2014 Legislative Session: Second Session, 40th 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, March 13, 2014

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 8, Number 5

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 2014

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, Committee of Supply, the ongoing estimates of the Ministry of Children and Family Development; in this chamber, committee stage of Bill 16, the interim supply act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 16 — SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 2014

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 16; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 1:34 p.m.

Section 1 approved.

[1335]

On section 2.

M. Farnworth: So that people who are watching this debate and understanding the sheer size of the amount of money that we are dealing with, why is it that nine out of 52 weeks was chosen — as opposed to, let's say, 12 or 24 or what have you?

Hon. M. de Jong: Essentially, because it takes us to the end of the session. That is what we anticipate will be the length of time required to move through all of the estimates and the tabling of the final supply act.

M. Farnworth: I thank the minister for his answer. I think it's an important point to make. What this does — as we said in second reading debate — is allow for the examination of the spending estimates of the individual ministries in a more thorough fashion.

At the same time, the passage of this particular bill also allows government to fund its obligations financially — in particular, the payment of people who work for the province or agencies, health authorities around the province. I thank the minister for his explanation.

Sections 2 to 4 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Chair, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 1:36 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 16 — SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 2014

Bill 16, Supply Act (No. 1), 2014, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. de Jong: Madame Speaker, I call committee stage of Bill 8, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2014.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 8 — BUDGET MEASURES
IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2014

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 8; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 1:39 p.m.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

M. Farnworth: This section of the bill is an appropriation for unfunded pension plan liability. This is something that is not unique and is often a key part of the Budget Measures Implementation Act.

My question for the minister is: has the government recently made any contributions for unfunded liabilities, and is it expected that it will have to make any in the future?

[1340]

I ask the question, and a fulsome answer from the minister…. Not that I would expect anything less. Rather, I also think this is an opportunity to make an important point on this issue.

One of the things that we hear out in the broader public, particularly those who do not believe in pensions or do not like the fact that there is a public pension plan…. They often look to other jurisdictions in the States where you see significant unfunded liabilities, where some pension plans are only funded 47 percent.

Or you hear tales about, in the United States, where cities are going bankrupt, and as a result, they can't afford their pension plans. Their pension plans have to be
[ Page 2218 ]
either…. The extreme is to scrap them or benefits are significantly reduced. They go: "Oh, that could happen here. We need to ensure that…. We can't afford these pension plans, because what's happening in the States is happening here."

I know it is a misinformation that is popular to be spread on all kinds of media, whether it's on radio talk shows — hosts who have a habit of talking about pension plans and the inability of the province to afford them.

The fact is that our pension plans are in very sound financial shape in this province, and one of the reasons is because of the way they're currently structured. Amendments like this one here allow us to keep doing that. So I would like the minister to just elaborate further on that.

Hon. M. de Jong: So wanting to confirm an always technical aspect of this…. With respect to the pensions, what we rely upon, recognizing that employees and employers make these contributions…. There's an actuarial snapshot of what the obligations would be, going forward, if nothing else changed, based on all of the assumptions that that exciting group of people we know as actuaries engage in.

The change here is that to this point, where that actuarial snapshot results in a finding of a need for an additional contribution on the part of the employer, the source of that funding to this point has been the individual ministry or the voted appropriation. In many cases, because it can be difficult to anticipate until the time the actuarial work is done, what that amount, if any, will be, has practically translated into a draw on contingencies.

[1345]

Because the obligation is known, the change being proposed here is to make it a statutory appropriation so that in the same way that fire protection branch has the statutory authority to spend what is necessary to fulfil the obligations around public safety, this would create the ongoing statutory authority to fulfil the obligations as they relate to funding the pension plans as determined by that actuarial snapshot.

M. Farnworth: That means that we will not, then, have to be dealing with this amendment in each budget implementation measures act. Would that be the effect, then?

Hon. M. de Jong: That is correct.

M. Farnworth: In terms of when there is a shortfall or there's an actuarial determination that it needs some additional contribution, that's split between the employer, the province and the employee. That's also correct, isn't it?

Hon. M. de Jong: In answering the member's question, I'll take advantage of the moment to correct an incorrect use of terminology. I talked, in my earlier answer, about the contributions. There are certainly contributions that are determined by the joint trusteeship, and that's been in place for some time.

What we're talking about here is the balance-sheet reflection of those obligations based on the actuarial snapshot. For the experts in this field, and practically speaking, that is an important distinction that I made incorrectly.

M. Farnworth: Could the minister just also comment on the actual funded liability of the plans and how they compare to other jurisdictions here in Canada? I'm not asking about a specific jurisdiction but rather broadly and particularly in the United States, particularly in relation to the comments that we often hear.

As I said a moment ago, you often hear on the radio from noted financial individuals — the brother of a former Premier comes to mind or certain taxpayers organizations — about how we can't afford our plans, that they're unfunded in the United States and that there are all kinds of problems that we're going to look forward to.

The reality is the plans in this province are funded. There are rules and mechanisms in place to ensure that that happens, and they are very sound vehicles and are doing a terrific job.

Hon. M. de Jong: The short answer to the member's question is yes.

[1350]

It is something that I'm actually glad he asked, because it comes up time and time again in the context of other conversations that take place elsewhere in the country and North America, where jurisdictions are labouring under the burden of uncertainty around large unfunded liabilities. That's not the case in British Columbia. The joint trusteeship model has worked well. It has led, from time to time, to adjustments having to be made.

But I'm happy to say and do say to colleagues, when I meet with them, elsewhere in the country and also financial analysts elsewhere in North America that there is a mechanism through the joint trusteeship model for those adjustments to be made, it no longer, in British Columbia, attracts the kind of political attention that it does in many other jurisdictions. So there is a good story to tell, and one that I think we are at last beginning to get credit for at least on the part of thoughtful analysts if not less in-depth analysis Also, the methodology that has been developed around the joint trusteeship model is proving its worth.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

M. Farnworth: Can the minister just explain…? Sections 4, 5 and 6 deal with the charitable trust and the First Nations clean energy business fund. Can you just
[ Page 2219 ]
describe what's being accomplished with these particular sections, how it will work and what's different from what is currently in place?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'll give a brief answer, and then the member can explore with me if he requires further detail. Section 4 is pretty straightforward. It provides an injection of an additional $1 million, and that is the sole purpose behind the section with respect to that fund.

Section 5 — I'll give a quick synopsis — relates to the Gwaii Forest Charitable Trust. The trust has been operating and been undertaken for some years, as I think the member knows. During the course of work by the members, it was discovered that the original trust deed instrument was lacking. I can, when I review the notes, provide a little more detail about that.

Suffice to say there was a deficiency in the original legal documentation that was discovered. That's been fixed. Also, to ensure that the decisions and the work that have gone on to this point are valid, I believe — as I recall the wording; yes, in sub (5) — there's a deeming provision of sorts that validates the work of the trust since then. It's a corrective measure to address a deficiency in the original deed instrument and to allow the Gwaii Forest Charitable Trust to continue its work as originally contemplated.

M. Farnworth: I thank the minister for that answer. A mistake was discovered — and, obviously, you have to correct that — so this is going back retroactively. Was it March 29 when the mistake dates from? When was the mistake discovered?

Hon. M. de Jong: The deficiency was, I'm advised, discovered about six months ago. The date, March 29, 2007, goes back to its founding. That's when the trust was created.

[1355]

M. Farnworth: That's what I just wanted to clarify and make sure that the mistake hadn't been discovered back in 2007. I was going to say: "What's taken so long to get it fixed?" But six months — yeah, okay. That's fine, then. We can move on, on these sections.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

On Section 6.

M. Farnworth: The next group of sections deals with some amendments to the Carbon Tax Act, adds a number of sections. Some of them appear to be pretty straightforward in terms of defining who a collector is or validating individuals who are deemed to have been doing the work of collecting — if my interpretation of the section is correct — and acknowledging their work in terms of a deputy.

What I'd like…. I guess one of the key questions is: what is the need for the amendments? I guess, more importantly: were there people in the province who were supposed to be collecting the carbon tax but failed to register?

Hon. M. de Jong: Here's the problem that we are endeavouring to address. What has become apparent is that in some cases vendor penalties are excessive. For example, in the following circumstances: where a vendor has acted as if they were a collector or where a vendor did not realize that they had to be appointed a collector but most of their sales would have been either exempt or the purchasers eligible for a refund.

It's intended to be something of a fairness adjustment. Where folks were acting in good faith and believing they were acting appropriately and it turns out they were not in complete compliance, the penalty regime is a pretty harsh one. The belief is that in a few of these circumstances, it's appropriate not to impose the full weight of those sanctions on people who are acting in good faith.

M. Farnworth: I'd ask the minister if he could give a more specific example so we can get a sense of the nature of the type of transaction we are dealing with.

I'd also ask the minister…. He may want to take the opportunity to introduce his staff, all of whom, I know, are very able. Also, I want to make mention that my colleague the member for Surrey-Whalley wanted to recognize, wanted you to be aware, that he found the staff member to your right to be particularly informative, when he had this position. He wanted to say that he thought she did a terrific job. [Applause.]

Hon. M. de Jong: She is. I thank the member for relaying the comments of his colleague. Ms. Anne Foy, who is to my right, dazzles with a breadth of knowledge about the unendingly fascinating world of taxation policy. Thank you for acknowledging her expertise.

Richard Purnell is on the far left; Paul Flanagan to my immediate left.

I'll take a moment to provide a specific example of what the provision is intended to address.

[1400]

I am reminded that here's a classic example of where we're trying to provide a little sensitivity to some practical situations that arise. A person or an agency has been appointed as a collector for one type of fuel, gasoline. The business expands, and they start selling diesel.

They're doing the right thing. They haven't been appointed as a collector. They're behaving accordingly, but they haven't actually taken the necessary step of being appointed as a collector. It would seem to us in those circumstances to be somewhat unfair to impose the existing sanctions that would otherwise apply.

M. Farnworth: Have there been many cases of that?
[ Page 2220 ]
Just a ballpark figure of how many times this has occurred, the scope of the problem.

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm advised that the number of instances to this point that would have been covered are a handful. I'm further advised that, to confirm my earlier comments, it's not a case of the Crown having lost any appreciable revenue. But because of the way the penalty structure applies and because of the volumes involved, the penalties, had they been applied, would have been quantified in the millions of dollars. That seemed unfair, given the circumstances.

Sections 6 to 12 inclusive approved.

On section 13.

M. Farnworth: I just want to clarify. In this particular section, this "provides for the assessment of interest on an amount owing to the government under the act." I just want to…. This may be the right section or the wrong section.

With the passage of the change that we have just made earlier, back in section 6, if someone now makes a mistake that that section does not cover, they are in violation of the act and this allows for interest to be added to the penalty. Is that correct?

[1405]

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for the question. A couple of things. We're trying to bring a measure of consistency between the Carbon Tax Act and the provincial sales tax provisions around the calculation of interest and interest netting, which I think the member knows is a mechanism that comes into play in certain circumstances where it is revealed that on the one hand, someone owes the Crown money, and on the other hand, they are entitled to a refund.

In certain circumstances, interest netting is permitted. In the case of interest imposed on a failure to levy a penalty, interest netting does not apply. There are some very technical rules around when interest netting can occur.

What we're trying to do is, one, ensure that the proper legal authority exists for that tool to be used, and two, to bring consistency between the Carbon Tax Act and the Provincial Sales Tax Act.

Sections 13 and 14 approved.

On section 15.

M. Farnworth: Can the government just outline how this section is intended to work and what it will do when it comes into force?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think I'm going to interpret the member's question as not being an invitation to go through the details of what the B.C. early childhood tax benefit is and the quantified amounts, but rather how the act will operate to give effect at the appropriate time to the B.C. early childhood tax benefit.

The provisions that we're dealing with are intended to ensure that the B.C. early childhood tax credit legislation is completely integrated and integratable with the appropriate federal legislation. That, in a nutshell, is what these definitions and provisions are intended to try and achieve.

Section 15 approved.

On section 16.

M. Farnworth: Section 16 extends the B.C. mining flow-through share tax credit for another year, to the end of 2014. This is an issue that we have dealt with in consecutive budgets for many years now. It's an issue that we've heard about in the Finance Committee's journeys around the province — the importance of it.

A couple of questions on this. Has the ministry done studies on the effectiveness and the efficacy of the flow-through share credit? Have they looked at other models of delivering it? Are they convinced that this is the best model there is to achieve the desired result, which of course is increased mineral exploration activity?

[1410]

Hon. M. de Jong: I guess analysis can take place at a variety of levels, and I can provide the member with some statistics relating to the 5,000 taxpayers that claim the B.C. mining flow-through share tax credit.

Probably the number that is significant for the government is that relating to exploration expenditure data. In fairness, I think the rate at which exploration takes place is the product of a range of factors, and I wouldn't want to suggest that the growth we've seen is attributable to any one single component. But we do believe that part of setting the appropriate climate and public policy framework is the B.C. mining flow-through share tax credit. It was introduced in 2001, and we've seen exploration expenditures increase from $29 million in 2001 to in excess of $600 million a year today — again, lots of factors attributable to that.

We would make the point and are satisfied through analysis that this is an important feature of that overall approach to creating a competitive framework.

M. Farnworth: I appreciate the minister's response. One of the issues that we heard in the Finance Committee in terms of the importance of this particular credit is that it's not responsible for the whole of exploration. In fact, a great deal of that, apart from the regulatory framework, of course, is the price that many minerals or many metals
[ Page 2221 ]
command on the world market, and they are very price sensitive.

The minister, I know, is well aware that when copper is at 65 cents a pound, it's staying in the ground. No amount of flow-through tax credits are going to get that to change. But when it's $3 a pound or $2 or $4 a pound, it's of considerably more interest, and this program has been, I think, successful. So I appreciate the minister's response.

[1415-1420]

Section 16 approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. B. Bennett: It seems that a comment I made in the House a week or two ago was inaccurate. At the time, in terms of the second reading vote, it wasn't inaccurate, but it turns out that it's inaccurate as of the recent vote by division. Therefore, I retract that comment…

A Voice: And celebrate.

Hon. B. Bennett: …and celebrate just how close we're all becoming.

Section 17 approved.

On section 18.

M. Farnworth: This section changes the eligibility requirement for the B.C. family bonus. It slightly relaxes the B.C. residency requirements for eligibility, effective July 2014. I'm just wondering if the minister can say the purpose, why this is taking place. How many people will it impact?

Hon. M. de Jong: Probably the most important thing I can indicate is that I'm advised this will impact, perhaps, 100 families and less. To the extent that it impacts them, it operates in their favour by reducing the residency requirement from the present to a one-day requirement in the month.

The ultimate purpose is to harmonize the administration of the early childhood tax benefit with the B.C. family bonus and the Canada child tax benefit.

[1425]

M. Farnworth: I understand that it deals with a very small number of individuals, and that's great.

What are the circumstances, then, that create the need for this amendment? What are the circumstances that these 100 families or so find themselves in?

Hon. M. de Jong: The small remaining number that are on this old program, the family bonus, still had the 14-day requirement. We're harmonizing the early childhood tax credit with the Canada child tax benefit, so we want everyone to be on the one-day test as opposed to the 100 on the 14-day test. That's the harmonization that's taking place.

Sections 18 and 19 approved.

On section 20.

M. Farnworth: This is the section that deals with the B.C. early childhood tax benefit that will begin in April 2015. Can the minister explain how this is going to work in terms of existing programs? With relation to the family bonus, obviously you're harmonizing the dates, but specifically, the income thresholds and how that clawback will take place and at what point you become ineligible.

Hon. M. de Jong: Practically, the intention here or the reason we are fairly adamant about wanting to coordinate with the existing federal program is so that eligible families will receive a single cheque. It'll be administered through that system, and they'll receive the additional amount — in most cases $55 per month for the eligible families, for the eligible children — through the federal program. It will be added on to that cheque.

The income thresholds and the fact that for families with net incomes exceeding $100,000 and how that reduces downwards until a family has income of $150,000…. There is a different threshold that can be accommodated within the administration through the federal system. But that is unique to the calculation of the B.C. early childhood credit and different from the federal criteria. But they can be administered together, and eligible families will get a single cheque that includes both.

M. Farnworth: In terms of family eligibility, it is based on family income as opposed to individual income. If you have two individuals each making $55,000 each, that would be $110,000. They would start to see that reduction because their combined income is over $100,000. It's not on the basis of an individual earning $100,000 and another individual in the family earning $50,000. I'm correct on that?

Hon. M. de Jong: That's correct. I think I can probably get a table for the member about how that reduction occurs between $100,000 and $150,000.

[1430]

M. Farnworth: If the minister could provide that, I would appreciate that.

Section 20 approved.

On section 21.
[ Page 2222 ]

M. Farnworth: This is an important issue, and it relates to the corporate income tax preference for credit unions being phased out. This, if my understanding is correct, is in relation to changes made at the federal level, and they then impact credit unions here in British Columbia. If the minister could just elaborate on the nature of that, then I have some follow-up questions on that particular topic.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the member has, by and large, characterized this correctly. The federal government has decided to eliminate preferential tax treatment, an aspect of their tax treatment of credit unions — across Canada, to be fair — that was preferential to credit unions. In the ordinary course of affairs, the province might be expected to follow suit, which would add an additional burden to credit unions within British Columbia.

We have chosen instead to continue the preferential treatment at the provincial level for a period of time as laid out here and then to begin to phase that out over a period of, I think, five years, beginning in 2016. There are changes, to be sure. We have chosen to delay the implementation of those changes contrary to the federal government and then to phase them in over a longer period of time. Those decisions, in the short to medium term, accrue to the benefit of B.C. credit unions.

M. Farnworth: Can the minister tell me what the financial benefit will be with the impact of these particular changes?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm just going to confirm the figure. I've got a $1 million figure for the year coming, but I think the member said: "What's the cumulative effect of that change?" My recollection is it's $14 million or $16 million. I'm going to verify the figure.

M. Farnworth: A few more questions on this particular section and this issue, because it is important. This is one of the issues that we heard on the Finance Committee. Credit unions made a number of presentations on this particular issue and its impact on them.

My understanding is that British Columbia is making this change because we're tied, or our current legislation is linked, to the federal legislation. So if in the federal legislation there is a change made and we don't change our existing provincial legislation, then that impact automatically impacts here on British Columbia. Other provinces don't have that challenge because they have their own legislation so that even though the feds have made that change, it doesn't impact, because they have their own statute.

[1435]

I'm wondering if that's correct and if the minister can tell me how many other provinces are in a different situation than British Columbia.

Hon. M. de Jong: The member correctly points out that there are different linkages between provincial and federal statutes. The jurisdictions I can speak to relatively authoritatively…. Saskatchewan, I think, is going to look at this for a year before making a final decision. We haven't heard from Ontario about what their intentions are.

The question confronting both jurisdictions, as it was us, is whether or not to take steps that would provide an additional measure of relief from the impact of the federal change. As I think the member has correctly pointed out, in B.C.'s case, there is an impact from the federal change, and there will ultimately be an impact provincially. What we have done is delayed that impact and phased it in over a longer period of time.

