption from this particular provision if a designated property is imported from outside Canada.

[1100]

Hon. C. Hansen: The exemption that would be provided pursuant to section 26 would be a circumstance where the vehicle would be subject to HST. Therefore, if it is subject to HST, then it is not in any way subject to this provincial transfer tax. That's what section 26 does, to make that clear.

Section 22, on the other hand, provides for a circumstance whereby if a vehicle has a change of use…. One example might be that someone brings a pickup truck in from Alberta as personal effects, and because of a change of use, they then use it as a business truck in British Columbia for their company. That would be considered a change in use that might trigger section 22.

B. Ralston: Section 22(2) incorporates a reporting provision. It appears to be a self-reporting provision that's required. Is it envisaged that this will be triggered or that the agency that will administer this will be ICBC in the case of automobiles, or is there some other agency of the provincial government that this self-reporting provision will be directed to?

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

Hon. C. Hansen: This would be administered by the Ministry of Finance. This is not a change in ownership of the vehicle, simply a change of use, and therefore it would not necessarily have any involvement with ICBC. It would be the Ministry of Finance officials that would follow up on any suspected change of use that might trigger this section.

B. Ralston: The minister speaks of Ministry of Finance officials. Perhaps we'll deal with this if we get to part 7, "Administration." What's the method by which the information about suspected changes of use would be gathered?

Presuming it would be triggered if people didn't self-report, would the ministry be taking anonymous complaints? Would there be inspections in the field, as there sometimes are in the case of some categories of motor vehicles such as trucks? Is the minister confident that there is an effective enforcement mechanism? It does seem that it certainly might be difficult, at best, to enforce.

[1105]

Hon. C. Hansen: We will continue with what's referred to as the asset compliance program, and that currently exists under our social services act. It will be the same approach that will be followed to enforce sections such as this.

B. Ralston: Well, subsection (4) would appear to pose the greatest challenge, because this is where change of
[ Page 5029 ]
use would trigger the requirement of a person to make a refund payable to the government.

Can the minister give any sense of the success of this division in collecting non-compliant persons, or cases where this hasn't been reported and tax has not been remitted in this manner in the past? Is there any experience that suggests that this is something that's likely to be successfully enforced?

Hon. C. Hansen: I don't have access to that kind of information with me with regard to this bill, but if the member wishes to raise that during our estimates discussion, I would at that time have staff with me that would probably be able to give me better guidance on that specific question.

B. Ralston: Well, perhaps in pursuit of that discussion at a later time, the minister might inquire if this particular agency or unit within the Ministry of Finance was affected by the so-called deregulation that was engaged in by the minister of deregulation, 2001 to 2005.

Certainly, some might interpret — wrongly, perhaps — provisions such as this as unnecessary regulation. Obviously, it would have an impact on the revenue that would flow to government. In preparing that answer, perhaps the minister could make that inquiry.

At present can the minister advise, just by way of gauging the scale of this agency or this unit, how many staff are employed and active in these types of investigations?

Hon. C. Hansen: I don't have the numbers, the exact number of staff that are engaged in this unit. It is a fairly small unit, but they do an effective job.

[1110]

Section 22 approved on the following division:

[1115]

On section 23.

B. Ralston: Section 23(2) refers to rate of tax payable under sections 20 and 21. That's where designated property is brought into British Columbia, and the value is to be "the taxable value of the designated property as of the entry date."

Can the minister advise how that would be determined? It's easier to understand in the case of subsection (1), where it's the taxable value of the sale, but given that it's a change in use and there is no sale, can the minister explain how the taxable value of the designated property would be calculated in those circumstances?

Hon. C. Hansen: With regard to subsection (2), it is the person that would be registering the vehicle or the person that would be liable to remit the tax that would have to declare the entry date.

B. Ralston: I thank the minister for that answer, and I understand that, but I'm wondering how the calculation would be made as to the taxable value, given that it's a change in use and not a sale. I mean, obviously, a sale…. There's a price, assuming that it's declared accurately, and then you have a basis on which to calculate the taxable value. How would that be calculated?

It might be slightly easier in the case of automobiles, where there's an active secondhand market. There are black books and other reference points to determine the price of a used vehicle at any given time. Obviously, this would become more complicated in the case of boats and aircraft. Perhaps the minister could just advise how those calculations of the taxable value on a change of use would be made.

[1120]
[ Page 5030 ]

Hon. C. Hansen: The determination of the value. It's obvious in the case of a new purchase as to what that value would be, but in the case of something that's being brought into the province that would be subject to this tax, it is actually set out in the next section — in section 24, which we will get to in a minute — how the taxable value is determined if there is depreciation on the vehicle subsequent to the owner purchasing it.

