2003 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 37th

Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MARCH 4, 2003

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 12, Number 6

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Melodie Elliott

Clark

B. Penner

Laurence

Elliott

M. Hunter

Statements (Standing Order

25 b )

Forest industry in Kootenay-Boundary

area

B. Bennett

Government policies on

domestic violence

J. Kwan

Spotted

owls

R. Sultan

Oral Questions

Government action on sea lice in fish

farms

J. MacPhail

Hon. S. Hagen

Eligibility review for disability

benefits

J. Kwan

Hon. M. Coell

P. Nettleton

Petitions

J. Bray

Second Reading of Bills

Freedom of Information and Protection of

Privacy Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 13)

Hon. S.

Santori

J. MacPhail

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Public Safety and

Solicitor General

Mayencourt

Hon. R.

Coleman

J. Kwan

Locke

J. MacPhail

R. Lee

J. Bray

Visser

S. Orr

Hawes

K. Manhas

[ Page 5201 ]

TUESDAY, MARCH 4, 2003

The House

met at 2:03 p.m.

Introductions by Members

Hon. G.

Halsey-Brandt: Today in the members' gallery we have a special guest from

Slovenia. Her Excellency Veronika Stabej is the newly appointed ambassador of

Slovenia to Canada. She is accompanied by Dr. Branko Palcic, honorary consul of

Slovenia at Vancouver. Ambassador Stabej is visiting from Ottawa to make her

official calls on the government. Please join me in giving both of them a warm

welcome to this House.

Hon. K.

Falcon: Today we are joined by 66 grade 11 students from the great school of

Southridge Secondary in beautiful South Surrey. They are joined by their

teachers Mr. Julian, Mr. Knihniski and Mr. Bendl. I would ask that the House

please make them welcome today.

[1405]

Les: It's my pleasure today to introduce to the House seven legislative

interns who will be working with the government caucus during this spring

legislative session. The seven interns are as follows: Theresa Gerritsen, who is

here from the University of Victoria; Jonathan Kim, who is from Simon Fraser

University; Azmina Ladha from UBC; Julia Lockhart from UBC; Quinn Newcomb from

the University of Victoria; Robert Parker from the University of Victoria; and

Tyler Wightman from Malaspina University College. I would invite the House to

make these people feel very welcome.

Hon. R.

Thorpe: I'm very pleased to have a constituent from Summerland, British

Columbia — yes, the heartlands of British Columbia — here today. It's Debbie

Kinvig. Debbie is the general manager of the Kettle Valley Railway Society,

where there were over 14,000 volunteer hours last year. Debbie's here on behalf

of the society to sign a lease to have locomotive 3716 in place at the Kettle

Valley Steam Railway in Summerland this year. Would the House please make Debbie

very welcome.

Sahota: Joining us in the House today is a constituent of mine from

Burnaby-Edmonds, Janet Ray. Janet is working on her MA in nursing and currently

doing a practicum with the Ministry of Health Planning. Would the House please

make her welcome.

Penner: Today I have some good news and some bad news. First, the good news.

It's my pleasure today to introduce five people from the eastern Fraser Valley.

First of all, we're joined today by Clem Seymour, an elected councillor with the

Seabird Island Indian band, along with Chief John Pennier of the Scowlitz first

nation. In addition, we have Sylvia Pranger, the mayor of the district of Kent,

as well as Mayor Clint Hames of the city of Chilliwack — I believe he's here

in the precinct as well — and Terry Raymond, chairman of the Fraser Valley

regional district. They're here to discuss things, including gravel removal from

the Fraser River. Would the House please make them welcome.

Tributes

MELODIE ELLIOTT CLARK

Penner: Now the not-so-good news. It's with regret that I rise to inform the

House about the passing of a very distinguished individual who resided in

Chilliwack for about 25 years. I learned this morning that Melodie Elliott

Clark, born in 1947, passed away on February 25 while with her husband on a

holiday.

Melodie

Elliott Clark overcame tremendous challenges in her life. She became a

quadriplegic as a result of a tragic traffic accident in the early 1970s.

Notwithstanding that, she and her husband moved to Chilliwack and established a

very successful business, Elliott Clark Arts. I got to know Melodie when I

sought the B.C. Liberal nomination in 1995, because she was one of the other

people who also sought the nomination at that time. Their business was very

successful and very well known in the community, and Melodie and her husband

were well regarded for their involvement in the arts community in Chilliwack.

She's been

recognized in many ways. For example, she recently received the Queen

Elizabeth's Golden Jubilee lifetime achievement medal in Nova Scotia for her

work in the arts, and that's where she and her husband have been residing most

recently — back in Nova Scotia. I ask that the House please send a note of

sympathy to her husband and her family.

LAURENCE ELLIOTT

Hunter: I also rise to note with regret the passing of a constituent of

mine, Laurence Elliott. Laurence was a director of the regional district of

Nanaimo. He passed away last Thursday, a victim of lupus disease, at the age of

55. Laurence was a real estate professional and a committed and popular public

servant and volunteer. He's survived by his wife Diana, three adult children,

three grandchildren and many others, including his own parents. Nanaimo is the

poorer for his untimely passing, and I ask that a note go to his family, noting

our respect.

Introductions by Members

Hon. S.

Hagen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your kindness in recognizing me today.

I'm pleased to introduce to the House — they're in the gallery today —

well-respected CFAX talk show host Terry Moore and

[ Page 5202 ]

his producer and wife, Ramona Beauchamp. Would the House please make them

welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) FOREST INDUSTRY IN

KOOTENAY-BOUNDARY AREA

[1410]

Bennett: This government is taking action to strengthen the B.C. forest

industry, the creation — finally — of a working forest, a Forest and Range

Practices Act that respects the experience and knowledge of forest workers,

taking on the encrusted, outdated, byzantine forest policies of yesteryear. This

government is determined to rebuild our most important industry and to put

forest workers back to work.

I want to

tell the House today the story of another very positive step that impacts the

Kootenay-Boundary region, where I live. Not long before the last provincial

election the government of the day announced, without any public consultation,

that they would arbitrarily change the terms of the Kootenay-Boundary land use

plan beyond any balanced measure in place across this province.

There are

15,000 families in 28 communities in the Kootenay-Boundary region who depend on

forestry. The government back then refused to listen to those 15,000 families in

28 communities. The opposition Forests critic pleaded with the government at the

time to not sacrifice the 1,300 family-supporting forestry jobs at stake, and

the opposition leader, now Premier, promised the people of my rural region that

if elected, his government would listen to the people of Kootenay-Boundary.

It's

important for this House to know and it's important for the people of the region

to know that this government and this Premier lived up to that promise made

before the last election. We listened to the people of the region, we took the

necessary steps to bring some socioeconomic balance to our land use plan, and we

saved those same 1,300 family-supporting forestry jobs that the former

government had put in jeopardy.

GOVERNMENT POLICIES ON

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

J. Kwan:

This Saturday marks International Women's Day, when millions of people will

join together to celebrate a history. As history also teaches us, women pay a

heavy price in times of war. With a new war looming in the Middle East, this

International Women's Day will be invested with a particular urgency. That

urgency is also felt here at home in British Columbia.

Recently

the United Nations singled out our government for very specific criticisms of

its policies and the effect they're having on the lives of women in B.C. The UN

Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women pointed to changes

in the way the Liberals are prosecuting domestic violence. It pointed to cuts in

legal aid and welfare assistance. It pointed to the elimination of the Human

Rights Commission. It pointed to cuts in support programs for victims of

domestic violence. Taken together, the committee said, these changes are having

a disproportionately negative impact on women, in particular aboriginal women.

The committee urged this government to undertake an analysis of these changes

and to amend them.

To be

singled out in this way by the world's top international body is extraordinary.

It is a useful measure of just how thoughtless, misguided and discriminatory

many of these policy changes have been. As a signatory of the convention on the

elimination of all forms of discrimination against women, signed in 1980,

Canadians undertook to live up to certain standards. This UN report says, loud

and clear, that in B.C. we're not meeting our obligations. If the B.C.

government truly wants B.C. to take a more prominent place on the world stage, I

trust that each and every member of this caucus will read the UN report and will

reflect long and hard on its criticisms and its recommendations for change —

positive change.

SPOTTED OWLS

Sultan: I would like to make a statement about spotted owls. The B.C.

government and B.C. business are committed to their survival in our old-growth

forests. The New York Times recently suggested that conservation takes a

back seat to logging in British Columbia. Our Premier quickly responded,

describing our commitment to the recovery of the spotted owl. No question —

the bird's in trouble for reasons not well understood.

Both Canfor

and Interfor have temporarily ceased logging in all spotted owl management areas

to allow for assessment of habitat issues. The province's spotted owl recovery

team will recommend how forest companies should proceed. In October conservation

officers took the unprecedented step of capturing a very rare juvenile spotted

owl from the Pemberton-Lillooet forest. The Grouse Mountain Refuge for

Endangered Wildlife in my constituency volunteered to give this little owl

temporary refuge. Like Interfor and Canfor, Grouse Mountain is committed to

conservation. For example, it takes in orphaned grizzly bear cubs that would

otherwise have to be destroyed.

[1415]

Juvenile

spotted owls in the wild have less than a 25 percent chance of surviving their

crucial first winter. I'm pleased to report that my constituent owl,

appropriately named Hope, received excellent care and overwintered splendidly.

Hope has provided Grouse Mountain wildlife professionals and the spotted owl

recovery team with valuable scientific data. Having survived her first winter,

her chance of surviving subsequent winters rockets to 90 percent. Later this

month, Hope will be safely returned to the wilds. We expect she will do her part

to save the species from extinction, and we wish her well.

[ Page 5203 ]

Mr.

Speaker: That concludes members' statements.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON

SEA LICE IN FISH FARMS

MacPhail: Yesterday we learned from one of B.C.'s most reputable scientists

that the first run of pink salmon smolts has come early and is covered with sea

lice, but a spokesperson from the Fisheries ministry says that fish farm

operators are reporting low levels of sea lice. My question to the Fisheries

minister is: is he going to listen to fish farm operators, who gave the Liberals

big bucks in the last election, or is he going to listen to scientists and

immediately fallow every fish farm in the Broughton Archipelago?

Hon. S.

Hagen: First of all, let me say that this government is committed to

preserving and protecting wild salmon on the coast of British Columbia,

including the pink salmon. Secondly, let me say that the NDP were in government

for ten years — the ten worst years of government this province has ever seen,

I might add — and did nothing. What we've had to do is clean up the mess left

by the previous government.

I can tell

you that we are using scientific information. The scientific information that

was provided yesterday is very premature. The runs have not started coming out

yet. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans tells us they are monitoring

constantly. We've sent eight of our people up to the Broughton to monitor and

report back. DFO has said it's going to share information with us as it becomes

available.

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question.

MacPhail: It's interesting to note that the minister, until this very

moment, has relied on the scientific report produced in the 1990s for his

defence. The only difference was that the previous government put in a

moratorium. This government justifies the expansion. Scientists say….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please, hon. members.

