1998 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 36th 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)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 17, 1998

Afternoon

Volume 10, Number 23

[ Page 8865 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

G. Bowbrick: Joining us in the gallery today is the Hearn family: Grant, Karen and their ten-year-old daughter Katie. Katie -- and her whole family, in fact -- worked on my campaign in 1996. They have worked on municipal and federal campaigns since then, and I have to say that Katie was the hardest-working eight-year-old that I've ever seen on the campaign. I ask all members to join me in making them welcome.

Hon. D. Streifel: 'Tis the season for visitors from the community, particularly students from our elementary schools. Touring the precincts today are 26 grade 7 students from Whonnock Elementary School in my constituency, accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Tyler. Whonnock is just down the street from where I live. It's the school my children went to, and it's a very fine school. It is one of the schools that's going to be replaced this year with a brand-new building. I bid the House make them welcome.

Hon. H. Lali: Visiting us today in the galleries are Mr. Tony Toth, the president of the B.C. Road Builders Association; Mr. Jim Poole, the chair of the maintenance sector of the Road Builders; and Mr. Joe Wrobel, the vice-chair of the maintenance sector. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. Wilson: Today we have 20 students visiting us from Lakeview Elementary School in my riding of Cariboo North. They are accompanied by ten adults and their teacher, Mrs. Adams. I ask that the House make them welcome.

C. Hansen: In the gallery is Philip Hochstein, who is representing the Coalition of B.C. Businesses, and Mr. Peter Schultze, who is with the Victoria Home Builders Association. I ask the House to make them welcome.

Ministerial Statement

IRON WORKERS MEMORIAL BRIDGE ANNIVERSARY

Hon. D. Lovick: It was 40 years ago today that 18 ironworkers were killed when the bridge they were building suddenly collapsed. That bridge was, and is, the Second Narrows Bridge, which spans Burrard Inlet, linking the communities of Vancouver and North Vancouver. The bridge itself is a memorial to the men who were killed and injured, and today ironworkers and many others are gathering at the Second Narrows Bridge to mark this important anniversary. I think it's only fitting, therefore, that we today join them in recognition of this event in the history of British Columbia's construction workers.

I would therefore ask my colleagues to please join me in a moment of silent recognition of what happened on June 17, 1958.

Introduction of Bills

LABOUR RELATIONS CODE

AMENDMENT ACT, 1998

Hon. D. Lovick presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 1998.

Hon. D. Lovick: Hon. Speaker, I move that Bill 26 be introduced and read a first time now.

[2:15]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS -- 37

Evans

Zirnhelt

McGregor

Kwan

Hammell

Boone

Streifel

Pullinger

Lali

Orcherton

Stevenson

Calendino

Goodacre

Walsh

Randall

Gillespie

Robertson

Cashore

Conroy

Priddy

Miller

G. Clark

Dosanjh

MacPhail

Lovick

Farnworth

Waddell

Hartley

Sihota

Smallwood

Sawicki

Bowbrick

Kasper

Doyle

Giesbrecht

Janssen

Weisgerber

NAYS -- 31

Sanders

Gingell

C. Clark

Campbell

Farrell-Collins

de Jong

Plant

Abbott

Reid

Neufeld

Coell

Chong

Whittred

Jarvis

Anderson

Penner

J. Wilson

McKinnon

Krueger

Masi

Dalton

Barisoff

van Dongen

Symons

Thorpe

Hansen

Stephens

Coleman

Hawkins

Nebbeling

Weisbeck

Hon. D. Lovick: This legislation recognizes the unique characteristics of construction industry labour relations. It addresses longstanding concerns respecting labour relations and collective bargaining structures within the construction industry and brings our legislative treatment of this industry in line with that existing in other Canadian jurisdictions. Since the release of the reports of the two review panels, there has indeed been a great deal of discussion about what Labour

[ Page 8866 ]

Relations Code changes the government was going to make. I am pleased to introduce this bill today and to end this speculation. First, I want to advise . . . .

The Speaker: Excuse me, hon. minister. I'm sorry to interrupt you. Your time will be added later. But I saw some props on the other side, which are not appropriate in this chamber.

Minister, you may proceed.

Hon. D. Lovick: First, I want to advise the House that having listened to the concerns of the labour and business communities, we will not be proceeding with the changes to the code which were recommended by the

section 3 panel. What we are doing today is introducing a new

part 4.1 into the code -- "Construction Industry Labour Relations." These amendments reflect the unanimous recommendations of the construction industry review panel.

This bill recognizes, within labour relations law, the unique character and nature of the construction industry. Indeed, as the construction panel stated in its report, there has been a recognition for at least the past 12 years that some specialized legislative treatment for construction was both necessary and desirable. The panel's recommendations argue a more rational bargaining structure for this part of the unionized construction industry. I would note that the panel did not recommend sectoral bargaining for the construction industry and that we are not introducing it.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. Debate time . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members!

Hon. D. Lovick: The government believes that these proposals are good for both workers and employers in the unionized component of the industry and for the industry overall. They will encourage greater efficiency and stability within this part of the industry and, by so doing, will also encourage the industry to make investments in training and development of the skilled resources needed for the future.

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

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS -- 37

Evans

Zirnhelt

McGregor

Kwan

Hammell

Boone

Streifel

Pullinger

Lali

Orcherton

Stevenson

Calendino

Goodacre

Walsh

Randall

Gillespie

Robertson

Cashore

Conroy

Priddy

Miller

G. Clark

Dosanjh

MacPhail

Lovick

Farnworth

Waddell

Hartley

Sihota

Smallwood

Sawicki

Bowbrick

Kasper

Doyle

Giesbrecht

Janssen

Weisgerber

NAYS -- 31

Sanders

Gingell

C. Clark

Campbell

Farrell-Collins

de Jong

Plant

Abbott

Reid

Neufeld

Coell

Chong

Whittred

Jarvis

Anderson

Penner

J. Wilson

McKinnon

Krueger

Masi

Dalton

Barisoff

van Dongen

Symons

Thorpe

Hansen

Stephens

Coleman

Hawkins

Nebbeling

Weisbeck

Bill 26 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

IMPACT OF LABOUR BILL

ON B.C. ECONOMY

G. Campbell: My question is for the Minister of Employment and Investment. I have a copy of a report prepared by Coldwell Banker Commercial about Alberta's economic overview and prospects. It lists 97 separate projects in Alberta with a value of over $34 billion. Now, we know that everyone has told this minister that changes to the Labour Code will kill investment. Does this minister not understand that without investment, we do not have jobs in British Columbia? How can this minister support the introduction of changes to the Labour Code when he knows it will kill investment and kill jobs in British Columbia?

Hon. M. Farnworth: You know, we stand in this House every day, and we hear the opposition trumpet Alberta day after day after day. Yet they stand up and vote against a bill that they haven't seen. When they have seen it and when they do read it, they will see that we are introducing changes that are already in place in Alberta. Did Alberta get it right? Every day they trumpet Alberta. Well, the changes that are being put in place are exactly those that are happening in Alberta.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the Leader of the Official Opposition.

G. Campbell: In Alberta they have workplace democracy. They have a secret ballot. They have double-breasting. We have seen this bill, and it strips away workers' rights in the province of British Columbia.

Let me try the Minister of Forests. This report points out that there are 14 separate major projects in the province of Alberta that are going ahead in the forest sector -- a $150 million strand board plant, a new fibreboard plant, two $900 million paper mills. Now, this minister has already cost forest workers over 12,000 jobs. Doesn't he understand that without investment, there are no jobs in British Columbia? How can he support the introduction of a bill that he knows will kill investment and kill jobs in the forest sector?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It seems to me that the same labour laws will affect construction in the forest industry here as they will in Alberta. Exactly the same conditions will prevail. We expect to see hundreds of millions of dollars of investment in

[ Page 8867 ]

the forest industry this year. They're going ahead this year in the forest industry in British Columbia, and this won't affect it at all.

The Speaker: Second supplementary, Leader of the Official Opposition.

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, let me try the Minister of Labour. In 1997, 107 companies fled the province of British Columbia and this government's policies -- 107 companies. Our economy is on life support, and you have just pulled the plug. How many more companies have to flee this province and how many more thousands of jobs in British Columbia do we have to see disappear before you figure out what the hell you've done to B.C.'s economy?

The Speaker: Hon. member, entirely unparliamentary language is being heard in the chamber today. I request that it be withdrawn.

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, I am sorry if this upsets you. I am extremely angry about the introduction of this bill.

The Speaker: I appreciate . . . . It's not upsetting; it's the rules of the House, hon. member.

Interjections.

G. Campbell: . . . if it upsets you.

The Speaker: The rules of the House are very clear about unparliamentary language, and I accept your withdrawal.

I recognize the Minister of Labour.

Hon. D. Lovick: I expect the reasoned tone and the careful analysis we've heard from the opposition this morning . . . . I'm sure we all appreciate that.

The basic contention . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

Hon. D. Lovick: The basic argument embedded in the member's question, of course, is that perceived changes in the Labour Code had something to do with companies leaving this province. I would suggest . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister, proceed.

[2:30]

Hon. D. Lovick: . . . as somebody who has met with the business community and discussed their concerns, that there is nothing in this bill -- nothing in this bill . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, there will be plenty of time to debate this bill. We are in question period at this point.

Minister of Labour, proceed.

Hon. D. Lovick: I am quite looking forward to the debate, so that we can actually put those arguments out on the table and demonstrate that there is indeed nothing in this bill which will have a negative impact on jobs and investment in this province.

C. Hansen: I was astounded by what the minister just said, because it demonstrates how totally out of touch he and his colleagues are with the B.C. economy today.

The Minister of Finance put out a press release on June 3 on the subject of foreign asset reporting. I will quote her words in that press release: "Given the challenges facing the provincial economy, this is not the time to take a chance on introducing measures that could damage the investment climate."

Hon. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Labour. The advice that he got, if he reads his mail, from the business community in British Columbia is that the worst thing he could do to the economy today is bring in his changes to the Labour Code. I would like to ask the Minister of Labour why he delivered this slap in the face to British Columbia's job creators.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, come to order. The minister's been asked a question.

Hon. D. Lovick: It seems to me, hon. Speaker, that the worst thing anybody could do to jeopardize the economic health of his province would be to continually do what they do and to say that the sky is falling. That's what does more to harm investment and confidence in this economy than anything else.

I would also point out -- I am happy to point out -- that in my meetings with the Phil Hochsteins and the Jerry Lamperts and the Suromitra Sanatanis of the world, they have all at least been reasonable. They have not made silly overstatements such as the kind we're witnessing here today.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Vancouver-Quilchena.

C. Hansen: What the business community has been doing is begging this government to do something to restore the health of this economy. I think that you're not going to find the same kind of civility when they realize that you weren't listening.