B. Ralston: I understood, from looking at the definition of "taxable value," that the depreciation only applied in one particular case, in subsection (b) in the definition. Subsection (c) appears to refer to, in the note — not the text but the drafter's note: "Taxable value if trade-in allowed on purchase."

I understand that there's a reference to depreciation. I'm just wondering, in the case of a vehicle, how that is calculated. It's obviously a bit more of an arcane transaction if you're referring to the depreciated value of a boat and, I would suggest, even more so if you're referring to the value of an aircraft.

This is a self-reporting system. It relies upon the purchaser to make that declaration. I'm wondering how that would be assessed by the authority receiving the application, whether it's ICBC or some other agency of government, as to the accuracy of that self-assessment.

Hon. C. Hansen: We are getting one section ahead of ourselves here because the question pertains more appropriately to section 24, but basically, it is set out in regulations. The approach to determining taxable value would be the same approach as is currently being used for the Social Services Tax Act, and that is set out in regulation. It is a mathematical formula.

For aircraft, for example, there is a depreciation — "the depreciation determined as the aggregate of the following…." For aircraft it's 25 percent for each year. For vehicles it's 30 percent for each year. For vessels — boats, for example — it would be 15 percent for each year. That is set out in the current regulations for the Social Service Tax Act. A similar regulation would be set out in the regulations pursuant to this section.

[1125]

Section 23 approved on the following division:

[1130]

On section 24.

K. Corrigan: I had a question about the formula that was referenced in the previous discussion, which would be used in accordance with the regulations. The minister said that the depreciation formula would be the same, essentially, as one used under the social service tax. I think it was mentioned that the depreciation level for vehicles would be 30 percent per year.

Just to be sure I'm clear on how that would work, would that mean that after approximately 3½ years there would be no tax under this section and the previous section that it refers to once that depreciation level had been reached?

Hon. C. Hansen: If the member refers to subsection (b), she will note that the taxable value is determined as the depreciated value in accordance with the regulations or 50 percent of the purchase price of the designated property, whichever is greater.

K. Corrigan: It's all right. I've got it now. That's good, thank you.

J. Kwan: Would the same principle then apply to antique cars? How would that calculation work?

Hon. C. Hansen: It applies to all cars equally.
[ Page 5031 ]

B. Ralston: The reference to section 24(b) that the minister has made, where it's either the depreciated value or…. I suppose the fallback position would be 50 percent of the purchase price of the designated property. That's 50 percent of the purchase price originally paid. If someone buys a car in Alberta and two or three years later they then enter British Columbia, they make that declaration. That reference would be to the original purchase price back in Alberta as a new vehicle. Is that a correct understanding of this provision?

Hon. C. Hansen: As I mentioned earlier, this is the provision that's in place today under the Social Service Tax Act, and the same provision will continue.

Section 24 approved on division.

On section 25.

B. Ralston: This refers to the trade-in calculation that's referred to in the definition of taxable value in section 205. Can the minister explain briefly how this calculation would be done?

[1135]

Hon. C. Hansen: What this means is that in the case of a purchase of a used vehicle at a motor dealer, they currently only pay the social service tax on the difference between the trade-in value of a vehicle and the purchase value of a new vehicle. This is basically to make sure that it's a level playing field for the sale of vehicles privately.

If a private individual is purchasing a vehicle in British Columbia but is trading in an existing vehicle to the private seller of the vehicle that you're purchasing, then this 12 percent tax only applies to the difference between the purchase price and the trade-in value. It's really to ensure that there's a level playing field with the way that purchasers and sellers are treated when they're made through motor dealers.

B. Ralston: Perhaps the minister can explain. I think we're all — maybe not — familiar with the purchase of automobiles where a very generous, let's put it that way, allocation of value to a trade-in is offered, which would have the consequence in this case of narrowing that area on which tax would be paid. What's the experience of the social service tax branch in enforcing or at least scrutinizing the declarations that are made about trade-in value? Is there any effective mechanism for enforcing that?

Certainly, one can well understand that in the case of a used vehicle there's a certain, I suppose, range of price, all of which would be acceptable and, depending on the strength and the skill of the bargainer, might accrue to the purchaser or to the seller. What's the experience of the branch in scrutinizing those kinds of transactions and making sure that they are fair to the government in terms of the tax that it collects?

[1140]

Hon. C. Hansen: This is, again, one of these areas that will not change. There is, both within ICBC and the ministry, to determine what would be the fair market values that should be reflected in these cases.

They would rely on publications such as the books that are out about fair market value for used vehicles, and they would have access to similar information with regard to other vehicles — aircraft and boats, etc. They use that to determine whether the values that are being declared by the purchaser are indeed appropriate. If they seem out of line, then they have the powers to do the appropriate follow-up.

K. Corrigan: I'm trying to get a sense of how sections 24 and 25 work together. I have a fair number of car dealers in my riding, and so I think it's important to understand exactly how this is going to work.