MacPhail: I do understand how troubled the Liberal government is by the

mishandling of this scandal. I do understand.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Let us hear the question.

MacPhail: Scientists say that if the government had fallowed these farms two

months ago, the run might have been saved, but because of this government's

inaction, which continues at this very moment, that run is likely destroyed. In

about six weeks a second run of pinks will begin. If the minister doesn't take

action now, we risk losing this wild salmon species for good. I ask the question

again. Does he want to be remembered as the minister who destroyed the pink

salmon run, or will he take action right now to fallow every farm to save what's

left of it?

Hon. S.

Hagen: I would like to quote the John Fraser report, which talks about

reducing the rhetoric and getting down to the science. That would be my

recommendation to the members opposite. I would also like to say to those

members opposite that to make such claims and recommendations as she has just

made — whether it's in this House or in the media — which are based on such

preliminary information, is not scientific. It is, in fact, irresponsible.

As I've

said, the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries has eight fisheries

inspectors and one fish health veterinarian on staff, who are up in the

Broughton. We are hiring two new inspectors and widening the inspection

authority across the ministries of Water, Land and Air Protection and

Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further question.

[1420]

MacPhail: John Fraser may have said to lower the rhetoric. He didn't say to

sit idle and do nothing while the fish die, which is exactly what this

government is doing. Every time this government has taken a position on fish

farming, it's been wrong and the scientists have been right — government

wrong, scientists right.

Right now

scientists are saying a disaster looms. Communities, fishers, scientists and

conservationists are screaming for action from this government. The only people

who say there's no problem are fish farm operators and the B.C. Liberal

government — oh, and the minister's spokesperson. Why is the Minister of

Fisheries stalling? Is it because he's worried that his campaign funds will dry

up if he takes action to save the wild salmon stock?

Hon. S.

Hagen: May I remind the members opposite that under their tenure as

government, as horrible as it was, nine new fish farms were located on the coast

of British Columbia. Since the B.C. Liberals were elected, no new fish farms

have been located on the coast of British Columbia. Let me also point out to the

member, who talks about the John Fraser report, that this is the Pacific

Fisheries Resource…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. S.

Hagen: …Conservation Council report that she just drew attention to. The

recommendations from this report are as follows: firstly, strategic fallowing of

salmon net pens judged to be the highest risk to pink salmon. We have done that.

[ Page 5204 ]

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. S.

Hagen: Secondly, accelerated marketing of mature fish to fallow those pens.

We have done that.

Thirdly,

the strategic application of therapeutics, which we have also sent a letter

about. This letter went out to all salmon farms on the coast of British

Columbia. I'll just read a couple of sentences. "Following the discussions

at the forum that was held February 22 to 24…"

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Wrap it up

please, minister.

Hon. S.

Hagen: "…it has been collectively determined that all farms must

implement monitoring and treatment plans for sea lice."

ELIGIBILITY REVIEW FOR

DISABILITY BENEFITS

J. Kwan:

We know that the Minister of Human Resources has spent close to $3 million to

pay doctors who help fill out forms for people faced with disability reviews.

What has not been made public is the amount of money that the minister has given

to community agencies to help clients who have yet to file their review forms.

These are additional costs that are added to the list of doctors' fees,

government staff time and the suffering that has occurred as a result of his

ill-conceived eligibility review.

Can the

minister please tell this House how much he has had to pay non-governmental

agencies and how much he expects this $3 million-plus witch-hunt to cost the

government in total?

Hon. M.

Coell: Yesterday the member asked some questions about eligibility, and I

just wanted to give her a couple of responses. In April of last year I said that

the criteria would be inclusive. No eligible person with a disability will lose

their assistance.

In October

of last year I said that if all 18,000 people meet the criteria, we'll fund all

18,000 people. In December I again said that this is not about saving money;

it's about making sure that people meet the definition.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. M.

Coell: If the member wants to talk about wasting money, it reminds me of a

time when the New Democrats got elected in 1991. Jobs were being created,

unemployment was going down, and they doubled the number of people on income

assistance.

One in ten

British Columbians was on income assistance. Six in ten single parents were on

income assistance. Success for the socialists was putting people on welfare.

Success for this government is making sure people have employment and looking

after people with disabilities.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary

question.

[1425]

J. Kwan:

We know that the minister's stuck when he cannot answer the question. I am

absolutely alarmed that the minister cannot get us a total of what he expects

this witch-hunt will cost. Surely, he must have had some idea of the costs that

would be incurred before he started along this road. Surely, he must have some

target in mind — some estimate of how many individuals he thought were

receiving benefits who shouldn't be.

Could it be

the minister who thought that: "Hey, we can't trust the existing files on

each and every one of the clients because socialists are running the

province"? Is that the reason for the witch-hunt — by putting…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order.

J. Kwan:

…people under enormous stress, when the minister should have known all along

that these individuals were qualified to receive disability benefits? Will the

minister have the courage to table in this House the briefing notes that laid

out the eligibility review and his decision to launch this witch-hunt? What were

the targets that he set to justify these extra expenses — extra expenses that,

I might add, should be spent on people who require the support or perhaps the

women's community, which the Minister of State for Women's Equality has cut the

funding for?

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: All right. Order, please. Order, please.

Hon. M.

Coell: As I mentioned yesterday, we have increased our budget for people

with disabilities on continuous assistance by $80 million. There are 3,200 more

people receiving disability assistance with this government, and 6,000 people

have taken the opportunity to give us their applications.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Let's listen to the answer.

Hon. M.

Coell: When I look back at the doubling of the income assistance budget by

that former government, and I think of the waste of money and no re-

[ Page 5205 ]

search to show it, when unemployment was going down, jobs were being

created…. The former minister didn't even do any tracking of the people on

income assistance in those days. Success for them might be just more people on

welfare. Success for this government is putting people back to work, which we're

doing.

Nettleton: For three days I've watched the Minister of Human Resources duck

questions regarding the conduct of the disability benefits review. His failure

to answer the questions gives me no comfort. I do know, having been a government

member on the Health Committee until last fall, that the minister did implement

this eligibility review because he believed that there were many individuals

receiving disability benefits who should not. That was the logic that led to a

program that we know cost close to $3 million just for doctors' fees alone.

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order.

Nettleton: Can he please tell this House how much this review has cost

government in total and how many individuals who have submitted their review

forms have been told they are ineligible for ongoing disability benefits?

Hon. M.

Coell: I think that member actually voted for both pieces of our legislation

last year. There are 10,000-plus people who have handed in their review forms

— 6,000…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order.

Hon. M.

Coell: …new people who have put in review forms. If all of those people,

plus any others that put in their forms, are found eligible, we'll fund them. As

I've said in the past, if all 18,000 people are approved as eligible, they'll be

funded.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Prince George–Omineca has a supplementary

question.

Nettleton: It's clear that the minister has invested significant government

resources into testing the eligibility of thousands of people with disabilities,

the sole result being hardship for individuals and families. Now an individual

has taken his own life, leaving behind a suicide note that…

[1430]

An Hon.

Member: Shameful.

Nettleton: …told of his fear and anxiety — yes, it is shameful —

related to the review of his eligibility. The minister's remarks in the media

and the House this week confirm that this review was intended as an eligibility

screening for ongoing benefits. Get beyond the arrogance, minister, and answer

the question.

Mr.

Speaker: Will the member please put his question.

Nettleton: And I will. Why did the minister's staff tell the regional

coroner who reviewed Mr. Ristvedt's death that his benefits weren't at risk,

when they were?

Hon. M.

Coell: This government does everything in its power to make sure that people

in its care, whether it be Health or Human Resources or Education, are treated

with fairness and dignity. The review criteria have been designed to make sure

that people who are in need of help get that help.

[End

of question period.]

Petitions

J. Bray:

I rise to present a petition signed by 96 residents in Victoria opposing the

privatization of food services at the health authority.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: I call second reading of Bill 13.

Second Reading of Bills

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY

AMENDMENT ACT, 2003

Hon. S.

Santori: I move that Bill 13 be read a second time now.

Bill 13

amends the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act in response to a

comprehensive review of the legislation requested by the Premier. The intent of

the review was to increase openness and reduce compliance costs. The amendments

were prepared in consultation with stakeholders and the information and privacy

commissioner.

Bill 13

addresses the results of the review in a number of ways. First, the bill

includes four amendments that change an outdated name for the archives of

British Columbia to one that is generic to ensure that the act is current

without further amendments whenever the name of the archives is changed in the

future.

Second, the

bill changes the wording of the original legislation so that when a public body

places its archival records in the archives of another public body, these

records are still subject to the legislation.

Third, the

bill clarifies notification requirements for the indirect collection of personal

information. This will reduce confusion and administrative burden in

circumstances where indirect collection is already permitted by the legislation.

[ Page 5206 ]

Fourth, the

bill clarifies that researchers cannot use personal information from a public

body for the sole purpose of contacting prospective research subjects. This

change will increase privacy protection for individuals in an area where the

information is often very sensitive and will have limited impact on researchers.

Fifth, the

bill addresses a concern expressed by public bodies that if the public body

discloses records that are subject to solicitor-client privilege to the

information and privacy commissioner at his or her request, that privilege may

be harmed if not waived altogether. The bill ensures that solicitor-client

privilege is not waived in these circumstances.

Sixth, the

bill adds a local government body that has not previously been covered and

removes reference to the University of Northern British Columbia as it has

become unnecessary, given a change to other legislation.

The bill

also addresses a number of concerns raised by the information and privacy

commissioner. These amendments will lessen administrative burden and provide

increased flexibility to enable the commissioner to continue to meet his mandate

in a time of restricted resources.

[1435]

The

amendments also remove unintended consequences of the original drafting. First,

the bill corrects an inadvertent error in the original act and clarifies the

circumstances under which the commissioner can present a special report to the

Legislature.

Second, the

bill enhances the mediation role of the information and privacy commissioner's

office by protecting them from being compelled to give evidence in legal

proceedings.

Third, the

bill expands the commissioner's powers to delegate authority to his staff by

permitting him to delegate the review of records withheld by public bodies under

the law enforcement exception, except in limited circumstances. The bill

recognizes that some law enforcement records are particularly sensitive and

provides a means for senior law enforcement officials to request that the

commissioner not delegate access to certain records. The inclusion of this

restriction provides the enhanced protection necessary for these records.

Fourth, the

bill permits the commissioner to request authorization from an adjudicator for

relief from repetitious, vexatious, systematic and frivolous requests that the

commissioner has received as head of the public body. The legislation currently

permits public bodies to make an application to the commissioner to seek relief

from such requests, yet does not provide the same avenue of redress to the

commissioner. This amendment eliminates the inconsistency in the legislation and

reduces the administrative burden for the commissioner.

The bill

also contains a number of provisions that will improve the administration of the

act and address compliance issues. The bill removes the potential for the

inconsistent application of the collection, use and disclosure principles for

personal information handled by contractors acting on behalf of public bodies.

With current wording it is possible that the use and disclosure principles could

be interpreted as not binding to contractors acting for public bodies.