There was a Marktrend survey that came out last week and that shows that only 19 percent of British Columbians think the NDP should bring in these kinds of labour changes. Why is the Minister of Labour ignoring the wishes of 81 percent of British Columbians and going ahead with changes to the Labour Code that are going to destroy our economy even further?

Hon. D. Lovick: Madam Speaker, I've never been a believer in psychic phenomena, but obviously the members opposite have . . . . They seem to know, and they seem to have known in advance, precisely what was going to happen. How did they know that? The bill was introduced today. It's amazing that a poll was conducted and that they knew of these awful, devastating impacts and what they were going to be when nobody had seen the legislation. Curious, isn't it?

I would also like to say, then, for the benefit of the members opposite, that this government has done a rather

[ Page 8868 ]

good and credible job of listening to the business community. That's why this bill has a very significant difference from Bill 44, which was introduced last year . . .

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. D. Lovick: . . . because we did consult, we did listen, and we did change our ways in order to make the legislation more palatable and workable.

G. Farrell-Collins: We've heard what the Minister of Labour has to say; now let's hear what the investors have to say. The Wall Street Journal , the world's most influential investor newspaper, ran a scathing story about B.C.'s economy and how B.C.'s socialist government was driving our economy into the ground and driving jobs out of the province. It said: "Until the government does an about-face on high taxes and [restrictive] labour laws . . . its actions are [merely] window dressing." When will the Minister of Labour finally realize the long-term damage he and his government are doing to the province and to the people of British Columbia? They don't need NDP ideology; they need jobs.

Hon. D. Lovick: In all candour, I have to confess that I don't know what the member means by restrictive labour laws. Is he talking . . . ?

Interjections.

Hon. D. Lovick: Is he talking . . . ?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members.

Hon. D. Lovick: Hon. Speaker, I really struggle. I thought that all of us in this chamber at least abided by the basic rules of this chamber. But alas, the true democrats over there, the believers in civil liberties, believe it's their right to shout somebody down. That's too bad. It's a sad commentary, but that's who they are.

I wonder if the laws they're talking about are perhaps the laws about minimum wage. Could that be one? I think they oppose minimum wage. I wonder if they are talking about basic employment standards. I wonder if they're talking about occupational health and safety. I wonder whether in fact they're talking about employment which says that workers have no rights -- because that's what I believe they stand for.

G. Farrell-Collins: What the minister doesn't get is that it's not what I mean by restrictive labour laws; it's what the thousands of investors who are leaving British Columbia or who are not coming here in the first place mean.

Let's look at one of those companies, one of those B.C.-based businesses that I know the Minister of Finance is familiar with. The Hongkong Bank of Canada recently issued its quarterly economic investment report. It says: "Government policies which investors see as favouring organized labour, combined with high taxes and seemingly inept management of the province, have led to investors shutting off the flow of new funds." How does the Minister of Labour intend to stem the flood of jobs, businesses and investors leaving British Columbia, with more NDP ideology instead of a realistic plan to create jobs in this province?

Hon. D. Lovick: One has no wish to be confrontational, but what arrant, patent, blatant nonsense! What hypocrisy! These selfsame people stood in this House and attacked the Minister of Finance for negotiating a deal to keep the Hongkong Bank headquarters in this province. They have the gall, the temerity, to talk like that. As I listen to members opposite and watch the behaviour they carry out on first reading, I'm reminded of a great character in a movie. He said: "Well, you know, I don't know what it is there, but I'm agin' it." That's who they are.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

M. de Jong: Hon. Speaker, lest there be any doubt in the minister's mind, what we're against is a government that has driven small business across British Columbia to its knees. And those that have been able have tried to escape by crawling to the borders of Alberta and Washington State. Those that can't escape are waiting while this minister and this government try to suck the last breath of economic life out of them.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. Member, put your question, please.

M. de Jong: I'll tell you who doesn't think its funny, unlike those members on the government side: the businesses and the families who are going to lose their jobs because this government is interested in nothing more than pursuing a narrow, political, ideological, neo-socialist agenda.

My question to the minister is: how many more jobs have to be exported to Alberta? How much more damage does this government have to inflict on British Columbians before he hears their pleas? Enough is enough from this NDP.

Hon. D. Lovick: As I hear the rather quiet and reserved tone of the member opposite, I'm reminded of the old saying: "No shirt too young to stuff."

This is a government that has made every effort to reduce taxes, to . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Excuse me, minister. Members, come to order while the minister finishes his answer.

Hon. D. Lovick: I see that time has elapsed, so I'll be very brief.

I just remind members that this is a government that has made a very sincere, honest and heartfelt effort to work with business. We have done something about red tape. We have changed the tax regime. We changed the corporate capital tax. We've relaxed employment standards without jeopardizing workers' safety, in order to help business be more competitive in this province. If there is an ideological war going on in this chamber, I suggest that the sheik over there is leading the jihad.

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, we are debating the estimates of the Ministry of Employment and Investment.

[ Page 8869 ]

In this House, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, we are debating the estimates of the Ministry for Children and Families.

[2:45]

The House in Committee of Supply B; W. Hartley in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY FOR

CHILDREN AND FAMILIES

(continued)

On vote 24: minister's office, $448,000 (continued).

C. Clark: Today I want to start examining some of the issues in the foster care system of the ministry. In particular, I want to start with a case that the minister will be aware of. It was on the news last night. I know that the minister has been aware of it for a month or so, as have I. The woman's name is Delphine Charmley. The reason I raise this individual case is that I think it's one of hundreds of cases in which people are in similar situations around the province.

I hope that by discussing this, if we can come to some understanding of how the ministry intends to resolve the problem, perhaps all of those other foster families out there who are really getting squeezed as a result of this government's policy on foster children and foster care will be able to find some relief.

I'll give you some detail about this woman's case. She's a level 2 foster parent. She's an adoptive parent of three special needs boys, who were originally foster children of hers. The reason she chose to adopt them is because as special needs children, there wasn't necessarily a big demand for adoptive parents for them, especially given the ages they were at. As foster parents, she and her husband grew to love these kids. They became a part of their family, and they decided that they wanted to give these children a long-term permanent home and a family that they would know for the rest of their lives.

When they adopted the children, the ministry told them that they would eligible for the special funding for adoptive parents of special needs children, to assist with the additional cost that parents have to incur for special needs children. That's one of the programs that the ministry has had in place for a long time to help adoptive parents. What happened in this case is that they chose to continue being foster parents.

We need to remember that under the law, adoptive parents become parents of those children, but foster parents are caring for children that are still in the care of the government -- that are still technically parented by the government. Although they live in the foster parents' home, the government is still ultimately responsible for those children. The government, as the minister knows, pays those parents a fee for taking care of those foster children. That money is intended to pay for all the costs that those parents incur in caring for those foster children.

It's not income for the parents, particularly; most of it is there so that they can care for those children.

What's happened in this case -- and this is just one of a whole raft of cases out there, according to foster parents' associations -- is that the ministry, when it means-tests for the money for the special needs children, is demanding that this woman include in her income the payments she's getting for her foster children -- money that isn't income, money that the federal Income Tax Act doesn't consider to be income and money that I understand the Ministry for Children and Families hasn't traditionally considered to be basic income. I understand that the conflict arises because the Ministry of Human Resources does consider it to be income.

In this case, this family is faced with a choice: foster these children and incur enormous expense that they can't afford, so all of their children -- their adoptive special needs children and the foster children -- suffer as a result of the financial constraints that are put on the family, or give up the foster children that they've come to love, that they care for and for whom they're the only family they've known. We're talking here about people who are doing a job that the government says it wants more people to do, people who are doing a job that there aren't enough people out there to do.

Goodness knows, if you have people who are, first, prepared to do it and second, doing a really good job of it -- who are giving the children the love and support they need in their care -- those are the kinds of people we should be keeping in the system. We should be giving them some incentive to stay, and we should be giving them some incentive to care for children that are in the government's care.

The government makes a rotten parent. There is no question about that. If we as a community and as a society can find people who are prepared to act as parents on behalf of the government and who are willing to do a good job of it, then we shouldn't be driving them out of the system. We shouldn't be trying to make it as difficult as possible for them to do their jobs, because they are already putting so much of themselves into those jobs and into making sure that those children are safe, cared for and loved in their homes. Goodness knows, they're doing a better job than the government could do any day.

I'll ask the minister what she's doing to address the Charmleys' case in particular. But I'd ask her, too, when she gives us that answer, to tell us how her ministry is resolving this conflict with the Ministry of Human Resources to ensure that foster parents don't have the income which is paid to them to care for those foster children included in their basic income when she's means-testing for the other supplementary support cheques that come from the government.

Hon. L. Boone: I won't be addressing that particular case, but the case you talk about is one that is similar to others out there. The issue is that this particular assistance that is given to parents when they adopt children is income base-tested. The information you have is almost correct. The issue is that the cost for the care of those children is actually deducted, so the only part that is actually deemed as income is the amount those people receive over and above the cost of caring for those children. That is deemed as income -- as it would be for anything else.

If they were doing a job, and they clearly stated that this was a job, this is income they are receiving for doing this job over and above the amount it costs for the care of those children. So it's only that small portion that they receive that would actually be deemed as income and that would be put to that -- that would count as income for the income-testing. That allows us to spread those dollars so that they are getting out to cover more people and are available to those who need the dollars.

C. Clark: How much is included in the calculation as income for the purposes of the means tests, then?

K. Krueger: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

K. Krueger: With us in the House today, we have nine members of the B.C. Young Liberals, including Aaron Gairdner, the president; Emily Hines; Duane Woytowich;

[ Page 8870 ]

Nikki Doggatt; Candice Ford; Herman Chung; Jamie Gilles; Christian Hoefer; and Shane Thomas. Would the House please join me in making these young people welcome.

Hon. L. Boone: If you can give me a little more information, because it varies with regard to the age of the child, the levels, and all of these sorts of things . . . . If you can get that information to me, then I can get more accurate information as to how much they would actually get, how much their care costs would be, what they would get over and above that, and how much would be deducted. So if you could get that information to me, then I'll get that information over to you.

C. Clark: I certainly will give it to the minister again. According to the Charmleys, the minister's office has had the information for some time -- since May -- but I could certainly forward it again if that would make it easier for her to reference it.

My question wasn't specifically just about the Charmleys' case. My question is about how much the exemption is that the ministry considers to be . . . . How much of the total portion of the dollars that the ministry provides for foster parents is considered exempt for taxation purposes? I understand that if . . . . I'm not talking about a specific means test or a specific case. When the minister talks about the basic income versus the supplementary income that is provided through a foster care contract, what portion of that is the basic income that would never, in any case, be taxable or be considered income for the family?