Under section 24 there is depreciation down to 50 percent. I guess just for clarification on that 50 percent, if you have a car that's ten years old, it still would be taxed at the 50 percent rate. But how does that work with…? Maybe just confirmation on that.

Then if you have a trade-in, does the depreciation mechanism of section 24 kick in as well, or is it separate — simply fair market value? I'm trying to figure out about how 24 applies with relation to 25.

Hon. C. Hansen: First of all, none of these sections pertain to motor dealers. Under the motor vehicles, motor dealers…. They are currently registrants under GST, and it is the HST that would apply. This is only for the issues involving…. The private sale of vehicles is what this whole section of this legislation pertains to.

What section 25 is, is with the change of use of a vehicle or a vehicle that's brought into British Columbia where there's not a change of ownership. In the case of section 25, that is where there is the change of ownership of a vehicle in British Columbia. It is only in the case where there is a change of ownership of a vehicle where it is sold in British Columbia that the trade-in mechanism would be relevant.

Section 25 approved on division.

On section 26.

B. Ralston: This section refers to those who are exempt from this tax. Can the minister explain briefly who would be exempt from this tax? He's mentioned motor dealers, who I would presume would likely be registrants as defined in section 1. Other than registrants, is there any other significant category of those who are exempt from this tax?
[ Page 5032 ]

Hon. C. Hansen: What this section confirms is that every vehicle that is subject to the HST would not be subject to this tax. That would include vehicles that are purchased from motor dealers, but it would also include any vehicle that's brought into British Columbia from outside of Canada. This is simply to confirm and to ensure that there is not double taxation.

Section 26 approved on division.

On section 27.

B. Ralston: This section appears to give the director, who's a provincially appointed official, power to intervene, in the manner that we described, if the deemed purchase price of designated property — a vehicle, a boat or aircraft — is not accurate. The minister says that this will continue an already existing practice.

[1145]

The mechanism is…. Does it require individual scrutiny of each application? Or is there a software program that by simply inputting the variables into the program would determine whether or not it fell within the tolerable ranges and would not attract scrutiny and, if it fell outside the tolerable ranges, would automatically be set aside and perhaps manually inspected by a staff person? Is that the way in which this program works?

Hon. C. Hansen: I'm sure that given the volume of vehicle transfers that ICBC would process, they would have endeavoured to automate some of this information processing. I don't have the exact details as to how they do that.

Sections 27 and 28 approved on division.

On section 29.

B. Ralston: Can the minister explain the policy reasons for including this section in the act?

Hon. C. Hansen: This is standard language that's used in consumption tax legislation. It simply means that if somebody had paid the tax in error, they would be entitled to a refund.

[1150]

Section 29 approved on the following division:

B. Ralston: Noting the hour, I move the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:55 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. M. de Jong moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.
[ Page 5033 ]

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
CHILDREN AND FAMILY DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); D. Horne in the chair.

The committee met at 10:15 a.m.

On Vote 20: ministry operations, $1,333,693,000 (continued).

M. Karagianis: We did leave off yesterday with my posing a question to the minister and staff about resources, training and other opportunities to help with aboriginal communities in their transition to taking on the authority for their own child and family system. I would like the minister to address those if she can, please.

Hon. M. Polak: It's just important, as a note off the top, that our ultimate aim is not delegated agencies. It is to have aboriginal communities that are able to provide the whole range of supports — including, but not limited to, the current scope of what a delegated agency might offer — within the context of their own traditions and what they would wish to do.

Aboriginal authorities, though, were proposed by government in 2002, and they were accepted as a compromise at the historic Tsawwassen accord. In 2008 First Nations leadership throughout the province did reject the legislation, feeling that it did not go far enough to support their jurisdiction with regard to their children and their families. This then gave birth to the First Nations child-at-the-centre process and the nation-to-nation work, which is building First Nations service delivery in partnership with government, driven by First Nations communities. I think that's an important facet.

Through the planning and the development of these authorities, there was significant capacity built. There were opportunities developed. Learning and community development occurred. It fundamentally increased the capacity of the ministry and aboriginal communities to plan for and to respond to the needs of aboriginal children in B.C. I do want to emphasize that from my perspective — and, I know, from aboriginal leaders I've met with — this process was far from a failure.

[1020]

Through that process there was substantial knowledge that still exists in First Nations communities, and they already have the foundations from years of building governance through that process.

All that capacity, that learning and the work that was gained over the years has now evolved into many diverse levels of planning and service delivery within aboriginal communities, with First Nations and aboriginal communities themselves determining what kind of structures, processes and services would best meet the needs of their communities.

Delegated agencies, of which there are 24 right now, continue to focus on child protection, and together with their communities and everything that I've just discussed, they are assisting to design the best service for their own First Nation and Métis people.