The

provision of this bill will increase the openness and accountability of

government, reduce compliance requirements, improve the protection of personal

information, reduce administrative burden for the commissioner and ensure clear

policies, practices and standards for public bodies in administering the act.

These changes will guarantee the continuation of the tradition of British

Columbia having the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act that is

the most open and the strongest on privacy protection in Canada and will

position British Columbia to lead Canadian jurisdictions in electronic

government initiatives.

MacPhail: It is interesting to note that this bill is about ensuring

protection of privacy information when the government contracts out work. Here

we are, once again, in a situation where, because of this government's

ideological agenda to contract out no matter what it costs, there's more red

tape. There's more that has to be looked after. In this particular case it's not

a bad thing, because it's about freedom of information and protection of privacy

— with a few hiccups.

Yet just

because this government has an ideological zeal to contract out work, even to

the extent where in the health services this government is going to be

contracting out work that will cost triple the amount they'll save, they're

still proceeding. Over three years the government will be spending $225 million

on booting well-trained, loyal, senior health care workers off the payroll, and

they're going to bring in contractors, and they're only going to save $70

million over three years. Let's see. That's a good deal. That's Liberal

economics. Spend $225 million to save $70 million. Today we're dealing with the

consequences of that contracting-out of work, and so we have to have a piece of

legislation where this government will say: "Well, that contractor has to

be subject to protection of privacy of information." Interesting, isn't it,

that we have to do this?

[1440]

There's

still controversy even within that. There's a disagreement about how this

legislation actually has to apply. It says there's a disagreement between the

commissioner of the freedom of information and protection of privacy and the

responsible bureaucrat for that legislation. I say that the public official

responsible, Chris Norman, who is the director of the corporate privacy and

information access…. They have a disagreement. It can be resolved. It can be

resolved either through an amendment…. Well, actually, it should be resolved

through an amendment. I'll detail that in a moment.

What we

have here is an expansion of protection of privacy to deal with this

government's ideological bent to contract out work that was previously done in

the public service. They have to change the law, but they've also reduced —

cut back — the available resources for the freedom-of-information and

protection-of-privacy commissioner. At the same time that people have to be even

more vigilant, this government is cutting back on the resources available to

maintain that vigilance.

[ Page 5207 ]

Of course,

it's vigilance that's key to the protection of privacy. This is another example

not only of the hoops that the public are now going to have go through to deal

with this contracting-out agenda but of the threat to personal privacy being

greater if the vigilance is diminished. This government has diminished the

vigilance of the freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy commissioner.

I will be

asking questions about how this minister can guarantee proper vigilance with the

resources available to the FOIPP commissioner. If, indeed, this minister tries

to use the defence that that should be talked about in estimates, it will prove

the point that this government doesn't want to be held accountable for its

changes in legislation.

Here is the

dispute between what the commissioner is saying and what the public official

under this minister's ministry is saying.

Section 10(

a) amends

section 33 of the

act by striking out "a public body may disclose personal information"

and replacing it with "a public body must ensure that personal information

in its custody or under its control is disclosed" only. By dropping the

word "may" and inserting the words "must ensure," the

section will, at best, have the unintended effect of causing confusion about

whether it is permissive or mandatory and will, at worst, make it a mandatory

provision. Those who believe that this

section should remain permissive are now

in a state of confusion, by this legislation.

A second

point is that the government's underlying intent of the amendment is unclear.

The wording of the amendment, according to the information and privacy

commissioner, is different than the understanding of Chris Norman, director of

the corporate privacy and information access branch. Disturbingly, each

individual has a significantly different

interpretation about the underlying

intent of the amendment.

As I

understand it, and I've had this confirmed by others, the two individuals' views

are this. Mr. Loukidelis, the freedom of information commissioner, interprets

the amendment to seek to impose an obligation on public bodies to take steps to

ensure that personal information that is disclosed to contractors who perform

services for the government will be protected by the provisions of the act. Mr.

Norman, the public official working directly for the minister, in contrast, has

indicated that the intent of the change is to clarify that government may enter

into such agreements to respond to a concern that the act's current wording may

preclude the government from doing so. According to Mr. Norman, it would be a

matter of government policy to create contractual agreements to ensure that

contractors comply with the act. There's a big difference between the two points

of view.

[1445]

I put these

comments on the record at second reading so that the minister has time to take

them away and eliminate the confusion — table an amendment and eliminate that

confusion. I also say that it is time for the government to acknowledge that

their agenda to contract out, contract out and contract out carries

consequences. The consequences are this. As the government disperses what used

to be held in the public service, and with all the protection of privacy of that

information being held tightly within the public service…. It will now be

dispersed. It will now be dispersed through their contractors.

We saw that

as an example last week in a leaked document. The document didn't have to do

with Pharmacare, but it was a program this government was setting up, putting it

into the private sector for good optics. Issues of freedom of information and

protection of privacy stand there as well. Now we have a situation where the

government's own bureaucrats are suggesting in some way that it's entirely up to

the government to decide how far they go to protect that public information. It

is a flaw in the bill, or a misunderstanding at best, that the minister should

clarify and clear up through amendment.

Mr.

Speaker: Debate at second reading of Bill 13 continues. The minister closes

debate.

Hon. S.

Santori: I'm very proud of the amendments that are being brought forward,

which give us an opportunity to recognize that there are other ways to conduct

business in government and how we can provide services. It does allow us to

expand our services to the private sector and to do what's in the best interests

of the taxpayers of this province. Furthermore, we are putting the changes in

place on the freedom of information and the protection of privacy to respond

directly to the transformation that this government is undertaking.

On that

note, I'm looking forward to entering debate in committee stage with the member

opposite. At this time, hon. Speaker, I move that the bill be referred to a

Committee of the Whole House.

Mr.

Speaker: Excuse me, minister. We do second reading first. The question is

second reading of Bill 13.

Motion

approved.

Hon. S.

Santori: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House

to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 13,

Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2003, read a

second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at

the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G.

Bruce: I call Committee of Supply for the estimates debate of the Ministry

of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

Committee of Supply

The House

in Committee of Supply B; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

[ Page 5208 ]

The

committee met at 2:50 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

PUBLIC SAFETY AND SOLICITOR GENERAL

On vote 34:

ministry operations, $480,862,000.

Mayencourt: I recently had some meetings with a number of charities that

reside in my neighbourhood, which provide some very valuable services. Some of

the questions that resulted from that I would like to canvass the minister on in

terms of estimates.

The first

issue that comes up for charities in my area, such as the West End Seniors

Network and the 411 Seniors Centre, is the issue around bingo top-up. Their

concern is that for a period of time, the gaming policy and enforcement division

has been providing top-up to bingo charities to provide them with some

additional funds. Can the minister please tell me what the policy is going to be

on bingo top-up?

Hon. R.

Coleman: As the member knows, in the service plan a year ago we were looking

at the possibility that top-up would not continue, as a saving to government.

What top-up is, is actually a grant program that subsidizes those charities in

the bingo facilities of British Columbia. It was tied to an agreement with

charities.

challenge, given to me by Treasury Board last year, was to find ways to

restructure how we did business so that I could protect the top-up. I can advise

the member that we've done that. It was in the budget speech. The member can

rest assured that for the charities in his riding and the other 2,500 charities

around the province, top-up has been protected and will be protected.

Mayencourt: Thank you to the minister for that response.

The other

issue that's coming up is the amount of moneys that a charity could apply for

under direct access. I understand that there is some talk of a cap at $100,000.

Could the minister please clarify that for the charities?

Hon. R.

Coleman: That is not a change in policy. That policy has been in place for a

long time. Organizations have been allowed to go up to $100,000. Those with

provincewide programs, however, have been allowed to exceed the $100,000. That's

where the confusion may be, but that is not a change.

Mayencourt: Thank you to the minister for the answer.

The other

question I have is regarding something that's maybe inappropriately called

double-dipping, in which a charity might access bingo dollars as well as direct

access. For those charities that have those two pools that they draw money from,

it is a concern. If they lost one of those, how would they make up for any lost

revenues? Could the minister clarify for those charities what we are doing on

the issue of double-dipping, direct access and bingo dollars?

Hon. R.

Coleman: There was a paper that went out that, frankly, wasn't for public

digestion at the time that it went out and that has caused some confusion with

regards to charities. We are not eliminating one group from one stream or the

other. They will still be able to access both streams.

[1455]

Mayencourt: I live in a community that has three schools. They are

inner-city schools, and they have parent advisory committees. Sometimes I've

found in my travels through the province that not every school has a parent

advisory committee, and not every parent advisory committee has the people with

the skills to be able to fill out a gaming application. I really believe that

parent advisory committees should have access to gaming dollars as a way of

supporting enhanced services within those schools, particularly for those that

are inner-city or may not have the kind of skill set to put forward an

application.

Will the

minister give us some clarification on what he's going to be doing in terms of

PAC, parent advisory committee, eligibility for gaming access?

Hon. R.

Coleman: As we did our review of the direct access program, one of the

things we identified is that there was a huge, disproportional amount of success

between PACs with regard to receipt of money from direct access either because

they had access to material or larger PAC groups in larger schools — whatever

the case may be. We looked at it and determined — as I went through the

province area by area and riding by riding — that there were some ridings

receiving as much as 1 percent and 2 percent of the total amount of money and

others receiving huge percentages of the total amount of money we gave to PACs

last year.

What we did

was basically first take the approach of how much we were going to allow for

PACs in the province. We've decided that should be about $20 a student. Before,

if you actually got a grant in and you got approved, you got $40 a student. We

then took that process through a committee and through discussions and came to

the conclusion that in fairness, it would be best if every PAC group in the

province, by their student population, receive $20 a student directly to their

parent advisory council early in the school year. Although some schools don't

have PACs, they will be encouraged to start them and to set up their board and

bank account. When they have, they will be eligible for the funding as well.

The good

news about this is that this is simply a case of a PAC being identified and

existing in a school with the proper bank account and board, and then they will

all be funded. Without having to go through an onerous grant application

process, we will be funding PACs across the province. Whether you are in Bulkley

[ Page 5209 ]

Valley–Stikine or whether you are in Vancouver-Burrard, you will be treated

the same across the province by school, and you will all receive an equal amount

of funding based on your student population.

It is very

good news about the stability it will create for PACs to know year upon year

whether they will have funding available. You will find in the history of the

direct access program that some people in PACs would receive money this year but

maybe did not receive it last year or the year before and vice versa. This will

give them the stability and the knowledge.

In addition

to that, as we went through that process, we became really aware of the fact

that there is a group in the middle between the provincial parent advisory

council and the school parent advisory council. They are the district parent

advisory councils. They have no access to any funds unless a school board

actually gives them some money for small operating…. This is the group that

actually brings together the presidents and executives of PACs in each district

and gives them an opportunity to share ideas on fundraising and how they can

improve different programs in their school — ideas they can have. We've

decided we will give a small amount of money to every district PAC in the

province so that they can pay for the bare essentials that they're saying they

can't pay for today unless they get money donated back by the PACs.