M. Farnworth: Has there been any thought to the delinking from the federal legislation so that, in essence, we can do what we want when we want, as opposed to…? The feds have now made a change, and now we are, in some cases, potentially behind the eight ball, having to make a change on a timetable that might not be of our own choosing. Other provinces that don't have to deal with the issue in the way that we're dealing with it in British Columbia have a greater ability to meet their own needs on their own timetable.

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm not sure there were any legal impediments to the province of British Columbia charting its own course. In fact, that's what we're doing now. Had we not taken this step, the impact would have been greater, to be sure.

The other thing. I've just received confirmation that the cumulative impact to the treasury of the provisions we're dealing with has been estimated to be $14 million.

Sections 21 to 26 inclusive approved.

On section 27.

M. Farnworth: Section 27 deals with extending the scientific research and experimental development tax credit by three years. In the budget documents, the estimated cost is about $170 million a year.

[1440]

It's a tax credit that has been in place for a number of years now. I guess the key question is: is the government satisfied with the results of the tax credit? Is it meeting its objectives? Are we measuring its effectiveness, and do we have reports on the measurement of its effectiveness?

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for the question. I'm reminded that the B.C. scientific research and experimental development tax credits date back to '98. It was decided then, and I think this has been maintained since that time, that the credits should parallel the eligibility
[ Page 2223 ]
parameters of the federal SR-and-ED tax credits. That's been a positive feature in terms of reducing the cost of administering the program.

The federal government has recently commissioned a review of support in this area. It's commonly referred to as the Jenkins report. I think the member is aware of that. It has reviewed where the positive impacts have been and recommended, I think, some changes. In 2012, in the federal budget, the program was revised in certain ways, and we have paralleled those changes provincially.

A real test for assessing the effectiveness of these tax credit programs is: to what extent are we incenting new investment and behaviour that wouldn't otherwise take place but for the tax credit? I can tell the member that the data that's been collected tells us that more than 2,000 B.C. companies have claimed the credit each year, and about 500 B.C. businesses claim the non-refundable credit each year. The annual benefit is up to $300,000 per claim.

The benefits accrue across a wide range of industries — biotech, manufacturing, digital media, engineering, life sciences, communications, computer sciences, design and transportation. I'm sure that if we spoke with any of those agencies that were receiving the tax credit they would tell you that it was highly beneficial and would argue against a reduction or elimination of the credit.

The more difficult thing, quite frankly, to assess in cases of investment and activity is: would the absence of the credit have reduced investment? The extension of the credit for an additional three years signals, I suppose, fairly conclusively that on balance the government is satisfied that this is incenting additional, incremental activity that would otherwise not take place and, from that point of view, believes that it is a defensible and appropriate investment of taxpayer dollars.

[1445]

M. Farnworth: The minister will get no argument from me on the program itself and its intent because I'm reminded that when the minister outlined…. When the program was introduced, if I'm not mistaken, I was a minister. It is good to see that that initiative from the '90s is still in place.

I also think it's important that that was 16 years ago, and technology has changed. Opportunities, in terms of research, have changed. I think all of us in this province want to see that sector of the economy grow, and there are tremendous opportunities in doing that.

I also think we do need to be mindful in how things do change over 16 years and make sure that we are achieving the goals that we want and we're achieving the results that we expect.

When we see changes in a report…. The minister's quite right. In the Jenkins report, yes, it did outline a concern. It did outline a potential overreliance on tax credits and that the federal government has made changes in that area to make sure, if we're adopting the changes and we make changes ourselves, that we are monitoring, that we are getting a performance evaluation so that we can make sure that for the money we are spending, we get the best bang for the dollar.

My question to the minister would be: is there an ongoing review? For example, a credit will be brought in for five years with a sunset clause. Do we have a schedule of reviewing the credits over, let's say, a five-year period once changes have been made — and there were changes made at the federal level — to see whether or not they are having the desired impact or whether, in fact, the original structure really was the ideal approach?

I'm wondering how we're looking at dealing with this into the future once these changes are made.

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm not in any way arguing the advisability of what the member suggested in terms of analyzing the effectiveness and the impact of a tax credit program. There is obviously data on who is claiming the credit. We're somewhat restricted in how we use that data, of course, as it relates to individual taxpayers. When I say taxpayers, I include corporate entities in the definition of that term.

It is, at the end of the day, a case of analyzing the foregone revenue. Just to put that in perspective — I think the member knows this — this is not a cheap program. Extending the tax credit until September 2017 will, we believe, and these are estimates, reduce corporate income tax revenue by about $99 million — just under $100 million in 2014-15, $180 million in '15-16 and $190 million in '16-17. That's a fairly significant amount.

The fact that it goes up, one would say, is an indication of enhanced and growing activity. It's the same kind of conversation we have around the tax credit for the film and production sector. As activities ramp up there, as apparently they are this year, the cost in either foregone revenue or, in the case of refundable tax credits, actual payments out continues to grow.

Participants in this program would undoubtedly say that as that amount in foregone revenue grows, that is the best indication of success and ongoing activity in the sector.

[1450]

I'm happy to take advantage of the opportunity to point out that in providing this incentive-based type of program and credit, the cost in this case in foregone revenue is measured in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

M. Farnworth: The minister is correct. It is not an insignificant amount of money; $170 million is a lot. Having said that, at the same time what we're trying to encourage and see develop in this province is a significant research, development and technology sector which impacts issues such as productivity and transitioning and changing our economy. I think that all of us support that.
[ Page 2224 ]
What we want to do is make sure that we're getting, as I said, the best bang for the dollar.

One of the things in the Jenkins report was that issue of tax credit funding and our reliance on it. The issue that they raised and the recommendation that they had in that report was about redeploying that funding to a more direct investment, as opposed to using a tax credit system. The feds made some changes to do that. They didn't go with the full recommendation of the Jenkins report.

Just a final question. Has the minister looked at those changes and looked at that recommendation in terms of what the Jenkins report has recommended? Have they discussed those recommendations with the industry and the sector, for example, with a look to seeing what the reaction would be to taking a more direct approach, as opposed to a tax credit approach, and what the potential costs or benefits might be to the province?

Hon. M. de Jong: Apologies for the delay. I guess the first point I would make — and hopefully this answers, in part, the member's question — is that we are consciously trying to proceed on an ongoing basis in parallel with the federal government to avoid the need to create a whole separate administration. That, so far, has been successful. It does engage us in an interest in tracking changes advanced by the federal government.

I am advised that in the past we have made submissions with respect to the application and the design of the program. I don't want to suggest that the federal government always embraces or responds in an entirely favourable way. I don't say that to suggest mischievousness. It's a large country, and there are other provinces. But we do try to operate in parallel.

In 2012, for example, in response to the Jenkins report, the federal government removed capital acquired after 2013 — machinery, computer equipment — from the base of eligible expenditures.

[1455]

We've made a similar change, so to that extent the program has shifted around. They have made some other structural changes that we have tried, where appropriate, to replicate.

I think the overall proposition that the member's advancing, that we try where possible to tailor this to the needs of the sectors that it is geared towards in British Columbia, is a valid one. But I don't want to overestimate the degree to which we have absolute discretionary authority to do that.

Section 27 approved.

On section 28.

M. Farnworth: Section 28 deals with land tax deferral and a change there. I'd like the minister to explain this. I have had personal experience with the impact of this. That is, if you're over 55, you can defer property taxes. The debt from a land tax deferment program needs to be paid off if the property or a portion of the property is sold, but this amendment means that that's not the case for property that's used for easements, for something like a sidewalk or a road.

I wonder if the minister could expand on that and provide more detail. Then I may have an example that I'd like him to address.

Hon. M. de Jong: The basic premise behind the program is that you have the ability, in the circumstances that are provided for at law, to defer the payment of your property taxes. We've expanded that. As I think the member is aware, it was formerly restricted to seniors and then has been expanded to a variety of other circumstances.

One of the triggering mechanisms for when the obligation to repay the deferred amount occurs was on disposition of the property, kind of a logical provision. You can defer as long as you're the owner of the property. At the time you decide to sell…. For the purpose of this conversation, let's assume that is the family home. You can defer, if your circumstances qualify you, the payment of property taxes.

When you decide to sell the home, you pay the deferred amount. Hopefully, there are rules about having sufficient equity to do so. It can be a very, very effective way for families and seniors to take advantage of the equity in their home and to, in some instances, depending where they live, find an additional $4,000, $5,000, $6,000, $7,000, $8,000 or $9,000 a year.

The problem that arose is that pursuant to the definitions contained within the relevant provisions of the act, if, for example, you chose to offer an easement or a right-of-way — maybe it was to allow a neighbour to have access to something in the back end of the property — because of the definitions operated within the act, the registration of that easement or statutory right-of-way triggered the obligation to repay, when there actually wasn't a disposal of the property taking place.

The intention here is to ensure that there is legal authority to maintain what the original intention always was — that the obligation to repay does not accrue until there is an actual sale of the interest in the property.

M. Farnworth: I've got some comments on this. What triggered this particular change? Was there a particular case? Was government approached? Was it something that was discovered in the ministry that triggered this particular change?

[1500]

Hon. M. de Jong: I am advised of two things. One, there are about 50 inquiries a year, which tells us that the deferment program is gathering a healthy list of participants. I don't have numbers on this, but my strong suspicion is
[ Page 2225 ]
that in a number of those instances the agency asking for the statutory right-of-way or the easement was the Crown itself. So it's the Crown asking a property owner to, as it were, cooperate, and the property owner saying: "Well, actually, I'd like to. But when I do, because of the way your laws are written, it's going to trigger an obligation that I don't wish to assume at the moment."

M. Farnworth: In terms of the Crown, provincial Crown or federal Crown?

Hon. M. de Jong: I can't say for certain. I expect either.

M. Farnworth: The reason I say that is that this is a good amendment, and the minister is right that property tax deferment is becoming more popular. We're going to see it more as we have an aging population and as more people become aware of the program.

There is, I would also suggest, another issue that's going on as to why I think this amendment is particularly appropriate at this particular point in time. That is the changes that are being made at the federal government level with Canada Post. What you are going to see with their elimination of urban mail delivery, particularly in many communities that have delivery now in parts of Vancouver and most of the Lower Mainland which historically had mail delivery….

Streets were built to a different standard. A new subdivision today, when it's designed and built, is designed with the public mailbox location already built into the subdivision plan. It's not on somebody's front lawn. What you're going to see over the next few years…. I know in parts of my own community — Mary Hill, for example — there are a number of streets that are quite narrow. They're not made for cars parking and for people to get out and to put a mailbox there.

We are going to see Canada Post going to homes, identifying sites, saying: "We want to put one of these big boxes on your front lawn, and either we need a right-of-way that you'll give permission for or the expropriation process will take place."

But the bottom line is there may well be an awful lot more cases where an easement is going to trigger the issue that we are addressing with this particular regulation. So I think it is appropriate that it's in this place, and that's why I asked about whether it was provincial Crown or federal Crown that was making the request. I think that as the changes proposed at Canada Post come through, you are going to see an awful lot.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

I think it's going to be — just an aside — interesting to see how many people react when their nice, private front yard that may be landscaped is suddenly going to be subject to a mailbox. The neighbourhoods they're in were not designed to accommodate them. I think this is an appropriate change, and I think it's one that will save a lot of people the very unwelcome headache of having to go through the issue of the deferment tax payback being triggered.

Sections 28 to 35 inclusive approved.

On section 36.

M. Farnworth: I just want to get it on the record, because these sections are similar to the ones that we dealt with before.

[1505]

I just want the minister to make a comment in respect to these sections — that what we are doing is similar to what we did earlier in terms of ensuring that people who are supposed to be collecting something are not unduly and unnecessarily penalized, and your harmonizing is in place. If that's not correct, inform me.

Hon. M. de Jong: With respect to section 36, what I can confirm for the member is that the amendment is simply to ensure that there is legal authority for what are existing administrative practices and to make sure the act is consistent with other consumption tax acts.

M. Farnworth: That was what I was expecting the minister to say. I want to say that those numbered sections — in case someone is concerned, going through them — are just to bring into compliance and to make sure that there's consistency in fact taking place. I see the minister nodding his head, and I thank him for that.

Sections 36 to 38 inclusive approved.

On section 39.

M. Farnworth: This is an amendment dealing with the property tax rate cap on designated port property beyond the 2018 taxation year. It's been introduced, and it has had — for a five-year period, and it's been extended — a sunset clause.

Can the minister give us the rationale for doing away with the sunset clause? Has there been analysis done in terms of why it's now felt that it's the appropriate time to make it permanent as opposed to continuing, saying for an additional five years, and then a sunset clause or renewing it over the five-year period?

Hon. M. de Jong: Not to be cute about it. One of the triggering mechanisms for why this is here is that it was asked for by the ports, of course, who make the case that, as pleased as they are and were with the original provision, the possibility of a change in 2018 was causing distress and uncertainty around attracting the kind
[ Page 2226 ]
of investment and development that they were seeking.

The request was for certainty around this to extend beyond 2018. The measure, of course, does that by making the tax rate cap permanent. However, to be fair, we also recognized that municipalities have an interest in this and, therefore, thought it appropriate to ensure that municipal compensation would also continue beyond 2018.

M. Farnworth: Did that consultation take place with the municipalities?

Hon. M. de Jong: There was. I should say, though, in fairness, two things. Most of that consultation would have taken place in advance of the announcement that was made in Budget 2012 about the intention to do this. The other observation I would make is that most of the anxiety that might otherwise have arisen seems to have been addressed by the assurance that the compensation will be tied to inflationary rates as well.

M. Farnworth: Just to get it on the record, how is the inflationary rate calculated? Is it the consumer price index? Is it a federal government measure? Is it a provincial determination? How is the inflation rate calculated?

[1510]

Hon. M. de Jong: In fact, and I did not recall this, the act makes clear that it is the consumer price index for British Columbia.

Sections 39 to 42 inclusive approved.

On section 42.

M. Farnworth: This particular section is going to increase the first-time-homebuyers grant — the eligibility, the qualifying value of the property from $425,000 to $475,000. Can the minister explain how the determination was achieved, how the determination to move from $425,000 to $475,000 was decided? What's the anticipated expectation of individuals able to take advantage of this? Then I'll have some further questions following on that.

Hon. M. de Jong: The genesis of the inclusion of the provision — probably a couple things. First of all, as I think I indicated earlier, a realization that much has changed since the days when a former government introduced the property transfer tax. I will resist the temptation to get into a history of the tax itself, as tempted as I am.

Nonetheless, the more salient feature today is that property values have obviously changed. Admittedly, governments have acquired a dependency on the revenue that flows. Yet the argument is made that with property values increasing in the way they have over the last several decades, it is perhaps time to address that.

The impediment that might be developing, especially for first-time homebuyers who have enjoyed an exemption…. The member's specific question is: where do the numbers come from? The matter was raised, I think, in some of the submissions to the committee that the hon. member sits on.

The other two factors are…. Well, we know what the floor is. It's where the threshold existed at $425,000. How high to raise it? It was, in large measure, an analysis of affordability. The data allows our officials to say, with some measure of certainty based on history and market trends, what it's going to cost, what the foregone revenue will be. In this case, we estimate, again, that this will allow upwards of 1,700 first-time home purchasers to enter the market without having to pay the property transfer tax. Of course, that translates into savings of over $7,000.

I think I've mentioned in other places, if not here, that we're anxious to do more to adjust this, to take into account increased property values. This is what we think is affordable today in terms of the foregone revenue, but we also think that we have to offset that foregone revenue against the benefits associated with facilitating people — we hope, in many cases, young people — entering the housing market.

M. Farnworth: When the minister says "affordability," is he talking about the affordability of people looking to buy a house or affordability of the province in terms of providing the program?

Hon. M. de Jong: We're concerned about both. In the context I used the term, I was talking about affordability from the point of the Crown and foregone revenue.

M. Farnworth: The reason I raise that is because this is a very important issue in terms of affordability for families or young people or, in fact, older people who want to get into the housing market.

[1515]

Either (a) they've always had that desire for a home of their own, or (b) they've decided, as I know a friend of mine has decided after 25 years of renting that maybe it's the time to actually buy a place of their own. So the question becomes: what is affordable?

When the program was initially put in place, we were talking about houses. That was what was meant by the property purchase. That's what has been meant by the homebuyers' grants. When you traditionally talked about a home, you were talking about a stand-alone house, in most cases. The reality is that if you're looking in the Lower Mainland, $425,000 to $475,000 for a house, certainly in Metro, is basically nonexistent. So what you can do with this is look at a townhouse or a condominium, particularly if you're living in Vancouver. You know, $1,700 seems like a lot, but the reality is that the issue, I think, is pretty significant.
[ Page 2227 ]

My question to the minister is: are you looking at other measures besides this? If so, what are they, in terms of being able to…? Let me rephrase that question. Has the government looked at other measures, budgetary measures, that they could take besides this one in terms of trying to address the issue of affordability? I'll leave it at that for now.

Hon. M. de Jong: I'll mention a few things that I would place within the basket of public policy that might be of assistance. We've talked about land tax deferment and the expansion that's happened there. There is, of course, the homeowner's grant that is particularly for people occupying lower-income levels and purchasing homes in the range we're talking about here. That provides additional assistance.

I don't think the member's question was an invitation for me to launch off on a broad summary of other taxation measures. I think he is wanting me to focus more particularly in the area of property and property ownership and costs of property transactions. What I can say to the member is that there is a specific interest in finding additional ways to provide relief and allow people to gain entry, particularly at the entry level, into the housing–home ownership market.

We continue to look at some of the options there and did, in fact, consider a number of other measures but, at the end of the day, within the context of the balanced budget, couldn't make the numbers add up and settled upon this as an initial step into trying to make entry into the housing market more affordable.

M. Farnworth: I've got one suggestion, and I'm not by any means — the minister is right — looking for a broad discussion or a broad examination of all of the possible things related to land ownership or property ownership. It falls into this vein of: you've got the threshold and the grant in place.

One of the ways in which people can come up with that down payment or make first-time home ownership more affordable is by accessing their RRSPs. You can take out, I think, $20,000. That's a federal program. It's not a provincial program. It has been quite successful.

[1520]

The challenge for those of us here in British Columbia is that $20,000 in Spuds Acre, Saskatchewan, for example, will buy you maybe a $100,000 home or what have you. You can actually do something. Here, when you're looking at…. Let's say, for example, you find an affordable piece of property at the $450,000 mark. That's not quite…. You know, if you want a 10 percent down payment, that doesn't meet it.

What I'm wondering is: has the minister approached the federal government to look at the potential of expanding that, recognizing that certain places such as British Columbia have a significantly higher housing cost in relation to the rest of the country? That, in addition to something like this, would be a way to increase affordability. I know it's not directly tied to the budget, but it would have an impact in terms of when measures like this are introduced.

Hon. M. de Jong: I haven't had that specific conversation with the federal minister. It's an idea worth pursuing.

A. Weaver: We might agree that the property transfer tax is a very regressive tax because it taxes something that we try to encourage. That is home ownership and property ownership. When it was first introduced, the average house price in Vancouver was below $200,000. The average house price in Vancouver is substantially high.