It's important to recognize that while we are happy to work with First Nations who wish to seek delegated agency status, we also recognize that there are other ways of working with First Nations, and we want to encourage that complete movement to where eventually First Nations have full charge over what is occurring in their communities.

M. Karagianis: I expect that we will again have a morning that may be disrupted by the activities going on in the main House here, so I'm going to try and get or at least touch on some of the other really important facets of the questioning that I had which, very frustratingly for the minister as well as myself, is now having to be constrained.

I want to talk a little bit about the integrated case management, because that's another piece of this practice framework that has been initiated here. I know that there was an original cost for this system. I would anticipate that there have been some amendments to that as the transformative process and the new framework have come into play. I'd like to know what that has incurred in the way of changes, what the new costs might be for this and a timeline as well for this process.

I know, in the briefing with the deputy minister, that that was left as being some years from completion, but I'm wondering if we have a bit more of a fix on that and what kind of cost that is going to be — what the cost will be in this budget year and in budget years going out. It's a whole series of questions, but hopefully we can get to all of them.

Hon. M. Polak: I should point out right at first that the integrated case management system is a joint project between the Ministry of Housing and Social Development, the Ministry of Citizens' Services and the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

[1025]

While much of our work toward transformation and practice change is certainly dependent upon the ICM being completed, nevertheless, this is a project that has been contemplated for at least the last ten
[ Page 5034 ]
years. Its development is not directly related to practice change.

The overall budget for the project is $181.7 million. It's a project in five phases, expected to take approximately five years. In terms of discussing the budget in detail, that budget is entirely within the Ministry of Housing and Social Development. I know that they canvassed that in their estimates. I would not propose that we canvass that here, given that we do not have any of the budget for it.

I do want to say that as I've travelled the province, the prospect of the integrated case management system finally coming into being is one that I know is looked forward to by front-line workers just all across the province, who are frustrated with old legacy systems that are currently being utilized.

The ability to provide improved service to our children and families and to be able to work, not only across ministry but within our own ministry, through technology, can afford for us, we believe, great benefits in terms of security of information and in terms of our ability to track the various types of information that are necessary for social workers to conduct their business. We are very much looking forward to getting on with this project.

M. Karagianis: So no dollars whatsoever coming out of this ministry for that process. But the minister didn't really explain whether or not…. This CAPP approach and this significant change in how services will be assessed and delivered within the ministry — how does that affect the integrated case management system?

I would expect that it would have some significant change on it. It would have altered the course of this because, as the minister did explain, the ICM has been underway for some time. I would think that as you move forward into more fully engaging the CAPP approach, that has got to have some significant difference — does it not? — on your case management. It would just seem obvious to me that it would have had to have some significant influence on a redirection of that system.

Hon. M. Polak: I should clarify. I did say that ICM has been contemplated within these ministries for at least the last ten years. That does not mean, though, that work has been underway to produce the integration that is now underway with ICM. In fact, from the beginning the work that has gone on has been designed with CAPP and practice change in mind.

[1030]

So there were no changes to the scope, the planning or the product of ICM as a result of practice change. In fact, they are both very consistent with one another to the extent that CAPP and practice change focus on integration of service and a holistic approach to assessing and managing the information related to a child and to a family.

M. Karagianis: I would like to, then, maybe move to the next budget question. I know we touched on this briefly yesterday.

The CAPP is predicated very specifically, I believe the minister said, on a holistic approach to providing services to children and families as they come in contact with the ministry. I'd like to know how these services are being evaluated. What is the array of services that these families would obtain in this holistic manner, given the fact that there have been significant service cuts?

I mean, the minister says that it's now down to only $5 million in cuts, but I certainly know that some of the cuts are having very dramatic effects on service providers on the front lines. We have canvassed some of those in question period. I think particularly of things like the suicide prevention program that is now disappearing because of cuts to that agency that are affecting all their programs.

Cuts to the Artemis Options day care program. Because of cuts that are being effected to that agency elsewhere in their budget, that is resulting in closure of day care for teen moms. It's the same with the Higgins day care. It would seem to me that $5 million in cuts, some of which have affected things like Success By 6…. Certainly, we've seen dramatic changes in the kind of funding available for autistic children.

All of these would seem to me to be part of this array of services that families are supposed to be able to access under this new CAPP approach to providing these services. How do you provide all these services when in fact they're being whittled away and — in some cases, in rural communities, remote communities — disappearing altogether as some of these agencies collapse and fail under this. Many other programs are falling by the wayside as, I guess we'd call them, either intended or unintended consequences of cuts.

How do you provide this array of services if they are no longer available in communities?

[1035]

Hon. M. Polak: A lot of questions, and if I miss any as I go through, please just remind me.