I think

we've actually struck a really nice balance. We will be advising all the PACs as

we move forward how this will work for them, but there will be some disciplines

in the market. There will be some notice of a small application that says,

"This is who we are. This is our bank account. This is the board," so

that we at least know we're sending the money to the right place. One of the

anticipated questions that may come out of this discussion is: will you send the

money to the principal of the school if there's no PAC? No, we will not. We will

only be sending money to the PACs for use as the PACs see fit.

Mayencourt: I think that's really good news for many schools in British

Columbia, because it is equitable, it provides for some stable funding year over

year, and the application process can be quite onerous for those schools. It's

also good news for the DPACs, the district parent advisory committees, so I'm

grateful to the minister for that.

Can the

minister let us know how a school that does not have a parent advisory committee

will become aware of the fact that there are funds set aside for them? How will

we be notifying them?

[1500]

Hon. R.

Coleman: In a number of ways. First of all, we will be advising all the

schools and the provincial parent advisory council people about this change.

They are expecting it. We will also be advising all existing PACs, because we

actually do have a pretty good record of who they are, if they have applied with

us. Obviously, we will let school districts know this. Hopefully, the MLAs will

take the opportunity to advise their different PAC organizations of this great

opportunity they have facing them for their communities. We wouldn't want any

school to go without this opportunity in the province of B.C.

Mayencourt: I personally will take you up on that one, and I'm sure many

members here will want to be able to inform their PACs of that good news.

This next

item I wanted to ask the minister about is the issue of the variety of

categories under which someone becomes eligible to apply for a gaming grant. I

understand there's some talk about a reduction in the number of categories, and

I'm concerned that might result in some people, who currently receive gaming

funds, being disqualified. I would like to know, first off, what the rationale

is behind the reduction in the number of categories. Secondly, is there anyone

currently eligible for gaming funds who is going to become ineligible as a

result of those changes?

Hon. R.

Coleman: There are presently 11 categories of groups that are eligible for

gaming funds in the province. They will all still be eligible. What we are

doing, though, is collapsing the categories into four categories. Within the

four categories, all 11 will be eligible. The reason we're doing that is that we

want to go, in the next fiscal year, to a quarterly intake. We will take a

quarterly intake in each of the four categories that will cover off those 11.

We will do

the quarterly intake so that we can actually be comparing application to

application within a category, versus what's happened in the past, where

applications were coming in at different times of the year. That will allow us

to do two things. It will increase our efficiency so we can get it down to what

we hope will be a 12-week-or-less process period, so the money can be stable and

get into the hands of the groups or the organizations as quickly as possible. It

will allow us, within each area, to assess the applications as to the community

benefit to the programs that they're going to fund. That's what this is about.

It is a grant program. It will also allow us to basically streamline our process

and management.

Now, having

said that, we recognize that in year 1 of going to quarterly intake, there will

be some groups in the first quarter or second quarter or even third quarter who

would normally have received their funds early and who need them for their

programs to pay for them in this fiscal year. We are, therefore, going to

transition any groups that are affected by quarterly intake so that they can get

their money earlier. We will take care of everybody — keep them whole — and

then adjust to the entire quarterly intake process by the next fiscal year.

Mayencourt: I have a number of charities within my community that provide

really valuable and important service. I think of B.C. Persons with AIDS

Society, AIDS Vancouver and the 411 Seniors Centre Society. These people also

receive funding from other govern-

[ Page 5210 ]

ment sources — through the Ministry of Health, through Vancouver coastal

health authority, etc.

They have a

concern that as a result of receiving a fairly significant chunk of their

operating dollars, changes might affect their ability to access gaming dollars.

Specifically, they use those gaming dollars to deliver not their core services

but, rather, the enriched services. It might be a shopping service for a senior.

It might be a hospice program for someone living with HIV/AIDS.

Will those

charities still be able to apply for gaming dollars for those programs for which

they do not receive funding from a government source or for which they receive

less than 50 percent, for example?

Hon. R.

Coleman: This has been one of those actual portions of discussions in and

around grant programs for some time, as to how you actually manage them. One of

the challenges we recognized as we looked at the program was, in fact, that

people were looking at a grant program as basically a guarantee for the

operation of their society or whatever the case may be.

We looked

at this from a number of aspects. We looked at it from the aspect of how, when

we give out a grant, it's for a particular program funded by an organization

within the community — whichever one of those organizations the member

mentioned — not their core funding but for programs they may have, like you

described, for seniors or whatever the case may be.

[1505]

We feel

that an organization should have some community support and involvement. We

looked at the possibility of saying that if organizations were actually

receiving more than 50 percent of their entire dollars from various sources of

government, maybe we should look at how we would do direct access with them.

We've raised that bar to 75 percent. As long as an organization has some other

value in it that's coming from a variety of sources that can be reflected and

they're not receiving more than 75 percent of their money from government,

they'll be fine.

Having said

that, we are going to allow things like goods in kind, volunteer labour and that

sort of thing to be accounted for as charged back as part of the contribution to

the organization. We know we may find some that are on the edge, and we're going

to help them with that as we go forward. The intent of the program is not to

have it where 100 percent of the dollars are coming from a particular grant

program. We'd like to see them also have money coming from other sources where

they raise it within the community from whatever means they do or they actually

have volunteer labour in kind or materials in kind so they balance it off.

We think

we've struck the balance there. We're going to work through that. We know we

have some issues in and around transition houses, which we've already addressed.

We're going to find a way to deal with that one, because we know they have to

change their accounting somewhat so they can get to the percentages and be

comfortable. We'll work with all the organizations to make that transition fine.

Mayencourt: Just to get a further clarification, we're talking about

programs as opposed to global funding for an agency. Is that correct? Okay. Then

the other question I have is: how soon will it be before those charities —

unless they're watching, of course; they'd know today — that are affected by

these proposed changes will know what the ramifications are for themselves?

Hon. R.

Coleman: First of all, I don't think there are ramifications for any

charities. I think we're okay with the formula we've selected. If we find one

there that isn't, we're certainly going to work with them to solve that

ramification for them.

We expect

that the charities will actually receive a letter in writing from us within this

week advising them about the quarterly intake, about the fact that we protect

the top-up, the fact that we've funded the entire agreement with charities and

that the grant money actually goes up next year by the amount of the cost of

living tied to the Vancouver index. It's all the good news, which is:

"Folks, you don't have to worry. The money is still there. You're still

eligible." Everything else will go out. Then we expect, obviously, to have

some questions back. We'll deal with those concerns.

Frankly, if

anything, I would say about the branch in this particular case and this portion

of my ministry that I think they've done an exceptional job taking a program we

were concerned about not being sustainable for the charities of B.C. and making

it sustainable. Last year, for instance, we had well over 300 or 400 charities

that did not receive money from direct access because we ran out of money early.

By actually managing the program better, we were able to fund close to 400

additional charities this year through this program while still funding the

organizations we funded in the past. I'm pretty comfortable that we'll continue

to be able to do that.

Mayencourt: I'd like to move on to community police offices for just a

moment. I had a meeting earlier today in which someone said we had cancelled

funding to the community police offices. That's not quite my recollection. I'd

like to get from the minister what is available to community police offices in

the city of Vancouver. I know that we have been helping them in a shared

arrangement with the city of Vancouver for a while. Can the minister please

clarify what is available to the Vancouver community police offices right now?

Hon. R.

Coleman: The issue the member is dealing with is really a Vancouver-only

issue. Back in about 1996, as an announcement of a day where I think the

ministry was making announcements to…. I don't know whether it was press

releases or announcements or whatever the case may be, but $150,000 for the

community policing offices grant was announced for

[ Page 5211 ]

1996. It was announced by the then Attorney General. It was supposed to be

one-time thing. It continued on.

[1510]

There are

18 community policing offices in the city of Vancouver. Last year I met with the

then mayor of Vancouver and explained to him the situation — that I thought

the funding for community policing offices should be fair for all communities.

The community of Mission or the community of Langley or the community of Surrey

doesn't receive extra funding for the community policing offices from

government.

We do have

a program where, by making an application, community policing offices are

entitled to a grant of up to $5,000. They have to make the application. They

actually have to tell us what they're going to do with the money. We like to

make sure those offices are interacting well with the police and they're

performing the function that's comfortable for the police as far as their

relationship with the community policing offices. When we do those grants, we

actually ask for feedback and endorsement from law enforcement within the

community about how well this is working for them.

We changed

that grant, and we will now make Vancouver, like any other community, eligible

the same way. That is, they can apply for the up-to-$5,000 grant. Each one of

those community offices would be allowed to do that. The city can choose to

match it in whatever way it wants, just like they do in any other community.

Mayencourt: My final question to the minister revolves around the

Residential Tenancy Act. We have

an act that was approved in the last session.

At this stage the minister is dealing with issues around the regulations. There

are two issues that keep coming up in my community, and I'd like to get the

minister's response to those.

First off,

I want to know how we are dealing with the tenant and landlord associations. How

are we working with them to find the rent fairness item? Out in the community we

have some fears that tenants might see unfair rent increases. Frankly, I've

worked really hard to make sure we have fair rent legislation, and I think it's

covered in this act.

The other

issue that comes up again and again is the issue of retroactivity. I wonder if

the minister could tell us what the status is of the talks that are going on

between landlords and tenants to find a fair balance for the rights and

responsibilities of both tenants and landlords in the province.

Hon. R.

Coleman: The regulations have not been written for the Residential Tenancy

Act as yet. We are still in the middle of consultations. Our staff are out

meeting with both the tenants groups and the industry groups, and we're

receiving input back towards those regulations. There have been some concerns in

and around the issue the member has described. We're going to look at those as

we move forward with the writing of the regulation, and I will keep him apprised

of those initiatives as we move forward.

We're not

in a position to make a comment today, because regulations have to come to

cabinet. But as we draft them, we are taking those concerns into account.

J. Kwan:

I understand that we sort of switched the agenda a little bit in order to

accommodate the member for Vancouver-Burrard, who has to head back to Vancouver.

Perhaps before we begin, the minister may want to make some opening statements

and introduce the staff with him, and I have a series of questions.

Hon. R.

Coleman: I appreciate that. I do know the other member had to leave, and we

will get used to that.

I will

introduce my staff. The reason I look behind me is because Derek Sturko, who is

the director with regard to the gaming policy branch, was behind me. He has now

left. He has been replaced by Gary Martin, who is with compliance and consumer

services. Also, I have Deputy Minister Alison MacPhail beside me and Assistant

Deputy Minister of Management Services Jim Crone here to my left. Behind me is

the director of resource analysis branch, Barbara Kaiway.

I will now

continue on with my opening remarks. Our government has made public safety a key

priority. Over the past year we've been working to reform public safety in the

face of significant challenges and to keep spending under control without

compromising essential services, and we are experiencing success. Over the past

year we have made some significant gains in carrying out our action plan. Here's

a brief

summary of what we have done.