I recognize here that we have a small movement towards increasing the amount that you're eligible for under first-time buyer, prior to paying property tax. My question to the minister is: to what extent are you also exploring increasing the 1 percent, 2 percent threshold from $200,000 and above? The reason why I ask this is that many people need to move for circumstances that are beyond their control, or sometimes they are in their control.

Let's suppose, for example, that you have a child who's allergic, and the home you're in is a 1912 home which will cost $150,000 to renovate. You might have to move to a new home to deal with a medical problem associated with your child, but in that move you're now subject to property transfer tax at a 1 percent, 2 percent threshold.

Again, my question to the minister: are there moves or plans, as we move forward, to actually expand upon the relief for property owners by increasing that threshold to a more realistic value for average home prices?

Hon. M. de Jong: Again, no argument with the member's analysis of the issue and the challenge and the change that has occurred since 1989 — I think it was — and the advent of the tax itself.

The member may be happy to know that I gave specific consideration to the question he's raised about the other thresholds and where the shift from 1 percent to 2 percent occurs. I wish I had a more elaborate answer than this. In terms of costing the shift in thresholds in that area, it adds up very, very quickly. That's not an argument for not doing it. It just meant that with the limited fiscal room we had available at this point, we chose to use it on the first-time-homebuyer side.

The member's description of circumstances that can confront families is a very valid one and a very practical one. I'm hopeful, candidly, that going forward we can have a look at the other thresholds. My guess, looking forward, is that movement there will be very incremental. It doesn't take long for government to become hooked on a revenue stream. Delinking the dependency on that revenue stream can be a more prolonged and difficult process.
[ Page 2228 ]

A. Weaver: I recognize the importance of living within one's means and balancing a budget, and I recognize that one would have to find savings in other aspects of taxation.

[1525]

I don't believe that the property transfer tax is a fair tax either, because there is a loophole that has been closed in Ontario. This is the bare trust loophole. A bare trust allows people to put property into a bare trust and not pay transfer tax upon the sale of a property. Instead, the bare trust is registered on title and, upon sale, you sell your ownership in the bare trust.

In Ontario this loophole was closed because of recognition that it became unfair. My question to the minister then is: to what extent is the minister taking steps to ensure that this loophole is also closed in British Columbia? It would provide a substantial source of revenue that would then allow the 1 percent, 2 percent threshold to increase. It is becoming more increasingly used, and accountants are recommending their clients use it for expensive properties where it's well worth doing so.

The Chair: While the related party policy discussion that we're currently having is interesting, I'm not certain of the relevance on section 42. I'll let the minister continue.

Hon. M. de Jong: I appreciate the member's interest in this. I've read and acquainted myself with the arguments. Our tax, clearly, is one that is registration-based. That presents certain constraints to the ability to change.

The other facet of this that, candidly, I've not really heard a convincing response to is: the other way to avoid the payment of the tax — a very common way, as well — is, in the case of corporate transfers, a share transfer. Again, the property may be held by a corporation, and the way effective ownership of that property is transferred is not through a change in the registered titleholder but simply an acquisition of the shares in the company holding the property. I think you can make the same argument that that is a means by which payment of the tax is avoided.

For families who are confronted by a tax bill on transfer property, which could be $7,000, $8,000, $9,000, $10,000 or $12,000, it is frustrating, to be sure, to see a mechanism in play that allows other agencies to avoid the payment of a tax.

So far I haven't seen an approach to this and changes to the registration-based element of our property transfer tax that satisfy me that we would be providing a comprehensive solution, but it is an appropriate issue for the member to raise in the context of the collection of the tax and the changes that we are making here.

M. Farnworth: A final question before we move from this section. In terms of the increase from $425,000 to $475,000, is it the intention, then, to increase it on an annual basis by the rate of inflation in the housing market? Is this a one-off time? What's the government's thinking in terms of dealing with this going forward?

Hon. M. de Jong: There may be merit in that. This provision does not include an annual adjustment; it resets the threshold. If it were to be changed, that would require a purposeful act of the Legislature.

Sections 42 to 44 inclusive approved.

On section 45.

M. Farnworth: This particular amendment relates to the purchase price for tax purposes of vehicles which are bought using coupons or to which another reduced price applies. My question is: how is this treated? Is the larger price used or the smaller price? Why is this change necessary, and how did the issue arise here?

[1530]

Hon. M. de Jong: I'll start with this, and the member may have questions that arise from this.

What we're trying to do…. This is, I think, the case with many of the sections we're going to deal with between here and section 104. The administrative practice that was in place under the previous PST…. When I say previous, I mean previous to the HST.

When we effected the transition legislation from the HST back to the PST, we inadvertently created a legal structure that would not permit, did not specifically include the authority for the administrative practices that were in place under the original PST, resulting in taxpayers perhaps being saddled with a higher rate of tax than was the intention.

The short answer is that this is correcting an oversight in the original — when I say the original, the transition — legislation from the HST to the PST to ensure that the legal authority exists to proceed on the basis of the practices that were in place under the original PST.

M. Farnworth: Just so I understand, and we make sure that I've got this right. If I had bought, let's say, a vehicle under the HST, I would have paid X amount percent on that vehicle. We went back to the PST, and during that time there was a transition in place. What the amendment is doing is making sure that instead of the taxes it would have been with the HST in place, I am paying the tax that would have been in place had the PST continued to be in place. Is that correct?

Hon. M. de Jong: Yes.

M. Farnworth: I appreciate the definitive answers. My question would be: does the minister know how
[ Page 2229 ]
many vehicles were involved in this and the scope of the particular problem that we are dealing with, with this amendment?

Hon. M. de Jong: The advice I'm given is that we're not aware that anyone has been disadvantaged. We think the administrative practices…. If anyone believes they have been, then I'm also advised that they would qualify for a refund for any overpayment. But again, to emphasize, we're not aware that anyone has been disadvantaged.

Section 45 approved.

On section 46.

M. Farnworth: What I might try and do with 46 and 47…. These changes are similar to the changes that we just dealt with in section 45. Would that be correct — the same issue in these two sections as the previous section?

[1535]

Hon. M. de Jong: I hope this is helpful to the member and the committee. Further on in section 74, we make a change to address a matter and create section 82.01. This is consequential to that, to ensure that we haven't inadvertently allowed a tax avoidance loophole relating to leases of tangible personal property. It relates to that later amendment and is consequential to it.

Sections 46 to 62 inclusive approved.

On section 63.

M. Farnworth: Section 63. This is dealing with an exit tax that is applied to a multi-jurisdictional vehicle. Can the minister just go through what the issue around this is and how this section is intended to work? I know I've had a number of queries about multi-jurisdictional exit taxes and when they apply and when they don't apply. It can be quite controversial at times.

Hon. M. de Jong: This is designed to deal with a problem and relates to an announcement that we made previously. It all gets a little bit complicated, but there is something called a multi-jurisdictional tax and a multi-jurisdictional exit tax.

What we discovered and what we were advised is that in terms of a triggering mechanism for when the multi-jurisdictional exit tax becomes payable, the intention was, throughout, that it would become payable when the vehicle became licensed for use solely in British Columbia.

The problem that arose was that people who had registered under the system and paid accordingly would put their vehicle in storage. They might leave the country for two or three months.

In the case that the member may have heard of, the owner of a vehicle — I think it was a commercial trucker, quite frankly — became ill, suffered a serious medical ailment. The cost of insurance is such that it would…. In circumstances where the vehicle wasn't going to be on the road, to take the insurance off, under the original unamended version, inadvertently created an obligation on the part of the corporation to demand payment of the exit tax. That was not the intention.

[1540]

So we announced the change. Through this, we are giving legal effect to that change. I believe I can say that there is a mechanism in place for anyone that paid the tax in the intervening period, in circumstances where they now would not be obliged to, to reacquire that money, to receive a refund.

M. Farnworth: I thank the member for that explanation. In fact, that case I think was one of the issues that has triggered the interest in this particular section and the issue around exit taxes and multi-jurisdictional and what happens when someone does become ill or they do put the vehicle off the road for three or four months. Do we have any sense of how many individuals are going to take uptake on this particular change and the number of vehicles that are going to be impacted by it?

Hon. M. de Jong: What I can alert the member to is the chronology. This became an issue and acquired some profile. I wouldn't say a huge public profile, but the phone started ringing in the fall — September, October. I believe we issued a statement and instructions to ICBC in October, asking that in the circumstances I've described, they not collect the tax. There is that period between April and the end of September. I think we have done a relatively good job ensuring that the insurance sector knows that for any clients that fell into that period of time, they are entitled to a refund.

I'm going to say that the numbers…. Based on my sense of the speed with which the commercial trucking sector and their insurance agents — and there are some who are notable for involvement in the sector — got on this and brought the matter to our attention, and our ability to at least deal with the problem quickly in terms of practices, I can't give the member a number.

I think it will be very manageable, because I got a pretty good indication very quickly about where the problem was. This will create the legal certainty, and for anyone that requires a refund for the period April to September-October, we'll ensure that happens.

M. Farnworth: Just another question. With the passage of this amendment, will this mean that if a person pays an exit tax or its equivalent in another province or jurisdiction, they won't have to pay it here in B.C.?
[ Page 2230 ]

Hon. M. de Jong: I don't think that's correct. I may have misunderstood the question. This only comes into play if you're registering your vehicle — generally, commercial vehicles registering here — with a sizeable amount of use outside of the province. If your vehicle is registered outside of British Columbia, the multi-jurisdictional exit tax isn't really applicable.

Sections 63 to 73 inclusive approved.

[1545]

On section 74.

M. Farnworth: Can the minister just explain the purpose of this section, how it's intended to work and how it is different from any existing sections that deal with it?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'll give the member a rather technical answer. If we need a more practical example, we'll try and give him that.

This relates to the earlier area we explored as it relates to the amendment. This will ensure that leased exempt tangible personal property is treated consistently with other tangible personal property — for example, tangible personal property purchased in B.C. So it's to ensure that there is consistency between leased exempt tangible personal property and purchased tangible personal property. That's the technical answer.

Sections 74 to 107 inclusive approved.

On section 108.

M. Farnworth: This section eliminates the tax credit for owners of class 5 property under the act. This is a phased-out elimination. This is an elimination of a 60 percent reduction of school tax. The property tax in the heavy industry remains in place, but the light industrial disappears. Can the minister tell us what consultation took place with light industry on this particular issue?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, I'll say candidly to the member that most of the discussion that took place around this occurred prior to Budget 2013, when we indicated that we'd be phasing this out. I'll also candidly say that I'm not sure I ran into anyone that is captured by the class 5 light industry section who stood up and cheered when we indicated that we were looking to phase it out. I think most people, having received the benefit of this…. It provided relief through a particularly difficult economic period dating back to 2009.

I don't think this is something that folks in the class 5 light industry section are necessarily thrilled about. But as I say, it is consistent with the announcement we made in advance of 2013 and provides the legislative underpinning for following through on that announcement.

M. Farnworth: I understand the minister's comments and the fact that much of the work on this was done prior to this budget. I guess my question is…. Yes, once people started realizing the impact, then of course they approached governments, and I'm wondering: were there further consultations on that, and if so, what were they?

[1550]

Perhaps the minister can also give, for those people who were affected…. I heard from a number of them in my own constituency. What was the rationale between light industry gets the exemption phased out but heavy industry gets to keep the exemption? A number of them thought that that was quite unfair.

Hon. M. de Jong: I've been asked that question not a lot but by a few others who asked about the rationale. The answer I have given is that it kind of goes back to the original rationale for the relief in the first place, in 2009.

The bulk of the pressure that was trying to be addressed related to the challenges that large industrial ratepayers were facing in towns with a single mill — a large enterprise that was employing many, many people — and the potential for a combination of the deteriorating international economic circumstance and pressure from local government in the guise of tax rates that were going up.

The provincial government at the time stepped in and said: "We will, as a matter of public policy, provide some relief around that." We just had a conversation earlier about ports property and providing a measure of ongoing relief and certainty there. That was the focus.

Somewhere along the way the decision was made to extend that to class 5, to light industry. We can go through the list of what that captures. It does tend to be more akin to a business class than an industrial class, both being important. But with changed economic circumstances, not to say that things are necessarily easy, the crisis that befell much of the western world and visited upon B.C. and Canada in 2008-2009 has largely abated.

Shifting away and returning to the rules that were in place prior to that is something the government has decided is appropriate, again, for any agency where relief has been granted and enjoyed for a period of years. A return to the former regime, to the normal regime, will impose an additional cost. We're alive to that.

That is probably as forthright as I can be about the rationale behind the shift and how that is visited upon class 5.

M. Farnworth: I appreciate the minister's explanation. I guess the light industry property class owners may have a slightly different take than the minister does on it. I think that most of them would probably look at it as a tax increase from what they were paying. I think that would be a fair way to assess it.

I understand the issue around heavy industry. We've seen the blow that that has taken. But I don't think that
[ Page 2231 ]
governments should underestimate the impact that the economic downturn had on light industry, particularly that which exports to many other jurisdictions — for example, the United States, which is still this province's largest trading partner.

[1555]

With the rise of the dollar, even though that has abated somewhat, the fact remains that they have and operate under significant challenges and pressures under their own right. When change like this takes place, I think one of the key issues is that they are included in the discussion and the consultations around this and don't feel that it's just arbitrary.

I know the minister says much of those discussions took place in a previous budget, but the reality is that those same businesses now have to cope with those changes.

So my question would have been: did the minister do any impact to see what the changes were on the light industrial sector since the initial implementation of these particular changes in the tax structure?

Hon. M. de Jong: There are two things I should probably convey. This is not a complete answer to the member's question, but I can relate the rates for the light industry class over the last number of years, and I've got data going back to 2006.

In 2006 it was 9.2. In 2007 it was 7.9. In 2008 it was 6.8. In 2009, after the credit, it went down to 3.5. In 2010, again after the credit, it was 3.4. In 2011, after the credit, 2.6; and in 2012, after the credit, 2.5. Without the credit, in 2012 it would have been 6.4. In 2013, with the credit, it's 4.3. Without the credit, it would have been 10.8. For 2014, tied to the business class, we think it will be in the neighbourhood of 6.2.

Again, not to diminish…. We're talking about, in effect, a return to normalcy.

The other point I would make is this. To the extent that there is a more significant impact, I at least have to make this observation. This is true on property tax and the relationship between federal, provincial and local governments. Where one level of government provides relief to a taxpayer and another level of government immediately steps in to scoop up that relief through adjustments to their mill rates and other things, yes, the impact will occur.

I dare say there may be elements of that at play here as well. That is a perennial problem that we have to be aware of as legislators in this country — that there's just one taxpayer.

Section 108 approved.

On section 109.

M. Farnworth: Can the minister just outline the changes here as it relates to the innovative clean energy fund and how this is going to work with this change?

Hon. M. de Jong: This is, I'm reminded, a purely administrative change consequential to the amendment to section 229.1 of the Provincial Sales Tax Act.

[1600]

The other thing that I can inform the member and the committee of is that the estimated revenue for 2014-15 fiscal year is $6.5 million.

Sections 109 and 110 approved.

On section 111.

M. Farnworth: Section 111 in the budget that did not raise taxes, according to the Premier…. This this is probably one of those sections that would be really interesting if I could have her explain, as opposed to the Minister of Finance, but it is the Minister of Finance who will be dealing with this particular issue.

This is one of those ones that…. Most people don't argue about the increasing of tobacco taxes. They believe that it is the right thing to do, that it improves our health outcomes and all of those things that we have discussed when he was Minister of Health and when I have been Minister of Health. It has widespread public support, but there is one issue.

We talked about it a bit at second reading, and that is the issue about the increase in tobacco tax rate and the likelihood of an increase in the smuggling of contraband tobacco. This is particularly, I think, worthy of comment, because in this particular budget not only is the province raising the tax on tobacco, but it's following on the heels of the federal government which also has increased the tax on tobacco.

What I particularly want to get a sense of is: has the government looked at that impact in terms of either an increase in contraband tobacco and tobacco smuggling or…? The issue that goes along with that is the potential decline in revenue. So instead of expecting, let's just say for the sake of argument, $100 million, the tax has risen to the point now where you're going to start to see a decline in revenue from tobacco as illegal tobacco sales rise?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, it's a fair question, and it's one that needs to be asked. I can assure the member I made the same inquiries before authorizing, as part of the budget, the increase.

I will say this, because I've said it elsewhere and I should say it in the House. At the time we finalized and authorized the increase to the provincial tax rate, we did not know that the federal government was intending to increase, I think by 40…. One of the unique features of this is that we tend to talk about cartons of cigarettes and grams of tobacco. I tend to be a per-pack calculator.
[ Page 2232 ]
I think it was 42 cents or 41 cents a pack.

In any event, it was a relatively significant increase at the federal level, coupled now with an additional provincial increase. The question was….

Interjection.

Hon. M. de Jong: It's 32 cents a pack. Combined, it was just over 70 cents a pack of cigarettes — the increase, a not insignificant amount. The assurance that I received, based on analysis, was that we were below the tipping point at which authorities believe there was a likelihood of additional smuggling activity or illegal activity.

From the point of view of interprovincial trafficking, if that is the correct term, the addition of the federal tax was inconsequential because it applied elsewhere. The combined increase, though, is probably more relevant in considering cross–international border activity.

I'm told and was advised prior to making the decision that enforcement officials believe that we are still below that tipping point at which smuggling activity would increase, and aside from all the other negative consequences from smuggling activity, the impact on revenue would reveal itself. We'll have to track that. That was analysis. Time will tell.

[1605]

I won't and can't sit down without restating something that I'm sure the member in his time in the Health Ministry stated and has been said over and over. There is actually a desire to see revenue from this stream of taxation reduce, but the vehicle by which we would like to see that happen is in reduced smoking rates and reduced purchases of tobacco products.

B.C. does well. We compare most favourably with the rest of the country, at about 14 or 14½ percent. But imagine the money we'd save and the lives that would be improved if we could drive that number down further.

M. Farnworth: I appreciate the minister's comments. He's right. We do want to see tobacco revenue go down — but through people not smoking.

I also have to acknowledge that when you're talking about tobacco, the reality is, for many people…. So few people in this province now smoke that most people don't know what a pack of cigarettes costs — or a carton, for that matter — and when they do, they are shocked and go: "My god, you could do an awful lot more with the money that's spent on that habit."

Be that as it may, there are still lots of people that do. The issue around contraband tobacco is particularly, I think, an important one. We've seen it in eastern Canada, in particular, and that is a concern. There's the issue of monitoring. I would like to know on what basis that monitoring takes place. How does the Finance Ministry deal with that particular issue?

Also, what I'm aware of is an increased rise, particularly, again, when it relates to tax rate differentials. This time it's probably where B.C. is in…. I don't know if the worst-positioned place is the right way to put it, but we are uniquely positioned in the fact that significant amounts of contraband tobacco are now coming out of China and destined for the shores over here.

Whereas before it was eastern cigarettes that were contraband, making their way westward, now we're starting to see incoming contraband tobacco from China. I'm wondering if the ministry has, as part of their monitoring and tracking program, that issue on their radar screen.

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm not going to dispute the veracity of what the member said and the need for enforcement.

The ministry actually has a team — the investigations unit that conducts penal investigations into non-compliance, fraud against provincial tax revenues. They are, in fact, designated special provincial constables. They work closely with the RCMP, federal excise and Canadian Border Services Agency. There's also a toll-free tips line where callers can leave anonymous messages.