Hon. L. Boone: I'll just give you an example, because it varies according to the age of the child, for example. For basic family care costs, it is $379.75 per month. Additional family care costs would be $194.56. That's a total of $574.31. That's for a zero-to-11-year-old. Those rates vary accordingly, and they may vary according to age, etc. That's why I'm saying that if you're talking about a particular child's age, then I'd need more information about that.

C. Clark: Is the minister telling me, then, that it's the basic family care portion of the payment that is never considered to be taxable income, and that it's only the additional family care portion of the payment that a parent would be asked to include as earned income for the purposes of a means test?

[3:00]

Hon. L. Boone: Yes. We're just getting this clarified right now, but as I understand it, the costs a foster parent has to raise a child, to feed and clothe it and all of those things . . . . All of that is deducted from the costs there. The only part that would be eligible to be part of the income test and to be included as income would be the portion that was above and beyond the expenses that were incurred in raising that child.

C. Clark: The minister may not have to give me the list that she started to read out, because it may be that I have it here. I think it's the same list. The list that I have here is "Child Care Resources: Services to Family Care Parents," and it lists the family care rate breakdown and the per diems that foster parents get. This is as of 1994; I don't know if they have changed significantly since. Whether or not the numbers have changed a little bit probably isn't that relevant to a general debate.

What I'm interested in on this list is whether the basic family care costs include, as the minister said, food, housing, transportation, personal needs, recreation and clothing for children. For ages zero to 11 on this list it's $372.30, and the minister says that has gone up by about five bucks or seven bucks. The additional family care costs include transportation, equipment, babysitting, relief care, gifts and activities, education and equipment, including recreational. I guess that would be hockey equipment or equipment for whatever a kid wanted to do -- a soccer ball or something.

If those are the additional family care costs the ministry is including for taxable purposes, that sounds to me like pretty basic needs for a child.

When the minister tells me that the basic family care costs are not included as taxable income, looking at this list of basic family care costs, that seems quite reasonable. But when the minister says to me that the additional family care costs, the portion of the payment that is included for taxable income . . . . Looking at the list of things included under there, it doesn't appear to me that those payments are for things that are going to benefit the parent particularly.

I don't see on this list, under "Additional Family Care Costs," money for movie tickets, money for the ballet, money for a shopping spree, money for a night out at the club. I don't see anything on there for parents of foster children. I see on that list that what seems to be provided for are things that benefit the child. So when you take the basic family care costs -- $372 on my list; I mean, that's gone up by a few bucks -- and then the additional family care costs of $190 on this list, you end up with about $580-odd for a foster care payment.

What I understand from what the minister has just said is that those additional family care costs, the ones I have just listed, are considered to be taxable income for the purposes of a means test. Is that correct?

Hon. L. Boone: It's not. I listed those for you as part of the costs that would be deducted as actual expenses that were incurred for that child. It has been indicated to me that those are the costs that would be incurred by that foster parent for that child, and therefore they would be deducted.

C. Clark: We're going at it from two entirely different sides of the coin, but it's the same coin we're talking about here. I understand what the minister is saying, but maybe she could translate that into payments that come from the ministry to the foster parent. From what I understand, she has talked about two different portions of the payment that goes to a foster parent: one is the basic family care costs, and one is the additional family care costs. According to the people in the ministry that Ms.

Charmley is dealing with, the additional family care costs are what the ministry is asking her to include as taxable earned income for the purposes of the means test. I'm not aware -- maybe the minister can correct me on this -- if there is another envelope of money that goes to every foster parent over and above the basic family care costs and the additional family costs. Is there a third envelope that the ministry is including for the purposes of the means test?

Hon. L. Boone: This is not taxable. We're talking about a means test in order for them to get additional dollars. What we've asked foster parents to do is declare all of the moneys that come in, to report service payments as income, so that we can get a complete financial picture from each family. These payments are not meant to be taxable income, just as WCB payments aren't taxable. They are expenses that are deducted from that. If in fact that entire payment in that second half is used on expenses for that child, then no income is reported; there will not be any net income then. However, if that foster family does not expend all of those additional dollars on

[ Page 8871 ]

services to that child, then yes, we do see that as being income. I think you would probably see that as being income as well, if in fact they haven't actually spent the moneys that have been given to them on services for those children.

C. Clark: When the ministry enters into a contract with the foster parents, and it specifies in the contract the level of detail that it does . . . . I'm talking about the portion for the additional family care costs -- for transportation, equipment, the child's allowance and babysitting. The ministry is entering into an agreement with the family that this is what that money is for.

The ministry then goes after them and says: "Well, you know, we're going to nickel-and-dime you for every last penny we've given you for your foster children. We want you to go through a long paperwork process to prove to us -- not to just sign the contract and say that you're going to live up to your end of the bargain and that you're going to take the $583 we give you to care for the children that we're responsible for, thank you very much . . . . We're not just going to enter into a contract and an agreement and understanding with you; we're not just going to trust you to do that.

What we want you to do after that, after we sign the contract with you, is that we want you to come back, do all the paperwork and prove that every single penny has been spent on those children that you claim you're helping out, that you love and that you're taking care of on our behalf. If you don't spend every single penny of it, we're going to nickel-and-dime you for it somewhere else in the system."

If you're unlucky enough to be a foster parent like Ms. Charmley, who's decided that she wants to adopt some special needs children that the ministry sometimes has difficulty finding appropriate homes for . . . . In addition, she wants to go out and do something terrible: be a foster parent and maybe help the rest of the community out a little bit by caring for children who don't have biological parents able to care for this at that time.

If she commits that terrible mistake of wanting to do that, then the government is going to nickel-and-dime her for every penny and ask her to prove that every penny that they've already agreed is supposed to be spent on the children . . . . They've signed a contract with those parents; they've already entered into an agreement about that. Now they're going to ask her to come back and prove that every single penny was spent on those children.

Well, I think that is shameful. It is an insult to those parents who decide that they want to do the right thing. They decide they want to take on a job that not a lot of people want to take on and that not everybody is well equipped to take on, either, at a time when the government is saying it doesn't have enough foster parents in the system, enough foster parents who are adequately trained in the system.

I want to quote to you from Ms. Charmley's letter, because it's a touching letter. It goes into a fair amount of detail about the disabilities that affect her adopted sons and why she decided to take them into her home. She goes into how much she loves her foster children, too, and how much it means to her to be able to keep them in her home.

But she points out in her letter: "There are many foster children who will have lost out, because my husband and I will have given up fostering before we would put our adoptive sons' funding in jeopardy." These parents are forced into a situation where they have to make a choice between keeping their foster children, who they love, and keeping their adoptive children, who they also love and to whom they've made a commitment to provide a stable home for the rest of their lives -- to decide which ones they're going to provide for.

She goes on in her letter to talk about how there are no other . . . . This is a quote: "No other adoptive parents or foster parents chose to fight this matter, because of the threat that their funding for their special needs children would also be cut." In the letter, she alludes to the pressure that she's felt from ministry officials, who have put an enormous amount of pressure on her to do what she's told -- to include this in her income, so that when she gets means-tested they can start thinking about cutting off her funding for special needs.

In fact, the ministry refused for months to renew the contract that they had with her to provide money for those special needs adopted children, because she hadn't signed the contract or because she hadn't included that in her level of income. They refused to give her the money. They didn't cut her off; they cut her children off. They used that; they hung that over her head and said: "Listen, lady. If you don't sign, you're not going to get another penny for your adopted children."

Well, that's just not fair. It's not fair for Big Brother government to go to people who are doing something that, on the other hand, the government says it wants them to do -- it's good work for the community -- and say to them: "If you don't do what we want we you to do, if you don't let us nickel-and-dime you until we've got every penny out of you that we can, then we're not going to give any more money for your special needs adopted children." Where are the government's priorities here? They're driving foster parents out of the system on the one hand, but then on the other hand they say: "Come on in.

We want more foster parents. We want more adoptive parents for special needs children." It's a disgrace. It's embarrassing. I'm sure this woman is embarrassed to be represented by a government that has policies like this and applies them so inequitably, a government that on the one hand says that they want more foster parents, but on the other hand, that they're not prepared to pay them to do the job.

Is the minister saying, then, that in this particular case -- and I know staff may have located the letter by now -- in order for Ms. Charmley to maintain her funding for her special needs children, what she should do -- and I can advise her about this, based on the minister's answer this afternoon -- is take the total money that she gets from the government for her foster children and subtract from that the basic family care costs, until she's left with the portion that's the additional family care costs?

Then what she needs to do is save every receipt for bus fare, for gas -- if she's driven those children to school -- for clothing and for babysitting. I guess she should start an accounting process with her babysitter, and get a receipt from her babysitter. I don't know if 12-year-old babysitters issue receipts, but I suppose they may have to, in Ms. Charmley's case. She should save every receipt for every gift and prove that it was given on or around the date of a significant anniversary in that child's life, so that we can be sure that it was a gift to that child.

Maybe she could put a birth certificate along with it so that the government can be well assured that it was a birthday present for the child, and that it wasn't just something that the parents bought for themselves so they could indulge one day. They could go crazy and buy themselves a new clock.

She should save every single receipt, staple them together, cross her fingers and hope that all those receipts add up to the equivalent of the amount of money that she has received for her foster care payment. Then and only then will the government decide that her adopted children are worthy of getting the money the government agreed to give those parents to care for those children when she adopted them a couple of years ago.

[ Page 8872 ]

Hon. L. Boone: I'm glad you sat down, because I really need to clarify some things. I didn't think you were ever going to sit down so I could actually do that.

Anyway, as I stated, this particular person actually gets $637.77 for expenses. That is automatically deducted as expenses for the child. Over and above that, she gets another $1,000. She actually gets over $1,600 per month per child for a special needs child. What the ministry has said is that it will deduct the expenses. As I said, those expenses are automatically deducted. If she happens to incur other expenses in the space of that time that she can show us were incurred on the extra $1,000 a month, yes, that is deemed as income -- not as taxable income but just to determine whether she qualifies for assistance in the post-adoption assistance program.

[3:15]

This is a normal occurrence; this is an income-based assistance program. It's the post-adoption assistance program. It is based on one's income. If, in fact, a foster parent has income that they have earned -- as you have stated, this is earned income, because you say this is a job -- over and above the expenses that they are getting for that child -- and we are willing to look at expenses that they have and to take those things into consideration -- then yes, that is taken into consideration for the post-adoption assistance program.

This has nothing to do with the amount of money that she gets for those foster children. She gets the same amount of money for those foster children regardless. This is only used to determine the income for that particular family, in order to determine their eligibility for the assistance program. Something that I think most people would recognize as fair is that when you are assessing income, you should be assessing all income. And if you are earning money as a foster parent, then yes, that should be assessed as income.

C. Clark: Well, I'm happy to take a long time asking the question, because the minister seems to need so long to consult with officials to get the answers. So if the minister wants to thank me for doing her a favour, the answer is: you're welcome.