[1515]

Consolidation

of correctional facilities, January 2002. Correctional facilities were not

operating at capacity. They were not operating even at close to capacity in some

areas. Therefore, efficiencies and cost savings were possible through

consolidation of facilities. Some facilities that were old and updated were

closed, and savings were achieved by not upgrading these facilities. That

allowed for more correctional resources to be focused on supervising high-risk

offenders.

In gaming,

management restructuring and introduction of new gaming policies and a new

gaming act in March 2002. That eliminated the duplication by consolidating five

gaming management agencies into two. It improved the accountability and saved

administrative costs. It protected the consistency in distribution of gaming

funds and gaming revenues to charities.

The

amendment of the Name Act in April 2002 was to prevent people with criminal

records from changing their name to avoid criminal-record check detection. It

improved public safety as a result, and it closed a loophole that allowed people

with criminal records to change their names and hide their criminal pasts.

The

restructuring of victims services in June 2002 was the establishment of 24 new

programs — both specialized and police-based victims programs — and a new

24-hour, seven-day-a-week crisis line to be im-

[ Page 5212 ]

plemented this year. More programs in more communities throughout B.C. is a

result. The elimination of duplication and funding inconsistencies, actually

measuring the success of programs within communities and what they were directed

to, and the preservation of current funding in totality for victims programs

within my ministry….

Vehicle

impoundment for street racing in June 2002. It was to work on increasing the

public safety. It provides more tools for police to fight street racing by

allowing them to impound for up to 48 hours vehicles of those who are involved

in street racing. This gets dangerous drivers and dangerous vehicles off the

streets immediately. We also allow for up to two years of suspension by police

in cases of street racing with a 24-hour line to the superintendent of motor

vehicles, and we doubled the points for excessive speed.

The new

crime victims assistance program in July 2002 increased the range of programs

available to victims. There is more flexibility to target victims funding where

it is needed the most; faster adjudication of claims, so benefits reach victims

faster; and alliance with other jurisdictions by removing pain and suffering

awards, which are unfair, difficult to judge and time-consuming and which

revictimize the victim.

Liquor law

reforms in August 2002 through to December 2002 allow liquor inspectors now to

focus on public safety issues, including service to minors, overservicing,

overcrowding and illegal sale of liquor. It simplifies and streamlines the

licensing process. It will stimulate the economy, support tourism and help small

business. It improves choice and flexibility for consumers.

The

modernization of the Residential Tenancy Act legislation, October 2002,

increased the clarity and protection of tenants and landlords. It will

revitalize the rental housing market. It fulfils a new-era commitment to

modernize the Residential Tenancy Act to properly protect the interests of

landlords in plain language so everyone can understand. It will reduce the needs

for arbitrated disputes. We've done a separate act for manufactured home park

tenancies. We anticipate the further consultation on the regulations to be

finished this spring and our regulations to be ready by early summer.

Formal

inauguration of the integrated Esquimalt police force and the amalgamated

Esquimalt-Victoria police force in January 2003. This enhanced public safety by

putting two police forces together. It allowed for cost-efficiencies, effective

use of policing resources, less duplication, and increased secure opportunities

for the officers involved in both departments.

Agreement

to review and enhance avalanche safety in February 2003, which is to enhance

public safety, to support the economy and tourism, to establish a fair and

effective regulatory environment, and to work, frankly, to put this thing in a

stable, long-term funding relationship with both government and the private

sector for the benefit of all British Columbians.

The

expansion of PRIME, the police records information management environment, which

just took place in February 2003. Legislation has been brought to the House to

make it law that there will only be one police records information management

environment in British Columbia. All police forces will be on it. It will be the

first time in history that we are aware of that a jurisdiction has actually had

one system for all police forces and law enforcement in their jurisdiction. This

will obviously enhance public safety. It will improve law enforcement

capabilities. It will protect our citizens and communities from crime and give

us the data management necessary to do policing in the twenty-first century.

[1520]

In the

future, we will maintain provincial police funding. We will ensure equitable

enforcement and targeting of organized crime. We're going to continue to

pressure the federal government to cancel the gun control registration program

and allocate those resources to front-line policing enforcement. We will

institute PRIME provincewide. We will review the cost of funding for police

communities under 5,000 in rural areas in consultation, as we've just advised

the municipalities a few weeks ago.

We are

going to continue with the integration of police services where warranted,

something that is a priority of the ministry — whether it be an integrated

homicide team, forensic ident, dog teams or any other integrated team that's

necessary across borders — so policing will not have boundaries and silos in

its way in the effective management of policing in this province. It is

absolutely vital that we do that, and jurisdictions across the province that

think they don't want to participate should be aware of the fact that they will

participate, because we're going to do what's right for our citizens, protect

our children, protect our communities and deal with major crime.

corrections we will rationalize probation services, seeking to reduce

administrative costs while maintaining services. We will further the development

of effective rehabilitation programs for our offenders, as we've done by taking

a number of them in-house and working on consistent levels to make them

successful.

There will

be new legislation to reduce red tape in the marketplace, improve consumer

protection and allow for self-regulation of certain sectors such as travel

services, funeral services, etc., reducing government involvement. Our intention

is to bring together a number of consumer legislations that exist out there with

regulatory process to have it in one consumer transaction act so that we can

actually manage the protection of consumers in this province in a better and

much more integrated manner.

We have

made significant gains in the second year of our three-year service plan, but

there's still more to do. We'll continue to take action, making our streets

safer; our homes, communities and schools better places to be; and giving our

business community the flexibility and protections they need to thrive.

I am

pleased with the work of my ministry in the past year, considering its

considerable challenges with

[ Page 5213 ]

regard to some serious investigations in policing and some costs with regard

to the provincial emergency program. I think that we're moving in the right

direction, and I am pleased to answer any questions the members might have.

J. Kwan:

I have a number of areas on which I'd like to ask the minister questions.

Perhaps I could start off with the gaming area first.

Over the

last while I have been receiving numerous correspondences and phone calls from

community agencies and so on around the gaming issues, some of which are now

outdated, of course, because they were dated back to the year 2002 —

September, November, June, October, etc. The issues surrounding those were

primarily around the processing of applications. Even though people were

approved for their gaming dollars, they were not able to get the dollars. Those

issues have now been resolved, but I just want to ask this one question, though.

I'm not going to read all of these onto the record from each of the associations

who sent me letters then, because it's now outdated. I can only assume that all

of those applications have been processed. We also made calls to the gaming

branch to inquire about it, and we know that some of them have, such as East

Side Family Place as an example.

I just want

to ask a broader-scoped question relating to that. Is it the case and is it a

safe assumption that those applications from last year have now all been

processed, and those organizations that were qualified have now received their

funding?

Hon. G.

Cheema: May I have leave to make an introduction?

Leave

granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. G.

Cheema: Mr. Speaker, I have about 18 students from Kwantlen College. They

are accompanied by their teacher, Joan Robertson. These students are new

immigrants to this country. They're from India, Pakistan, China, Taiwan, Korea,

Hong Kong, Poland and Ivory Coast. I would like the House to please make them

very welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. R.

Coleman: Unless they're an application that's for next year, they would have

been processed within the last 12 weeks. My understanding is that we have

nothing that is older than 12 weeks within the branch. Anything would be for

next year. If the member has a specific one — I offer the same to any member

of the Legislature — you can contact me, and I will get you the exact details

of the status of any application that's before the branch. My understanding is

that we have now processed all applications for funding for this year. We know

how much money we've spent, and we have now completed our funds.

[1525]

J. Kwan:

Could the minister please advise how much money has gone out the door for

the gaming funds from last year? In this last 12-week period, in the year

leading up to it, how much money has been approved for gaming, and how does it

break down in terms of bingo moneys, direct access, etc.?

Hon. R.

Coleman: This year for direct access, we distributed $61.5 million. Next

year that figure will be $65 million. The total guarantee that was put together

back when the member was in government related to gaming and charities, which is

the top-up in the bingo and the direct access, is a total of $133.2 million this

year and is expected to be $136.5 million next year.

Bingo

top-up and bingo revenue combined this year was $71.7 million, and it's expected

to be at $71.5 million next year. That difference would be as a result — we

hope, as we've modernized the bingo sector — of the bingo halls making a bit

more money, so the top-up reduces, which we automatically apply to direct

access.

J. Kwan:

Is it safe to assume that the formula in calculating how much money would go

into non-profits…? Has that changed?

Hon. R.

Coleman: No, it hasn't changed. What we did this last year is that we

certainly were a bit more rigid on the use of the funds. We looked at records to

see if they had actually used last year's funds, and we are approving the funds

that had to go out. When I became the minister the first year, we were basically

six months into the fiscal year and out of money for direct access, and about

400 to 500 charities couldn't get money in that particular fiscal year.

disciplining it and watching that the funds were actually being spent on the

programs they were supposed to be and by making sure that the previous year's

funds were used, etc. — and, I frankly think, because of some good management

at the branch — we managed to fund an extra close to 400 charities over what

we did last year. We have kept the funds sustainable until now, which is quite

an accomplishment, given that we've actually had money for four or five months

longer.

J. Kwan:

Is it possible for the minister to provide us with a list of the organizations

that were approved for the gaming funds and for how much? Instead of me going

down through a long list of organizations that have written me, it might be

easier if I just get the list and can cross-reference it myself.

Hon. R.

Coleman: Yes, that list is available. We will get it to the hon. member with

regard to both top-up and bingo. When we generate the list, it also shows you

which ones made money in charitable gaming, which isn't applied to either of

those aspects. We're more than happy to provide the list for the province. It

would amount to about 4,000 to 5,000 charities in the province

[ Page 5214 ]

that have received some form of money from gaming last year.

J. Kwan:

I'd like to thank the minister for that information. It would just be easier

instead of us asking each question about who got approval and who didn't, etc.

On the flip side of that, could we also get the list of the people who were

rejected?

Hon. R.

Coleman: We believe we can generate that list for you. If we can, we will.

Otherwise, we will give you a briefing on who might not have been eligible.

[1530]

J. Kwan:

Then on to potential changes to the gaming policies. The opposition also

received a number of letters and heard a number of concerns from the communities

who were anticipating changes, perhaps, to the gaming policies. These concerns

deal with issues around delays in processing, the increased complexity of the

application process — the concern is creating inequitable access to gaming

funds — changes in eligibility that may disqualify organizations or reduce the

funds they receive, the possibility of a capping of direct access grants at

$100,000, removal of the top-up funding, removing the proceeds from electronic

bingo and the requirement that gaming funds only be applied to programs or

organizations that receive 50 percent or less of their revenues from government.

These are just some of the concerns that people have raised.

I'd like to

canvass with the minister around potential changes in policies. I have a

document with me that actually quotes the minister on a number of points. I

wonder whether or not this is now the new policy that the minister has put

forward. The document is from the B.C. Association for Charitable Gaming. It

highlights the reply from the minister on February 27, 2003. There are many

points, so I'll go just through them one by one.

According

to this document, the following points have been made by the minister. One is

that he has managed to protect the entire commitment to charity bingos, top-up

and direct access along with the annual cost-of-living increases.