With respect to CAPP and to ask what services would be available, CAPP and practice change are an overall change to how individuals within the ministry conduct their own professional practice, so there are no specified services. This takes in the approach of the entire ministry and the sector, not just the ministry. There is no way of listing off individual services. This involves the entire ministry.

With respect to changes to the SAY program and to Artemis, those were not a part of the STOB 80 reductions. Those were part of the south Island contracted services delivery project, which instead was realigning services and directing resources toward areas that were, through two years of consultation, determined — by not
[ Page 5035 ]
just the ministry but agencies as well — to be areas that needed a greater focus.

In the other portion of that, of course, we recognize that there is a gap in service for aboriginal people and that we have a need to expand and improve services to aboriginal people. Some of that redirection of funds is taking place to be directed to aboriginal people. For example, in the south Island that is reflected in the development of a new dedicated sexual abuse intervention program for aboriginal people, as well as a new aboriginal parenting program and a number of other new initiatives that will be in place as a result of that redirection of funding.

When it comes to the STOB 80 reductions — and Higgins House is one that was mentioned — I must disagree with the member with respect to the scale of the reduction. The overall budget in our contracted services area is $825 million. The reduction we're talking about is less than 1 percent of that budget, and that is spread out across the entire province.

We worked very closely with the Federation of Community Social Services and developed some principles that have guided those decisions, and those principles are as follows.

We would not impose across-the-board cuts unless they were jointly agreed by the sector agencies and the ministry, and we followed through with that.

We would place direct front-line services as our priority. We have done that.

We would continue to seek efficiencies in economies of scale, and in many cases the agencies that are working with us to find these reductions are doing precisely that, as opposed to dealing with services to families.

[1040]

We want agencies to be able to provide a continuum of services. That will be preferred when we are comparing different services.

We will also look at programs that have low participation rates. Again, that was another area that we considered in partnership with them, and that we would work with those community partners in order to find solutions that would enable us to achieve those reductions.

Another important piece was the scope of this review. We determined from the outset some areas that would not be affected by this review. Aboriginal agencies and services delivered under a contract that's specifically targeted for aboriginal people — that was outside of the scope. Non-residential services for children and youth with special needs — that was outside of scope. Maintenance rates for foster care homes, levels 1, 2 and 3 — outside of scope. Child care services — outside of scope.

Again, I want to emphasize that this is not a large-scale reduction. The changes are not being made as a result of practice change, although, as we approach any of our budget decisions, we want them to be consistent with that philosophy. Nevertheless, these are changes we're making because we need to be supporting our critical front-line services.

It's important to note that they don't reflect an overall reduction in our budget either. Our budget was increased this year by $9.5 million, so this is something that is, again, a comparator, at $825 million for the total budget for contracted services, and these reductions only represent less than 1 percent of that budget.

M. Karagianis: I would like to just go back to something that the minister said yesterday about what this CAPP is meant to achieve. The minister said:

"In terms of the shift, which is a practice change, if we can move to a situation where there is a seamless continuum of opportunities for support.... It's not program-based; it's not based on eligibility; it's based on a menu of services that we can provide and support that we can provide. Based on a holistic assessment of that child and the family's needs, we can select from that range of supports and services outside of the current limitations that are defined largely by program areas."

It would seem to me that what the minister has said is that we are looking to provide this "seamless continuum" to select from a large range of supports and services for families and children when they now come in contact with the ministry in order to achieve this new practice framework.

But the minister is now sort of negating the loss of many of these programs in communities as being pertinent to this or as in any way diminishing this continuum. You would think that if this CAPP is going to be effective, there would be more services offered, not fewer. Services are closing down.

I know that the minister continues to talk about the level of funding from the ministry, but the reality in communities is that services are being lost — $5 million cut from programs. So $5 million moved directly into protected aboriginal services, which the minister has emphasized numerous times — new aboriginal programs. Non-aboriginal programs are, in fact, then going to be feeling the brunt of these cuts.

I just want to ask: is the ministry looking at the consequences of these cuts and the repercussions?

I know that the minister wants to split hairs about what happened with the child care services for teen moms in this region, but the reality is that the cuts that the ministry has levied on those agencies resulted in the loss of child care programs for teenage moms. That's a consequence of these cuts.

As this $5 million is felt throughout these agencies, there will be consequences. Whether the minister wants to directly say: "We didn't cut child care…." Well, the result of your cuts elsewhere in that agency has resulted in the loss of day care for teenage moms.

[1045]

What are the consequences of these cuts? Has the ministry looked at those? Are they tracking the loss of
[ Page 5036 ]
some of these services? Talking about what's happening in the south Island is a small fraction of what the repercussions will be in other communities.

I've heard from across the province, from rural and remote and small communities, that any kind of reduction in services — 50 percent cut in Success By 6 — has had repercussions in those agencies that are now eroding other programs.