In the Charmley case, there appears to have been a significant change in policy -- perhaps that's not just in this case. This isn't something that the ministry has tried to nickel-and-dime her about before. According to her, the money she was receiving under the agreement she had with the ministry was never questioned in the past. She wasn't asked to include her foster parent income before, as part of the means test. She wasn't asked all the other questions that are being put to her today to qualify for the money that the ministry agreed she should get, so that her children could be provided for because they are special needs children that she'd agreed to adopt.

I'll ask the minister, then: if this represents a change in policy, when did the policy change, and why did the ministry see a need to change the policy?

Hon. L. Boone: The change in policy came about as a result of the Adoption Act, which came in in 1996. The change in policy resulted at that time.

C. Clark: So the policy that would make the special needs adoptive fee or payment that's provided by the government was, in that act, required to be means-tested for the first time, and the act was introduced in 1996. I'd ask the minister to just confirm that the act required that that money be means-tested for the first time. Secondly, if it happened two years ago, why are the Charmleys just starting to feel the effects of it now?

Hon. L. Boone: The Adoption Act actually dealt with the eligibility requirements. It has always been income-tested; it is my understanding that in the particular case you're talking about, she was not aware that this should have been declared. Now she's aware of it, but the policy of the ministry got in line with the eligibility that was established with the changes in the Adoption Act in 1996.

C. Clark: What the minister is telling me, then, is that when the act came into effect, it required income-testing, but it was a change in ministry policy that made part of the foster care payment eligible as part of the means test. I think that's what the minister is telling me. Can she confirm that? Second, could she tell me when that change in ministry policy came about?

Hon. L. Boone: The eligibility was the part that was changed with the Adoption Act. This program has always been income-tested, so the ministry changed its policy to bring it in line with the eligibility requirements in the act.

C. Clark: Is it the act that makes foster care payments part of the declared income for the purposes of the means test, or is it ministry policy that does that?

Hon. L. Boone: Ministry policy was changed to bring it in line with the act, which determined the eligibility.

C. Clark: When was the ministry policy changed to make foster care payments or at least part of the foster care payments part of the basic income for the purposes of the means test?

Hon. L. Boone: It's our understanding that this has always been done, but we're waiting for the adoption manager to come so that we can get that clarified for you -- she is not actually in the House -- and just get the historical perspective. We understand that it has always been done, but the individual in the case you're talking about was not aware that it should have been included. We can get further clarification on this as soon as the adoption manager gets here.

C. Clark: I appreciate that. I'll focus on the same case but with maybe a few more questions around foster care, which I know the minister's staff are prepared to answer. Now, this woman is a level 2 foster parent. Just for the minister's information, so that everybody's clear about how much Delphine Charmley and her husband have contributed to the system, they have had 50 children through their home in nine and a half years. They have taken in 50 foster children that the government is technically responsible for caring for. They have chosen to take those children on -- 50 of them over the last nine and a half years.

What they're saying is that ministry policy is going to make it impossible for them to do that anymore. That's 50 children, 50 spaces. I'll bet that any social worker in any office around the province, who spends a Friday afternoon desperately trying to find a level 2 care home for a child that's difficult to place, will tell you that 50 spots is a lot. Social workers are begging for those spots to be open. Foster parents are begging for those spots to be open, particularly when we get into levels 2 and 3, because those are the harder homes to find for children.

Increasingly, what social workers do on a Friday afternoon, when their day is over and they have a case that they've had difficulty placing, is take a child and say: "Well, this child

[ Page 8873 ]

requires level 2 care, but there aren't any level 2 spaces out there." Those are the harder spaces to find, because there are more level 1 spaces, fewer level 2 and even fewer level 3 spaces in the province. Each of those spaces requires more training and a different level of, I guess, dedication and attention from the foster parent in that home.

So when we lose those level 2 spaces, children that require that level of care end up in level 1 homes. Or they end up out of the levelled system, and they end up in inappropriate care situations. These are the kinds of homes . . . . I just want to put this in context, because the work that the Charmleys are doing is really important work.

Rather than using or applying policies that are going to drive them out of the system, the government should be trying to find ways to make it possible for these people to stay in the system and do the work that all of us expect foster parents to do on behalf of us all.

The minister gave me some numbers for Ms. Charmley, which are that $637.77 is exempt and $1,000 is not exempt out of the payments that she gets. I'm assuming those are numbers for a level 2 care home. What are the numbers for a level 1 care home?

Hon. L. Boone: A level 1 would receive, depending on the age . . . . Age zero to 11 for a level 1 child is $988.77. Of that, $637 would be considered as expenses.

[3:30]

C. Clark: I am curious to find out why the policy doesn't differentiate between level 1 and level 2 care homes in the amount that it allows for the basic exemption. In a level 2 care home, surely we can assume that expenses incurred for those children are likely to be greater because their needs are greater. From what the minister has just told me for both the level 1 and level 2 homes, the amount that's eligible for exemption is exactly the same, despite that fact. So I'll ask the minister to respond.

Hon. L. Boone: The basic family care costs and the additional family care costs, as we've said, remain the same through the restricted, the regular and the specialized -- levels 1, 2 and 3 -- costs, and there are some special payments that may go out to individuals in the specialized levels 1, 2 and 3. So the basic costs in those foster cares do remain the same.

C. Clark: I am not a foster parent, and I'm certainly not a foster parent of special needs children. But it seems to me that the basic costs that a family might incur for a special needs child would be greater than the basic costs that a family might incur for a typical child, who doesn't exhibit severe behaviour problems and doesn't have other disabilities that might be costly for a parent. Any parent of any special needs child will tell you -- of course, they love their children -- that there are expenses attached to raising a special needs child that aren't attached to raising a typical child. That's just a fact of life.

I wonder why the ministry doesn't recognize that there is a difference between the two.

Hon. L. Boone: We do, in fact, recognize that. These are the regular costs that everybody gets -- standard costs that would be incurred for a foster family -- but over and above that, on a child-by-child basis, the ministry does pay for services that are delivered to those children, such as respite and therapy. All of those different things are costs that are over and above, but are not included in this. They are determined on a child-by-child basis, as to their actual needs.

C. Clark: Are all those special payments exempt?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes.

C. Clark: I'd be interested in seeing a list to get a sense of the kinds of things that a foster parent of a special needs child might be able to request. There is a list here -- under the additional family care costs -- that includes, for example . . . . Equipment is an obvious one. The family might incur an additional cost for a special needs child for their hockey equipment -- or for transportation, which is in the basic family care costs list. Transportation might be more costly for a child who's disabled than for a typical child. It might be more costly in terms of the foster parent's time.

It would certainly take more time, depending on the disability that the child is affected with. Obviously, vehicles would have to be specially fitted.

I suspect that the minister is going to come back and say that a parent can request a special chair to transport a child into a car or request special money to modify a vehicle, so they can help with getting a child around. But the fact is that a foster parent will spend a lot more time getting a disabled child around. And when it comes to things like housing and other basic costs that aren't necessarily things that can be accounted for, or that they can necessarily provide the ministry with a receipt for -- photocopied in triplicate and stapled together, so they can somehow account for it, like they do for Revenue Canada, when it comes time for the ministry to nickel-and-dime them . . . .

I still don't understand why the ministry would assume that the basic family care costs are the same for caring for a special needs child as for a typical child, because the rest of the system recognizes that the two are different. When the government creates level 1, 2 and 3 homes, they recognize that there is a difference in the kinds of children who need that level of care. So the rest of the system recognizes that, but this system doesn't seem to. Perhaps the minister can give us the rationale by which the ministry operates when they refuse to differentiate between the costliness of caring for typical and for special needs children.

Hon. L. Boone: I really fail to understand how you can say we don't differentiate. We do differentiate incredibly, but not in the basic costs that are given to them. It costs the same amount to feed a child, to clothe a child, to buy toothpaste, to get haircuts, to put a roof over their head. All of those various things are costs that are incurred by foster parents on behalf of their children. Those remain the same regardless of whether a child is a special needs child or not.

We do, on a case-by-case basis -- because every special needs child has different needs and different requirements -- pay for a variety of special things that go to these children. They may be services, or they may be people who are coming in to assist those foster parents. It may be through transportation; it may be through specialized equipment or through respite, as I said. It may be special clothing that they have, or tutoring. There are a number of different things that we as a ministry pay for on a case-by-case basis for those foster children. They are not losing out in any way, shape or form, and neither are the foster parents -- at all.

C. Clark: It is nice that the minister says that, but the reality out there for special needs parents -- this is true of all

[ Page 8874 ]

special needs parents, whether they are foster parents or not -- is that there are long lists to try and wrangle some equipment out of the government's grip for a special needs child. Special needs parents tell me that again and again. That's one of the things that I learned when I was involved in talking to special needs parents that were upset about the contract and program restructuring.

One of the issues that they regularly raised -- it's unrelated to the restructuring, but it was so important to them -- is the fact that when they want to get equipment, when they want to get help from the government for their special needs child, it takes forever to try and get that, to try and squeeze it out of the government.

I heard stories from special needs parents that . . . . One of them had to raise it with the minister directly. The system isn't supposed to work that way. When the minister says, "We provide for it in other ways," the fact is that they don't. The fact is that most parents are left waiting, whether they're foster parents or biological or adoptive parents. There's still a long waiting list for that.

If a foster parent has a three-year-old child who's growing very, very quickly, and they require a piece of equipment, are they going to wait six, eight or ten months until the ministry decides that they have enough money to make it available, until the budget comes due? Or are they going to go out and buy it out of the additional family care costs that the government gives them? Well, probably most parents are going to buy it out of the money the government gives them to foster those children.

I still cannot understand why the government makes a list of the additional family care costs -- which includes, by the way, the allowance for the child -- that it pays to foster parents on the one hand, and then on the other hand says: "We deem that as income for the purposes of our means-testing." Why have a list at all of the things that they're supposed to spend it on if the ministry is going to consider that as income that they're going to means-test on?

Hon. L. Boone: I suggest you listen a little closer, because I've told you three times now that that would not be listed as income. Those basic costs are not considered income. It is . . . .

Interjection.

Hon. L. Boone: I explained to you very clearly. Actually, the blue note here says $657, so I'm not sure if it's $657 or $637. Anyway, in that line of things, the $637 would be deducted as costs that were incurred by that family on behalf of their child. The only part that might be considered income would be the additional $1,000 that they were getting, which is not deemed as costs incurred for the child. I don't know why you keep saying that the allowances and all those sorts of things are considered as income. They are not considered as income. It's the moneys that are left over when you deduct those things; that is the amount that is considered as income for that foster parent.