Should I

just go through it one by one and then have the minister answer? You have that

document. Okay. The second issue goes on to say that no groups will be

eliminated from being eligible. The third point is that a move to quarterly

intake and direct access will, however, transition any groups that need their

grant earlier. The parent advisory committee will now receive $20 per student

instead of $40. Formerly it was $40. Now there's a reduction, essentially, of 50

percent of that fund. Groups will be able to access both bingo and direct

access.

Maybe I'll

just stop there. Those are the first five points, if the minister could comment

on them.

Hon. R.

Coleman: Most of these questions were asked by the member for

Vancouver-Burrard just a little while ago, so I will walk through them again.

I have the

member's letter from February 2003 with regard to this, and I'll deal with her

points as well. The one question the member, as she went through that…. We

protected the top-up funding. That was in the budget speech. That still includes

electronic bingo as part of the money that goes to charities in that package.

None of that has changed. That money is protected.

As to

groups being eligible, they're all remaining eligible. What we're doing is….

We have 11 different eligibility categories now. We're going to collapse those

into four, but all 11 groups will still be eligible within the four so that we

can go to a quarterly intake, manage our funds better and actually speed up our

application approval process. One of the challenges when we do that, as I said

to the member for Vancouver-Burrard, will be that some groups that need their

funding in quarter one may be in quarter four. If that is the case, with anybody

that has difficulty with that, we will transition early so that they will not be

stressed with regard to the operation of their charity. That's a quarterly

intake.

The

member's take on the $20 per student is actually an unfair comment with regard

to going from $40 to $20. In the past, parent advisory councils could only get

money from gaming by actually filling out a grant application, and the cap was

$40 per student. They actually had to go through the whole grant application

process, which proved onerous for a number of schools, particularly inner-city

schools and those who maybe didn't have the technology or the assistance on a

strong PAC to do it.

We found,

when I did my analysis, that there was a disproportionate amount of money from

riding to riding and school to school. By doing this $20 per student, we will

actually put $3 million additional into parent advisory groups in B.C. next

year. I think last year we gave about $9 million to parent advisory councils,

and this year, with 600,000 students, that would be $12 million, so an

additional $3 million will go out to PACs. The difference will be that PACs

globally, wherever there is a PAC, will be eligible for $20 a student. It

doesn't matter whether you are a school in Bulkley Valley–Stikine or a school

in Langley or a school in Vancouver, you will be treated the same by simply

providing us with your bank account information and your board information, and

we will forward the funds to the PAC for the school. This is something that most

PACs I've spoken to are very excited about, simply because it actually lets them

know they're going to have this funding year on year. One of the things that

happened in the past was that a PAC might get $40 a student this year, and the

next year they applied they weren't eligible or there wasn't enough money for

them, and they didn't get it the next year. They weren't getting it every single

year and not all schools were getting it, simply because they weren't all

applying.

[1535]

One of the

things we've done with this is do that, plus provide some small amount of

funding for district parent advisory groups so that they can coordinate PACs in

the area, with regard to PACs. In actual fact,

[ Page 5215 ]

what we've done with PACs…. My understanding is that the provincial PAC

groups are comfortable with it, the DPACs are, and certainly the PAC groups that

I've met with are as well. They actually see this as something that says:

"We all know now. If we're a school of 300 students in some small rural

community, we can have $6,000 for our PAC. We know that money's coming, and we

can plan for those students." I think, frankly, it's very fair to do it

that way, so every school is funded versus having what would be classified as

winners and losers with regard to the PAC funding on an annual basis.

Your other

questions were basically about the delay in processing and application of funds,

which was in your letter to me. We are down to 12 weeks of process now. We're

doing very well with that. The whole idea behind going to quarterly intake is so

we can reach the goal of being 12 weeks or under, for every application that

comes to government, to process and have the money back in the hands of charity.

Basically, as a result of that, we think we can take care of the complexity

issues that you've mentioned.

There has

always been a capping of $100,000 in direct access grants with regard to

individual organizations. It's the provincial organizations, with provincewide

programs, that are allowed larger amounts of funding. We still do that. We've

worked with each one of those as we've worked through that, as we've been

discussing this. The whole goal in dealing with this is to make it sustainable

for as many charities as possible in British Columbia to receive money from

direct access bingo funds in this province.

J. Kwan:

Just to clarify, then: the organizations will be capped at $100,000. That's

direct access. The provincial cap will be at $250,000. With respect to

organizations that make more than $250,000 through licensed gaming in the last

12 months, is it the case that they would not be eligible for direct access?

Hon. R.

Coleman: Basically, yes. The capping on the direct access, $100,000, has

always been there. The $250,000 has always been there, in policy. Over the years

that may not have been standardized or managed correctly, but in actual fact,

that's the way it is supposed to be with regard to the direct access grants.

This is basically how these grants have been operated for the last number of

years. This isn't a change.

J. Kwan:

The second part to that question was about the ineligibility for direct access

if people get $250,000 or more through licensed gaming in the past 12 months. Is

that the case?

Hon. R.

Coleman: Yes, that's true. The direct access program has always been to try

and fund programs on the basis of merit within the community. But if you have

somebody that's making $1 million in licensed gaming in B.C., and organizations

that need the funds…. That's why we've actually controlled that cap — so we

can make sure the organizations that are in need of the money can get access to

the money.

J. Kwan:

Is there a cap on raffle tickets?

Hon. R.

Coleman: No, there is no cap on those forms of gaming. As a matter of fact,

it was one of the changes I made early on. I think the member might be familiar

with the argument. It was always around the seniors lottery. In the seniors

lottery they actually had a cap of how much they could make. If the first two in

a given year were too successful, they were actually not allowed to run their

third lottery in the year. We removed that in December of 2001 so that they

would be able to have…. If they're successful, they're successful, and we

encourage them to be successful.

[1540]

J. Kwan:

On the issue around the 50 percent funding source, if your funding is 50 percent

or less from government agencies — federal, provincial or a combination —

then you're eligible for gaming funding. If you're over that 50 percent in terms

of your revenues from a government source, then you're not eligible for any

gaming funding. Is that correct?

Hon. R.

Coleman: No, it's not correct. That was in the initial discussion document.

We raised that to 75 percent. There are some organizations that will be above 75

percent just by the nature of the service they give, like transition houses.

In order to

make that calculation, any goods or services in kind and any volunteer labour

will be allowed to be added to their financial statement to reduce the amount of

money, as a credit for moneys that are not coming from government. By looking at

our package, we think that 75 percent…. We actually don't affect any charities

at all with regards to access to the money, but it does put a standard in place.

J. Kwan:

The 11 categories that the minister mentions, which have been reduced to

five. Are these the categories — human and social services, public safety,

arts and culture, protection of the environment, and PACs?

Hon. R.

Coleman: It's art, culture and sports, but she's correct. We feel the 11

existing categories can all fit within those four categories, plus the PACs. The

other thing we will allow for, if we have the funds, is access to capital for

capital projects in communities. Our experience so far is that the programs and

the grants have such a large demand on them by groups that we haven't

experienced having money left over to make capital matching grants.

J. Kwan:

The old categories that have been eliminated from direct access are health

care facilities, foundations, post-secondary organizations, adult sport,

education streams and religious organizations. Are any of the categories that

were formerly part of the old

[ Page 5216 ]

categories, although they've now been reclassified under the five…? Is it

fair, then, to say that none of these groups would not be able to access any

portion of the gaming funds, as long as they meet the earlier criteria we

highlighted, which were the five that we talked about?

Hon. R.

Coleman: Just so we're clear, none of those organizations will be ineligible

to apply with the changes. They will all still be eligible to apply now within

the four categories versus the 11. No organization is being made ineligible as a

result of these changes. They will all still be eligible to apply and get direct

access grants.

J. Kwan:

Okay. Is there a difference between access to bingo funds, electronic or

otherwise? Why I ask the question is this: if there's a difference between

electronic bingo funds versus non-electronic bingo funds in terms of access from

non-profits to those funds — if there's a difference in application there….

I did get a letter from a couple of community groups that were concerned about

that and who had heard the rumour — or speculation, if you will — that

electronic bingo proceeds might actually be eliminated from the pot of funds

which non-profits could access. Is that just a rumour, and is it completely

false?

[1545]

Hon. R.

Coleman: Just for clarification for the member, I think I'll give you a full

description so that we all understand bingo. In the bingo sector there is paper

bingo, there's electronic bingo, and there's top-up. All of those combined form

the amount of money that goes to charities within that sector of the charity

gaming money. The electronic bingo is not being removed. It is still there as

part of the revenue to charities. The paper bingo is not being removed. It is

still there as a revenue to charities. There are still the top-up grants, which

amount to about $35 million a year to charities.

Our hope is

that we see growth in the paper and the electronic part of the business so that

we can reduce the amount of top-up, which then allows us to increase the money

that we give in direct access because one grant just flows over to the other. We

are not affecting the revenue. We're not taking out the $10 million that we

presently do in electronic bingo and reducing it to charities. It's staying in

there as part of the total calculation.

J. Kwan:

Is it safe to say, then, that all of the sources of gaming funds — whether it

be paper bingo, electronic bingo or otherwise — are available to all

non-profit groups who wish to make an application? The only difference in terms

of the fluctuation or the amount of dollars would actually be an increase in the

amount to the funding pot and not a decrease, and the increase is projected on

the basis of increased revenues in gaming generally. Am I understanding that

correctly in the short form?

Hon. R.

Coleman: You are correct. The revenues and the dollars that are presently

available to charities are still available to charities, plus the increase that

I alluded to earlier, which is the amount of money related to a cost-of-living

increase that's in place in the agreement to charities each year.

Last year

$133.2 million from direct access, electronic bingo, top-up and paper bingo went

to charities. Next year it will be $136.5 million. That's our estimate. That has

been done, just so the hon. member knows, in light of the fact that…. Even

though some people think we're actually seeing increased revenues in gaming, the

Lottery Corporation actually projected net revenue to be less in this fiscal

year than it was in the last fiscal year. We still managed to…. Going outward,

now that we have allowed…. Now that they will hopefully build their business

case, we will see some of these things balance out. We are protecting the money

to charities in direct access, top-up, paper bingo and electronic bingo.

J. Kwan:

I know I said I wasn't going to go through group by group, and I'm not going to,

but there are two groups who have specifically asked me to raise these questions

with you. One actually must be watching Hansard TV and sent up a fax to us with

their question. I do want to ask these questions on behalf of these

organizations.

The

Progressive Intercultural Community Services Society, known as PICS in its short

form, wrote to me and raised the concern, amongst various other concerns, in

relation to the gaming branch funding. They advised that they have been cut 70

percent in their funding, therefore reducing their resources and ability to

service the broader community.

PICS, for

the minister's information, is an organization that provides work particularly

for the multicultural community and for people who are living in poverty, who

are low income, who are faced with homelessness. Of course, they also work on

housing initiatives as well, to that end. They also do advocacy in the area

around employment, immigration, schooling, health, welfare, legal services and

other related services.