At a time when the ministry professes to be engaging in a new process, a new approach to how services are provided to families and children, what is the justification? Where's the evaluation? Are you tracking the consequences of what's happening in these communities with the loss of agency programs and, in fact, the loss of agencies, in many cases?

[The bells were rung.]

The Chair: This committee will recess until the completion of the vote in the other chamber.

The committee recessed from 10:50 a.m. to 10:59 a.m.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Hon. M. Polak: I'll do my best to recapture the question that we were in the centre of when the bells rang. With respect to CAPP, as I think I said before, currently our system is limited to having a family discover the right problem to attach them to the right program.

[1100]

It is rather limiting for the way in which our social workers and other front-line caregivers are able to operate. It in no way negates the work of our contracted agencies, which is the way in which we deliver very much of our programming within the ministry. As I said, with an $825 million budget out of our entire budget, it is obvious that that is significant.

In managing the budget of Ministry of Children and Family Development, all of our programs are important. So it is always challenging to have to make decisions, but we do want to provide a seamless approach. A seamless approach doesn't mean an endless approach. There are always limits. There's always a finite budget and we, like any other ministry, have to manage and have to make sure that we are protecting those very critical front-line services.

With respect to redirecting funding to aboriginal services, services for aboriginal people, that is something we would be doing regardless of our budget circumstances because it is the right thing for us to do in order to reflect the clientele that we serve.

I'm not sure if the member is suggesting that that's not an approach that she favours, but it is one that we do favour and that we are committed to and that will likely be witnessed in other circumstances within our ministry over the next number of years, as we recognize the very disproportionate amount of service that is provided to non-aboriginal people versus aboriginal people when one considers how very many aboriginal children are in care, for example.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

With respect to Artemis and Higgins House, the result of the decisions that we made in terms of their funding should not result in the loss of day care spaces. Their day care spaces continue to be funded at the same rate as any other child care. In fact, in the case of both Artemis and Higgins House, they actually receive increased funding because of the enhanced subsidy rates that those young women qualify for.

Since the time that they expressed their concern about perhaps needing to close those child care spaces, ministry staff have met with them — both Artemis and Higgins House — and will continue to work with them to help them as they determine how they run their operations such that those day care spaces are not at risk. Again, I repeat: they should not be at risk because there were only reductions made to areas that are not affecting the day care spaces.

With respect to tracking, two different processes. The south Island decisions, of course, were part of a two-year-long, community-based process that involved agencies across the south Island, and as we have implemented the recommendations from that work, we have been doing so in concert and in collaboration with agencies involved.

That doesn't mean that all of them are going to be pleased with the result, but it does mean that we have an extensive amount of information with which to work in order to determine the result of the decisions that we are making. And of course, we monitor any and all decisions through our integrated quality assurance processes as we track outcomes and various other measures.

In terms of STOB 80, again, we worked very closely with the Federation of Community Social Services. Also, we recognize that not everyone is going to be pleased with the decisions, but nevertheless, we believe that we had an effective set of principles and guidelines with which to make those decisions. And again, we track those in the same manner that we track all of our services.

Success By 6 never has been a baseline service that was provided by the ministry. They have been provided with grant funding since, I believe, 2003 — that's correct, 2003 — in varying amounts, depending on what they requested and what the ministry had available in that year.

As we've already committed to, we are working with them in the hopes of developing a baseline method of funding for Success By 6 that would allow them to continue in further years, albeit on a more limited basis, but
[ Page 5037 ]
also recognizing the need for us to discuss with Success By 6 the alignment of their programs and services with those that the ministry finds to be a priority for us.

Again, just to emphasize the context here, with respect to those reductions, it's a less than 1 percent reduction on an $825 million budget provincewide.

[1105]

M. Karagianis: First, let me just say that I'd prefer the minister not jump to any conclusions based on my questions about my support or non-support for aboriginal funding. That, I think, would be inappropriate — for the minister to jump to any of those conclusions or put words in my mouth. I'm simply asking questions about how funding is being prioritized, how some of these cuts are affecting services in the front lines and whether or not that contradicts in any way what the minister has explained to me to be the CAPP system.

One of the further things the minister did say yesterday: "In short, we're moving towards a focus on prevention, primarily preventing family breakdown — doing that by assessing the strengths that a family brings to that situation and offering services and supports that focus on the developmental aspect of service, as opposed to the philosophy that has been in place for so many years, which is simply a philosophy of preventing harm."

I want to go back and just examine this idea that the ministry would offer services and supports for families that are more about prevention and that in fact put in place the supports that would help them to better manage their needs. Whether the minister wants to split hairs about things like the child care portion of the funding that went to Higgins or Artemis….

I did ask about the consequences and what the ministry is doing to evaluate and track the consequences of these cuts. The minister can say that it is only a small fraction of the ministry budget, but the reality is that agencies are closing their doors or they are ceasing large portions of their service provision as a result, often, of a cut in another area of their complete funding package.