You can criticize all you like in terms of saying that we should be having . . . . One could criticize and say that government should be doing much more. But I remember eight or nine years ago -- it wasn't very long ago -- when I met with special needs parents who were receiving nothing, absolutely nothing, in terms of assistance. There was no assistance for wheelchairs, no assistance for anything.

In fact, I met with a family about a month ago here in the Legislature. I asked her what she got when her child was first born, how much assistance she got for this child. She said: "Nothing." I asked: "When did you start to receive payments to assist you in raising this child?" And she said: "Seven years ago." It was seven years ago when the support programs came. There is now $85,000 per year, which is given to a private society that is established to help that individual raise this extremely special needs person.

So could we spend more? Probably. We can always spend more. But as a government, I think we have to be extremely proud of the amount that we have put into this program, the amount of assistance that is given to parents. They have a tremendously difficult job to do, as parents and foster parents, in raising children with special needs. We appreciate the work they do. We do whatever we can to give them the necessary assistance, which they have.

You can criticize us and say that we don't get things fast enough, that we don't give any assistance. I say that's hogwash. We do give considerable assistance to individuals. We do give considerable assistance to foster parents who have had these individuals as well.

C. Clark: So I take it that the minister's message is: "Sorry we're nickel-and-diming you; sorry we're making your life difficult; sorry we're making you get a receipt from your kids for their allowance. But just think how much worse off you'd be without us." That's the minister's message -- right? It's like the Minister of Education saying: "Look, last year we were cutting education by $427 a student; now we're only cutting it by $300 a student. Aren't you lucky for all the things you don't get from us?"

I'm sorry, but that's not a way to run a government. That's not a very convincing way to tell the public that you're providing the services they need. We're talking about a foster parent who has been affected by a change in this government's policy. She doesn't think that she was a heck of a lot better off two years ago, before the government changed its policy. She doesn't think the foster children that she is going to be sending out of her home, because she can't afford to have them there anymore, are a lot better off because this government has changed its policy and made her life a lot more difficult. She doesn't think her life is easier today as a result of this policy.

So for the minister to stand up and say, "Well, gee, we've made everybody's life a lot better," rings pretty hollow for Delphine Charmley and the other foster parents who are struggling, now that the government has decided to nickel-and-dime them for every penny and to ask them to get receipts for everything.

I want to clarify, too, when I talk about the amount that she gets to have exempted from her cheque, from her basic means test, that those are the basic family care costs. The additional family care costs are not exempted; they are not exempted unless she provides a receipt for them.

[3:45]

The ministry provides a list, and it even specifies how much the foster parents should be spending on each of these items under the additional family care costs. I recognize that if she decides she wants to go out and get a receipt from her foster children for the allowance that she has given them, the ministry will let her deduct that. As ridiculous as it may sound, that sounds to me like what the minister has been saying. She has got to prove that every penny is spent on something on this list, under additional family care costs.

If her foster child takes the bus or the SkyTrain, they'd better get a receipt. You'd better take that transfer and hand it

[ Page 8875 ]

over to your social worker, so that they can take a couple of bucks off. By the way, that's $38.76 that she's allowed to spend on transportation from her additional family care costs.

For the child's allowance -- now, times have changed since I was a kid -- it's $21.42 a child a month that they're allowed to spend. So she should get a receipt from her child confirming that she got $21.42. I don't know if the child would have to prove whether they spent that on candy bars or soccer balls. But the next thing you know, the government is going to want a receipt from the child, too, to tell them where they spent their money -- making sure that they spent that appropriately, making sure that the child didn't go out and do something crazy with it, like spend it on a newspaper.

Did they spend it on things that are appropriate for a child's allowance? The gifts and activities, the babysitting and relief . . . . You've got to get a receipt from your babysitter now so you can get it exempted. What happens if a foster parent spends the money on these things but doesn't get receipts?

Does that mean, then, that the foster parent cannot deduct that from their income so that they can include that in the exempt portion so that they don't have to increase their income and so that they can still stay eligible for the other cheques that the government might want to give them -- but only after they've provided a means test?

Hon. L. Boone: You get so confused that you get me confused, and I take awhile trying to figure this out. I said earlier that the rate is not declared as income. The additional care costs are not declared as income. This is the fourth time I've said this to you. Those are not declared as income. Those are deducted as . . . . If the family incurs costs that are over and above those things, that intrude into the extra dollars that I talked about -- the $1,000 extra -- then they would have to submit some bills to show that they had costs that were incurred on that.

But -- this will be the fifth time now -- the $574, which is the basic rate, and the $194.56 are not thought of as income. The only portion that would be thought of as income is what is deducted from that. Once that is deducted from that, if the family incurs some expenses over and above that, then they submit receipts, and that would be deducted from that. I hope I've got that clarified with you right now.

C. Clark: Can the minister advise what is considered to be . . . ? Out of the $1,000 that the Charmleys -- or $1,200 or $1,600; whatever it is . . . . I suspect there are differing amounts for the different children that they have. Can she tell us what might qualify? What do they have to provide receipts for to prove that it isn't income?

Hon. L. Boone: If there are unusual costs that the foster parent incurs that haven't been paid up front . . . . We often pay for a special diet, for example. But if there is a special diet that comes about where this special needs child needs something that is not paid for in another fashion, then those expenses could be deducted from it. If there was a special type of clothing that they were requiring that wasn't paid for in some other fashion, then the receipts could be kept, and those things could be deducted from those. Any sort of exceptional costs that the foster parent incurred over and above the things that are listed in the amounts that she's already paid for could be deducted.

C. Clark: I see the minister has the appropriate officials here now.

Can she tell us when the policy changed and why it changed?

Hon. L. Boone: It was changed in November of 1996, when the new act was introduced.

C. Clark: The minister indicated earlier that when the act was introduced . . . . It was subsequent to the act being introduced that the ministry changed its policy to comply with the act. If that's correct, I wonder if the minister could tell us when the ministry policy was changed.

Hon. L. Boone: I just told you. The policy was changed in November of 1996, with the act.

The Chair: Could members please address their remarks through the Chair.

C. Clark: The policy that the ministry changed then was . . . . The act, as I understand it, required that means-testing be implemented. The policy change that was required of the ministry was to make foster care payments eligible income for the purposes of means-testing. Is that correct?

Hon. L. Boone: The new act that was introduced wanted to make the post-adoption assistance program payments for special needs children more available to more people. Therefore it was income base-tested. When it became income base-tested, all those families had to declare their income. The amount that is over and above the costs that a foster parent has for a foster child is income. That's what the change in policy is. That brought it in line with the regulations and with the act to make it so that payments received as payments -- that any individual receives for services -- are recognized in the income-based testing.

C. Clark: How long has this government considered foster care payments to be income?

Hon. L. Boone: Since B.C. Benefits was established, they've always considered this as income. We have considered it as income since 1996.

C. Clark: So it was the BC Benefits Act, which the government likes to trumpet as a model piece of legislation helping working families, that made foster care payments fully earned income for the purposes of the payments that are made by the government. I take it that part of the legislation in the BC Benefits Act made that change in policy in 1996. Or was it a regulatory change or a policy change in the Ministry of Human Resources?

Hon. L. Boone: I can't answer for what took place in Human Resources; I can only tell you what took place in this . . . . You asked me when the government . . . . I'm telling you that B.C. Benefits does income-based testing; Human Resources has always done income-based testing. The $1,000 that is received is a service payment to foster parents for the work that they do. I think most people would recognize that that is a payment, that it's income.

If you are being assessed for a program that bases your eligibility on income, then the payment to foster parents -- not for the care of the children, because that is over and above those things, but the payments received by those foster parents -- is legitimate income.

C. Clark: I'm also aware of another situation where two foster parents in Kelowna have a similar problem. It's a little bit different, in that the father in that family is disabled, and he receives GAIN payments from the provincial government.

[ Page 8876 ]

Not only is he facing the situation of having his foster parent income considered as income for the purposes of means-testing, but in addition to that, he faces a discrepancy between the Ministry for Children and Families and the Ministry of Human Resources about how much should be considered exempt. He says that the Ministry of Human Resources says it's $474.42, and the Ministry for Children and Families says that it's $732.44. So he's caught between these two ministries.

The ministry that gives him the lower exemption, of course, is the ministry that cuts the cheque at the end of the day. He says in his letter that he's been fighting this out with the government for months now and hasn't been able to get any resolution. I'll ask the minister for her view on why there is a discrepancy between the two ministries, why they can't seem to get it together about how much should be exempt in their basic payments and what she intends to do to try and fix the problem.

Hon. L. Boone: I can't do case-by-case work in the Legislature without ever seeing the information that you've got or the letters from the individuals. As I said to some of your colleagues, if you'd be happy to send that information over to me, we will look at it within the ministry and work with those people. But clearly you can't expect me to resolve discrepancies between what my ministry does and what the Ministry of Human Resources does here on the floor of this Legislature.

C. Clark: I think it's fair to ask the minister to resolve discrepancies that are happening between ministries in her own government. I don't think that's a ludicrous suggestion. That's what she's supposed to do. That's what she gets paid to do: to try and resolve discrepancies in her government.

I'd be happy to give her this individual case, but my suspicion is that this isn't an individual case -- that there are people out there who, when they get a cheque from the Ministry of Human Resources and a cheque from the Ministry for Children and Families, are facing two totally different policies within the ministries. I'll ask the minister a general question about this: is she aware that there is a discrepancy in her ministry's policy about the total amount that's considered to be . . . ? It's the basic family care rate that there is a discrepancy about, according to this individual.

Is she aware that there is a discrepancy between the two ministries in her government? What does she intend to do to address it?

[4:00]

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, we are aware. We are currently in discussion with the Ministry of Human Resources on this issue. As I said, I can't resolve that here on the floor of this House. We will do that in our own offices, on our time, whenever we get out of this chamber here so that we can actually do some work. We will do that. But pass me over the information that you've got, and we'd be happy to look into the particular case that you have.

C. Clark: You know, I do consider the estimates process to be work. I do consider informing the public about where their money is being spent to be work. But that's my view of this job. When we get up and talk about where the money is being spent in this government, about why there may be discrepancies in the way it's being spent, about whether it's being spent efficiently and effectively for the benefit of the greatest number of people, and when we get to inform the public about that, I consider that to be work. I consider that to be one of the things that we get paid to do.

When we do it in an open, public and televised debate in the chamber, where people have access to the discussions -- as opposed to it being in the back rooms and in our offices, where everything is done quietly and without public scrutiny . . . . I think this is the better place to do that work. If I have a choice about where that work is going to be done, I choose that it should be done here.

This is where the debates should happen, where a discussion of policy should happen, where resolving problems should happen and where our discussions on behalf of the public should occur -- in the full light of public scrutiny. I consider that to be work. I consider that to be the work that I'm paid to do, the work I'm elected to do. I'm happy to do it.