I suppose the point that the member wants to make — and I'm happy to emphasize — is that the potential for the flow of contraband tobacco products exists within North America and within the Canadian context and North American context.

One of the things we learned just a few years ago — in 2011, I believe — was the potential for organized crime activity from Asia — containers and contraband and Asian-brand cigarettes. Happily, the intelligence that led to the uncovering and elimination of that source and that criminal activity was successful.

The estimate there is that the potential for lost revenue to the provincial Crown was in the neighbourhood of $25 million, so there's a sense, in that case, of the order of magnitude and the rationale and the justification for the vigilance the member urges.

Sections 111 to 120 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved on division.

The committee rose at 4:10 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.
[ Page 2233 ]

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 8 — BUDGET MEASURES
IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2014

Bill 8, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2014, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on division.

Tabling Documents

Hon. M. de Jong: Madame Speaker, the first thing I have to do, on behalf of the Attorney General, is table two documents, the government's response to the report of the 2013 Judicial Justices Compensation Commission and the government's proposed response to the report of the 2013 Judges Compensation Commission.

Then I call continued second reading of Bill 7. I've got 7 and then 13.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 7 — LABORATORY SERVICES ACT

(continued)

D. Donaldson: I'm happy to take my place once again in the second reading debate of Bill 7, the Laboratory Services Act.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

I'm happy because I was in the midst of telling a story from the withdrawal of services in the laboratories in Stikine. The story, I think, really has pertinence to this bill. I know that the Health Minister wanted to hear the end of the story because it relates…. I think he was actually thinking about this all night, about how this story ended — this story about strep throat, which is a very serious issue, as he knows and as we all know.

The context is that people, from the experience back in 2009, have a healthy skepticism about when this government and this Health Minister start talking about streamlining, integrating, making things more efficient when it comes to lab services. We went through this experience. Under this government, microbiology lab services at Wrinch Memorial Hospital in Hazelton and Bulkley Valley District Hospital in Smithers were lost.

I wanted to finish the story about the impact that has had. Just recently, since the introduction of this bill, I've had two different constituents come to me with examples of how, really, patients are put at risk and clients are put at risk by the withdrawal of microbiology lab services.

[1615]

One of them was a woman with an adult son who went into the hospital. I won't say which one. Instead of her son being swabbed for strep throat…. The doctor knew that it would take two, three, four days, possibly, to get the results back, depending on the day of the week that these swabs are done. Because of the withdrawal of services, these samples are now sent to Mills Memorial in Terrace by courier, which can be, depending if you're in Hazelton or Smithers, anywhere from a two- to three- to four-hour drive.

The physician, instead of taking a swab and determining whether it was strep throat, just prescribed antibiotics. We know that that's another cost to the system. It's a cost not just to the system but also to the environment. We know that over-prescribing of antibiotics is an issue. I'm not saying it happened in this case, but the physician wasn't able to confirm that it was needed, because microbiology lab services were withdrawn, and wasn't able to wait the two to four days and just went ahead with this course of action.

The other example I wanted to bring was another constituent, a woman who had a younger child. They waited two days for the swab sample to come back on strep throat to find out the results. In one case, the doctor decided not to wait, and it could have resulted possibly in overmedication, over-prescription, a cost to the system. In the other case, the family was put through two days of waiting for results to come back on strep throat.

Again, these were tests that could've been done previously right at the labs in those two hospitals, so they definitely wouldn't be waiting two, three, four days for these results.

This also relates a little bit to people having a fear about how good the system is, when they go in and are tested for things like strep throat. It adds to a fear factor, it adds to anxiety, and it adds to costs. This is what the withdrawal of laboratory services at the two hospitals has resulted in. Again, back then the government said it was for streamlining, integrating and efficient services as well.

I'll give one other example of how there is healthy skepticism when the government talks about efficiencies around lab services, and this relates to this bill. A person I know quite well, a relative, was in hospital in Hazelton, was tested, had a medical condition and ended up getting shipped by ambulance over four hours in a snowstorm to Prince Rupert — this is what we face in the north — for surgery.

Meanwhile, his lab work went to Terrace, to Mills Memorial, which either he had gone past, or maybe it went with him, but anyway, it got to the lab there. This was on a Thursday. He subsequently got released on a Sunday from Prince Rupert, made his way back to Hazelton, and lo and behold, that night he got a call from a doctor in Hazelton saying his lab results were back from Terrace. Not only did he go past the lab and back again; he also waited four days for test results. These were test results that could've been done previously in Hazelton.

I just wanted to let the minister know what he's up
[ Page 2234 ]
against, as far as a healthy skepticism when it comes to changes that we see in the Laboratory Services Act and why people might have some skepticism around that.

I wanted to finish this second reading debate by saying that in rural areas, given the examples I just gave, when this government says, "Trust us about changes to the health care system — we're going to streamline; we're going to integrate; we're going to be more efficient" — this is what we've come to expect: a decrease in services.

Thank you very much for allowing me to finish my stories and contribute to this debate at second reading.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister closes debate.

[1620]

Hon. T. Lake: I appreciate the views and the concerns that have been expressed by members of this House on some of the aspects of this bill. I look forward to getting into committee stage to address some of them.

Just to maybe comment on some of the things that we have heard in the debate and remind the Legislature that this single legislative framework will make it much easier, I believe, to manage a large laboratory system.

When we talk about demonstrating value for money — there was some concern about the ability to demonstrate value for money — I think having a single legislative framework goes a long way to be able to do that. With the data management and the legislative framework being in one area rather than the two separate areas we have now, I think we will be able to demonstrate value for money. It will, in fact, allow us to take advantage of newer technologies to do exactly that so that the costs of running these tests will accrue to the taxpayer when those occur.

In terms of stakeholder consultation, because it is important that we go out and talk to the people that are impacted by this change, this is the second time that we have done consultation, and we will continue to do consultation following the legislative framework that is this bill. We will be consulting with physicians, including the B.C. Association of Laboratory Physicians. We'll be consulting with nurse practitioners, with medical technologists, with laboratory service providers, with health authorities, with professional colleges.

There will be a three-year implementation, so in the short term nothing will change. We will go about these changes thoughtfully and make sure that we do full consultation, and I appreciate some of the comments that have been provided in the debate today.

We also talked about access and availability of laboratory testing. We've heard that from a couple of members. I want to assure members that while the intent of this might be to consolidate some of the processes in our laboratory system, the accessibility will remain unchanged. It's important that we provide access for all of our patients throughout British Columbia.

Whereas it's not unusual to send off a sample with a tentative diagnosis, start a prescription and reassess once you get the laboratory tests back…. That happens now and will continue to happen in the future, no matter what changes are occurring. Physicians, nurse practitioners, primary care providers do have the ability to treat a suspected disease while they are waiting for laboratory results. Our intention is to have those laboratory results faster than ever through a streamlined and efficient system.

In terms of safety concerns, the current laboratory system is under strict accreditation process by the diagnostic accreditation program of the College of Physicians and Surgeons, and that will continue to be the case. It is critical that the standards of our laboratories are held very high. There are strong audit and inspection provisions and enforcement orders in this act to ensure that that is the case.

There was some comment about the need to have a self-regulating college for laboratory technicians. I can tell the House that this is something that has been considered in the past and is still under consideration. In fact, I will be meeting in the very near future with some of the health care professionals that have put this idea forward.

I think this act goes a long way to modernizing the health care system in terms of laboratory services. It will streamline and provide more efficient, effective services for British Columbians and also allow us to provide an economical, yet highly effective system.

With that, I will move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. T. Lake: Since we have had second reading, I now move the Laboratory Services Act be referred to the Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting of the House after today.

[1625]

Bill 7, Laboratory Services Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. T. Lake: I now call committee stage of Bill 13, the Off-Road Vehicle Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 13 — OFF-ROAD VEHICLE ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 13; D. Horne in the chair.

The committee met at 4:27 p.m.

On section 1.
[ Page 2235 ]

N. Macdonald: First, on the definitions section, are the definitions consistent with other acts?

Hon. S. Thomson: Just before I move into answering the questions on the sections, I'd like to introduce the staff that are with me here supporting it: Richard Grieve, with the legislative section; Vera Vukelich, beside me, who's the one who has put the labour of love into this legislation, which we were talking about yesterday; Duncan Williams, executive director in our resource stewardship branch; and Adria Fradley of our legislative branch.

In response to the first question, yes, they are consistent. For example, the definition of "Crown land" is taken from the Land Act. The definition of "off-road vehicle" and the definition of "vehicle" are taken from the Motor Vehicle Act. So throughout, the definitions are consistent with other legislation.

N. Macdonald: First, I'd like to welcome staff. We've seen each other a lot over the past week or so. I'm sure the minister did end up taking you out for dinner, as he had promised. I'd love to hear about that.

So the definitions are the same. I think we can move to the next section.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

[1630]

N. Macdonald: Could the minister explain the purpose of section 2?

Hon. S. Thomson: This section provides the minister with the clear authority to delegate any duty or power under the act and the regulations to a government official or an agent of government. This delegation provision is similar to existing delegation provisions in other ministry statutes — for example, the Forest Act or the Forest and Range Practices Act. It provides for the governance model, based on the delegated decision-making, to provide a greater ability to achieve consistency throughout the province.

N. Macdonald: This is something we've seen in a series of acts, and it seems to be consistent in the pattern. Now, part of the concern with other acts is that in having the minister delegate who is responsible for the particular area, it does remove the ability of the public to hold to account somebody who in the past would have been designated and would have been based in the region.

For instance, if a district manager was responsible for something, the public had the ability to go to the courts, perhaps, and say that this individual was responsible for something and didn't do it and therefore should be held responsible, whereas when we get to language like this…. Clearly, the minister cannot be aware of what is going on in such a particular area, and it removes some of that accountability. Is that something that the minister has heard, outside of something that he's heard me say? Is it something broader that's been brought to his attention, that this is the perhaps unintended consequence of this sort of language?

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. S. Thomson: With this, there are two important points. First of all, there's a clear authority. It is done through a delegation matrix. That delegation matrix is publicly available. With the delegation provisions, the delegation authority can be changed if required, but we haven't had any level of complaints with the authority. It is working, but, again, it's clearly and publicly available as to who the authority and the decision has been delegated to.

B. Routley: Before I get into part 2, if I…. I know I'm supposed to catch it in part 1, but I didn't know we were moving on so quickly. I do think, though, for the record that it's worthwhile having read into the record from the minister what happens with the vehicle identification number that is part of the registration, or you can have another serial number or vehicle identification number.

[1635]

We're dealing often with vehicles that might be made up either by, you know, kind of a home-produced product, multiple old vehicles put together to create one, that kind of thing.

Has the minister got an answer to: if you've got a vehicle that somebody manufactured themselves, and it doesn't have a manufacturing plant VIN number on it, how would they go about registering their vehicle in the case where they had multiple parts from multiple vehicles?

Hon. S. Thomson: This situation or circumstance that the member opposite raises is dealt with in the legislation in a section coming up, under section 11(1) and 11(2). As you know, the identification number is a unique 17-digit number, signed by the vehicle manufacturer. If a vehicle does not have the VIN for circumstances, a new vehicle information number is assigned by ICBC. This is what is done in other jurisdictions. The provisions to deal with this are in a future section in the legislation.

B. Routley: Under part 2, "Registration," I noted the words "may register the off-road vehicle." I'm wondering why it's "may." Is that because other jurisdictions…? For example, I think people can bring vehicles from other provinces. The "may" troubles me a little bit. Does it still have the same legal requirement? Will everyone in British
[ Page 2236 ]
Columbia, at some point, have to register their vehicle with ICBC? How will that matter be dealt with? How will vehicles throughout British Columbia that are out there right now….? Will that be dealt with through regulation?

I don't see anywhere — at least, I haven't put my finger on it — a drop-dead date that people would have to come in and register their vehicle. Could the minister identify when that registration requirement will be, in terms of a date, to have your off-road vehicle registered? Obviously, it will have to be after the legislation is passed, but I'm sure you will have turned your mind to that.

Hon. S. Thomson: In looking here, I think the member opposite may have moved into section 4, which is talking about the registration process. I just want to make sure that we follow through the process, I guess, in terms of the timing, but I could provide a couple of quick comments.

The registration is made because of the point…. There will be the situation where we have vehicles from other provinces that are already registered. The intent is, obviously, the legislation first and then the registration system. The logistics of the registration system would need to be put in place, the regulation side of it. There will be a grace period for implementation, so there is not the intention to immediately move to strict enforcement on the requirement for registration.

We know there will be the need for an education and communication period. We will work in transition, and there will be transitional arrangements, particularly with already registered vehicles that are under the current snowmobile registration.

It would be phased and moved in, but no intention to move immediately into strict enforcement or a drop-dead date.

[1640]

B. Routley: In part 2, "Registration," I didn't really hear a clear answer about the issue of "may."

In my previous life I dealt with contract language. We had at one time a major dispute over the words "may" or "shall." There's obviously a big difference about whether you may do something or you shall do it or you will do it.

Again, I'm troubled by the "may." I just want to be assured by the minister and his staff that some legal mind has turned their head to this. Is there any potential that "may" could mean that you have an option other than will or shall?

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, I think we may be a little ahead of ourselves in terms of dealing with this. I think we were still on section 2, not necessarily part 2. But to respond quickly, first of all, it's "may" because this legislation is not meant to apply to people who own vehicles and will only be using those vehicles on private lands. You won't be required to register if you're only using those on private land and not using them on Crown lands.

Then further on in the legislation, under section 14, for the circumstances where it would be used or operated on Crown land and prescribed private land, then the requirements there become — to be able to use it in those cases: registered with ICBC, registered and licenced, and licenced in another jurisdiction or a non-resident permit.

That sets out the conditions, further on in the legislation, where it would be required to be registered. It's permissive in this section because it will not apply to all off-road vehicles.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

N. Macdonald: With section 3, this talks about an issue that was raised in particular in Canal Flats. We had a number of people…. I think the minister has actually been to Canal Flats and will be somewhat familiar with the community. Certainly, it's one that is in proximity to some tremendous country for ATVs. A lot of people keep their ATVs at home and then will go along roads for a period of time before they get into the back country.

I guess the question with No. 3 and the application…. It talks about this law only dealing with vehicular activity that's not part of the Motor Vehicle Act. I guess the question is: what are the rules that are in place, if not in this section, for ATVs, for instance, or snowmobiles as they move along a road quickly or cross it? Does this section deal with that in any way? If so, how does it deal with that eventuality?

[1645]

Hon. S. Thomson: This section provides the clarity that the act does not apply to the use and operation of the ORV on the highway. The Motor Vehicle Act applies there, if you're using a highway — registered, insured, valid driver's licence, operational permit where required. But what will be in place is if the ORV is registered under the Motor Vehicle Act, it's deemed to be registered under the ORV Act, so you won't be paying twice. Then you would be issued the unique plate that allows you the utilization on the Crown land to show that you're registered there.

Consequentially, with the work we're doing here, we're looking at aligning Motor Vehicle Act regulations with this to provide more convenience for highway crossings and things as part of the ongoing initiatives. So there will not be the requirement for double registration.

N. Macdonald: Just to be clear, what are the rules now? What is in place now? We're replacing existing acts with this act and, of course, adding a number of elements, but what are the rules now for off-road vehicles as they cross a highway?
[ Page 2237 ]

Hon. S. Thomson: The current requirements are: it would need to be registered, licensed and insured under a restricted plate program; a valid driver's licence; and where required, obtain a police-issued operation permit.

Some of the changes we made, or some of the improvements we made, are with respect to having under regulation now the ability of snowmobilers to cross at stop signs and traffic lights. We're looking, as I mentioned earlier, on the regulation side of things under the Motor Vehicle Act regulations, to apply those same provisions, now with the registration system in place, to other off-road vehicles.

[1650]

B. Routley: Maybe to bring a little more clarity or a sharp point on that issue, I've seen young people, for example, pushing their bike from their home in a rural community to a logging road. If there happens to be a hill, sometimes they'll jump on their bike and glide to the logging road, or if they have to cross a highway, they are pushing their off-road vehicle.

What would the law say about someone that will be under this act if they were involved in some kind of accident? I assume the answer might be that they're covered under the Motor Vehicle Act, but if someone was almost halfway between the highway and the logging road or in the ditch right between both, what would be the law?

Is it okay for young people to be doing that, or should they be registered under the Motor Vehicle Act in some way? Is it okay as long as they're treating it like it's a bicycle or a skateboard?

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to be clear, with this legislation we're not looking to make any changes to the requirements with respect to operation on a highway under the Motor Vehicle Act, so the requirements that I've pointed out apply.

What I am advised is that for purposes of the Motor Vehicle Act, my understanding is that it doesn't make a difference as to whether the engine is on or off. The provisions or the regulations under the Motor Vehicle Act apply.

To be clear, with this legislation we're not making or proposing any changes to that.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

N. Macdonald: Just to pick up where my colleague left off on section 4, the word "may." It says "may register" with ICBC. Are there other insurance options available to those that choose to register here in British Columbia?

[1655]

Hon. S. Thomson: Under section 14, which talks about "Operation prohibited without registration or permit," subject to the regulations must not use, etc., the off-road vehicle that is registered with ICBC under this act. Or the off-road vehicle is registered, licensed, as I mentioned earlier, under the Motor Vehicle Act, if it's registered there, or the Commercial Transport Act.

Both of those registrations, those vehicles, would be registered under this legislation. They'd be provided a plate. They wouldn't have to re-register or register twice.

N. Macdonald: What is the cost to ICBC for this initial registration? Does the minister have a clear idea of that?

I guess what it relates to is to get a sense of what the cost to ICBC is. What is the revenue that the registration is expected to generate? I guess where I'm coming from is…. The explanation that was given is that the $48 relates to the cost of the registration and that it's nothing more than that. This is simply what it costs.

We don't need exact numbers. If you have them…. Essentially, is the registration cost representative in total of what it's going to cost ICBC? Is that what is laid out here?

Hon. S. Thomson: The fee has been proposed, and as we've talked earlier, we've worked to keep the fee as low and as reasonable as possible. The projected fee is $48. That covers the broker services within ICBC — broker services and inventory and a portion or a contribution of that fee towards the one-time systems cost for implementing the registration system.

That implementation cost is $500,000, because we're using existing framework that's in place. Once that registration fee or a portion of it is paid back, then we will have the opportunity to look at what the fee would be then. It comes in to where we were talking about whether we would be able to, at that point, take a portion of the fee, with the provisions and the opportunity we've set up, for the contribution to the trail fund.

N. Macdonald: With this section, does the minister have a sense of a timeline for how long it would be before the minister feels that there's significant registration to allow the beginning of enforcement on these rules? Presumably, discussions with ICBC as to how quickly they would manage the registration…. Does the minister have a sense of a timeline as to when one would start to enforce the registration rules?

Hon. S. Thomson: Current plans are targeting having the system available and operational this fall.