Those consequences are being felt out in communities and are stripping away some of those very support systems that the ministry purports to want to provide for families. If those systems are gone or disappear…. I mean, when I think about the suicide prevention program here, that is a program that is very preventative, that has been very effective in schools in the area. The loss of that program has not only stripped away some of that preventative service up front that the ministry purports to want to provide but, secondly, the support systems after a tragic suicide has taken place in schools.

How is the ministry tracking the consequences, then, of these losses of programs? And they may be a whole myriad of small programs right across the province. That is, in fact, what is happening. They are stripping away some of these very essential support systems that are supposed to be an intrinsic part of this new CAPP.

[The bells were rung.]

The Chair: The committee will recess until after the vote.

The committee recessed from 11:08 a.m. to 11:16 a.m.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

Hon. M. Polak: Again, I will do my best to recapture what the question was when we were so rudely interrupted.

First of all, I just want to deal with, I think, the context. This is not stripping away. These are not wholesale cuts. These are the STOB 80 reductions. They represent less than 1 percent of an $825 million budget in that area.

[1120]

In many cases, when it comes to those kinds of changes, what agencies are doing is rather than reduce services, they are changing the manner in which they deliver services, much as we in the ministry have sought to reduce our administration costs and to conduct other business differently in order to save funds. We've done that to a rather large degree. In fact, we were able to redirect $32 million back into services.

Certainly, we're asking agencies to consider the same kind of process. It doesn't mean that services will never be impacted, but when one considers, first of all, the size of the reduction and, second of all, the opportunity to find efficiencies by combining programs, by looking at programs with low enrolment, there is the ability for us to lessen to a very great extent the impact that there is on services. I think we must remember the scale of this and keep it in context.

With respect to SAY and the NEED crisis line, that's actually a pretty good example of the kind of decision-making that is involved in implementing the results of the south Island contracted service delivery project, which was a two-year endeavour, working together with ministry staff and with contracted agencies, to examine the needs that are represented in the south Island and also look at what services are currently provided.

The NEED crisis line was one that was being consolidated by the Vancouver health authority, in consolidating six crisis lines into one service that would be a 1-800 free service. In light of that, we examined the funding that we provided to the SAY program, and we examined that in light of other services that we already provide — for example, the Project Alive team, for which there are no wait-lists as was stated in the media. There are no
[ Page 5038 ]
wait-lists. In fact, assessments are typically conducted within two days.

Also, a very important program is called the Friends for Life program, which is firmly based on the idea of getting at root causes of suicide and other anxiety-related and stress-related types of challenges for young people.

It deals with young people in grades 4, 5 and 7, and it provides them the tools to deal with situations of extreme stress and extreme anxiety. It is based on the belief and the evidence that tells us that getting to children at that young stage, providing them with those tools, is one of the best preventions possible for suicide and other related self-harm.

M. Karagianis: I want to seize upon the comments that the minister made here about lessening impact. I would say that that is an admission that, in fact, there is an impact on these services across British Columbia. The minister didn't talk about what kind of tracking is being done and whether or not there will be an opportunity to revisit some of these decisions.

The minister talked earlier about Success By 6. Now, we know that Success By 6 was given very explicit directions that their funding would be cut 50 percent this year and that the program would receive no funding next year. Now I hear from the minister today that there has been a revisiting of that, and I congratulate the government for doing that. If in fact that program has been offered some kind of lifeline, this is good news.

Earlier in this term we discussed the cuts to the IDP program. I understand that as of today a 0.2 position has now been posted, which indicates that the government is revisiting that. I want to move on to discuss some of the other changes in programming here.

[The bells were rung.]

When we return, I'd like to talk about the Child in the Home of a Relative program and the extended family program. I'd like to talk about the consequences that that's having on families — a reduction of services from about 4,500 people down to about 900. I'd like to examine that a little bit more closely when we return.

The Chair: Committee A recesses until after the vote. If I could ask all members to come back as soon as possible due to the shortness of time.

The committee recessed from 11:25 a.m. to 11:33 a.m.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

M. Karagianis: Further to my comments before the interruption, I wanted to kind of segue at this point into another part of services delivered by the ministry, which is the new extended family program that is replacing the Child in the Home of a Relative. There have been great concerns voiced across the province about the impacts of this on families.

Currently the Child in a Home of a Relative provides services to, at any time, between 4,000 and 4,500 children. The extended family program now is slated to serve significantly fewer families. In fact, I think it's projected in the next couple of years to serve as many as 900, which is a significant change.

In the interest of time, I would like to just lay down a few of my concerns about that program and, again, its impacts on this continuity of services that the ministry is purporting to want to achieve.