This individual, when he mentions the discrepancy . . . . The minister has admitted that she's aware of the discrepancy between the two ministries. I'll ask her whether her ministry intends to provide some relief to these people in the meantime, until she gets this little bureaucratic snafu worked out. She has been very clear that her ministry has a basic family care rate that it recognizes and that it's sticking to, and that everything else is earned income and you've got to have a receipt for it. But the fact is that at least the basic family rate that she recognizes is higher than the basic family rate that other ministries of the government recognize.

Until they get this little snafu worked out, what is the minister going to do to provide relief to the people who are getting their cheques cut?

Hon. L. Boone: As I said before, I can't solve this here in this chamber. I have to have the Minister of Human Resources so that we can work this out. And we will work this out, but I can't do it here. The member may think that she gets things done here; she'll get a lot more done if she'd actually pass that information over to us so we can actually start to work on it. Yelling back and forth in this chamber does not achieve anything.

C. Clark: I just got a note from the Charmleys, who are watching. They want to know what the minister defines as a special payment. They say that the extra $1,000 they get is a special payment from the ministry. I wonder if the minister could confirm whether or not that is correct. If it is correct, if it is a special payment, I think the Charmleys could happily assume that their income is exempt for the purposes of the means test.

Hon. L. Boone: No, that's a service payment. It's not a special payment. The payments that I'm talking about are special payments that they would be receiving for specialized equipment, respite, special clothing, transportation, etc. However, if they are paying for any of these things out of that $1,000 they get, then by all means, that could be accumulated, the information could be submitted to us, and we would consider that as part of the special payments that they are paying over and above the costs of care for their child.

B. McKinnon: Last night when we finished off, I was talking about a particular case, which I will eventually bring to the ministry; but I want to go a step further on that and talk about teenage children in foster care. I have a very big concern about what's happening to our teen children that are put in foster care. A case in particular is the Reena Virk case, where teenage children murdered this young girl, and they were all in the care of the ministry. My question to the minister is: how can we protect our children in foster care when these types of things . . . ? There are no controls on these children.

Foster care doesn't have . . . . You talked about it last night. We cannot tell a 14-year-old what she can't do or where she can't go, or

[ Page 8877 ]

whatever. So what is the point of taking these children from an abusive home and putting them into another home that can't really look after them because they have no say over them? That, to me, is what seems to be happening to these teenagers -- from the answer the minister gave me last night.

My real concern is: how can we look after these teenage children so they actually have proper care, are nurtured and loved, and are not allowed to just run amok in the evenings and do whatever they like?

Hon. L. Boone: I imagine that just about every parent in the world would like to have that answer.

You talk about a child who is taken from an abusive home and placed in foster care. That is what we're doing: we're keeping that child safe from harm from within their home. When that child gets into foster care . . . . I know that in many cases -- and I would say in most cases -- foster parents do deliver a loving and caring environment. If that child, though, as I said, starts to act up as they get into the teenage years, as many do . . . . I'm sure there are many parents out there that have gone through these things. Whether they are loving parents or not, they still may find that their child is acting up.

There's nothing that we as a society can do right now in terms of keeping those kids home, locking them in their rooms and putting bars on the doors -- although I'm sure there are many of us that would like to do those things.

I mentioned yesterday that we have a secure care task group, which consists of individuals from throughout the community: individuals from professional groups, a retired RCMP officer, somebody from Civil Liberties, parents, a young person who actually was on the street, social workers, people from the health area. All of these individuals are coming together to try and figure out how we deal with an issue that is being promoted by many, which is secure treatment.

That is enabling people to actually physically take a child and restrict that child's movements and put that child into some kind of an environment where they could get treatment for alcohol or drugs or whatever it is. We will be getting the results of that task force in August sometime, and we'll know how we as a province want to move forth. But it is an extremely difficult situation. I don't believe there is any consensus right now as to what we should do or how we can approach this as a society.

B. McKinnon: I'm really pleased to hear that you have a task force on this particular subject. I think that too many of our children are getting into far too much trouble and are having their lives ruined and destroyed. Maybe they've come from an abusive home, and then they're put into a foster home, and the foster home cannot control these children. We need to do something about it.

I'd like to ask the minister if there is anything . . . . When these problem children go into foster care, do you have any programs which you put these children through to help them recover from whatever the abuses were? Do you do anything for these children to help them heal?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, of course. There are all kinds of counselling services that are available. We will assist individuals. I must admit that there are limited resources in the province with regards to alcohol and drug treatment for teenagers. But we do have some announcements coming up, and we will be increasing the resources in those areas. We do make counselling available to those children as much as we can.

B. McKinnon: When it comes to children who have been sexually abused, do you have to have the children's permission -- a 13-year-old or a 14-year-old -- for counselling, or do they just automatically have to go to counselling?

Hon. L. Boone: I guess we as the guardians . . . . And, of course, at this time, the province as the guardians have exactly the same problems as most people would have, and that is that if the child is willing to go into counselling, it's a lot easier to actually get results. We can make appointments; we can take the child to it; we can do all of those things. We can get them into counselling, but how successful that counselling will be, if those children do not want to be there, is very questionable. It's like everybody else: you can take a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

That's the situation with whether or not you can force a child into counselling. We do everything we can to make sure they have those things available, but whether they will actually participate in that treatment is another question.

B. McKinnon: At what age does the child make that decision or the government will make the decision for the child? Do you allow a six-year-old to decide whether he's going to go to counselling or not, or to therapy of some sort? Or is at 13 years of age? I know that you have to draw a line somewhere. I'm just curious as to where the ministry draws a line as to where the child makes the decision whether to have therapy or counselling of any sort.

Hon. L. Boone: As I said, we can make the decision that the child has counselling, but how valuable that counselling will be is a big question if the child doesn't want to be there. We can make that decision at any particular time. And those are decisions that would have to be made by the ministry, by the social workers working with the family, working with the child to make sure that what is actually being suggested is in the best interest of that child.

B. McKinnon: When a social worker, say late on a Friday night, needs a child to go into foster care, and the child has a lot of problems and is very troubled, and they need, say, a level 3 foster home, for example . . . . I understand that social workers take the weekends off; we don't have a 24-hour workweek for social workers. How do they get the child into a proper foster home that has that level of care?

[4:15]

Hon. L. Boone: We have a provincial after-hours service and a regional after-hours service. They would phone, contact the community that the child was in and call out a social worker who would then put that child into an emergency resource until the child is assessed and able to be put into a more permanent one.

B. McKinnon: These emergency resources . . . . Are they foster homes, or are they institutions? What exactly are they?

Hon. L. Boone: They could be foster homes. They could be group homes. They could be institutions like Ledger House. That will be decided depending upon the area that they are in and the needs of that particular child.

B. McKinnon: What type of screening do you put foster parents through to become foster parents?

Hon. L. Boone: There's initial contact and discussions about fostering and the family's reasons for fostering. All applicants must attend 15 hours of pre-service foster parent

[ Page 8878 ]

orientation. Applicants complete an application form, and the following checks are made: prior ministry contact; criminal record; references -- they have to have three references; and medical assessments, both physical and mental health. An in-depth home study of all family members is conducted through home visits, and the director's delegated authority assesses approval of the foster applicants.

B. McKinnon: Is a specialized foster care home . . . ? Does the ministry ever check these homes during the year to check on the foster parents to see -- especially when they're working with these very troubled children -- what their stress levels are, how they're doing and if they need a break? How does that work?

Hon. L. Boone: Currently there is an annual monitoring home visit and review of foster families, and a visit with the child by the child's social worker at least every three months. Currently we are increasing that, with the changes in standards that are taking place in August. They will then be visited at least monthly. The current process is that foster parent families are contacted at least every three months by resource workers, and there are regular contacts and home visits with children and foster families as required by each child's individual comprehensive plan of care. As I said, these are being revised. We are increasing the contact through the practice standards for guardianship.

B. McKinnon: If a social worker visits a child in a foster care home and is suspicious that, say, the child is being sexually abused but really doesn't have any proof, what action does the social worker take at that point?

Hon. L. Boone: They would implement an investigation similar to what they do for any other child that they suspect is being abused. First of all, they would talk to the child separately, independently. They may, in fact, take the child to a physician. They would go through the same process they would with any kind of an allegation or where they suspected some kind of abuse was taking place.

B. McKinnon: When does the ministry send children -- or, I guess, teenagers or young adults -- to institutional care? Do you have institutional care in British Columbia?

Hon. L. Boone: It's not used that often, and only in situations that are very extreme or severe. For example, if a child was thought to be suicidal, then they may be taken to the Children's Hospital, to Maples, to Ledger House or to some other institution. But they're not utilized very often.

B. McKinnon: Just one more question. Are the only institutions that we have that we would send children to in British Columbia something like a hospital or such, or do we have actual institutions for children?

Hon. L. Boone: The institutions that we are talking about are actually treatment centres. There are only two: Maples and Ledger House. The other, as I mentioned, is . . . . I don't think you'd consider Children's Hospital to be an institution. Yes, those are the only two.

I. Chong: I'm grateful for the opportunity to participate in the estimates debate in this ministry. I have only a very few questions, and perhaps the minister can provide me with very quick answers.

As I understand it, there are various levels of foster care provided. There is foster care by a relative, restricted foster care, general foster care and special needs foster care, all of which have attached to them a different entitlement to funds.

The concern I have, which has been raised by a constituent of mine, is that in a situation where a relative assumes foster parent responsibility -- not legal custody, but the foster parent responsibility -- for a child, and when that in fact occurs, there appears to be a substantially reduced access entitlement to benefits compared to that child being placed in a foster care home which is more at arm's length. I was wondering if the minister can advise as to what the rationale for that would be in terms of providing benefits to a child.

[T. Stevenson in the chair.]

Hon. L. Boone: I want to clarify two things. Just to make it clear for you, there is a situation where Human Resources pays for a child to be in the home of a relative, and that is a different cost compared to being a foster child. However, we do have some that are restricted foster homes, and they are people who are in the homes of relatives. There is a slight difference in cost; it's a matter of about $63.46. Those are moneys to meet unexpected costs of caring for children not previously known to the caregiver. If these children are known to the caregiver . . . .

If they are the family of a relative, then they should be known to them, and they wouldn't get that. If they don't know this child very well, then we could in fact recognize those costs.

I'm not sure whether you're differentiating between the moneys that a youth may get as a youth receiving Human Resources funding for living in the home of a relative, as compared to a foster parent . . . . There is a differentiation there.

I. Chong: The situation that I was made aware of involves a constituent who became, I suppose, a foster parent to a child who happens to be a relative. I would have to presume that it was through the Ministry of Children and Families versus through Human Resources. Perhaps the child was known to the ministry and had to be removed and placed in foster care. This particular relative took responsibility for that child. Because this person was a relative, she was granted a foster care entitlement amount of around $400. I'm hoping these numbers make some sense to the minister. If not, then maybe it is Human Resources. This is what the constituent advised me of.