[1700]

B. Routley: I do get it that the "may" in this section 4 refers to a later section, 14. But while government doesn't exactly have the friendly amendment, as we used to call it…. When I used to represent forest workers, when we had a group of issues on the floor, we used to talk about the term "friendly amendment."
[ Page 2238 ]

A friendly amendment, for example — again, I'm just asking whether the minister thinks this could be a clearer way to deal with this — is that "an owner of an off-road vehicle must or shall register the off-road vehicle with the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, unless they comply with the requirements under section 14," or words to that effect. You should have the lawyers look at this from my point of view to ensure that the enabling language is clear that you're going to have to register.

While you're contemplating that friendly amendment.… Maybe it's not so friendly, if you like it your way. I guess it all means that, but the guy out riding around on his dirt bike would understand it better if it said "shall."

Accompanying fees. I know it starts out at $48, but would the minister agree that that's just a starting rate and that as we move into the future, that number could change?

Hon. S. Thomson: Firstly, with respect to the first point, I'm advised that from the legal drafting perspective the provision for "may," in combination with the requirements under section 14, provides the requirement to register if you're going to be using the off-road vehicle "on Crown land or prescribed private land."

As we've pointed out, you may prescribe certain private lands for this to apply to. That would be by request and agreement. We've already had some requests from people who, once it's in place, would like it to be applied — to private managed forest lands, some municipal lands where they would like to be able to have this in place so that they can have the benefits of this legislation with respect to identity, safety and environmental protection.

In terms of the fee, our commitment…. You can see, clearly, with the work that we've done to keep the fees as low and as affordable as possible, that we recognize that this is an additional cost. We've talked about, in the second reading debate, the benefits of it. I think the comments that I've heard on both sides of the House are that the fee is reasonable. The discussion in the future, I think, will be much more focused on: is there a willingness and a desire on the part of operators to pay an additional amount in a fee for trail enhancement and the benefits around the tourism component that we've talked about? This provides us those opportunities.

[1705]

To say that it's going to be this fee forever and a day — I don't want to stand here and say that that's the case. There may be very valid reasons why there may be requests from all of the user groups who support this to look at that opportunity. The key provision on this was to keep it as low and as affordable as possible.

B. Routley: Could the minister more fully explain and describe what happens in section 4(3)? It talks about the conditions for registering an off-road vehicle, where it's a vehicle that's registered or licensed in a jurisdiction other than British Columbia. It goes on that as a condition of registering the off-road vehicle, the applicant must "surrender any current registration, licence or other documentation."

That sounds fairly onerous. Could the minister explain how that is a workable proposition and how it would work?

Hon. S. Thomson: This provision mirrors what's currently in place under the Motor Vehicle Act. This is the section that…. If you have your vehicle registered in another province and you bring that vehicle to British Columbia to be registered in British Columbia. It's not about bringing it in to be used while you're here for a weekend or that sort of thing. It's when you're moving and bringing that vehicle into British Columbia.

The current requirements under the Motor Vehicle Act require you to surrender the plate and the documentation. This is around preventing fraud and assisting with the overall registration system. It mirrors exactly what currently takes place under the Motor Vehicle Act.

N. Macdonald: Of course, the region that I represent and live in is a border region. In Invermere, for instance, I think almost the majority of the population, at times, will be Albertans. Many of them have second homes. I'm sure that's the case in Sparwood and Elkford and other places. Many of these recreational vehicles, while they are owned by Albertans and residents of Alberta…. Unlike a vehicle that they would take back and forth with them — a motor vehicle — it's possible that the snowmobile, the ATV, would stay at the second home.

I guess the question is: if that is the case, would it be appropriate, then, that they simply had the Alberta registration or licensing? Or is the intention that if the ATV or the snowmobile is left almost all of the time in British Columbia, it would have to transfer to B.C.? Then, how is that going to be regulated, or is it not seen as a significant issue?

[1710]

Hon. S. Thomson: This is some of the implementation details and things. The current situation…. If they are registered in Alberta and have an Alberta registration, which they're required to do, but they have the vehicle here, that registration will be recognized here. They have a plate. So long as they're registered and our system recognizes it, then they won't have to register here.

If they're here, they own property here, they keep their vehicle here and it's not registered in Alberta, it will be required to be registered here, if they're going to be using it on Crown land. If they register it here and eventually take that vehicle back to Alberta, they will be required to do just what is the reverse of what is happening here, when you have to surrender the plates and the documentation and register there.
[ Page 2239 ]

There will actually be no incentive to do that because here we have a one-time registration fee. In Alberta it is an annual registration fee that is actually higher than the current B.C. registration fee.

D. Routley: I seek leave to make an introduction of sorts.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

D. Routley: I've just been told that a very well-known entertainer in Nanaimo, Miss Vikki Smudge, is watching our Hansard broadcast, and I want the House to say hello to Miss Vikki, who is leading a parade of St. Patrick's Day celebration tonight in Nanaimo. Can the House help me say hello and welcome to Miss Vikki. [Applause.]

Debate Continued

B. Routley: Well, in addition to saying hello to Miss Vikki, whoever Miss Vikki is…. I'm sure she must be a wonderful person if she's a personal friend of…. Anyway.

The question I have…. You were talking about Alberta. I just wanted to be sure that we had some kind of reciprocal agreement with the province of Alberta. Do they also acknowledge people who will be licensed in British Columbia? And are there any other provinces? What happens if you travel afar, to Saskatchewan or Manitoba or any other province in Canada? What are the arrangements there?

Hon. S. Thomson: Yes, it will be just like your vehicle. If you're taking your off-road vehicle into another province to use, that registration system will be recognized. If you move, then it's exactly what we talked about earlier.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

N. Macdonald: For section 5, the title is "Restriction on registration." Basically, this mirrors the Motor Vehicle Act. Could the minister explain what is being copied from the Motor Vehicle Act and what the restrictions are on registration?

[1715]

Hon. S. Thomson: This section applies to section 4, as it's pointed out. Section 4 of the act provides that registration cannot be made, except in the name of the owner, and if the owner is not an individual, a B.C. corporation, registered interprovincial company or prescribed entity…. So this ensures that the same entities that could be registered under the Motor Vehicle Act can also be registered under this act. And it reduces the amount of training for ICBC brokers to receive prior to this coming into….

Section 5 specifies that regulations could also be made to apply to non-individual entities, similar to what we do under the Motor Vehicle Act regulation, which includes foreign states, consular posts, international organizations and any political subdivision of foreign state granted privileges and immunities under the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act for Canada. So this simply takes those provisions, the same provisions that are in the Motor Vehicle Act, and says that the requirements of the registration are the same.

B. Routley: We're talking about section 5 now, but I do notice that there was an important question that I had on the new, distinctive number plates, decals or stickers. Are they going to be made by British Columbians, and will they be union-made?

Hon. S. Thomson: Those are implementation details, so I don't have a direct answer, so it's something we can undertake to get back to the member opposite on. Again, we will want to ensure that in doing the implementation we ensure that we keep the fee as low as possible, that we can keep that within the provisions that have been provided for in terms of implementation costs in total. That will be one of the things that we'll be watching very, very carefully, that the amount we have provided for the implementation gets done within that implementation commitment. The directive has been set, so we'll continue to make sure that that fee is low and affordable — for families and for people in rural British Columbia.

Sections 5 and 6 approved.

On section 7.

N. Macdonald: The idea with this section, then, is if one is to change address or name, and it lays out the circumstances for that happening. It's a requirement to change, to notify ICBC, within ten days. And I guess the question is: is that a standard requirement that one would find in other acts? Is this an attempt to mirror regulations that one would find, for instance, in the Motor Vehicle Act? Is that what this is?

Hon. S. Thomson: This mirrors the Motor Vehicle Act provision, section 7.

Section 7 approved.

On section 8.

N. Macdonald: Again, this is a series of regulations around the transfer of ownership. I guess the same question is this. Is this identical to what one would find in the
[ Page 2240 ]
Motor Vehicle Act, or are there elements of this section that are particular to off-road vehicles?

Hon. S. Thomson: Yes, this is consistent with the provisions in the Motor Vehicle Act. There are no real variations from that.

N. Macdonald: What are the implications if…? I mean, ten days? I can certainly see, for somebody dealing with a car or even a motorhome as sort of a second vehicle, that one would think to go and change these things.

[1720]

But sometimes, in the midst of moving or in the midst of some of the other changes of ownership that we're talking about here…. For instance, if somebody has passed away and it's been past you ten days, it might be something that is expecting too much of people to go and change the registration on the snowmobile.

I guess that the question is: what if it's not done? What does the act consider as reasonable action if one doesn't change it within ten days?

Hon. S. Thomson: This section, as we pointed out in the earlier response, is consistent with the Motor Vehicle Act. It mirrors those time provisions.

Just to point out that this only applies where it's transferred by gift, exchange, barter or sale. This doesn't apply in the circumstances of an estate or inheritance or those that would go through the other processes. The consequences for not complying are listed in section 26(1).

B. Routley: Just to be clear, this does talk about: "…is transferred by gift, exchange, barter or sale." For example, if a father went out and bought a vehicle, paid the fee, and then a few months later he decides to give this off-road vehicle as a gift to his son or daughter, would they then have to, within ten days of the gift, apply to ICBC and then again pay the $48? Is that the proper interpretation of what this would mean?

Hon. S. Thomson: If the transfer takes place, if it's a transfer of ownership and the plate goes with it, there would only be a transfer of ownership fee of $28. If the father is keeping the plate to put on because it's registered, and putting it on another vehicle, then the vehicle would have to be re-registered in terms of the plate fee, which would then result in the total of $48.

[1725]

Sections 8 and 9 approved.

On section 10.

N. Macdonald: Section 10 deals with the possibility of there either being number plates, decals or stickers. What does the minister anticipate? That's a selection. There is the anticipation that it's going to be number plates. Has the ministry made up its mind as to which of these it intends to use?

Hon. S. Thomson: The intention is a numbered plate. What the section provides for is flexibility in the case there may be vehicles under this where a numbered plate wouldn't be appropriate.

Just using an example, something like what's called a trial bike doesn't have a place where you would be able to put a numbered plate. In those cases, you would want to have the flexibility that it might be a sticker or a decal. But the intention, because one of the keys with this is identity and visible identity, is a numbered plate.

N. Macdonald: Within the regulations, then, will it stipulate where the plate must be? For instance, if it's a snowmobile, does it have to be at the back so it's visible in some way? Clearly, the plates are going to be produced, so they'll have a standard size and so on. Like I say, will there be in regulation stipulations as to where exactly the plates are according to the particular type of off-road vehicle that we're dealing with?

Hon. S. Thomson: Under the regulations section 30(2)(g) is where that provision would be applied. So yes, the intention would be that that would be set by regulation.

Section 10 approved.

On section 11.

N. Macdonald: Section 11 talks about vehicle identification numbers and says, essentially, that…. Well, one of the parts is that if there is no vehicle identification number, one needs to be created.

The question is — if I understand this correctly: what are the circumstances where that might be the case?

Hon. S. Thomson: There are a number of circumstances and a variety of reasons why it may need a new vehicle insurance number. The manufacturer's vehicle insurance number may have been stolen or damaged and not readily available to see. The engine has been replaced. Differing vehicle insurance numbers are found on the vehicle, so we may have situations where there may be more than one or where the vehicle is modified or a U-built vehicle.

Section 11 approved.

On section 12.

B. Routley: The issue about alteration, removal or obliteration. Often when you go off-road, you'll see a 4-by-4 with the back end so covered with mud that you can't see
[ Page 2241 ]
the licence number or anything else, even if it is licensed.

[1730]

I guess my concern would be that you're not supposed to obliterate the identification. Does that mean there is an obligation to try to make sure that your plate is visible? Should they be required to ensure from time to time that it's clearly visible? And would it be punishable by…?

I know there is a clause that talks about certain penalties that can apply. Would that apply in the case of that kind of obliteration? Obviously, somebody using tape or paint or something to redo the number is clearly in violation. But the more difficult one would be the issue of mud and that kind of thing. Could you clear that one up?

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to be clear, this section is not about the plates. This section is about the vehicle identification number that's on the vehicle. You can't tamper with those.

The member opposite does raise a legitimate point, though, in terms of overall enforcement. It's the same as the Motor Vehicle Act, when people will do things to make it very, very difficult to read their plate. Those are things that will be dealt with through the regulation side of it.

In terms of overall enforcement, that will be one of the things we have to work with and part of the regulations in terms of ensuring that the plate remains visible. Again, as you're out in the country, that will be part of the challenge. But I think that what we're looking at here is a very, very significant step forward in ensuring that we can identify vehicles.

Sections 12 to 14 inclusive approved.

On section 15.

N. Macdonald: Evidence of registration. Certainly, with a vehicle, there's no question that it would be easy to bring registration and so on. What's the thinking on the size of the registration that we're expecting snowmobilers to bring with them or someone on an ATV? Is this something that's been considered? Are we talking about something wallet-sized? Or is this, again, simply something that comes directly from the Motor Vehicle Act?

Hon. S. Thomson: Most vehicles — not all, but most — have some form of compartment or something where the registration could be carried. Or if they're out, they would have a toolkit with them where the registration could be kept. This is one of the issues that was discussed with the stakeholder group. No concerns were raised. People don't see this as a significant issue or an impediment.

Obviously, if the registration happened to be in the vehicle that you took the ATV out into the back country with and you were able to provide it within a reasonable period of time…. That's the way it would be administered.

Section 15 approved.

On section 16.

N. Macdonald: Again, being on the border, there's a huge number of snowmobilers and ATVers that come into the border region. For those that may need an operating permit as non-residents, one of the issues that will come up is the ease of getting that permit.

[1735]

What does the government anticipate putting in place so that section 16 is something that works easily for those that are visiting the province to use off-road vehicles?

Hon. S. Thomson: This section has been provided…. It's future-looking, I guess, in terms of making sure that we have the provision to do that if required.

Currently it won't be part of the initial registration. The example we're thinking about is in relation to Alberta, which has a registration system, so it's not really applicable there. It's more, for example, Saskatchewan or something like that.

We may look in the future to an on-line temporary permit process, if you know you're only going to be here for a very short period of time and you don't have an existing registration system in your own province. It's something that gives us the ability to do that. It won't be the focus of the initial implementation.

N. Macdonald: As you said, Saskatchewan doesn't have that registration but Alberta does, and that's the predominant number of people that would come across. What about Americans that are coming up? Which states have registration that would be recognized here in British Columbia? Or would all Americans coming in with their vehicles have to register under this provision, under this section?

Hon. S. Thomson: If an American jurisdiction or American state has a registration system and a plate, that would be recognized here. If they don't, they would be required to register.

Section 16 approved.

On section 17.

N. Macdonald: Section 17 deals with the operation of these off-road vehicles. It talks about the fact that they have to make sure that they're not acting in a careless or reckless way, and it lays out provisions.

I know that later on we're going to talk about some of the penalties. The minister will know where I'm going to go with this, of course. For this to work, there need to be people on the ground that are actually going to be able to enforce these regulations. I understand that the RCMP
[ Page 2242 ]
are going to be there, with natural resource officers as well as conservation officers.

But the truth on the ground…. I'm representing one of the areas that will literally see thousands of snowmobiles on a weekend out in the back country. Revelstoke: no conservation officer. You've got nobody out there. The RCMP, of course, are much smaller numbers than we've had in the past and busy with other operations.

So in practical terms, there is nobody out there in Revelstoke. We have one in Golden. That's a conservation officer. Some of the restrictions that have been put on his time…. There was a period of time where basically he was restricted in how much driving he could do in an area that's huge. So the chance of the RCMP seeing any of the snowmobiling activities is pretty well negligible — and the likelihood of any other provincial person that's out there.

Revelstoke used to have a forestry office, as the minister knows, and a number of personnel out doing other things. That, presumably, now would be natural resource officers. It's so limited compared to what used to be there. In Golden we had dozens and dozens. In Invermere, of course, that forestry office has long since gone.

[1740]

So while the provision makes sense, the area that we're talking about — and the fact that the government has simply nobody out there — means that these regulations really stand very little chance of being enforced, other than through the self-reporting. I think the other snowmobilers or others will try to be responsible, but other than that, there's very little chance that the government itself will be able to make sure that these regulations work.

I guess the question I have is: does the minister acknowledge that that's an issue? Has there been discussion around resources that are needed to put boots on the ground in many of these areas where the off-road vehicles are heavily used? Secondly, is there training available for the personnel that are going to be put out there and that need to deal with this act?

Hon. S. Thomson: As was commented by members of the House during the debate on second reading, one of the keys to this is that, first of all, the identity and visibility now, we think, will have a very significant benefit towards responsible use. We've pointed out very clearly — everybody has pointed out — that the vast majority of users are responsible.

We now have additional enforcement tools with this. This is something that the clubs have really been looking for, in terms of assisting in being the eyes and ears on the ground. Now they'll be able to provide that additional identification, to have that ability. We have the ability to move resources into the risk areas as required. Over high-use periods we've done blitzes.

We feel that with the combination of the broader capability now of natural resource officers with the additional tools that the RCMP will have and with the additional support of the organized clubs and the additional identity, this will add significantly to the ability to ensure compliance and enforcement.

B. Routley: Obviously, in order to do effective policing, I'm sure the minister would agree that you'd have to have boots on the ground. But those boots on the ground have to first start out on an off-road vehicle.

Could the minister describe how many off-road vehicle compliance and enforcement staff will be available to the minister to do this kind of enforcement work?

[1745]

Hon. S. Thomson: I'm advised that all of the natural resource road officers, in combination with the conservation officer service, have a fleet of vehicles. They all have those vehicles. In terms of the specific number, I don't have that number with me. I can undertake to provide it.

But again, in combination between resource road officers, RCMP, clubs and organized organizations, we feel that we have — with the new enforcement tools, the identity — we have significantly increased the capability to ensure compliance and enforcement, which is what all the clubs and organizations that have been part of this process have been requesting and looking for.

B. Routley: Under this section 17 it talks about off-road vehicles on Crown land or prescribed private land. That leads me to the question about the large portions of private land that the government in the past has allowed to be taken out of tree farm licences or are generally part of the E&N land grants. Are those lands prescribed lands for this purpose, and has the minister any knowledge of agreements with those kind of private land owners? Could he describe what kinds of private lands would not be covered under this section?

Hon. S. Thomson: The private lands that this legislation would apply to would be prescribed by regulation. As I've indicated, we've had expressions of interest from private managed forest land owners to have it applied. We've had expressions of interest from municipal governments and from regional governments in terms of greenways, parks and those kinds of situations. So any land that would come in under this section would be prescribed by regulation.

Sections 17 to 19 inclusive approved.

On section 20.

N. Macdonald: Here it says a person 19 years or older "must not authorize or permit another person under 16 years of age…." Then it lays out the things that the supervising adult should not allow those under 16 to do.
[ Page 2243 ]

I guess the question I have here…. It talks about "authorize or permit." I wonder if the minister would explain if authorizing or permitting…. Can it be passive consent, or how does one define not authorizing or permitting?

I guess the example I'd use here is if the behaviour that the supervising adult witnesses is simply observed and the 16-year-old is not corrected, is that passive consent? Does that mean that the adult has authorized or permitted the minor to do these things? Or are we talking about something that has to be active consent, such as saying: "Go ahead and do this"? That's the question.