Currently grandmothers over the age of 65 who have care of their grandchildren and are receiving old age pension, old age security or CPP will not qualify, I understand, under the extended family program. That is a huge impact on grandmothers who may have the care of their grandchildren in the future who seek some small services and will not qualify under the extended family program because they are receiving CPP or OAS.

The concerns I have here with how the ministry is going to achieve serving only 800 or 900 children versus the 4,500 that are currently involved…. What does that say for the various criteria, the screening processes that families will have to go through?

[1135]

The fact that it's parentally driven could be problematic for families where the parent is not involved, not found, living on the street, addicted or otherwise incapable of making those decisions. That alleviates a huge number of families there, if it has to be triggered by the parent.

The service plan creates the criteria that says it has to be reviewed, that the placement would be reviewed in six months, and states very clearly that the program is only meant to be for two years at a time. I think it states a maximum of two years without very specific reassessment. These are all barriers to families providing the kinds of supports that have been available. I know that the Child in the Home of a Relative is certainly fraught with its own warts and bumps and problems. But the move now to the extended family program….

I know part of the appeal that's been offered to this is that you would access a wider variety of services under this — first, if you could qualify, and second of all, if you didn't have other barriers in your way, like age or other restrictions. But I also note that the supports for low-income families have been considerably cut by the Ministry of Housing and Social Development — things like medical equipment and supplies, dental services for children, other supports that are directly related to the Housing and Social Development Ministry, which has some play in this.
[ Page 5039 ]

I would like the minister, if she can, to explain to me how this in any way represents a better option for families than what they are currently able to access through the Child in the Home of a Relative. Again, part of this continuum of service…. Why are there so many barriers here that make it more difficult rather than less difficult for families to take on the responsibility of their child, thereby preventing that child or grandchild or niece or nephew from being taken into custody under the child welfare system?

It would seem to me that there are new barriers being thrown up, new obstacles here, new criteria that make it less possible. I know that grandmothers across the province — and I've had a great number of them contact me — are very, very concerned about their ability, in their current situation or situations similar to theirs, of ever being able to access the EFP program.

[1140]

Hon. M. Polak: I'll try to get through these as quickly as I can in the interest of our not being interrupted.

Just to touch quickly on what was mentioned around Success By 6 and the decision-making there. As we've already made clear to the media in their questioning, nearing the end of our budget we were able to locate additional funding which allowed us to be able to discuss with Success By 6 how they might continue on an ongoing basis in baseline funding, albeit on a more limited basis. So there still will be changes, will be reductions to the amounts. It's difficult to say — in fact, impossible to say at this point — what that will look like. We continue in discussions with them. We're hopeful, but there's no final word on that yet.

In terms of infant development, there's been no change with respect to our direction on that. I'm not certain about the 0.2 position that the member mentions. It could be that that's part of what we're doing to transition to regional supports for that, so that might be what the reference is.

The one thing that has progressed…. We spoke about this when we initially made the change. We had left in place the aboriginal infant development adviser and wanted to review that position. As a result, we've decided to have the aboriginal infant development adviser also take on aboriginal supported child development, and that will remain in place.

[1145]

In terms of the Child in the Home of a Relative program, first and foremost, extended family program is not a direct replacement for the Child in the Home of a Relative program. It is a service that we have begun as part of the continuum that we will provide.

The transition from the Child in the Home of a Relative program in our ministry is a result of recognizing that the Child in the Home of a Relative program provided very limited support — in fact, only financial support and that at a relatively low level. There were no other supports provided to those families in those cases.

Our aim is to connect the child and the family with the right array of services for their situation, based on an assessment. In some cases that might be the extended family program. In other cases it may be a different program, and I'll provide an example of that in a moment.

It's important to note that any families who are currently enrolled in the Child in the Home of a Relative program will not be affected in any way by this change. It only affects those who would be new enrollees or have newly come to the attention of the ministry.

In terms of the old age pension, Canada Pension, that wouldn't in any way affect eligibility for services under the extended family program — not at all.

In terms of the parental participation in the decision-making, that currently exists with the Child in the Home of a Relative program. A parent must sign off on that as they would to enter into a section 8 under the extended family program. The difference here is that when we are assessing a child and a family with respect to what services we may bring to bear on their behalf, if the extended family program is not the right placement for that child, there are other options when the parent is not available.

Those, for example, could be a restricted foster home. We could go to a family group conferencing, even without the parent being involved, in order to determine with extended family what the right placement would be for that child. But there is already a requirement that parents sign off, even with the Child in the Home of a Relative program.

In terms of the review, that's something that I feel, and we as a ministry feel, is extremely important. In terms of determining the appropriate placement and appropriate support for a child, the residence of that child in the home of someone in an extended family setting is intended to be temporary. If in point of fact it looks as though that placement should continue beyond two years, then it is appropriate for us to review that and determine whether or not that placement is appropriate.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:48 a.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 © 2010: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN 1499-2175