This

particular question, of course, is around the funding cut they have received. I

wonder if the minister can provide answers to PICS in relation to the concerns

they have raised with me.

[1550]

Hon. R.

Coleman: I am not familiar with the specific group or the specific reasoning

for levels of funding. I would caution the member to understand that this is a

grant program. In actual fact, therefore, it's not an entitlement program.

People apply for their grants each year and are processed each year based on the

merit of the program that they want funded or the amount of funding they want

for any individual program. One of the cautions we always tell organizations

when we actually send them their money is to make them understand that this is a

grant for a particular

[ Page 5217 ]

year, not a year-on-year-end funding envelope because direct access, as it

was conceived by the former government and has been continued by this

government, has been about grants to charities to put broad-based community

benefit programs back into communities. What we will do for the member on this

particular issue…. The director is here. He's made note of it. He will provide

the member in writing with the details with regard to this particular

organization at his earliest convenience. When there are 5,000 organizations

getting various amounts of money out of a $133 million fund, it's pretty tough

to pick one out and say that's the reason.

J. Kwan:

Fair enough. What I'll also do, at the end of the estimates process, is send a

copy of the letter I've received to the minister so that he can respond more

specifically to that issue around the 70 percent cut for the organization.

Also,

another group who has just sent the information over is the Inner City Women's

Initiatives Society. They have been denied a direct access grant, and they were

informed of the decision on January 27, 2003. This is another issue this

particular organization has raised. I wonder whether or not the minister would

have information on this one. Or is it similar to the previous one, for which

the minister will ask his staff to look into the matter and get back to us?

Hon. R.

Coleman: There are a variety of reasons an organization could be denied

direct access funding year over year. It could be that they haven't used the

funding from the previous year and have put it into an account when it was

supposed to go to programs, or it was used improperly for what it was directed

within the grant. It could be that the financial statements or the status of the

organization is not in order, or it could be that the program they're asking for

money for is maybe not eligible, versus another year. What we will do for the

member is….

There are

two things you should be aware of. One is that if an organization is denied,

there is an appeal process. They can appeal the denial. We will provide the

information as to how they can do that. At the same time, we will provide you

with the information with regard to this particular group and answer your

questions.

J. Kwan:

In fact, the documentation — I'm just going through it because it was just

sent up to me — does highlight some of the reasons, in a January 27 letter to

them, why they were denied access to the funds. The reasons range from the

amount being asked was too high…. It goes on to talk about issues around

non-funding of new programs and other eligibility criteria around different

eligibility categories to which it would apply and so on. They, of course, in

their own letter also put in their points of view on disputing the government's

analysis of that. I will pass this letter on to the minister too, and perhaps

the minister can get his staff to respond directly to the concerns that have

been raised and the rationale to counter the government's decision in denying

the funding to this particular group.

I'd like to

actually move on, on the gaming side, to another sort of situation. I know of

community groups who have been directed by government to go and try and find

funding or resources elsewhere. This instance particularly relates to the area

of child care. Organizations, as the minister knows, have been receiving funding

cuts as well as a reduction in subsidies that impact parents and families in

accessing child care support. To that end, some of the child care organizations

have tried really hard to look for ways of how they can reduce costs to their

organization.

[1555]

One of the

ways they came up with was to see whether or not they could get savings, and

they're attempting to do that through administrative purposes. They are

amalgamating — not the organizations but only the administrative piece of the

organizations — in order to see if they can find some savings in doing that.

One organization — I suppose you can say the head organization — will be

doing the administration of, let's say, a subgroup of five child care centres

who are delivering their own programs under their own non-profit society's

mandate and so on. But in that process, the subgroups, the five groups, who are

applying for gaming moneys have been told that they are no longer eligible

because the umbrella group — the head group that is administering the funds

for these five groups — has already received its maximum grant opportunities

for gaming.

It doesn't

make sense to me, because those non-profit groups have not become under one

group. They are only getting the administrative piece assistance to see if they

can save costs, yet they've been told they are not eligible for gaming. Could

the minister please advise if that is still the case, or is there some error

that's been made, and those groups ought to be eligible to apply for their own

gaming funds?

Hon. R.

Coleman: Actually, we feel we've addressed that concern in the way we're

managing the program now. The challenge was, as a few of them came through —

because direct access is program-based…. Let's say organization A, which is a

non-profit society, applies for money for a program and is funded by direct

access. That's fine. Organizations B, C and D could do the same for programs.

They're delivering programs into the community. The challenge came along when

the organization would apply for the administration costs — that being the

umbrella group — and then get funded for some direct access money, and those

same organizations again applied for administration that was already being

delivered by a single body.

We think

that for the day cares, the program delivery is eligible. We think that they're

able to do this. If the member's got a specific example, I'm sure we can sit

down and work through it with her. I know I've come across this question. As we

went through this

[ Page 5218 ]

discussion, we were understanding of that and tried to address that concern.

J. Kwan:

There may well be a misunderstanding. As I understand it, the group that I'm

referring to — the head group that is doing the administration — is

Britannia. Under Britannia there are a number of child care centres that have

gone to Britannia to ask them if they would take on the administration piece to

see if they can actually save costs.

The issue

here is this, with Britannia as an example. They themselves have their own child

care centre, which they run and have administration for, among other programs

they also operate. They have made an application under their own name for their

own organization. Having taken on with the other child care centres in

collectively trying to find savings, they are applying, on behalf of the other

groups, for the gaming funds for the other groups. Yes, part of it is

administration, but even that administration still applies for these smaller

groups. They still have administrative costs, right? They don't just say,

"Okay, here you go, Britannia. Take it all," and there are no

administrative costs associated with that. There may be reduced costs, but the

cost is still there.

It really

is not the case, though, that there's double-dipping. It sounded to me like

maybe the issue the minister had raised is double-dipping. This is not the case.

They're separate entities. They have their separate programs, to which they are

applying for gaming funds — for their own respective programs. That's the

issue that I want to canvass with the minister.

If we don't

do this here at that level of detail about this particular group, I'd be happy

to sit down with the minister's staff, go through that and see if that matter

maybe has already been resolved or find ways in which we can resolve that

difficulty.

[1600]

Hon. R.

Coleman: Actually, the member has identified one of the problems of the

previous way we handled these. If you had all day cares in a single quarter and

you could measure the applications and the programs in a single quarter and you

could work through those, that would be one thing. What we have now is that you

might have organization A apply in April, one in September and one in December.

At the same time, you're getting the other application, and then there could be

some confusion.

What I

would like to do with this Britannia one…. I mean, obviously, we can't solve

it in this debate this afternoon, but we could look at Britannia, find out what

the issues are and see how we can address those concerns. It's not the intent,

by encouraging groups to share administration, that we hurt the programs they're

funding through grants. One thing we have done, and people should be aware of

it…. It is a grant program. Therefore, they shouldn't rely on their annual

operating budget for grants as much as they should be looking at grants to

provide the services of the programs in the community, which is the higher end

on the scoring of the eligibility.

I guess you

could run into some difficulties with it, but not knowing the exact and actual

application — how many groups and who they are — it's not possible for me to

give you the final answer. I think what we can do is arrange to look at

Britannia and have someone sit down with the member or with the organization and

see where these problems are running into and see if there's a way to solve

them.

J. Kwan:

Then I just want to make sure on a broad policy basis. In this instance I'm

talking about Britannia, but there are other groups who may well be running into

these kinds of problems as well.

On a broad

policy basis in terms of this, if there is an umbrella group, a group who

administers funds for a variety of non-profit groups…. This umbrella group, in

doing that…. If they run their own programs, they are entitled to apply for

gaming funds for their own programs. They are also entitled to apply for gaming

funds for each of the individual organizations for which they are administering

the funds on behalf of those organizations. Alternatively, those organizations

themselves could make the application — just as long as they're not applying

for the same funds for the same administrative tasks.

That is to

say, the umbrella group is not applying for administration funds for those five

organizations, and those five organizations individually are applying for

administration funds separately. That, I can understand, is double-dipping. If

that's not the case, if one group or the individual five groups are applying on

their own for administration for their own programs, they're entitled to do so,

and it does not preclude the umbrella group from applying for administration

funds or gaming funds for their own programs, for their own organizations.

Hon. R.

Coleman: As long as they're a group that is eligible to apply. One of the

mistakes some of these groups made is not what the member is describing but

another situation, where two or three came together and decided to become one

society. When they became one society, only one society could apply for the

gaming funds. If they're a non-profit society and they're eligible for the

funds, they can apply. Whoever helps them with the application is entirely up to

them as far as I'm concerned.

We would

measure those based on the merit of the program that they wanted to deliver

within the community. If you are the management society but you also have your

own stream of programs, I see no reason why you wouldn't be eligible to apply

for that stream of programs as well. We will certainly sit down and look at this

particular example and see if there are any difficulties with it.

J. Kwan:

I just want to be clear that that is the case. Otherwise, it's almost like the

smaller groups, who are looking for ways to save moneys by getting a man-

[ Page 5219 ]

agement group…. That's actually a better word than the "umbrella"

group, because "umbrella group" actually implies that somehow they've

amalgamated into one group. By looking for ways to save moneys by a management

group, they're actually penalizing themselves by losing out on access to gaming

funds. I appreciate the confirmation that in fact these groups would not be

penalized and that they would be entitled to apply for gaming funds as long as

they're not one organization.

[1605]

In a

similar vein but in another area…. This would be in relation to women's

centres. The women's centres, of course, have also received tremendous cuts in

funding for their programs, and many of them are struggling deeply out in the

community. A source of potential revenue was, of course, the direct access

gaming funds. First of all, the issue that they raised with me was that these

funds came four months later this year, and the amount allocated was less than

half of the previous year's. Many were told, after applying in April 2002, that

they would not receive funding until March 2003. There's a huge time lag in

terms of when they actually receive the funds. The freeze of the funds, of

course, adversely affects these organizations, and that, in addition to the

provincial government cuts in this area, has a tremendous impact on the ability

of these organizations to even survive. Could the minister comment on that?

Hon. R.

Coleman: Actually, part of it is my fault, and part of it is the fact of

sheer volume. First of all, I did put a short freeze on the issuance of gaming

funds in April of last year while I tried to do a review of the program to see

how I could make it sustainable. It was obvious that I wasn't going to be able

to accomplish that in that short period of time, so I lifted the freeze. In

addition to that, there were 1,000 more applications for direct access last year

than there were the year before, so the whole sheer volume of the additional

people that were wanting money from direct access had an effect on the

processing time.

To the

credit of the branch, they are back down to 12 weeks and with the quarterly

intake are confident that 12 weeks is the achievable goal at the outside, being

the worst-case scenario for the processing of applications in the next fiscal

year. I think that the delay happened because of sheer volume — obviously

trying to adjust to the process, to make it somewhat sustainable and to get us

through to now, where we've actually been able to fund approximately 400 more

groups this year than last. In the coming year I would expect the same pressures

on direct access funding as in the past.