[1750]

Hon. S. Thomson: This follows under the same provisions as other authorizations, if you like. If you lend your car to your nephew, in that respect you're operating it. This would be administered with the test of reasonableness.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:51 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame 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. Polak moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: Have a safe week. This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. a week Monday.

The House adjourned at 5:52 p.m.

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); J. Thornthwaite in the chair.

The committee met at 1:36 p.m.

On Vote 16: ministry operations, $1,356,419,000 (continued).

C. James: Just a couple of questions left in the children and youth mental health section and then moving to the children in care section.

We spoke a little bit, as we were talking about Maples, about the issue of restraints. As we know, there was a recommendation that came in the representative's report Who Protected Him? to discontinue the use of isolation and restraints as behaviour management for children in care.

I wonder if the minister could tell us if that directive was given and when it was given.

Hon. S. Cadieux: We were just getting the exact date. Yes, the directive was issued February 7, 2013, and if the member wishes to see a copy of that, we'd be happy to provide it.

C. James: Just to speak further, I think the issue of restraints and the issue of isolation has also come up in the education system just in this last number of months, where there have been examples of isolation and restraint used in schools. Obviously, those are children who may or may not be in care, but there may be children in care who are in those situations, as sometimes those children have behaviour challenges.

[1340]

I wondered what kind of discussions or what kind of directive has been given to the education system and out to schools from the Ministry of Children and Families, recognizing that some of those children could be children in care.

Hon. S. Cadieux: We did provide the Ministry of Education with the practice directive from our ministry in order to aid them in their policy development in this regard. Certainly, the guardianship workers — if there were any children in care that this was an issue with — would be involved, but at this point we're not aware of any.

C. James: Certainly, the concerns I'm hearing from parents — parents as well as foster parents — is the worry that the education system again isn't doing a thorough review around the changes that need to occur. I recognize that we'll take those into education discussions in Education estimates, but I think there is a link back to the issue through Ministry of Children and Family Development.

I certainly would encourage the minister and ministry to continue looking at how they can — more than simply issue a directive — perhaps do some tracking in the education system and support them in making a shift around that piece.

Just to come to another recommendation that was in
[ Page 2244 ]
one of the representative reports, Lost in the Shadows — again, another tragic report. There was a very specific recommendation that related to mental health of young people and mental health of parents. This was a recommendation that the minister will remember was also in a previous report, Honouring Kaitlynne, Max and Cordon.

This was a recommendation that recommended that the Ministry of Health and Ministry of Children and Family Development improve service coordination and collaboration for families where there is a parent with mental illness. This was very specific around the fact that the parent has the mental illness and that processes should be put in place.

Could the minister let us know what specific actions have been taken on that recommendation?

[1345]

Hon. S. Cadieux: In response to the recommendations from the first report, the ministry launched the Safe Relationships, Safe Children project, which I'm sure the member is aware of. The goal of that was to help front-line staff in a variety of health and community settings better and more consistently manage situations where there was mental illness or problematic substance abuse and/or domestic violence that may put a child's safety at risk.

Protocols and new training guidelines were established to help those front-line or other workers better identify when an adult with a mental health or substance abuse issue was in a caregiver role and, in that case, to then follow through and link to the appropriate other services — be that social worker, police, schools, anti-violence groups in the community — that are a part of that network in that community to ensure both that services are in place and appropriate risk assessments are done for the children.

C. James: There were a number of other points around specific actions in that report. The minister has touched on the policies and procedures to support, I'm guessing, workers.

[1350]

There were recommendations to develop and implement policies for early detection of mental health in families, protocols between health authorities and MCFD regional offices. Have any of those actions taken place?

[1355]

Hon. S. Cadieux: The protocols that have been developed and are being developed are a part of the Safe Relationships, Safe Children project. Initially, we started with two pilots. It has now expanded to 19, which does include First Nations partners at the table, and we will look to move that out provincewide over the next two years.

Discussions with the representative and briefings on the progress on the first recommendation that was given happened just last December, and she was supportive of the direction and work that had been done to date. But since then we've had the next report, which further emphasized the need to do work with First Nations communities.

Initial work has been done through the Ministry of Health to bring in the First Nations Health Authority and work with delegated agencies to bring them to the table to further discuss the privacy impact assessments and information-sharing protocols, as well as to look at how to further engage on the rollout as we go further.

C. James: We'll move, then, to the children-in-care section. In this section I want to start off with talking a little bit about the resources that are important for children in care and then get into specific programs as we go along. Perhaps some general questions just in the beginning to set the context around the reality for children in care.

The minister's own service plan talks about the specific complications or complexity of children in care that is increasing over the last number of years, which of course means more pressure on the workers and more pressure on front-line staff to deal with those complexities of children in care.

I wonder if the minister could tell us what the average caseload is for social workers in this service area.

Hon. S. Cadieux: Child protection's caseload average remains at 27. It's a mix of intake and guardianship work, and it has been relatively stable over the last couple of years.

C. James: I recognize it's an average, so there are obviously circumstances where the rate is much higher. Certainly, that's what I'm hearing from social workers, and I know the minister has heard it as well — concerns around caseload. I know from the ministry's own workplan that they've talked about caseload as one of the areas that needs to be addressed and looked at.

Given that average and the reality for social workers who are expressing concerns around their caseload, are there regional differences with that caseload? Are there particular regions where the caseload is much higher because of recruitment issues or vacancies? I'll leave two questions. What is the ministry doing, as well, around recruitment for social workers for those vacancies?

[1400]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Yes, there are some regional differences, for sure, and, as we discussed to some degree yesterday, challenges. There are differences in caseloads. Some of those differences are in relationship to or have impact because of recruitment. For some, probably, we have some questions about the data — again, a theme from yesterday.

As well, we're looking at handling that in two ways, first off, with our recruitment and staffing strategy as a part of
[ Page 2245 ]
our staffing plan, to look at how we are going to ensure that we are anticipating needs with a longer-term vision. But at the same time, we're also looking at rebalancing all of our offices based on caseloads and where the need is. It takes a little while for that to happen as we redistribute people where they're needed most.

C. James: Can the minister tell me what other kinds of tools around recruitment for social workers the ministry is looking at? What other kinds of work are you working with? The schools of social work? Are you working with other groups and organizations? Are you looking at recruiting students? What other kind of work is being done to encourage social workers, people who are social workers, to come into the ministry and into positions in the ministry, in the field?

[1405]

Hon. S. Cadieux: I'll clarify or restate. We don't necessarily have trouble attracting people to the door of the ministry that are interested in working, certainly not for areas like the Okanagan, the Lower Mainland or Prince George, but what we have always had challenge on is to necessarily recruit into some of the more remote areas of the province.

Because we know that people tend to stay either where they are born or trained, we have been constructing relationships with individual social work schools that have been quite productive. We know from past experience that broader recruitment strategies — say, from across the country or such — might give us some short-term fix, but the people we attract in those circumstances don't usually stay long. So our strength is to do as much locally to regions as we can.

That said, we are also looking seriously within, especially, those harder-to-recruit-for areas or offices and looking at our recruitment, retention and succession strategies and looking to other areas of the ministry or to other areas of the public service where they may have had more success in developing longer-term succession-planning projects.

C. James: Just a quick follow-up question on that piece. I think, as the minister points out, there's the issue of attracting people. Then there's also the issue of keeping them once they're there.

I wonder if the ministry tracks, at all, retention numbers on their social workers and what those numbers look like. Have they changed over this last year?

Hon. S. Cadieux: The annualized rate for turnover is about 8 percent in the ministry. That's been fairly consistent for the last three or four years. It tends to sit at or below the other social ministries, like Social Development and Education.

[1410]

C. James: Continuing on with looking at the resources around children in care, could the ministry give me the information on the number of foster homes in the province and, again, on whether that's changed over this last year? Just to add to that — because I know it will be in the same information area, to save you looking twice — within that, the number of aboriginal foster homes as well.

Hon. S. Cadieux: The total number of foster homes in all levels is 3,028. The number of aboriginal foster homes, delegated agency foster homes, is 444.

[The bells were rung.]

The Chair: We'll now take a recess for the vote.

The committee recessed from 2:13 p.m. to 2:23 p.m.

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

C. James: We have the numbers now for the number of foster homes and delegated aboriginal foster homes. Does the minister have any idea of whether that's an increase or decrease from the previous year?

Hon. S. Cadieux: It's relatively stable, but we can get back to you with exact numbers.

C. James: As we talked about with social workers, I know that the constant recruitment of foster homes and foster parents is critical to success. Again, similar to social workers, you have people who come into the system but then leave.

I wonder if the minister could tell us a little bit about recruitment and what kind of work is being done around recruiting foster parents, both aboriginal and non-aboriginal. Then I'll add another question while you're doing the research. What was the last time there was a change in the resources given to foster parents — an increase?

[1425-1430]

[G. Kyllo in the chair.]

Hon. S. Cadieux: If I don't touch on it all, you can ask again. Coming out of the residential redesign project report that was in June of 2012, the new deputy and I took another look at things last summer and refocused, again, on a caregiver support model and on getting back to basics — specifically, on the recruitment and retention of foster parents.

We've been developing maps by service delivery area of the resources that are there and seeing what's needed in which communities. Then we are targeting strategies in each of those communities for the resources that are needed.
[ Page 2246 ]

We've established a foster caregiver recruitment and retention advisory group with foster parents from around the province. That's in conjunction with the federation of foster parents, and that's been providing a lot of input into what and how to recruit.

They're doing things like… They've reported that the specific actions that have worked or do work are things like tables at early years fairs, sending letters to current caregivers to recruit new caregivers, articles and ads about foster parenting in papers, regular information sessions.

What we're now doing is rolling up all of that data that we've gotten provincially and the information from the mapping exercise — rolling that up provincially. That should be done within the next month or two, at which point we can then really look at a coordinated targeting of resources for recruiting the specific types of resources that we need in each community.

The Federation of Aboriginal Foster Parents is also involved and has a contract to recruit aboriginal foster parents community by community.

C. James: The other question was around resources. When was the last increase that foster parents received in resources?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Sorry about that. Okay, the last increase in resources for foster parents was in April of 2009. It ranged from 3 to 4 percent. There had been from that year, two years back…. For a three-year cumulative from 2007, the increase was between 13 and 27 percent, depending on the level of care.

C. James: Just moving on now, continuing on with the tools that are needed around children in care, to talk a little bit about plans of care.

I know we touched on this in July, but I'd just like an update from the minister — to have the minister talk a little bit about the standardized template that was put in place for plans of care. That was a rationale that the minister gave around work that had been done, based on the recommendations of the representative's report that there was inconsistency, that plans of care were not being done.

The minister said a new standardized template was going to be implemented and staff were going to be trained. I wonder if the minister could tell me if that's happened and how that procedure has gone.

[1435]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Yes, the standardized template was developed, and the practice directive went out in June of 2013. Over the summer, from June through the fall to November, there were 100 training sessions, training 1,444 social workers, guardianship workers and delegated agency workers.

At this point in time we have four CCOs 70 percent complete and four CICs 69 percent complete — children with special needs who are in care.

C. James: Will there be ongoing tracking, then? I think part of the challenge always is people are keen, start a new template, get it in place, but will there be ongoing tracking around plans of care and compliance?

[1440]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Part of our strategy with these plans of care and the standardized template was to not allow staff to use the template until they'd been trained appropriately. Now that everyone has been trained and they are starting to put these into practice, the next step is to allow them to use it and get the plans of care completed.

Every month the provincial director's office gets a report to show the number of plans that are required and the number of plans that have been completed, to keep a watch on the progress. Through the office of the provincial director as well, this will all go through the regular auditing process that has been reinstated, and that's a three-year cycle. That audit will audit both the compliance with the plans but also the quality.

C. James: Another piece that was spoken about in the representative's report was the issue of face time, for lack of a better word — opportunities for social workers to connect with children — and the need for flexibility and flexible hours. I know the minister spoke in July about some discussions that were ongoing with GEU around that and the opportunities for that. I wondered if the minister could tell us if that work has occurred.

The other comment is whether this is now being tracked as part of the new template and as part of the tracking of quality of plans of care.

[1445]

Hon. S. Cadieux: To the member's first question, relating to the conversation about the need for, potentially, more flexible working hours. There've been preliminary discussions with the union, not significant follow-up, because of course that all has to be a part of the collective bargaining process and is based on need and such. We're continuing to have that on the table for discussion.

As it relates to face time with the kids — which is, of course, what we're really concerned about — yes, it is tracked in the plans. There is a requirement for the social worker to meet privately with the child, at a minimum, every 90 days. That is reflected in the template, and there's a requirement to revisit that template and report every six months.

C. James: As the minister said earlier, the template is just starting to be used because people have just been trained up on it. The gathering of that data — I'm expecting that next year we'll have discussions around what
[ Page 2247 ]
that looks like and what the standard is for compliance with those visits.

The other piece that was mentioned in the representative's report around plans of care was the issue of cultural planning for aboriginal children. Our detailed cultural plan was to be in place, in the recommendation, by December 31 for every aboriginal child in care. I wonder if the minister could give us a progress report on how that work has been going.

[1450]

Hon. S. Cadieux: The cultural plans are now embedded in that template. So it is not two separate plans anymore. It is one comprehensive plan, and so the cultural planning is part of that whole planning process. The completion rates, therefore, are the same as the numbers I provided. But again, as we're just still rolling out this new tool with the staff, there will be better data available the next time we meet up.

C. James: Moving on to speak more generally, then, about audits. We've been speaking a little bit about audits. In July the minister stated that the ministry would look at three audits in three separate service delivery areas and in three regions. That was the statement from the minister in July. I wonder if the minister could tell me if those are done. What areas and what rate of compliance?

[1455]

Hon. S. Cadieux: The member will be aware that MCFD used to have a very robust audit program. We are re-establishing that audit program, and as such we are setting new baselines with new policy. This year we did eight audits in four service delivery areas and four program areas plus eight delegated agencies, for a total of 16 audits.

[1500]

Overall compliance rates ranged in the delegated agencies from a low of 46 percent to a high of 77 percent, and the overall provincial programs averaged 54 percent — understanding that that is looking at the work through the year where we were struggling with the ICM implementation and a number of new policy directions.

Over the next year we will be looking back at the ministry audits that were lower than 60 percent and continuing on, on that three-year cycle of additional audits.

C. James: I'm glad to hear it. I think the audits are important and helpful, but the most important piece, I would certainly suggest, is then what happens with that information. I guess that's my next question to the minister, given these results. What kind of work, then, happens after the audit comes in to improve the numbers and improve, therefore, practice for children?

Hon. S. Cadieux: After an audit is complete the auditor sits with the delegated director in the area, and an action plan is developed. The action plan then has a number of steps or actions to be taken. The auditors record each of those actions to be taken and track them on a tracking report. For example, an action might be: needed retraining. It might be developing or reworking something on structured decision-making. It may be reviewing of protocols, for example.

Then the provincial director of child welfare's quality assurance branch monitors all of the quality assurance and actions in those audit reports until they are complete. All of the reports are publicly posted, and those reports are posted in June and December.

C. James: Moving on, then, to quality assurance — so good segue, Minister, to touch on quality assurance. We touched on this yesterday. It really was only yesterday that we talked a little bit about the shift in direction around quality assurance, from a service line to being embedded in the ministry.

I wonder if the minister could tell us a little bit more about that — why that decision was made and whether quality assurance is centralized, decentralized regionally, centralized through the ministry.

[1505]

Hon. S. Cadieux: The quality assurance process has been centralized. The reason for that is to separate out the quality assurance exercise and process away from the delivery of service and practice. It also helps to strengthen and reinforce the quality assurance role of the provincial director's office.

Just in case the member is wondering, the five primary quality assurance programs are practice support and reportables, case reviews, complaints, practice audits and accreditation.

C. James: Now I want to move just a little bit into some specific services in this area, as we move on, and speak a little bit about youth agreements. I wonder if the minister could tell us: how many youth are currently on youth agreements, and how does that compare to last year?

[1510]

Hon. S. Cadieux: The number of youth-on-youth agreements as at December 31, 2013, for the 2013-14 fiscal year, was 686. In 2013, for the full fiscal year, it was 651.

C. James: Could the minister tell us if that varies region by region and why they have seen the increase?

Hon. S. Cadieux: There are some differences by region. I don't have them all in front of me. They differ primarily, as one would expect, by the different demographics of the regions — so larger numbers in the Lower Mainland and Fraser Valley than other parts of B.C.
[ Page 2248 ]

As for the overall numbers and changing year to year, it's not significant change. For example, in 2009 there were 717 on youth agreements to last year's 651 and then this year's 686.

C. James: Could the minister tell us if there are policy directions around the number of visits that youth receive when they're on youth agreements? Just to bring forward the concern that certainly I hear often from people in the community and from youth themselves around going on to a youth agreement. They are rarely seeing anyone, feeling that they're on their own, not having the kind of supports that they need — so not providing them with the kinds of resources they need.

Could the minister talk a little bit about any kind of policy direction around regular visits from social workers for children who are on youth agreements and the kind of resources and supports that are there for those youth?

[1515]

Hon. S. Cadieux: There aren't standards in place for youth agreements. The requirement or the need is factored in based on what the needs of the individual child are and who it is that they want to connect with — whether that be a social worker, an independent living worker, a worker from an aboriginal community, a CYMH worker — what the reasons were that were leading to the youth agreement and, therefore, what level of support is required and desired. Those contacts and the plan for that is written into the youth agreement for each child, so it's separate.

For kids in care who are on independent living arrangements, the same style of the guardianship rules would apply. It would be the same 90 days as for other kids in care.

C. James: Do those youth on the independent living agreements or the youth agreements continue to have a plan in care that is managed by a social worker?

Hon. S. Cadieux: For the youth agreements, that is the plan of care for the child — all of that, in terms of there's a social worker attached — along with whatever other community-based services have been written into that plan. For the independent living arrangements for children in care, again, the guardianship standards apply, and they would have a plan in care.

C. James: I just had a specific question from my colleague around the issue of youth agreements.

S. Hammell: Minister, I've heard through service providers that there are significantly fewer youth agreements south of the Fraser. I was wondering if you have an explanation for that or could give me some indication why.

[1520]

Hon. S. Cadieux: It's not something we've heard. We don't have a breakdown by region with us, but we will get that breakdown. If there is a discrepancy, we'll certainly provide that to you, but we'll provide you with the breakdown of where the agreements are.

C. James: Continuing on. Following on the independent living agreements and the youth agreements is the issue of transition itself. I think it certainly has been a discussion for a number of years — the challenges that children in care face when they transition out of care. It was a recommendation that came forward in a report by the representative, Much More Than Paperwork — again, back to plans of care — talking about the need for planning for youth to start no later than 15.

Then I think the statistics are very clear. I think the shocking one to most people is, if you look at the homeless counts that occur around the province, the huge number of children in care who are now part of the homeless count. In fact, UBC did an analysis in Victoria, Vancouver and Prince George and learned that over half of the participants in the homeless count were in fact former children in care.

There's obviously a clear link and a clear problem for children who are transitioning out at age 19. I think anyone who is a parent knows that as your child turns 19, you don't instantly say: "Now you're an adult. You're on your own and managing."