When she looked into it further -- because the $400 was not sufficient to deal with this particular child, who also had some special needs concerns -- she found that those in special needs foster care receive substantially more. Even those in general foster care receive substantially more. Her concern was that she couldn't comprehend the rationale for this. Why would a child who needs care receive less just because they were in the home of a relative? You would like to presume that that relative has some sort of connection with the child, but that's not always the case.

Sometimes a relative comes into play afterwards, and that relative is as much a stranger to the child as their next-door neighbour.

[4:30]

In a situation like that, where there is foster care by a relative, the amounts are substantially reduced. It affects the child's benefit in terms of counselling, respite and outside help such as babysitters, daycare and after-school care. If we're concerned about the child, should we not be taking a look at

[ Page 8879 ]

that issue? If the minister is looking into that issue, it would be very helpful for me to know, so I can pass that on to the constituent. At this point, all I know is that she has written to the ministry several times. She made a number of calls, to which she has not received a satisfactory answer. Then she wrote to the ministry, and she has not received an answer.

I thought it opportune to raise this at this point to find out if the minister has more to add on this situation or to pass some of this information on to the minister so that she could take a look into it. But there is general, larger question as to why we would reduce the funding for a person who is a relative and who becomes a foster care home versus someone who decides to undertake that on a more frequent basis. We are looking at the child care aspect, and I know that the minister would want to see that equity there for the child.

Hon. L. Boone: I thank the member. If you would pass that on, yes, we would be more than happy to look at that. As I said earlier, they should be getting the same foster care payment. They might be getting a slightly smaller amount if they know the child, if there is somebody that is well aware of that child. If they don't, then they should be eligible for the same $63.46.

I tend to think that this person may in fact be getting funding through Human Resources, which is the Child in the Home of a Relative program. Sometimes people differentiate . . . . I mean, government is confusing to people; sometimes they figure that because somebody is living with them, they are in a foster home. That may or not be true. I'm not saying that this person is wrong, but if you give that information to us, we'd be more than happy to look into it, and we'll try and straighten this out so that this person gets whatever is fair and equitable for that child -- okay?

The Chair: The member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove. Sorry, the member for Okanagan-Penticton.

R. Thorpe: I know the boundaries are about to change, but I didn't know my riding was going to be quite that large. But perhaps the Chair knows something we're not privy to on this side.

My question to the minister is in the same area of questioning. I'm puzzled, and I'd like the minister to answer this. I understand that the ministry is to look after children, to provide for children. What does it matter whether they know the child or they don't?

Hon. L. Boone: This is based on costs or unexpected needs that the child may have. They might bring with them -- if they were going from one family member to another that was close to that family, and they knew that family member -- toothpaste, toothbrush, very basic things that they may require. That would go to somebody to help pay for those things if they didn't have them. I guess the expectation is that if you are going to a grandparent or an aunt that lives close to you, you could probably bring those things with you, or that family member may have access to that other home.

But as we said, if that access isn't there, then we'd be happy to consider giving those dollars -- it's $63.46 -- to the individual so that they can meet those costs as well.

R. Thorpe: I think that's a rather puzzling answer that the minister has given here in this House. The issue should not be, in my opinion, whether they know someone or they do not know someone, whether they live close or they don't live close. The issue here is the needs of the child. This particular case I have is a grandparent, but we have no idea what the financial resources are of those grandparents. I think we should be focusing in on the needs of the children.

I'm going to assume that the offer that the minister has made to my colleague from Oak Bay -- that if we provide some details with respect to a particular case, the minister would follow up on those . . . . Let me give you an example here of a young child, eight years old, who was in the care of a foster home. It was costing the ministry $2,320.77 per month in a level 3 home, versus $266.26 in the Child in the Home of a Relative program. Now, I don't want to get into the details of this case. I would ask, though, if the minister . . . . We have had some difficulties in having this dealt with at the local level.

If we provide the details, will the minister ensure that this is acted upon in a quick manner and that this child and the needs of this child are addressed in a very equitable manner?

Hon. L. Boone: You're talking about payments that have been received for this child that are not being received through this ministry. It's through Human Resources, for a child in the home of a relative. With a child in the home of a relative, the ministry does not do any investigation. It does not do any sort of screening of that family. That family are not actually foster parents. But if the family is interested in becoming a restricted foster care home and in having the ministry assume responsibility for that child . . . . A child in the home of a relative is not in the care of the ministry.

If they are interested in doing that, then by all means, get that information to us, and we'll look into it and see how we can do it.

There are two separate programs. We have the foster parent program, which is foster parents and children who have come under the care of the ministry. Then we have the program that is administered by the Ministry of Human Resources, which is just giving financial assistance to children to live. That is where the difference is.

I think it's fair to say that there's a

section of the act that has not been proclaimed yet but which the ombudsman has talked to us about, trying to get us to deal with that whole issue and having us be responsible for these children and taking them in. It's

section 8, my deputy just said. We are currently in discussion with the Ministry of Human Resources to see how we can proclaim this

section of the act and how we can work to move that over into this ministry from her ministry. Right now it's fairly complicated and fairly costly as well. We are in discussions with them right now. They're two separate things, but if you would get that information to us, I'd be more than happy to look into it.

R. Thorpe: I appreciate the minister's commitment to look into this issue. As you know, I get very, very concerned when I hear big government talk about two separate programs. There's one child . . . .

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: Perhaps if the member for Yale-Lillooet could take this issue seriously and stop the heckling over there, the House and the children of British Columbia would be in a better position.

I'm disturbed that the minister is concerned about the two programs and that we're not focusing in on the one child, and I would like some comment on that. My understanding is that that was one of the things the Gove report recommended that we had to do: we had to focus our resources on the

[ Page 8880 ]

children. We have to stop this smokestack-mentality approach -- they're over here, and they're over there, and somehow the children fall in between.

I would like some comments from the minister on how we're going to make that happen, how we're going to make sure that those two agencies are aggressively working together to solve the problem, so that we can look after the children -- all children, but in this particular case, a child with severe ADD. I'd appreciate some comments on that.

Hon. L. Boone: They are two totally . . . . You can call them programs; you can call them whatever you want. But they are two totally different entities. On the one hand, we are dealing with children who are coming into care who are our responsibility. We are providing resources to them, and we are providing foster parents or living spaces -- whatever it is that is required for that child. On the other hand, you have children who may have left their homes of their own volition. They may be out on the street.

They may in fact say: "I want to go live with my sister." They do not come to the ministry; they are not children in care. They are in fact getting assistance for living, the same as you would get a welfare payment.

We are uncomfortable with what is going on right now. As I said, we are working with the Ministry of Human Resources to see how we can address the concerns that we have about the resources that are available to these children and about the fact that we don't know where they are living. They could be in a good home or they may not be in a decent home, because they're not screened by us. They are living in the home of a relative, and that is a choice that they made. We must decide how we are going to do this. We are working with the Ministry of Human Resources, and it's not a matter of these being children in care who are out there. These are children who are not in the care of the ministry.

R. Thorpe: I am going to get the information on this for the minister and her staff. Let me just share with the minister that this is an eight-year-old child with severe problems. So this child hasn't decided that they're going to go live somewhere. This child was under the care of your ministry, and you were paying $2,320.77 per month for the care of this child. I'm led to believe that the guardianship is via your ministry and this program. I think you do have some responsibility. Of course, if we listen to the Gove report and we believe in that . . .

The Chair: Through the Chair.

R. Thorpe: . . . then we should be acting on it.

I'm particularly concerned with the minister's comment that they are uncomfortable about this situation. If you are uncomfortable, do you have an action plan to close the gap on the issues that you are uncomfortable with? When will you start to be comfortable with issues like this with respect to caring for the children of British Columbia?

Hon. L. Boone: As I said earlier, we are working with the Ministry of Human Resources to develop a plan as to when we can deal with

section 8, the portion of the legislation that is on the books. As I said, it will take some dollars and some work for us to work around these things and to discover how we are going to be doing these things, because it takes resources to do all of this stuff. It's difficult for us to deal on a case-by-case basis here, without us having actually seen the information. That's why I said: get the information to us, and then we'll be happy to deal with it. We do not have a foster parent payment of any sort that is $200. If it was a restricted foster care payment, the very basic one would be $574.31.

[4:45]

I don't quite understand the dollars you're talking about that this particular person is getting for this individual, or the information around why this eight-year-old child was removed from the foster care home, or why this person is now in the grandparent's care. It's really not appropriate for us to get into that here. Get us the information and we'll get all the information that we can, and we can look into it -- look into our records, find out if they are dealing with Human Resources or with us, find out what their past records have been. Then we can deal with that situation. But clearly it's not something that we can do in this venue.

R. Thorpe: Of course, we're not using the names of this family or this child, because that would be most inappropriate. I was using that just as an example. I believe that the minister did not use the word "uncomfortable" with respect to this particular case, because obviously the minister isn't aware of the details of this case. I interpreted the minister's comments to mean that she was uncomfortable with respect to the situation in the province and the fact that her ministry and Human Resources have identified a significant problem here and they have to work with that.

I would like to know when that significant problem that the minister has identified here today, which she's uncomfortable with, is going to be resolved. What plan, with what time lines, have this ministry and this minister committed to, to resolve this issue?

Hon. L. Boone: I can't give you the time lines; I can't give you the times. I can tell you that we are working with the Minister of Human Resources and will get it done just as fast as we can. We're looking at other jurisdictions, other provinces, to see how they are managing this and how they are developing their policies. Hopefully, we'll learn from them, and we'll know how to proceed.

R. Thorpe: Is it because the minister does not have the appropriate staff here that she doesn't know the dates or the time lines? Or is it because they don't have a plan? If in fact they do have a plan, I would accept a commitment that the minister would send us that plan with those time lines. So if the minister can advise that they do have a plan, they do have time lines and they will forward copies of that to us as quickly as possible, I would accept that and we will move on.

However, if they don't have a plan, I think the appropriate thing now would be for the minister to tell us that they don't have a plan right now, that they know they have a problem and that they're going to work on developing a plan. I'd like the minister to comment on those two points.

Hon. L. Boone: I thought I had been quite clear. We are working with the Ministry of Human Resources to develop a plan so that we can work this out. This is not an easy issue. This takes dollars; it takes staff; it takes a considerable amount of money to do this. We are looking at other jurisdictions to find out how they are implementing such a program. Hopefully, we will be able to learn from them, and we'll be able to put things in place. But at this particular time, I cannot give you the time as to when we will be moving on this.