People have

to understand that there is only so much money in the fund and that there are

more people asking for it. I wouldn't be surprised if some groups don't get as

much as they did the year before, because other groups are accessing funds as

well. Somehow we have to manage the fund to keep it fair for charities and at

the same time try to make it a balanced approval process.

J. Kwan:

I take it that when I read out the February 27 documentation earlier, that is

essentially the new government policy around gaming. Is that correct?

Hon. R.

Coleman: It's basically part of that interactive relationship with the

charities — saying where we think we can get to and what we're trying to

accomplish. I would hope that we would be in a position to send out the total

policy to charities within the next week or so, including the other items of

discussion the member mentioned.

What the

member refers to is part of the ongoing information sharing that goes back and

forth and is also part of the discussion to try to let people not get

misconceptions about…. There's one thing I've learned about non-profits,

having been a member of a non-profit. The concern and rumour about a change is

always stronger than what may be the reality. I think it's the role of the

ministry and the branch, as we process through this, to try to let charities

know where we think we can get to, and that would be part of that. But the whole

policy is much more relative to what the member and I have discussed here today

than what's in that particular document.

[1610]

J. Kwan:

I just want to ask the minister further questions around the gaming piece. In

terms of consultation on changes to policies around access to gaming funds, what

kind of consultation has the minister embarked on? Who has been consulted? The

reason why I ask — and perhaps that's the reason why there's so much fear, I

guess, and speculation and rumours out there about people maybe having heard

this and that — is that people feel they have not been asked or consulted.

If that was

done for people to understand what the impacts are with potential changes, then

for a lot of these questions, on which we receive tons and tons of faxes and

e-mails from people asking these questions, we could eliminate that fear in the

broader community. Can the minister advise what kind of consultation process he

has embarked on? Does he anticipate he will embark on a consultation process to

let people know and also do an analysis with them so that they know, with these

potential changes, what the ramifications might be?

Hon. R.

Coleman: It's been pretty much an ongoing process for about 20 months now.

Since I've became the minister, I've had different charity groups talk to me and

what have you, but I'll give you just a more recent sketch. There are 20 major

provincial groups with large numbers of people who were all consulted with the

branch. They met with the branch, and they talked about the possibilities. Some

of the ideas were floated, and they came back. Obviously, we listened, because

[ Page 5220 ]

some of the things we floated are not changes we're making.

The B.C.

building council had 250 people at the meeting that they met with. There have

been hundreds of letters in correspondence that has come in from groups over the

last number of years. I have spoken to provincial organizational meetings

throughout the last 18 months, asking these groups to give us input with regard

to charities and how it is working for them, how it isn't working for them and

how it can be improved.

Now that

we've been able to put this thing on a platform where we know how we can manage

it, that we make everybody still eligible and that we have more money in actual

fact next year than this year, I would anticipate that we will now be able to go

forward and, again, listen to charities as we go through. I don't think this

ever stops. With grant programs, you have to listen to the affected groups and

how things can be improved for them on an ongoing basis.

They are

the groups that are on the ground, giving the volunteer time to their

communities. The goal of the ministry and of the minister was always to try and

protect the money to charities in this province, to value them and to find ways

to improve it for them. We will continue that process, and that means having

whatever discussions with whatever group wishes to have those discussions with

us, ongoing.

J. Kwan:

It's interesting to note that one of the groups consulted was the building

association. That is interesting to note. I'd like to ask….

Interjection.

The

Chair: Through the Chair, please, minister.

Hon. R.

Coleman: Sorry, Mr. Chair. I said building, and I didn't mean it. It's B.C.

Bingo Council. There are 250 people with the B.C. Bingo Council — sorry —

not the B.C. building council. I wouldn't know why…. I apologize for that.

J. Kwan:

I was completely perplexed as to why the building council was consulted with

some 250 people. I am glad for that clarification. It does my heart good.

Mental

health service providers — were there any representatives in that consultation

list?

Hon. R.

Coleman: There were organizations that deliver services in the mental health

communities at the different meetings we were at or that the branch was at, but

whether it be a specific mental health organization, I couldn't give you the

name at the moment. There were people we heard from, both by correspondence and

what have you, and we've tried to take all of this into account.

[1615]

Actually, I

think by taking it into account, that's why we didn't make anybody ineligible,

why we didn't change the eligibility of people, why we really did work to

protect the bingo top-up so that all the charities would still remain whole and

that we could move forward with a program that people will find easier to

understand as we go forward and in the future adjust to the needs of the

community as it changes.

J. Kwan:

I'd like to make a request of the minister, actually, to contact the mental

health service provider, which is the Association of Mental Health Service

Providers. It's an umbrella group which includes, for example, the Canadian

Mental Health Association, Coast Foundation, Katherine Sanford Housing Society,

Kettle Friendship Society, Lookout Emergency, Mental Patients Association, St.

James Community Services, Theo B.C. and Triage Emergency Services and Care

Society.

They have

written a letter to the minister with their concerns around proposed changes to

the charitable gaming eligibility criteria, and they have cc'd this letter to

the Minister of State for Mental Health, the CEOs of the Vancouver coastal and

Fraser health authorities, as well as the gaming policy branch and all Vancouver

and Burnaby MLAs. In it, aside from some of the concerns they have heard that

there might be changes in these areas — which I won't go into again, because

we've already dealt with that — they do highlight the issues around

consultation and perhaps, more accurately, the lack thereof.

They're

asking for assurance from the government that changes will not be introduced

until there's a clear assessment of the impact so that people know what the

impacts are for the potentially affected groups as well as other funding bodies

that may have to pick up the resulting shortfall in finances. They're asking for

consultation from the government, and I hope the government will undertake that

and ensure that they are involved and that discussion is in place with this

group of people.

Of course,

ultimately, it's not just with this group of people but, broadly, with all the

non-profit associations out there that would be impacted by the changes in

gaming funds. I think people hope for that from a government that proclaims to

be open and accountable. When those changes are being put forward and especially

when they don't know what those changes are, there's a lot of fear and

consequently a lot of speculation as to how they might be impacted.

Hon. R.

Coleman: If the member wants to provide us a copy of that, we'll arrange for

that meeting to take place. We have no problem talking to any group. I'm sure

once we've met with them and they find out that there's no change in eligibility

that will disqualify their organizations from applying for funds, a lot of their

concerns will be allayed.

The one

thing I've noticed in dealing with all of the sectors with regard to grant money

is that rumours abound and abound. Those concerns are always there. That's why

it's pretty well been open-door if an organization wishes to meet with myself or

the branch to discuss their concerns. The director will take that list and make

arrangements for those meetings to take place.

[ Page 5221 ]

We will be moving forward obviously, because we're starting the fiscal year

on April 1, and we do need to move into the application process and the

processing process for this year so that no charity is doing without money in

the next year and we can get it out to them within 12 weeks.

J. Kwan:

I would ask the minister to also touch base with one other organization, and

that's the Learning Disabilities Association. My colleague from

Vancouver-Hastings, the Leader of the Opposition, had the great opportunity to

meet with them. Some of the issues that they raised with us at that time the

minister has already answered in terms of the delay and so on, but I would

appreciate it if the government would actually undertake to touch base with that

group as well.

Again,

these community groups do such great work, and they're under such pressures,

particularly funding pressures from government cuts, and the destabilizing of

potential changes in gaming funding resources impacts them significantly.

Potentially, even the matter of delay in accessing the funds could actually shut

down an organization, just because they can't keep it going until the funds

arrive. Those are the kinds of difficulties that people are faced with. I would

appreciate it if the minister would touch base with this group, as well, and

speak with them about their concerns.

[1620]

Hon. R.

Coleman: Of course we'll do that, but I just want to caution the member. The

direct access funds are not a panacea for everybody's funding woes in British

Columbia. There's only $62-point-some million that has to go out to probably

3,500 charities next year. It is not something whereby people should be looking

at it as their long-term funding. It is a grant program; it is not an

entitlement. It is a program that's based on the value of the program you are

giving in any given grant application year to the community.

It's not

just to the member opposite. It's for all members to understand that this is

what this program actually is. What it was intended to do and what it does is

fund programs with broad-based community benefit within communities for

charities — whether it does it with a variety of charities. Obviously, when

it's 5,000 organizations, it's a pretty wide variety. It's not something that

should be always relied upon as being the exact amount of money from year to

year because of the pressures or the measurement of individual programs within

categories of funding. One of the concerns I had when I became minister was with

people who thought that if they got X number of dollars last year, they should

get the exact same dollars this year if they weren't providing a program that

those funds were actually directed to.

To the

member: we will sit down with the organization, and I'm sure our discussions

have probably allayed their fears, because most of their questions will be the

questions that have been floating out there for most organizations. My concern

has always been how sustainable direct access is if another 1,000 additional

organizations, like we had last year, actually applied for funding. It starts to

become where the money starts to outstrip the applications.

Locke: My question is more of a broad-based question. In Surrey we have had

significant and rapid growth. In terms of social safety net dollars, your

ministry funds a number of worthwhile programs that enhance the work of the

police, victim services and other community-based programs. My question is, and

my concern is: how are those funds allocated so they are delivered in an

equitable fashion amongst all communities?

Hon. R.

Coleman: It was exactly that question that led me to ask for a review of

victims programs last year — how they were measured in the community and how

we were going to measure them in the future. That's what we've been doing. In

your community we fund a community-based program, which is a specialized victims

program and police-based victims programs.

We did find

communities which had, for instance…. One example is Columbia

River–Revelstoke, where we had a specialized victims program in a community

with under 5,000 people along the Highway 1, where we had a tremendous amount of

fatalities and serious motor vehicle accidents and no police-based program. In

speaking with and visiting the community, it became very clear from law

enforcement people that the real benefit program in a community of that size and

in that location would be a police-based victims program, because the police

were dealing with substantial victims of trauma and needed to have some support.

We readjusted the funds, so we could get a police-based victims program in there

for them.

I'm pretty

comfortable now with the community and police-based victims programs and the

measurements we have in place, and we will measure them over the next year to

see how they're doing.

J. Kwan:

I'd like to switch gears to a different area. This is in relation to a

report that the minister might actually have a copy of. It's called To Serve

and Protect: A Report on Policing in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside . It is

put together by a group called Pivot, which is advancing the interests and

improving the lives of marginalized peoples through law reform, legal education

and strategic legal action. First of all, let me just ask the question: has the

minister received a copy of this report?

[1625]

Hon. R.

Coleman: My understanding is that the ministry has just received it. We have

encouraged the people in the report, because there are some serious allegations

in there, to provide the information through the normal channels — either

through to the Vancouver police department or, if they're uncomfortable with

providing it to the Vancouver police department, to the

[ Page 5222 ]

police complaint commissioner — so the allegations can be properly

investigated and dealt with.

J. Kwan:

The report actually brings forward some very disturbing information. In fact,

the letter they have written to me includes some of these concerns, which I'd

like to express in this House on behalf of the group and ask the minister some

questions following from it.

The letter

is addressed to me. It reads as follows:

"Recent

allegations against six Vancouver police officers have raised seriou