I wonder if the minister could tell us what is being done around the area of youth transitioning at age 19. What kind of work is being done, and what kind of tracking is being done of those young people?

[1525]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Firstly, I think we have to acknowledge — I'm sure the member is well aware and would acknowledge this — that the youth that are coming into care come in with challenges and significant trauma and issues. So foster care is an opportunity, when they come into care, to try and help to deal with those challenges, not necessarily the precipitator of a negative result as an adult. But in fact that is more based in the trauma and other challenges that the children or youth we're talking about are dealing with. They potentially have that impact.

I think we also have to recognize, then — and it's sort of supporting that — the fact that 50 percent of the youth in care who turned 19 between February 2012 and July of 2012, just in that small group — it was a sample — accessed income assistance within six months. And of that, two-thirds accessed income assistance as a person with disability. It shows that there are significant challenges that some of these kids are dealing with.

As well, approximately 550 youth with special needs transition from MCFD to CLBC every year. Of those, 150 are youth in care and 400 are receiving CYSN services. Again, there are a number there of children or youth
[ Page 2249 ]
who are leaving, out of care, and going directly to an adult service for a number of reasons.

[1530]

The good news is that there are also a good number of children who are in care or on a youth agreement who are in grade 12 and who are leaving school with a Dogwood certificate. Of these 866 youth in care or youth on youth agreements, 602 are youth in care — just so we get some numbers.

The new plan of care that we've implemented — and are having our staff do with all of the kids in care — places a new emphasis on transition planning, acknowledging that there is additional need for support for kids that are leaving care. We're already doing lots of things in that regard, and I know the member is aware of most of those.

We've got the agreements with young adults, which are available for kids who are wanting to go on with school or need additional resources for treatment or rehab needs. We've got programs that we're working on or contracts that we've got out with the Adoptive Families Association around young adult services to find and connect with vulnerable youth and support them with information and to develop web-based resources for young adults and those who work with them that speak to youth and that youth are comfortable receiving.

[S. Sullivan in the chair.]

We've just launched, with the YWCA of greater Vancouver, the Strive program — again, another pilot to look at how better to provide the life skill connect-to-work transitioning skills for youth between the ages of 17 and 24. There are a number of other things as well.

The ability to track individuals past 19 — we don't have the legislative authority to do that. The only data that we are, then, able to sort of track as a child leaves is if they are on an agreement-with-young-adults with us until they're 24 or if they access adult services and we are aware that they were formerly a child in care.

C. James: Following up. I take the minister's point, and I certainly wasn't suggesting that because children have gone into foster care, that's why they end up homeless at the end.

I agree with the minister that there are youth who come in with trauma and who come in with challenges and that that's often a reason that children are in care. But to me, that's all the more reason for the supports. It makes it even more critical, when we know that these children have come in with trauma and with challenges, that that transition planning is put in place and that those supports are put in place for those youth. It's even more critical as they age out at 19 that those supports are there.

The minister mentioned the program for youth who want to go to school after they finish grade 12 and after they turn 19. I know that program is often underutilized, again because of the connections that aren't made previously. I wonder if there's been any discussion within the ministry about extending support past the age of 19 for children in care.

I think the numbers…. Just to make sure I have it right, the minister said 50 percent of the 50 percent that were looked at, of youth who had left, ended up on income assistance within six months. While it's great that they've connected to a program, I don't think there's anyone who would say that that's a good outcome for a child in care — that a good outcome is to end up on income assistance within six months of leaving the Ministry of Children and Families.

To be put in that kind of poverty as an individual and trying to find housing puts those youth at even higher risk, because the only kind of housing you can afford when you're on income assistance is mostly substandard housing. That creates even more of a risk.

I wonder whether any discussions have taken place in the ministry to address this.

[1535]

Hon. S. Cadieux: I think what we were trying to get at is that doing more of what we have been doing isn't likely to get better outcomes. Simply a longer extension of foster care isn't necessarily going to prepare the individual any more to go out into the world.

What we've been looking at and are continuing to look at is having the director's kids come first when it comes to accessing programs and services available through the adult system and ensuring they connect to those programs and are benefiting from them. That would be programs around employment, skills training, health programs, whatever is needed for that individual at that time. We're looking at starting that process around the age of 17 and being able to extend that through to about 24.

Hopefully, in that period of time — with projects like Strive and other things that we're looking to test, whether or not we can help — those youth make better connections and develop those skills that they're going to need to be independent in a positive way.

C. James: Well, I would agree with the minister that just adding foster care and continuing on isn't the right direction. Perhaps better-improved supports, but…. It comes back to the youth agreements and comes back to the years before the transition. The critical years really are those years 14 to 19, where training, where school, where the success rates are addressed. I would certainly hope that that's a major focus as well. Perhaps we'll get into it.

I'll talk a little bit about performance measures now. I think a couple of the performance measures actually relate to that issue when we're talking about education.

These are performance measures in this area — in the
[ Page 2250 ]
children-in-care area. The first performance measure is the performance measure of ratio of family development responses to investigations. I know we talked a little bit about this in July. This is trying to ensure that children are kept in families as much as they can, rather than going through a child protection investigation. Critical to that are supports for family development.

I wonder if the minister could tell us what supports are in place. Has there been an increase in the budget with a new emphasis on family development rather than investigations? What additional resources have been put towards family development?

[1540]

Hon. S. Cadieux: With this, the ratio and the targets set are a continuation of a trend that we started back in the early 2000s when we introduced or started the development of the family development response. There's no addition to budget specifically to address this, because in fact it's a redirection of resources that used to be focused on investigations and reinvestigations and children in care that are now being used instead for family development response and the related supports — so for more intense and time-limited services, as opposed to investigating and reinvestigating.

Through the family development response, we provide support to the family and referral to community-based agencies or services from our CYSN foundational programs — things like parenting training, conflict resolution, maybe referral for counselling as required, but supporting the family in its whole.

C. James: As the minister says, you look at the ratio. This is continuing work. I wondered if there's a follow-up that's done, then, around callbacks? I don't know any other word to describe it. How many return visits or children and families who then end up with an investigation — whether that information is tracked? Whether it's been successful, I guess, is another measure of success when it comes to family development.

[1545]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Yes, we do track it. It's in our performance management report, page 42: the proportion of families with a closed family development response in 2011-12 that had an investigation resulting in a protection finding within 12 months. We track it by service delivery area. In that year, from 2011 to 2012, there were 4,745 families that we closed a family development response with, and 4.2 percent had a subsequent investigation.

C. James: Moving on, then, to the next performance measure, which is relating to stability. I think all of us would agree that that is a critical piece. We all know the research around movements for children in foster care and in placements.

I wonder if the minister could tell us what the current numbers are around stability and the changes in placements, how that compares to the year previously and what work is being done to improve that. Kind of three questions around that performance measure.

[1550]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Martin Wright presented some of this data in more detail to the select standing committee recently, and I'm sure we could go through it again, if you'd like. We're following it quite closely, putting a fair emphasis on this. As the member noted, it's important for our kids. Again, it's in the performance management report, page 53 or 54-ish, and the numbers of children in care that did not move during the reporting period — 68.7 percent in the range. It's going in the right direction but very slowly. It's fairly stable.

The efforts we're making around this really go back to the refocusing on those plans of care and reclarifying our expectations to social workers about the number of times they meet with kids and the concentrated effort on the recruitment and retention of foster parents as well — that they are supported and able to maintain placements.

A. Weaver: Thank you to the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill for allowing me to ask a couple of questions.

I have seven questions, but I would like to seek permission through you, hon. Chair, to pass them in written form to the minister for a response at a later date, in recognition of the time associated with estimates. There are just two that I would like to ask at this time.

The first is with respect to some research, and the question is as follows. Has the ministry conducted any research to estimate the potential cost savings to society of increasing financial support for adolescent mental health programs, and similarly, has the ministry conducted any research to estimate the potential cost saving of increasing financial support for programs supporting children in government care?

[1555]

Hon. S. Cadieux: We are aware of limited research in other areas, specifically, recently in the news — Ontario for example. We're not aware of any research to date in B.C. specifically around kids transitioning out of care, and we don't at this point have any intention to do any. We don't believe that a continuation of the services we have in place today would result in better outcomes for either the individuals themselves or for government.

We're focused — and, Member, you may not have caught that earlier answer that I gave — on more effective use of
[ Page 2251 ]
the services in the adult system that are already there, focusing on children in care and ensuring that they are accessing the services that are available and making use of those employment programs and skills training and so on. So we're focused on more effective use of existing resources for youth in care rather than on continuation of the youth or child services.

As it relates to child and youth mental health — I believe it was your first question — there is lots of research in the field around early interventions in mental health and their benefit in the long term. There we don't feel there would be any requirement to do additional research. We know that the earlier interventions work.

We're focused on delivering services and on ensuring that we can deliver the best that we can in the early years, focused on things like Strongest Families, focused on identifying early and getting supports in place to prevent future involvement.

A. Weaver: My concern is that without assessing the economic impact of providing additional resources, it's really a guessing game. There are jurisdictions in the United States that have looked at the overall effects of increasing funding to various adolescent mental health programs and other services. I would think that it's the due diligence of a province to actually undertake such studies.

Again, my question to the minister is: why is the ministry not undertaking the necessary research to determine whether or not investments in these important programs pay off in more than the amount invested or not?

[1600]

If they do, it makes perfect sense to put more money into the system — if the payback is greater than the money going in. There's evidence to suggest this not only in Ontario but throughout jurisdictions in the United States.

Hon. S. Cadieux: As it relates specifically to the mental health arena — because the member offered two separate areas of research — in this fiscal climate we're focused on using our resources for services for kids. That is our focus in the mental health area.

Cross-jurisdictional comparisons, as they relate to post-majority supports for kids in care, are not always helpful, especially if one is comparing to the U.S., where the federal government funds state governments for post-majority services. Those states then, for former youth in care, use those dollars to provide services that here in B.C. we already provide — things like medical, income assistance, skills training and supports that are already available in our system for our kids in care.

C. James: I'd like to move now to a discussion around aboriginal children in care and the issue of aboriginal communities and their care. This is an area where there has obviously been a shift. I think the minister mentioned at the very start of our estimates yesterday around a shift in direction on aboriginal care.

To quote from the service plan…. I think it's important just to make sure we're talking about the context. The service plan for the ministry says: "The key priority is to work with aboriginal communities to provide direct services and improve outcomes." It says: "Continue the process of shifting the focus of contracts from governance to where it needs to be — on service delivery — so we can achieve our vision of aboriginal children living in strong, healthy families and sustainable communities."

There's also a performance measure in the service plan that talks about aboriginal children "cared for through aboriginal communities and providers." I think the minister herself made mention of the shift following the representative's report When Talk Trumped Service.

I want to begin with the shift in the service plan that talks about the focus on service delivery where it needs to be. I certainly would agree that it's important for the focus to be on service delivery, and I also believe the governance discussions have to occur if we're going to really achieve the performance measures and the strategic plan that are here in the ministry's direction.

I wonder if the minister agrees with that comment.

[1605]

Hon. S. Cadieux: I do. The shift away from governance to service delivery started about two years ago with discussions we were having with our First Nations partners — that we would be moving in this direction, understanding that governance discussions do need to occur.

Following the report from the representative, we solidified that decision that we were going to shift to service delivery with the ministry's limited resources and ensure that we were getting outcomes for kids. But the recommendation made by the representative herself, directed at the Attorney General, was a recognition that those governance discussions are relevant and that they should occur but that they should occur elsewhere in government. MCFD will sit at the table in those discussions. We do agree they are relevant and necessary, but they won't be led by MCFD.

C. James: I think that if the shift started two years ago, it certainly would have been a surprise to the representative, I think, in that report. It certainly wasn't expressed that way, that there was a shift in any way, shape or form.

Could the minister tell me what kinds of discussions the minister and the ministry have had with other ministries around the governance issue and whether the ministry knows of any kinds of timelines for those governance discussions to occur?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Subsequent to the release of the report from the representative, the Deputy Minister of MCFD convened a table with the deputy from MARR and the Deputy Attorney General and staff to identify roles and monitor progress on the report's recommendation around governance. They've met a number of times, most recently about two weeks ago.

[1610]

The Ministry of Attorney General, we are aware, is considering what advice to provide to MCFD in relation to the governance piece of the recommendations and how best to report back to the representative around that recommendation and how we'll move forward.

C. James: Thanks to the minister for that update. We will take that, obviously, into the Attorney General's ministry debates as well, because it's an opportunity to ask questions there.

Just to touch on…. The minister said it herself. There's a key role for the Ministry of Children and Families in all this, although the governance discussions and the request have gone to the Attorney General. Even the rep's recommendations spoke to the fact that jurisdictional negotiations must be immediately communicated within MCFD and to all their partners and service providers, and the reasons that the policy is needed.

I wondered if the minister could tell us what kind of discussions the ministry has had around the change in direction and around the change to have the governance discussions elsewhere with partners, with delegated agencies, with aboriginal groups in the province who deal with MCFD.

The Chair: We will have a five-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 4:11 p.m. to 4:19 p.m.

[S. Sullivan in the chair.]

[1620]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Thank you for that brief recess.

The former provincial director of child welfare sent a letter to all of our Indigenous Approaches contract holders, stating that funding would be focused on service delivery, back in September of last year. Upon release of the representative's report, the executive director of aboriginal services sent another note with the report to all of our Indigenous Approaches contract holders and delegated aboriginal agencies to identify that the status of the indigenous approach contracts would be clarified shortly.

On December 11 the provincial director of child welfare sent a letter to the Indigenous Approaches contract holders that explained that the current contracts would not be renewed. The deputy minister sent a letter at the same time to the delegated agencies, the Indigenous Approaches contractors and to all of our executive directors of service, identifying that the Indigenous Approaches funding would be repurposed to focus on service delivery, specifically targeting a reduction in the number of children in care while maintaining and ensuring safety and strengthening permanency plans for children in care.

We also identified at that time that information relating to self-determination and governance would be provided to our Indigenous Approaches contractors once the Ministry of Attorney General had provided their advice to MCFD in that regard.

During this process, as well, the executive director of aboriginal services and provincial director of child welfare also held numerous meetings with Indigenous Approaches contract holders right up until the RFP was released to clarify all of that for them. That RFP was released on February 3, and it closed March 3.

C. James: Thanks to the minister. Just so I have it straight, the conversations around governance now are basically in the hands of the Attorney General, and aboriginal groups and others have to wait for the Attorney General to give them direction around the direction that they're taking. Or they may communicate that to the minister, and the minister may communicate back out then to the aboriginal groups.

[1625]

I can imagine — and we can get into a little more discussion about the delegated agencies — that that will cause all kinds of challenges around delegation and delegated agencies. I'll wait for that section to talk.

The minister raised the Indigenous Approaches contract, so I just want to speak a little bit about those specific contracts first. The minister mentioned letters went out telling people that the current contracts were going to be ended and that a new RFP was going to be put out in place. Could the minister tell me how the decision was made on which contracts would be ended?

Hon. S. Cadieux: The decision was made that all of the Indigenous Approaches contracts would be ended and a new RFP targeted at service delivery would be issued.

C. James: Was there any discussion about taking a look at those indigenous contracts to see if they were direct service delivery? I certainly agree that the focus needs to be on direct service delivery, but the conversations with many First Nations organizations and community groups is that some of those contracts that were caught up in that were, in fact, direct service delivery contracts. So I wonder what kind of conversations the ministry had around leaving in place the contracts that actually met the mandate that the ministry and the minister has described.

Hon. S. Cadieux: None of the Indigenous Approaches contracts were wholly focused on service delivery. It was decided that it was too difficult to extricate which elements from previous contracts were devoted to direct service delivery. The cleanest and fairest way to address it was to clarify what MCFD's expectations were regarding the use of dollars. Our expectation was that many of the Indigenous Approaches contract holders would indeed continue with, modify or instigate programs that would fit in the new requirements for the new RFP. In fact, 13
[ Page 2253 ]
out of 18 have indeed submitted proposals.

C. James: It doesn't surprise me that they've all submitted proposals, because most of them are pretty worried about continuing programs and services, some that may exactly meet the need that the minister has talked about. I think it's an example once again of, sadly, what we've seen far too often in the ministry, which is a change in direction without taking a look at what's there, without reviewing what's in place, what makes sense and what follows the direction that the ministry has asked for.

[1630]

Instead, now you have groups that are scrambling — trying to write their proposals, to get them in — and worried about ending programs and services. Laying staff off, losing that kind of perspective, losing all of that kind of knowledge that's there — it's a real worry. I think it could have been handled differently.

I don't disagree that the contracts needed to be reviewed, that you needed to have clear measures in place. I think all of that was the right direction. I think it's unfortunate that wasn't done in the first place in the ministry. But that's not the aboriginal groups' issue here, from my perspective. It's a ministry issue.

So the bids have closed now, as the minister pointed out. Could the minister tell me how applications will be assessed and when it's expected that those letters of acceptance will go out?

[M. Bernier in the chair.]

Hon. S. Cadieux: There were 52 proposals received. They are being assessed now. I expect that assessment process to be complete by the end of next week, with the goal of contracts being in place for April 1, for the new fiscal year.

They are being assessed according to government procurement policy. They are weighted according to the response to the criteria in the posting, as well as an opportunity for consideration of the availability of services in different areas.

C. James: Is the amount exactly the same that was in the original Indigenous Approaches and now in the aboriginal innovation fund?

[1635]

Hon. S. Cadieux: It is the same amount of money, $8.2 million, available.

C. James: A further question about who could apply: was it possible for agencies who are not First Nations to apply to serve First Nations?

Hon. S. Cadieux: No. The answer is that the original Indigenous Approaches contract holders, all of which were First Nations organizations, would be eligible, as well as other First Nations and aboriginal service providers, delegated agencies and urban aboriginal or Métis organizations.

D. Donaldson: Thank you to the critic for giving me a small amount of time to ask about a very important topic. I'm going to provide an example of two First Nations in Stikine who are using the authority and jurisdiction inherent in their traditional governance systems to provide for the care of children in need. They are very successful examples, which I know the minister is aware of, because she or her staff have met with members of both groups.

One is the Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs' approach to care and service delivery called ANABIP, which translates along the lines of: "We're talking about our laws, our ways."

They've had amazing results supported through the office of Wet'suwet'en. This is typified by one Wet'suwet'en youth who came to my office in Smithers and read a letter to me he wrote to the children's representative office and this ministry, which he later used in a presentation to the hereditary chiefs. It said in part:

"I'm writing this letter because I heard that the government is making it harder to get money for the office of Wet'suwet'en. I get a lot of services, such as youth and elders camp, youth camp, men's camp and family camps. I meet new people and elders and hear stories from elders passed on and on. We learned where our territory is, how big it is and where to fish. We learn how to respect animals and how to respect people and others. We learn about bullying, cyberbullying, preventable suicide, abuse and residential schools."

ANABIP has made all the difference in his life and the lives of other Wet'suwet'en children.