R. Thorpe: The minister has now finally told us that a plan does not exist to deal with the children of British Colum-

[ Page 8881 ]

bia who find themselves in this situation. You know, all we hear from this government is: "It costs money; it costs money." Well, they always have it wrong. What it takes is commitment. What it takes is leadership. What it takes is will. And what it takes is setting this as a high priority. Surely one of the things we've all learned from the difficulties of children in British Columbia that we've all had to share in over these past five or six years is that time is of the essence.

Surely we must serve the children of British Columbia today, and not necessarily be worrying about what they're doing in other provinces. Surely this minister can make a commitment to us about when they will have a plan -- a tentative plan, if not a final plan -- to deal with this issue. And if it is a financial resources shortfall that they have, identify it to this House so we can deal with it together.

Hon. L. Boone: We're not talking about children who are in foster care. But if a relative wants to enter into a voluntary agreement to become a restricted foster care home, and if they go through the . . . . We do have to assess the home to make sure that it is a safe environment for people. Then we will provide them with foster care status, and they would become a restricted foster care home. We are talking about the children out there who, as I said, are receiving welfare payments through Human Resources.

Some of them may in fact be deemed children in the home of a relative, and they are receiving payments to live in homes of relatives. That is what the Ministry of Human Resources is currently giving them subsidies for: to live there. We are working with the Ministry of Human Resources to deal with this situation, and we will continue to deal with this situation.

Unlike the members opposite, I know that right now the taxpayers do not have a bottomless pit. We have had substantial increases to this budget, to education and health care, and it's just not possible for us to open up the purse strings every time somebody over there says they want more money for everything. That's something that I think the taxpayers recognize -- that we can't do those things.

R. Thorpe: You know, hon. Chair, it's unfortunate that this minister has to go down to that low level of saying that she understands the pressures of the taxpayer. Give me a break. This is the government that has put in place the highest tax rates in North America and now, all of a sudden, they're the defenders of taxpayers. That is an irresponsible statement, hon. Chair.

This government does have enough money to spend $3 million a month on advertising that there's a job behind every tree in British Columbia, but we don't have enough money to look after the children. This is also the government that spends $325 million on the Skeena bailout but doesn't have enough money to look after the children of British Columbia. Let us in this chamber deal with the real issues. If the government does not know the answers, then just stand up and say so.

But don't get in here and be hypocritical and say that you are the defenders of taxpayers' rights, when in fact you're the people who have penalized every taxpayer in the province and are neglecting the children of British Columbia.

Hon. L. Boone: I think that the member has got a little bit of mental disability. You're not thinking too well, because you have forgotten that it is this government that has frozen tuition fees for the children of this province. It is this government that has increased the amount of money that is going into the budget . . . .

Interjection.

The Chair: I recognize the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain on a point of order.

C. Clark: I would ask the minister to withdraw that comment. Not only is it an insult to the member but it's an insult . . . . I mean, that kind of language isn't language we normally throw around. In particular, it's not appropriate for the Minister for Children and Families, who administers the mental health budget and deals with children with disabilities, to use that kind of language in a pejorative way in this chamber.

Hon. L. Boone: By all means, I withdraw. I certainly didn't mean to . . . . I would never compare the member to any of the people that we deal with. That's certainly unfair to them.

I would like to remind the member that this government has increased this budget considerably. A lot of money has gone into this. This money is going into care for children on a regular basis. It is this government that has given tax breaks this year to small business. It is this government that has given . . . .

Interjections.

Hon. L. Boone: You don't think there have been tax breaks? It is this government that has given tax breaks to the oil and gas industry. It is this government that has done a number of different things.

For you to stand there and say that we haven't made children a priority and that we're starving children . . . . I think it's absolutely offensive. If you look at the reports that have come out just recently from Dr. Millar, he'll tell you that the children in British Columbia are the healthiest children in Canada, that we have the best children around. He points to programs that this government has implemented that have added considerably to the health of children. The school lunch program is something I'm immensely proud of.

When I go around this province, people tell me over and over again that this has meant a tremendous amount to young people in their classrooms. It has meant that these kids have the ability to thrive and that they're alert and attentive. It has made a tremendous difference to their lives. In fact, it's made such a difference that some schools are now carrying on throughout the summer with their school lunch programs, because that may be the only decent meal that those children have. That is something that this government did, hon. member.

We have increased the amount of money that's going into building blocks, into programs, into health care, into education -- into all of these areas. For you to say that this government . . . .

The Chair: Through the Chair, hon. minister, please.

Hon. L. Boone: Hon. Chair, for the member to say that we have not made children a priority and that we're starving children and that our focus is not on children . . . . I just can't accept that, especially when this ministry has had a massive increase in its budget this year. You know, you have to recognize that there are limits to the taxpayers' ability to pay for everything and that we can't just say we are going to pay for everything.

We are working very hard with the Ministry of Human Resources to figure out how we are going to deal with the

section 8. We are working very hard on that. But I can tell you

[ Page 8882 ]

that it is not going to be an easy thing to do. I'm going to tell you that it will also be a very costly one, unless we figure out how to do it in a manner that manages to shift some of the dollars over -- that makes it so it's not as expensive. But it is not going to be a simple procedure for us to do; nor is it going to be one that is inexpensive.

R. Thorpe: I'm sure, hon. Chair, that the minister will have the opportunity to reflect and review Hansard and to realize that this member never used the word "starving." But obviously when someone's cornered, they have to come out and throw out untruths. Now, I was just picking up on what the minister said, because it was the minister who said she didn't have enough resources. I didn't say that; it was the minister. So perhaps the minister should take time . . . . You know, once again here's an example of not knowing the answers to the questions.

Instead of saying, "We don't know the answers to the question," you start throwing out rhetoric and insults. The issue here . . . . No one ever suggested you aren't working hard. But what you have told us is that you do not have a plan. I don't know how this minister or ministry can say it's going to be costly when they haven't done the work. Maybe they're just hiding behind that.

If they truly care about the children of British Columbia, this opposition has offered, under the leadership of our leader, to work with the government. But has this government called the children's committee in this session? No, they have not. So if the problem is too much work for the minister and ministry, then convene the committee. Get more resources working on it -- human resources. To throw insults, to throw out information based on a lack of facts and then -- the largest hypocrisy of all -- to say they now are the defenders of the taxpayers of British Columbia is simply a joke.

[5:00]

C. Clark: Before we leave it altogether, I want to get back, just briefly, to this issue of the special payments and the service payments -- the difference between them, the differentiation that the government makes in those payments to foster parents. I understand that the minister has said that the effect of the Adoption Act, which was brought in in 1996, combined with the effect of the BC Benefits Act, was to make the service payments that come to foster parents -- that portion of their foster payment -- not exempt for the purposes of determining income.

As a result, when the ministry applies a means test to determine whether or how much an individual should get for their GAIN cheque, for their special needs adoption support cheque and for all those other government services, suddenly this new money that they were getting is included and is now considered part of their basic income. I think the terminology for it is a "service payment."

It's my understanding that when the government brought in the service payments, when they created this new category of payment . . . . It was when the government moved to levelled care in 1993 or thereabouts. When the government did that . . . . I mean, before 1993 what happened was that parents got the basic payment, and then there were additional payments that were given as special payments. What the government decided to do when it moved to levelled care was to put what used to be special payments into block funding, give them to parents and call them service payments.

But the reality was, and is today, that this money is intended to supplement the basic payment that foster parents get, because it's more costly to care for the children they are being asked to care for. What the government did was move from special payments to service payments and then sneak that in through the back door by changing the Adoption Act.

When they moved to service payments, they told those foster parents that these were not going to be considered income -- that when they moved to the block funding, they would still continue to be exempt for the purposes of determining income when we're looking at other government payments. That was a promise the government made to foster parents. The foster parents are telling me that they can clearly remember the government making that commitment when they made that switchover.

It was for administrative ease, I suppose, because I suspect that the special payments process is probably one that takes some time. Parents have to fill out forms. The forms have to go to the social worker. Then the ministry has to process them, determine whether the request is legitimate and forward the funds that go along with it -- or not. That was the process before. I suspect that when the ministry moved to levelled care, they wanted to get rid of some of that administrative burden, move those special payments and rename them service payments.

From 1993 to 1996, the government kept its commitment, its promise to those parents, to keep those payments exempt for the purposes of means-testing.

Then in 1996 the Adoption Act came in and changed the landscape. Suddenly, what the government couldn't do by the front door, the government did by the back door. So it took the special payments, converted them into service payments, promised them that they wouldn't be included for taxation purposes, then changed the act and broke its promise.

I know that sometimes legislation comes in that has unintended consequences; I know that happens sometimes. So I'll ask the minister if she agrees, first of all, that it represents a real broken promise, a break of a real commitment that her ministry or the predecessor to this ministry made to foster parents. Now that the consequence of that has been pointed out to her, does she intend to fix the problem -- whether that's by legislation, by policy or by regulation -- so that her government can keep the promise they made to foster parents when they made the switch to levelled care in 1993?

Hon. L. Boone: I'm not aware of any promise that was made to any foster parent indicating that this money was never to be declared or considered as income. I'm not saying that it didn't happen. I'm saying that I'm not aware of it, hon. member. If there is something in writing, I would ask for that to be given to me so that I can see what happened.

As I have stated quite clearly to you, foster parents currently receive basic payments to cover the costs of raising that child, having that child in their home. They receive about $1,000, which is over and above that. In addition to that $1,000, they receive payments for special circumstances -- transportation and needs they may have, such as special clothing, special diets and all of these things. If parents are utilizing that $1,000 for something over and above those costs that they have, then they have the right and should be making sure that the ministry recognizes those as costs that they are incurring.

But right now, as I understand it, those payments are over and above the costs that they have to care for that special needs child.

C. Clark: Is the minister saying, then, that if I can demonstrate or if foster parents can demonstrate to her that a commitment was made in 1993 -- when the changeover to levelled care happened -- that the money would not be included as income for the purposes of means-testing, she will make the change so that the government can go back and keep its promise? Is that what's required -- maybe some documentation, a press release, some testimonials from foster parents? I

[ Page 8883 ]

don't know what might be required to jog the government's memory about this -- about a commitment having been made -- but if the minister is prepared to say that she's going to fix the problem if I can demonstrate that the commitment was made, I will do everything that I can to demonstrate that that commitment has indeed been made.

Hon. L. Boone: If the member has something in writing that states that there was a commitment, then I'll look at it, and I'll review it and take all of those things into consideration. But just having somebody say it's so is not adequate. We must, in fact, look at if there's a written commitment, if there's some signed contract, some signed document; then certainly I'll look at those things.

But as I stated, I think it's a fair way to treat these dollars. These are dollars that are over and above the costs of caring for a foster child. They receive payments for services over and above the $1,000, if that $1,000 is in fact not income for them. If they have costs that are incurred that they take out of that $1,000, they can declare that, and that is deducted from it. I think it's a fair way of our assessing the income for individuals to see whether they are eligible for the post-adoption a