The other example, I think the minister is aware of is the Stikine Wholistic Working Group. It's composed of Kaska, Tlingit and Tahltan Nations. They've had unprecedented results, including the largest historical reduction of children protection files — 50 percent — across B.C.'s largest region, with B.C.'s highest aboriginal population and, equally stunning, more than a 50 percent decrease in the number of children in care, which the minister referenced as a criteria for this funding that we're talking about. It's a unique collaboration with positive results, extending even beyond the working group.

These are two very successful approaches to creating a community of care for First Nations and aboriginal children that puts the child and community at the centre and where direct service delivery is in the context of what's been successful for 10,000 years and has only gone unrecognized since our western system became dominant in their territories. But the authority of the traditional system remains strong and is at the basis of the success of ANABIP and the Stikine Wholistic Working Group.

They're both awaiting answers from this ministry and from this government about whether they will receive continued support for their successful efforts. It's only a little over two weeks until the end of the fiscal year, and they've
[ Page 2254 ]
not heard if this ministry and this government is interested in supporting their amazing record of success with children.

I'll give the minister another opportunity to be definitive on this question. When will the two groups know about the commitment from this ministry to continue to fund their work in the next budget cycle, beginning April 1, in a wholesome manner needed for the overall success? Will the minister also commit to funding in years 2 and 3, as presented in this budget and fiscal plan?

[1640]

Hon. S. Cadieux: I do recognize that there have been a number of positive outcomes from the working group's efforts over the last number of years, which I think contributed to a more positive lifestyle up in Stikine and region. Some of it was child welfare–focused, others not.

I think, in response to the member noting the 50 percent reduction of children in care, that is a success, of course. We are talking about a reduction in care from 17 children to seven, with an investment of $1.1 million a year over four years. A significant investment to reach that, but certainly, that reduction is a positive. There's no doubt about that.

Again, many positive steps were taken, some of which were child welfare–related and others weren't. As I stated in my last answer to the critic, we are targeting the week of March 24 to let all of the applicants know the status of their application and whether or not they were successful, to have contracts in place for April 1.

[1645]

G. Holman: Thanks to my colleague for allowing me a couple of minutes to ask a question about the First Nations groups in my constituency, Saanich North and the Islands — four First Nations groups: Tseycum, Tsartlip, Pauquachin and Tsawout.

As you know, the South Island Wellness group, which is a coalition of First Nations on the south Island, have submitted a proposal. Without asking you about that specific proposal, necessarily, I do want to make a statement on their behalf.

They are greatly concerned about the child being thrown out with the bathwater here. This change in direction, which the critic has indicated, is understandable, but there is a concern about the shift in direction and kind of leaving them stranded, in terms of their role. They feel quite strongly that not only do they provide direct services, but there's a prevention aspect to the role they play and a link with First Nations communities which they're very concerned will be lost if they don't receive funding on an ongoing basis.

Other than making that statement, I wanted to ask you a specific question about the numbers of proposals that you have received that would cover First Nations on the Saanich Peninsula. If you could tell me the number of bids that you have received.

Hon. S. Cadieux: Because we're in the middle of a procurement, I can't go into details that are that specific. What I can tell you is that the same $8.2 million is available to be let out for contracts specific to the requests for proposal that went out. Towards that, 52 applications were received provincewide.

C. James: Now I'd like to talk a little bit about delegated agencies, some questions around delegated agencies. Just to give the context, could the minister tell us how many delegated agencies there are and what levels the delegated agencies are at?

Hon. S. Cadieux: There are currently 23 delegated aboriginal agencies. Ten of those agencies have a full child welfare delegation, nine have guardianship, and four offer voluntary services. That is a change from last year of one from guardianship to full delegated status, so that number went from nine to ten this year, and we anticipate that number changing to 11 this year.

C. James: Could the minister tell me whether there are any First Nations, either individual bands or groups of bands who've come together, who are on the wait-list for a delegated agency, who have expressed interest to the ministry and are in the process?

[1650]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Firstly, just so everybody is aware — I'm sure the member is, but for the record — delegated aboriginal agencies are a complex animal in that they are a tripartite agreement between ourselves, the federal government and the First Nation. They require First Nations financial support and have to meet a series of requirements in order to achieve that. They require our practice and oversight support from the provincial director of child welfare under the CFCSA.

At this point there are a couple of expressions of interest. However, no other groups are formally in the process at this time because they don't meet the federal requirements at this time.

C. James: Perhaps this is a hypothetical question, but I think it relates to the previous discussion we were having around governance, because I think it's clear that if you move into the delegated agency approach, you're getting into a governance discussion.

Has the ministry had conversations about what they're going to do about the fact that moving to a delegated agency requires, yes, as the minister said, practice and standards and making sure they meet the requirements, but it also requires governance discussions? If the ministry is moving those discussions over to the AG's ministry, what's going to happen around delegated agencies in that conversation?

[1655]

Hon. S. Cadieux: I think this may be a bit of a confusing discussion. However, that said, our feeling within the ministry is that the discussions pertaining to achieving delegated status or establishing a delegated agency are actually neutral in response to a governance discussion. We think they could proceed without necessarily having to consider a broader governance agenda at the same time.

We'll continue to have discussions about the potential for delegation with interested parties, regardless of whether or not other broader self-determination discussions are going on in another area of government and whether or not we are having those discussions with the group.

Our feeling on it is that a delegated aboriginal agency might be seen by a First Nation to be a step towards self-governance and self-determination. Others may find it's a step backward from that discussion. We're looking to remain neutral on that, and we will work towards delegation with any of the groups that meet the requirements to do so.

C. James: I would agree that there are larger political discussions that go on and larger discussions around self-governance and treaty, etc., that happen outside of the issue around a delegated agency. I would agree with the minister. But I think it gets tangled up. I think the minister is right that it's complicated. It gets tangled up with the discussion around delegated agencies often, around what their mandate is, what their responsibilities are, who the governance boards are for delegated agencies, how involved the Chief and council are with the delegated agencies.

I guess my question is more around those pieces. Does the minister, then, envision that those pieces of governance that can be governance and be involved in practice will be addressed through the standards that have to be in place for someone to meet to be able to become an aboriginal agency?

[1700]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Governance discussions with MCFD are limited to how services for children and families are going to be delivered under the Child, Family and Community Service Act.

Our governance discussions are then about getting clarity with First Nations leaders that a delegated aboriginal agency's reason for being is in fact to deliver services under the CFCSA. An agency, may, however, take on other roles in a community separate and apart from being a delegated aboriginal agency for the purposes of the CFCSA.

MCFD is necessarily involved in discussions around governance as it relates specifically to those services under the CFCSA but not necessarily involved in discussions as they relate to broader self-determination or governance discussions at a higher level.

The exception, then, comes into play only when we are talking about a First Nation who is working to a treaty.

C. James: This certainly will be one that is going to continue to need attention over the next while. I think there will be circumstances where the overlap occurs naturally because of the communities and because of the realities there.

Just a couple of questions around standards for aboriginal agencies. I think we've had this discussion before. The aboriginal operational and practice standards — AOPSI, as they were called — were in place. The minister, I believe, has made comment that the standards are being changed, that we're now looking at different kinds of standards.

I wondered if the minister could tell us the discussions that have occurred with delegated agencies around the changing of these standards, why the standards are being changed and when the new requirements will be put in place.

[1705]

Hon. S. Cadieux: In 2009 the delegated agencies expressed a desire to take a look at the standards, so the AOPSI redesign project got underway. It was a collaboration between the federal government, the delegated agencies and ourselves.

There were consultations around B.C. that included the communities, the elders, the agencies and ourselves. That discussion then informed a new aboriginal practice framework, which will be for all aboriginal kids, not just aboriginal kids in the Cariboo delegated agency but right across the ministry.

There will be one set of standards that's consistent with the Auditor General's recommendation. The representative, as well, is in support of that one set of standards. The centres will cover all six service lines over time. We're starting with the child protection service line. The standards will be ready April 1. Then implementation and training will start at that time. No timelines have been set on the other service lines yet. We'll see how that first implementation phase goes.

C. James: Continuing on around the issue of caring for aboriginal children, just a couple of questions around the Lost in the Shadows report that had come out from the representative that spoke to a number of challenges. I'll ask questions in a variety of areas.

The first one is to speak to the challenge of accessing children on reserve and the issue that was pointed out in the report. I would just like to ask the minister: what review has been done? And are there other circumstances similar to the circumstance in the report around access to children on reserve?

[1710]

Hon. S. Cadieux: After the report, the ADM of service reviewed through her executive directors of service in all the SDAs to ensure that there weren't any circumstances where staff were not going on reserve on child protection matters.

In fact, protocols are in place that allow for the band to be notified, and in some cases for band members to attend with the social workers where there's a worker safety issue, for either a band member or the RCMP to attend where required. However, of course, child safety comes first, and if there's an immediate safety issue, then those protocols do not come into play and the social workers are expected to respond immediately with RCMP, if required.

As well, the ADM and the deputy met with the GEU recently and agreed to discuss the issues of staff safety, in particular this area, through an OSH working group, which is getting underway. So it will be continually responded….

As well, after the report the provincial director of child welfare and the executive director of aboriginal services sent a letter to the representative reiterating the fact that we do not tolerate in any way no-go zones and that if the representative or others were in any way aware of a circumstance they were concerned about, they should let us know, because it is not tolerated in policy or in any other area of the ministry.

C. James: Just specific to the report, on the example in the report, is there now a protocol in place with that current First Nation? And what supports are being put in place in that regional office that was understaffed?

[1715]

Hon. S. Cadieux: A protocol has been in place and was revisited as a result of the report, of course. It is important to note that it's a community where MCFD does have 22 kids in care and, I think, 15 active child protection cases underway. There is certainly activity there. It is not going without service, by any means.

As for the specific staffing numbers, I have a different memory than my staff, so we will get you those shortly. If you want to proceed with another question, we can come back to it.

C. James: Great. Thank you very much to the minister. A quick question around prevention dollars with the federal government.

As we know, there has been a longstanding discussion around trying to get federal dollars for aboriginal agencies and delegated agencies who receive dollars for children in care and not prevention dollars. I wonder what the status of discussions is for B.C. around those provincial dollars with the federal government for delegated agencies.

[1720]

Hon. S. Cadieux: I have two answers for the member opposite. I now have a confirmation of the number of workers in the office that was in question. There are currently 18 social workers there and three vacancies that we are actively recruiting to fill.

We have experienced social workers that we have put in there in the interim to help train some of the newer staff so that they can move to full delegation and bring their skills up in that area, similar to what we will expect to be able to do with the rapid response team once that's in place. In the meantime, we weren't waiting. We were actually moving in that direction.

As it relates to the prevention dollars and the federal government, the EPFA committee, the enhancement prevention funding committee — which is ourselves, representatives from the delegated agencies and representatives from aboriginal and northern affairs Canada — have had ongoing discussions since 2008 and met as recently as early February. Since then, the federal budget has come out and does not include any new prevention dollars for British Columbia.

The deputy minister and an ADM from aboriginal and northern affairs Canada have a meeting set for two weeks from now to have further discussions. As well, I have requested a meeting with my federal counterpart to continue pressing forward on this issue.

[1725]

M. Elmore: Thanks for the opportunity to pose a couple of questions to the minister. I have a question with regards to the Giving in Action program. This is the program…. It's a fund to assist families that have a dependent young or adult child who has a developmental disability, to remain in their home. It allows them to do renovations to keep their children at home in the community. It's a program that's run through the Vancouver Foundation, and it started up through one-time grants and combined funding from both MCFD and Community Living B.C.

Families are concerned about the future of this program. It has shown to be very effective, has helped a number of families right across the province. Over 1,200 families have benefited, and there are currently an extra additional 100 on the wait-list.

It's a very cost-effective alternative for the recipients, the families, to provide quality of care for their loved ones or family members — and also, on the government side, in terms of having family members stay in the house versus bearing the costs of the funding incurred by institutionalized care.

My question is: what is MCFD's financial commitment for 2014-15?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Thanks for the question. Certainly, nobody has to tell me about the additional costs of disability in a family or in the challenges that families face
[ Page 2257 ]
in accommodating their loved ones with disabilities in their homes.

Giving in Action is a program run through the Vancouver Foundation. The B.C. government has provided $43 million to Giving in Action since 2006, including $2 million in March of 2013 — sorry, 2012.

The program has been supported through one-time-only grants through government. It is not a regular budget item.

It was 2013, the last fiscal. This is 2014. Apologies. Yes, $2 million in 2013 was the last addition.

Given the current fiscal situation in government and certainly within this ministry, we don't have additional ability, through this ministry, to provide additional funds to Giving in Action at this time.

M. Elmore: So disappointed to hear that. Also, families in my area are disappointed. It has benefited a number of families right across the province.

There are a number of families on the wait-list that have been expecting support. What are the plans in terms of families on this wait-list, and how does MCFD anticipate accommodating future families who need this assistance?

Hon. S. Cadieux: I understand the value that this has been to families, and I do understand there are families that are hoping there will be money available again.

At this point, MCFD doesn't have the ability to provide funding. Funding to this program, as I mentioned, has been provided through one-time-only grants, through primarily the ability at the end of the year to find dollars that weren't spent other places. We don't have that ability at this time. However, we would be exploring with the Vancouver Foundation, given any opportunity that arose to provide support to this program. It is, of course, valued.

I will note for the member, in case she isn't aware, that the Home Adaptions for Independence program that's offered through B.C. Housing does provide ability for grants for adaptations for people with disabilities that are required in homes. It is one additional program that is available. Again, we would look forward to providing additional funds to this, if they became available.

[1730]

M. Elmore: Certainly, I don't have to articulate to the minister the benefits and value of this program delivered to families right across the province. I'm disappointed that there does not appear to be a commitment to continue the program. I think it's a real shame.

I think that the value and the benefit deliver above and beyond in terms of appreciating the initial commitment. There's a real ongoing need in this area in terms of addressing the realities of families wanting to support their loved ones and having the ability to remain in the community and, also, in terms of recognizing the cost savings to our system. So I'm hoping that….

What are the plans for these families, to accommodate these issues and address the real needs that are there?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Again, to the member, there's no argument that these funds have been valuable and this ability, through Giving in Action, over time to provide support to families has been valuable to families around the province, certainly. Again, government has contributed over $43 million to that program since 2006 — no small level of support.

It has been supported, as I said, through one-time-only grants that were available at various times when there was more money available in budgets. Right now we don't have that ability. These are tight fiscal circumstances, and all of MCFD's resources are spoken for in our service lines. At this point we don't have the ability to provide more funding to this particular initiative. However, at some point in the future, should it become available, we would of course entertain that opportunity.

C. James: We now know the program won't be funded this coming year, which is a disappointment, certainly for the over 100 families that are on the wait-list. But I think there's another, additional issue that was raised by one of the minister's own colleagues. The member for Kelowna-Mission had a constituent who was approved for the funding, who began the renovations, was told the funding was going to come and then was told the program was cancelled. We received this information through the FOI. He was told to tell the family that government will consider funding if the fiscal circumstances improve.

I wonder if the minister could answer, certainly to her colleague from Kelowna-Mission but also to all of us: what about families who are in the queue, who have been approved, have now started the renovations and have been told that the funding isn't following?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Certainly, I feel for the families. The Giving in Action fund was set up through the Vancouver Foundation. The Vancouver Foundation received grants from government to operate that program, and the Vancouver Foundation is responsible for the operation of that program: the taking of applications, the decisions about funding in relation to the money that they had available. I can't speak for the Vancouver Foundation in how those decisions were made or those decisions communicated to potential grant recipients.

J. Rice: I have just one question, which is a local question for me. In Prince Rupert we have a dire need for mental health services. In fact, I was looking at the Northern Health website recently, and the mental health and addiction worker position has been vacant for over a year and a half. I always get a little bit worried when I hear about how the few mental health services that we do
[ Page 2258 ]
have in our community are going to be limited.

I received an e-mail about the Northwest Band family counselling group in Prince Rupert, which provides drug and alcohol counselling and family counselling to aboriginal people by aboriginal people. They also, getting their funding from MCFD, service non-aboriginals in our community. They also service outlying communities from Haida Gwaii all the way up into the Gitxsan territory over into the Stikine constituency.

Today, I guess, they received notice from MCFD that they would no longer have their funding in place. I was just wondering if we could get an explanation as to why that is.

[1735]

Hon. S. Cadieux: I'm not immediately aware of the agency or the potential funding relationship with MCFD. I'd be happy to follow up with the member on her question after we have had a chance to look into it.

I can note off the top that alcohol and drug counselling types of programs wouldn't be funded through MCFD at any rate, even for youth. Those are programs that would be funded through the Ministry of Health.

C. James: I've got a couple of other questions in this section. It looks like we'll be able to wrap up this section, at least, by the end of today — just to give an idea for staff as well.

A question around out-of-province transfers or between-province transfers. Again, as we know, there was a report, Out of Sight, by the representative, where we saw the child who was moved to Alberta and a tragic circumstance — neglected and abused.

A number of recommendations spoke to protocols and the requirement for protocols between the provinces and the territories. Could the minister update on whether all of those protocols are now in place?

[1740]

Hon. S. Cadieux: It was a Saskatchewan case that was referenced in the report from the representative, and there is a protocol in place across all of the jurisdictions — it was in place prior — relating to children moving from one jurisdiction to another and notification.

The representative's recommendation speaks to increased expectations on the sending jurisdiction to review and approve the receiving placement in another jurisdiction. This additional depth of recommendation was discussed by the directors of child welfare at their table in November. B.C. and Saskatchewan have recommended an update to the protocol, and that work on that update of the protocol is underway at that table.

That said, beyond that, I have had preliminary conversations with the ministers from Alberta and Saskatchewan on this and other issues related, and we are scheduled to have a western ministers meeting later in the spring to discuss this and a number of other issues.

C. James: I recognize that it's not protocol. It's a specific request around the sending province. But I'm guessing that needs protocol changes; I'm guessing that needs a discussion around protocols. I'd certainly appreciate an update on those discussions as those are put in place, because I think it's critical that there be a responsibility on the sending province to do that work, and that will require the protocol changes.

Just a quick question around after-hours programs — I know we're getting close to time here — and the structure for after hours. Could the minister describe right now what the structure is for after hours, regional versus centralized, and how many calls are handled currently around the province? I think that may do us.

[1745]

Hon. S. Cadieux: The structure of after-hours has not changed for a length of time. The provincial-hours main phone line is offered through Vancouver with satellite lines in New Westminster, Kelowna, Prince George, Victoria and Kamloops.

They handle all the calls after hours for the province, mostly giving a phone response for anything that is not urgent. That phone response then includes, you know, a memo to file, etc., for follow-up the next day in the service delivery area.

If, however, there is something urgent, there is an on-call staff in all of the regions, available to respond for a crisis or for support for children in care as required.

There is some ability in the Lower Mainland and, certainly, in the Vancouver office to respond to more because of the increased staffing through the after-hours.

Continuing on, as for the number of calls, we'll get that to you for Monday, Member, if that's all right.

I'll let you continue before we do this.

C. James: Thank you to the minister. Thank you to staff. I know it has been a long couple of days.

When we come back to estimates, when we return, just for the staff and the ease of individuals, we have the poverty plans to touch on, ICM, adoption, youth justice, child care and domestic violence — in that order.

Hon. S. Cadieux: Noting the hour, I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:48 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 © 2014: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada