1998 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 36th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, JUNE 16, 1998

Morning

Volume 10, Number 21

[ Page 8783 ]

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

Prayers.

Tabling Documents

Hon. P. Priddy: Hon. Speaker, I'm pleased to present for the information of all members of this Legislative Assembly, in accordance with the statutory obligation set out in

section 3(4) of the Health Act, the 1997 annual report of the provincial health officer on the health of British Columbians. This year the provincial health officer's report is entitled "The Health and Well-being of British Columbia's Children."

Introduction of Bills

TOBACCO SALES AMENDMENT ACT, 1998

F. Randall presented a bill intituled Tobacco Sales Amendment Act, 1998.

F. Randall: I move that the bill, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

F. Randall: This bill is also supported by the member for Richmond Centre.

The purpose of the bill is to prevent tobacco companies from adding flavouring to snuff and smokeless tobacco. The product is manufactured in the United States by a U.S. tobacco company, and it's called Skoal Cherry Long Cut. Like other tobacco products, Skoal Cherry Long Cut is a form of nicotine delivery.

The product differs from other forms of nicotine delivery in one aspect: it is also designed to be especially attractive to teenagers and children. Skoal Cherry Long Cut smells and tastes like candy. The cherry flavour lasts for a couple of minutes; it wears off gradually, giving the user the opportunity to adjust to the bitter taste of tobacco. The pH level has been adjusted to reduce nicotine absorption, and this has the effect of gradually addicting a novice user. From the tobacco industry's point of view, Skoal Cherry Long Cut and similar products are ideal for introducing children and teenagers to tobacco.

Skoal billboard signs have been seen in the 1500 block of Kingsway, the 1900 block of Powell Street and the 300 block of Terminal Avenue, all in Vancouver.

The member for Richmond Centre and the member for Burnaby-Edmonds are looking for all members of the House to support this bill.

Bill M210 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the Day

Hon. L. Boone: I call estimates. For the interest of the members, in Committee A we'll be discussing the estimates of the Ministry of Employment and Investment, and in Committee B, the estimates of the Ministry for Children and Families.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY FOR

CHILDREN AND FAMILIES

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

Hon. L. Boone: It's a pleasure to be here to talk about the budget and the workings of the Ministry for Children and Families. Before I start, I'd like to introduce the staff who are with me here today. They are an important part of this ministry -- an integral part, some may say. They are: Mike Corbeil, deputy minister; Glen Nuttall, senior financial officer; Janice Aull, director of policy, planning and legislation; and Les Foster, ADM of the management services division.

As you know, the Ministry for Children and Families was created in September 1996. It has only been fully operational for one full year, and it's been a tough year full of challenges. I think that's an easy thing for most of us to say and one that everybody recognizes. It's been a tough year and a year full of challenges for our staff, for community partners and for the people we serve.

We've made a lot of significant changes -- changes of a magnitude unparalleled in North America. As a matter of fact, several other provinces are only now beginning to tackle the hard issues we identified in the Gove inquiry in 1995. We've brought together programs and services that used to be spread across five different ministries. We've built a regional structure that gives us the flexibility to tailor supports to people in their communities, and we've worked to engage individuals, families, community organizations and service providers in helping us plan and develop our services.

Our ministry offers an impressive variety of services. Child protection tends to have the highest profile and the one we see in the media most, but our ministry also services hundreds of thousands of people through programs such as child care, school meals, public health nursing, addiction services, youth mental health, youth corrections, probation and community justice programs, infant development, speech, language, dental care and hearing services, programs for adults with developmental disabilities, and a range of supports for children with special needs.

Our central goal is to promote and encourage the healthy development of all children, youth and families, building on people's strengths, nurturing them to help them thrive, and giving them the support they need as early as possible, to prevent problems before they start.

The ombudsman, in a recent report on government's implementation of the Gove inquiry recommendations, called our progress "impressive" and "unprecedented." She also noted that this amazing progress had occurred over "an extraordinarily short span of time." She called our government's actions "positive" and "bold." Of course, we still have many challenges, but I am personally and professionally committed to meeting those challenges head-on.

I want to take this opportunity to personally thank all the ministry staff who have gone through an extremely stressful and difficult time over the past 18 months. The changes that have taken place both in the structure of the ministry and in its mandate have happened very quickly, and that has made things very difficult for all staff. I want to recognize all those dedicated workers who have continued to deliver quality services despite this upheaval. It has been difficult, and I want you to know that your efforts have not gone unnoticed.

This year's budget is just over $1.4 billion. That's $1.4 billion. I want to repeat that, because that's a lot of money. When you say it kind of quickly, it doesn't sound like much,

[ Page 8784 ]

but it is an awful lot of money. That's a lift of 4.7 percent over last year -- a very significant increase, given that the province's budget overall is up only a little more than one-half a percentage point. This is a direct reflection of our government's commitment to supporting children and families. It's also a sign that our government recognizes the challenges we still face in serving children and families more effectively.

Today I want to talk about some of those challenges and tell you what we're doing to address them. Probably the greatest challenge facing us today is the rapid growth of the province's child population. Over the past ten years it has increased by 22 percent, and that's put pressures on all public services for children, youth and families. We see it in the education system, in child care, in health care, in our need for recreational facilities -- and naturally, we see it in our ministry as well.

Demand for all our services continues to rise dramatically. Not surprisingly, the number of children coming into ministry care also continues to increase due to a combination of population growth, increased public awareness of child abuse and neglect and a greater diligence by our staff to ensure that children are safe. I should add that overall, the proportion of children and youth in care remains at less than 1 percent of the child population. Still, the numbers of children in care are growing.

Clearly we must take action to address this issue, and we're doing it on two fronts. First, we're doing everything we can to make the child protection system more effective and accountable. Second, we're implementing long-term strategies to strengthen families, mobilize communities and stop problems before they start, so fewer children come into care in the first place. I'll talk a little bit more about that in a few minutes.

[10:15]

First, I'd like to outline some of the improvements we're making to the child protection system and in services for youth at risk. When I became Minister for Children and Families, one of the first things I recognized was the need to provide more support for front-line staff. They do some of the most difficult work there is, and the growth in B.C.'s child population means that they have an ever-growing amount of work to do. That, coupled with close and often negative public scrutiny, leaves them feeling stressed and undervalued. As I said, their ongoing concerns about workload are very real.

As you know, we're currently hiring 225 new workers in child and family services and about 25 new youth probation officers. We're using an innovative workload assessment tool that we developed jointly with the B.C. Government and Service Employees Union to make sure that new staff go where the need is the greatest. I'm also personally taking every opportunity to let our staff know how much I value and appreciate the very difficult work that they do. Lighter workloads and higher morale will go a long way towards alleviating pressures, so that people can do their jobs better. This is just one part of how we're improving the system.

The other really critical

part is how we care for children and youth once they come into our care. We're working to improve that area as well. In April I joined the head of the B.C. Federation of Foster Parent Associations to publicly report on our progress in strengthening the foster care system. We have taken action on all of the 32 recommendations of the Task Force on Safeguards for Children and Youth in Foster or Group Home Care. Sixteen of those recommendations are currently being implemented; 15 others will be done by early next year. The thirty-second recommendation -- to broaden the mandate of the children's commissioner -- has been referred to the Attorney General.

Some of the areas where we're taking action include expanded training and increased support for foster parents; new standards of care that clearly explain our expectations in areas such as health, safety, discipline, emergency planning and substitute care; a new pamphlet and video for children and youth in care, to help ensure that they're informed of and understand their rights; and new standards for ministry guardianship workers, including requirements to spend more time with children in care and to make sure that children know their rights and what to do if those rights are breached.

I have great respect for all our foster parents. They are extremely valuable resources, and without them, our child protection system would not function. We have a partnership with them and will continue to work hard to improve and strengthen that partnership.

I've been a foster parent myself, and I know how challenging it can be for everyone involved -- especially the children. But I can also tell you that my life and the lives of my own children have been greatly enriched by the relationship with my foster daughter over the past 15 years.

Time and care can make a world of difference to children and youth, and we owe it to them to make sure that it's a positive difference. That's why we're working so hard to strengthen foster and group home care. Later this year we will be launching a comprehensive foster parent recruitment campaign, including targeting efforts in aboriginal and multicultural communities. We'll also be looking for foster parents who can provide relief for other foster families, to help ensure that caregivers don't burn out physically or emotionally. In addition, we're setting up a toll-free phone line that foster parents can call for advice and support outside regular office hours.

We're also working hard to improve services to young people at risk who aren't in care -- the ones who, for various reasons, chose not to use our services, which, after all, are voluntary. I'm talking about marginalized youth who live on the streets or sleep in abandoned buildings or spend their nights on a series of other people's couches or, worse, trade their own bodies for basic needs like food and shelter.

We're giving these young people new opportunities to turn their lives around with new initiatives such as more outreach and support workers, more safe housing for youth living in the sex trade, more drug and alcohol services for youth, and a rent subsidy program for street youth in communities with higher-than-average rents. We also have pilot projects under development to test more effective ways of integrating youth services and to test the viability of entering agreements with youth at risk, giving them services they need and supporting them to work towards independence.

Some have suggested that we also need secure care for youth who may not want the kind of help and support they need, whether that involves substance abuse, mental health issues or sexual exploitation. This is an extremely controversial issue. We have a group of parents and professionals studying it to see how it works in other jurisdictions, like Quebec and Alberta. They'll be making recommendations toward the end of the summer to see if this is something that we as a ministry should explore further.

All of these initiatives respond to needs identified by service providers, family members, advocates and youth themselves. We believe they are significant steps towards a more responsive child- and youth-serving system. We will

[ Page 8785 ]

continue to make improvements in the year ahead. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the child, youth and family advocate for offering us very specific guidance in that respect. We recognize the need for change, and we're doing our best to make it happen quickly, but these are major changes. They're going to take planning and time. After all, Judge Gove's original timetable for setting up our ministry was three years, and we've been in existence for less than 18 months.

We're moving ahead quickly this year to support progress. Our budget has increased by more than $60 million. Virtually all of that increased spending is going directly to front-line services. The ministry currently spends about $800 million per year on contracted programs and services -- everything from parenting courses and homemaking services to help for high-risk youth and children with special needs. When our ministry came together, it inherited more than 12,000 individual contracts in this area. Last year the ministry started working with community partners to streamline and combine those contracts.

That was known as CPR, or contract and program restructuring. The goal was to restructure program delivery to help provide integrated services that meet our clients' needs more effectively.

I fully support that goal, but when I became minister I heard some very serious concerns about the way that goal was being met. That's why one of the first things I did was order a full review of contract and program restructuring. I wanted an overall assessment of how things were going. I also wanted to look specifically at areas such as consultation with families and other stakeholders, transition plans to meet clients' needs during restructuring, and labour transition plans for front-line workers. An independent review team completed its review.

Senior ministry staff are now working to develop a response to the review's recommendations, and I look forward to sharing that information with you soon. I'm confident that the outcome will support our central goal of encouraging the healthy development of children and families.

That brings me to my second point about our ministry's work: the long-term strategies we're developing and implementing to strengthen and build capacity in families and communities. Our work with aboriginal communities is a good example of both the challenges we face and the partnerships we're building to address them. One of my goals is to reduce the high number of aboriginal children and youth in care. Over 30 percent of the children in care are aboriginal, even though they make up only 9 percent of our total child population.

That may not look bad compared to other provinces -- in Manitoba, for example, over 70 percent of children in care are aboriginal -- but clearly the situation here is not acceptable, and we must actively work to bring those numbers down.

That doesn't mean leaving children and youth in situations where they may be at risk of abuse or harm. That's just as intolerable to the aboriginal community as it is to everyone else. What it does mean is finding ways to bridge the gap between aboriginal and non-aboriginal cultures, creating a kind of parallel aboriginal protection and family support system. We've signed agreements with 13 first nations, representing 76 aboriginal bands, providing tools, training and support to operate their own child welfare agencies, with virtually all the same powers and responsibilities as the broader child welfare system.

These agreements build on the strengths inherent in aboriginal communities, including the unique perspective and expertise of aboriginal child welfare workers. Our close cooperation under these agreements also offers an excellent opportunity to learn from aboriginal people whose culture and traditions have such a strong basis in valuing children and families.

The transition to the new aboriginal system will take several years. In the meantime, we're working to make the non-aboriginal system more sensitive to aboriginal needs. For example, we're developing protocols with every aboriginal community and child welfare organization in B.C., so that everyone is clear on how we work together and communities have every opportunity to plan for their children.

We have a contract with the Xolhmi:lh first nations child welfare agency in the Fraser Valley to help us build a more culturally appropriate risk-assessment tool. We've started working to establish B.C.'s first-ever aboriginal foster parent association to recruit, support and train aboriginal caregivers and to help develop culturally sensitive training for non-aboriginal caregivers. These are just a few of the examples of long-term strategies to address longstanding issues.

Another example is our ministry's growing focus on prevention. This is one of the most exciting things that we're doing in the ministry and one that holds the greatest promise for the future. Pregnancy outreach programs, substance abuse prevention, school meal programs, high-quality child care -- these are just a few examples of programs that together form our Building Blocks prevention and early intervention strategy. Linking all these programs and services together as part of a coordinated strategy creates an opportunity to build on our successes, such as our achievements in the area of child care.

Hon. Chair, I don't think many of us know or remember that in 1991 there were fewer than 43,000 licensed child care spaces in the province. Today that number is well over 66,000 -- an increase of 55 percent. We're also spending more than $15 million this year to support nearly 3,000 infant and toddler spaces and to help ensure that close to 5,500 child care professionals earn enough to support their own children and families.

These kinds of initiatives have helped us make our province a North American leader in child care. They also help us ensure that thousands of children get high-quality child care in the very crucial first days of their lives. More and more, scientific research is showing just how important those first years are to children's lives. We know that giving strong support in preschool years can greatly reduce the likelihood of problems later on.

That's why we've made the zero-to-five age group our first priority in developing new prevention and early intervention programs through a series of Building Blocks pilot projects. These projects are underway in 16 communities and are designed for families expecting children and those with children under five.

The projects are targeted to three priority areas: preventing fetal alcohol syndrome, providing education and support for new parents through home visits, and enriching the early development of infants and toddlers in child care settings. These projects are an excellent example of community mobilization -- helping parents build and build on support networks in their own neighbourhoods. For example, the home visiting initiative taps into one of our richest and most underused resources: the knowledge and skills of experienced parents.

It gives them training and matches them up with less experienced parents, many of whom are also coping with issues such as isolation, poverty and language barriers.

A few weeks ago, I had the pleasure of meeting some of the parents involved in Building Blocks at our New Westminster pilot site. These were aboriginal moms who said they really appreciated getting help and support from other aboriginal moms. They're learning important things about child development, health, safety, and about generally helping their

[ Page 8786 ]

children get a better start in life. They are also making friends. Not long ago, one mom said that she didn't think that there was any hope for her or her children. Now, thanks to Building Blocks, things are looking different. She feels like part of the community, and that's really essential to healthy development for children and adults alike. The more experienced moms, the ones doing the home visits, also find the experience tremendously rewarding. They like being able to contribute to their community, to help make a difference in other people's lives.

[10:30]

That's the kind of attitude we're working to encourage in every single sector of our society. It's one of the reasons we recently distributed about half a million copies of a short, easy-to-read booklet telling people how to recognize, prevent and respond to child abuse. The booklet is called "Keeping B.C.'s Kids Safe." It's one more example of how we're encouraging everyone to take responsibility for doing exactly that.

I want to stress that no one ministry or government or program can keep all of our children safe. It's too big and too important a job to do alone. All of us have a role to play. In the ministry, ours is to strengthen our children and family systems to make them the best we can -- to mobilize communities, to encourage every member of our society to share responsibility, not just for keeping children safe but also for creating an environment where children can grow up healthy and loved.

We're setting our sights high. We have to. We owe it to our children and our families not to do anything less. We're working to build a society that protects and nurtures children and values the contributions that families make. It's a long-term goal. We won't get there overnight, and yes, we do still have a lot of work to do. But we are making progress.

Let me assure you that it's not just me who's saying that. Judge Gove, who conceived the idea of our ministry, recently did a radio interview where he was asked if anything had really changed in the child and family system. He said that, as a judge in family and youth court, he sees results of the positive changes every single day. He went on to say: "There are far better services to young people today than even one year ago."

I want to share another quote with you now. This one's from the children's commissioner in her recent annual report. She said that positive change for the children of British Columbia will only be possible if we accept it as a goal that involves every one of us.

This means: " . . . we must ask ourselves as neighbours, friends, family members, service providers, community leaders and members of the media, 'Am I doing everything I can to create healthy communities for children and families?' " As we proceed with this debate, I would like each and every one of you to keep that question in your minds and to think about how you'd answer it. All of us share the responsibility, but too few accept it.

I'd now be pleased to answer questions from the opposition.

L. Stephens: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

L. Stephens: This morning in the precincts are 38 grade 4 students from Blacklock Elementary School in Langley. They are accompanied by several parents and their teacher, Ms. Maynes. Would the House please make them welcome.

C. Clark: As the critic for Children and Families, it's my pleasure to start off the debate today. I'll start it off with a few comments of my own, in response to the minister. One of the things that the minister pointed out early on in her remarks is that the estimates process is our opportunity to review what the ministry has been doing over the last year. It's a report card in many senses. It's a way for us to look at the way the ministry have spent their money and the way they intend to spend their money next year and to determine the government's priorities based on that. It's the old question: it's where you spend your money that will tell you where the government's priorities are.

I want to remind this chamber of something that the child and family advocate said in her most recent annual report. She said that the allocation of resources is always, at the end of the day, a political decision. It is always a political decision. That's what the estimates process is about. It is our opportunity as political representatives to examine government's priorities and determine whether those priorities are put in the right place, and whether the money that the government is spending reflects the priorities that British Columbians have for their child welfare and protection systems.

In her comments, the minister talked about the fact that we have too many children in care. This ministry has too much to do; there's no question about that. We would all like to see fewer children needing to come into contact with the government. We'd like to see more children who can be taken care of in healthy, happy, whole families.

We are seeing less of that today, because there are more and more families in British Columbia who are in economic difficulties, who are facing uncertainty in their daily lives. When that happens, when an economy starts to go in a spiral downward, the other attendant problems get worse. One of those problems is family dysfunction. It's the breakdown of relationships within families and the breakdown of relationships within communities. It is so much harder for neighbours and the other members of a community to care for the people who are less well off than them when their backs are up against the wall.

It is not true that a rich society is always a caring society. But it's certainly true that if you are feeling comfortable and certain about your future, you're much more likely to spend some time -- or be able to spend some time -- caring about your neighbours' future, your neighbours' lives, the children next door and how they are being cared for. That's so important. Those economic circumstances are so important for binding our communities together and allowing us to care for each other. When the economic times are bleak, we certainly see a meaner, harder, less caring society.

That's certainly where we need to start.

I know that other members of this House have talked about poverty and unemployment and how difficult that makes it, how that is the foundation of problems for children in our society. Unless we address those economic issues and start some real job creation in British Columbia, get some of those small communities back to work, inject some hope in those small communities, and let people take pride in British Columbia again, feel certain about their future, trust in their government . . . . That's where we need to begin. That's where children's lives will start to be made better.

Until that happens, we will continue to see more children go into the care of the government. We'll continue to see a need for more funding, more money and more staff in the Ministry for Children and Families to care for children. Unless we can improve people's economic circumstances, unless we can make that fundamental change for people, the problems will continue to grow.

Today, in the estimates for the Ministry for Children and Families, we are not trying to fix all of the economic problems

[ Page 8787 ]

in British Columbia. We're not talking about the Forests ministry or the mining sector and what we could do to try to get those industries out of their doldrums and try to put people back to work. We're not talking about the Ministry of Employment and Investment. We're talking about the Ministry for Children and Families -- how the resources within that ministry are spent, whether those resources are being put in the right place and whether there are enough resources in the ministry.

Let's not forget, either, why we are even here today doing these estimates. This ministry was created out of the public outrage at the death of Matthew Vaudreuil. That's the spark that created this ministry. Matthew died about six and a half years ago. His death came to light, I think, about four years ago. As the minister has pointed out, the government at that time appointed Judge Gove to do an inquiry looking at how we can close the gaps in the system. When Matthew died, it wasn't an isolated circumstance. That's what Judge Gove found in his investigation.

One of the things he said in his report was that Matthew was not an isolated case. We can point to many cases of children who have slipped through the gaps. But when Matthew's case became public, when his death became the topic of a great deal of media coverage and political comment, I think the public became attuned to the fact that there were huge, gaping holes in our child welfare system that needed to be closed. Matthew was seen by somewhere in the neighbourhood of 25 doctors. He went to the hospital somewhere in the neighbourhood of 75 times. There were 60 reports about neglect.

He had seen 20-odd social workers in his short life, and he still fell through the gaps. When Judge Gove reported out, he talked about creating a ministry that had a coordinated, multidisciplined approach that was child-centred so as to serve children's needs in British Columbia and so that children don't slip through the gaps anymore.

After two and a half years we are here today doing these estimates. The question, though, is not whether the ministry has been created or whether a press release has been put out. We know that the ministry has been created. The government has met that goal. The question is . . . . The child, youth and family advocate said very clearly in her report that unless real, concrete action is taken in 1998, all of these changes will be only on paper. They will be meaningless unless concrete, real action is taken. In essence, what she is saying is that this is the crunch.

This is the year when the decisions that are made will determine whether Judge Gove's vision for child welfare in British Columbia has been met.

That's what she said, and that's why these estimates are so important this year. It's our opportunity to look at the government's priorities and, hopefully, as a chamber, to contribute some meaningful, constructive ideas on how the ministry can get its priorities right to meet the vision that Judge Gove set.

This is just one of a number of report cards we have had this year. There's a whole number of other ways that each of us can measure whether this ministry is doing its job to protect children. One of those is the child, youth and family advocate's report that she put out this year, where she had some very, very tough criticisms of this ministry and of areas where it's not meeting its obligations. She said, for example, that the ministry is not meeting its obligation with regard to training and is not doing enough with early intervention. She said that this ministry is not keeping pace with the number of children that are coming into care.

It's like education. The government can say that they're increasing funding for education, when in fact, on a per-child basis, funding is decreasing. It has decreased by $300 per child in the system. How is that an increase in education funding? It's not. We've got more people living here and so presumably a larger tax base. Presumably, more people are paying for services from government, but there are fewer services from government coming out the other end.

That's what we're going to be looking at in these estimates. When she talks about the number of children . . . . It's not just the number of children coming into care; it's the number of children in the general population in British Columbia that is growing, and the number of first nations children on reserves is growing. Whether the ministry funding is keeping up with those needs that are out there is the fundamental question, not whether the overall budget has simply increased.

That's one measure, but the other is whether the money that is being provided is sufficient to meet the needs of the children that are there. Surely the money this government spends on protecting children today is an investment in the future. It is not just a cost; it is not just money that the taxpayer gives to government, which fritters it away out the door. It is an investment in healthy children, healthy productive citizens who can stand on their own, contribute to society and live in healthy, whole families. That's why the question of resources in this ministry is so important.

The children's commissioner regularly does her fatality reports. The children's commissioner has also come out with a couple of other reports this year. One of them was on the Baby M foster care issue on the Island. She was a child who was born drug-addicted, and the ministry knew she would be born drug-addicted well before she was delivered in the hospital. She was a child whose family had asked to be taken into foster care, a child whose family had asked for a home study to be done so that they could take that child in when she was born. A home study was never done. That child was born drug-addicted.

There was the home of relatives who were prepared to take that child, who already had another drug-addicted baby in their home and who knew how to care for that child. There were other relatives who'd asked to take the child. And no home study was ever done.

[10:45]

The child was put into a foster home, where the parent -- obviously, in retrospect, we can say this -- was unable to care for the baby. That child will now never hug her family. She'll never talk, never be able to live on her own. That's the result of what happened because the ministry was starved for resources at the front lines.

I will not lay the blame for a lack of resources in the ministry at the feet of social workers. I know that they do the best they can. When they are faced in a day-to-day situation with working on the corner of their desk, when they have an hour a week to devote to every child on their caseload, according to some estimates -- an hour a week to devote to every child -- how can we say that it's the social workers' fault? How can we say that it's the social workers' fault that they don't have time?

You know, for all we know in the Baby M. case, if the social worker had had the time to do the work that was required of him or her, maybe another child would have slipped through the cracks. How do we know? We don't. How do we know that the social worker wasn't being inadequately supervised? How do we know that the supervisor wasn't inadequately trained?

The bottom line in this is that the allocation of resources, as the child and family advocate has said, is a political decision. The blame for a lack of resources must always lie at the political level. It takes political courage to fight for resources. It

[ Page 8788 ]

takes guts to stand up in cabinet and say, "I want more resources for my ministry," and it takes the will to persuade your colleagues to get them. Then it takes will and courage and discipline to go back to your ministry and make sure that that money is spent the way it's supposed to be within the system, is indeed getting to the front lines, allowing social workers to spend a little more time with their clients and giving foster parents the skills they need to be able to care for children adequately.

The children's commissioner issued another report card this year, on events in Quesnel. It was by any estimate a scathing report about what the ministry was doing and not doing up in Quesnel. It was a scathing report which pointed out the fact that that office had been starved for resources for months. Social workers had been asking -- begging -- the ministry for more resources and hadn't got them. In retrospect, you can look back at the report and at events in Quesnel, and you can ask: how long would it have been before a disaster was going to happen in Quesnel? How long would it have taken before something went wrong in those circumstances, where social workers . . . ?

This evidence is anecdotal, but one social worker told me that someone in that office was carrying a caseload of 72 files -- 72 files! If your average social worker can spend an hour a week for every child in their care, in their casebook, how many hours is it for the social worker that has 72 cases? How many hours is that per child? How can we reasonably expect social workers to do their job in those circumstances? I will not stand here and blame the social workers; I will not do that.

So when the government says, "Oh, well, they were in pre-Gove mode; they didn't know what they were doing; the supervisor was wrong; it's all their fault," I say it isn't. The minister is wrong. It isn't the social workers' fault in that case. It is wrong to blame the social workers for what happened in Quesnel. It is right to lay the blame at the feet of the political decision-makers who did not give that office the resources they required. That's the right answer here.

That's what this estimates process is going to be about: finding out what happened in Quesnel. Why did the ministry wait so long to fix the problems? Why did they wait for a disaster to happen? Why did they wait for that community to be so badly affected, and for that whole community to be so hurt and wounded that they're still healing the wounds today? Why did the ministry wait so long? More importantly, what has the ministry learned from these reports? Where are the lessons, and how are they applying them to the way they're going to be used in doing their budget in the future?

The minister is quite right; that's all water under the bridge, and we need to heal. The community of Quesnel needs to heal. The family involved in the Baby M case needs to heal. Everybody who's been negatively affected needs time to heal. But that's not going to happen unless the government learns from the lessons that those reports are meant to teach us, unless the government takes some action to fix the problems and close the gaps in the system that those reports exposed.

We get report after report of tragic deaths in British Columbia, and more and more it's a one-day news story or not even a half-day news story. Nobody appears to be particularly interested in this anymore when it happens. Surely we are not so saturated with these tragic stories that we've lost our ability to listen and to learn from them. Surely we haven't had so many reports since Matthew died that we're not interested in those issue anymore. We should be interested. It is an investment in our future.

In this estimates process, what we will be asking from this side of House is for the minister and the ministry to show their political courage to stand up for children, to show that they are prepared to put the resources into the system that are required to make sure that children are adequately protected in British Columbia.

It has been two and a half years since Judge Gove reported out; Matthew Vaudreuil would be 11-1/2 years old today if he had lived. We shouldn't forget that. I know that Judge Gove put a picture of Matthew in the boardroom for his inquiry, to remember why they were there. We need to do that, too, as a symbol of what we are trying to achieve when we look at these budget estimates. It will be tedious, it will be long, and it will be detailed. But there is a purpose to it, and the purpose is to ensure that we do close those gaps and to ensure that we don't make the same mistakes again.

Over this last year, what we've seen is not just reports. Look at the ministry's actions in the way it has tried to restructure itself with the contract and program restructuring -- a concerted effort to try and bankrupt 50 percent of the non-profits delivering service in British Columbia. That is outrageous. It's outrageous to want to kick 50 percent of the volunteers out of the system, to bankrupt those non-profits that people have put their hearts and souls into over many, many years -- those non-profits that form the fabric of our communities. It's a concerted effort on the part of this ministry to do that.

The minister has ordered a review. We don't know what the results of the review are. The minister and the ministry know, but the public hasn't yet been given the courtesy of the results of that report. And while we go through the estimates process, I suspect that the minister may tell us: "Well, you know, I'm going to wait for the report to come out." But I tell you: the public deserves to have those answers. The public, the parents, the children, the families of those children who had input into that system and the service providers who worked their hearts out for these associations -- many of which are threatened with bankruptcy today -- deserve those answers.

They don't need to wait for the ministry to get into starting its political damage control and drawing up its communications plan so that it can make sure that it mitigates any negative effects from the report. Hopefully, the report will say: "Yeah, the ministry was wrong. The government made a stupid mistake." If that is what the report says, I hope that the minister will have the good grace to stand and say, "Yeah, we made a mistake -- sorry; we're not going ahead with it," because that's the right thing to do.

But I'll tell you that whatever happens as a result of that report, the goodwill that has been frittered away between those agencies because they were set up to compete with each other will be very, very hard to regain. The trust that has been shattered between those agencies and ministry staff will also be very, very hard to rebuild. That's going to be the legacy of this disastrous process of trying to bankrupt these non-profits. Whether the government decides to go ahead with restructuring or not, we're all going to have to deal with that fallout.

Trust, once it is lost, is a very, very difficult thing to rebuild.

Foster parents, when faced with a brand-new contract that would have added a huge amount of liability onto them if they'd signed it . . . . It would have made the foster parents essentially responsible for everything that the government used to be responsible for. It would have made the foster parents subject to WCB regulations, which they weren't before. The new contracts that the ministry came out with

[ Page 8789 ]

would certainly have driven foster parents out of the system. That's what foster parents told me. They said they would rather walk than sign those contracts.

Surely what we need in British Columbia are more foster parents in the system, not fewer. Surely what we need are more and more experienced foster parents, not simply more less-experienced foster parents. Surely that's the direction we need to go in. When we are looking at the estimates, we will be looking at the way this government has treated non-profits, the families of special needs children, foster parents and social workers, and, in the end, at the way this government has lived up to its responsibility to protect children in British Columbia.

The bottom line in all of this isn't whether the service providers are feeling good about the system; it's whether children are being better protected in British Columbia -- whether the system works well for them. That's why this ministry is here, that's why we're doing this estimates process today, and that's why we'll be looking very, very closely at where this ministry has chosen to put its priorities.

Children deserve the best in British Columbia. They deserve the best system, which we pay for and which is billions and billions of dollars when you count in Health and the other services that children access. Children deserve a system that they can rely on to protect them, to advocate for them and to make sure that their interests are taken care of. They deserve politicians who have the political will and the courage to stand up for those values. That's what they deserve, and that's what we'll be talking about in this estimates process.

That concludes my opening comments. I know that throughout the estimates debate, the chair of our children's committee and the deputy critic for Children and Families, the member for Surrey-Cloverdale, will have a fair amount of comment to offer to the minister, as well, and some questions.

I'd like to start off with my first question, which is to get a baseline. Let's figure out where we're starting from here, because this is one of two ministries that asked for a special warrant this year. When the minister talks about $60 million being added to the budget, I know -- and I suspect she knows -- that $32 million and a bit has already been spent in the previous year's budget. So you've really got about $28 million going into this year's budget.

What I want to do, though -- if we have $28 million of new spending and $32 million of old spending that was already spent last year through the special warrant -- is find out from the minister just where the baseline is that we're working on from last year.

Where in last year's budget can the $32 million from the special warrant be found? I know we've got the estimates and the revised estimates forecast, but the revised estimates forecast does not fully reflect the impact of the special warrant. I wonder if the minister could advise the House of where we can find that $32 million in the base budget from the newly revised estimates, including the special warrant for last year.

[11:00]

Hon. L. Boone: Okay, I think we've got it figured out. We were trying to figure out what exactly the member was asking for. It does not show up in last year's restated or revised budget; it shows up in this year's budget.

C. Clark: I just want to be clear, because I thought I read . . . . I know I read the minister saying what I thought was exactly that in the special warrants debate. Can she just confirm that the entire special warrant spent last year is included in this year's budget? Is that what the minister is saying? When I look down the estimates for 1998-99, the entire special warrant that was . . . . That's a magical accounting practice if I've ever seen one. It makes the Minister of Finance look like a small-time player, if that's the case. Is the minister telling us that the entire special warrant that was spent in the 1997-98 fiscal year has been recorded in the 1998-99 fiscal year?

J. Smallwood: While the minister is consulting, I'd like to ask leave of the House to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

J. Smallwood: I'd like to introduce to the House a class of 45 visitors. They're grade 6 students from Old Yale Road Elementary School. They're accompanied by their teacher, Ms. Regehr. I'd like to welcome the students from my riding, and I hope that they have a good visit to the Legislature and its grounds. I'd ask the House to make those students welcome.

Hon. L. Boone: If you look on page 3 -- the consolidated revenue fund -- you'll see that there are the estimate and then there's a revised forecast. The revised forecast is the amount for the special warrant that was last year's, but an equivalent amount is also included in this year's budget in addition to the increase. Last year's special warrant is not included in this year's, as the member was indicating; it is actually included in the revised forecast on page 3.

C. Clark: When I read the special warrants debate, I thought that was what the minister was saying. I just wanted to confirm that that was correct.

My original question is where . . . ? What I want to do is sort of set a baseline for the increases for this year. When we are adding in the special warrant, which line items is that under? Is it in services for adults? Is it in child care services? Is it in services for children and families? Where is that in the budget, and how much is in each of those line items?

Hon. L. Boone: I want to clarify. Are you still talking about the special warrant? On the special warrant, the large majority of that is for children in care, as we stated earlier when we were dealing with the special warrant. If you're talking about this year's budget, the up-and-coming budget, I thought we'd already gone through the special warrant, which was last year's budget. We're looking at the next year's budgets for this debate.

C. Clark: The reason I'm interested in this is because the last time we did the special warrant, we talked about . . . . The minister is quite right: we debated where the money was going and how it was being spent within the budget. The reason I'm interested in determining where it's being spent is that since then, the minister has said she's increasing her budget by $60 million, which clearly isn't true. This year's budget is not being increased by $60 million; it is being increased by $28 million.

If you look at this year's budget compared to last year's, it's a $28 million increase; it's not a $60 million increase. That's the reason I'm asking this question. Yes, we've been over it before, but in the context of the next announcement, the information is even more relevant today. When the minister says that she's got $60 million in new dollars to spend on child protection workers and is putting it into this line item -- and certainly we'll get into debate about where that money is

[ Page 8790 ]

exactly being spent, what categories of social workers that's going to and whether all of the $28 million is going into staff and salaries and staff support -- the bottom line is that it's not $60 million. It's $28 million.

The reason I want to be clear about where this was being accounted for in the budget is because you've got last year's budget and you've got this year's budget. Last year's budget is all the money spent last year, and that includes the special warrant. This year's money is all the money spent this year. This sounds elementary, but there are about a hundred different ways to skin a cat. The general accounting principle is that whatever you spent last year is last year's budget. It's not last year's budget minus $32 million in special warrants that you haven't spent because it wasn't estimated for the year before.

Last year's budget isn't the estimated budget; it's the actual budget. That's why I'm interested in getting to this, because the minister is not putting $60 million of new money into the budget. She's putting $30 million into the budget. You know, I don't even think the special warrant was approved when she was minister. She might have been a newly minted minister. It's an accounting game, but it's important. That's why I want to know where the money is being spent in this budget -- because we need to set a baseline.

We need to set a baseline of the actual numbers, not just the estimated numbers, from last year. When I ask where the money is and how much is being spent in the different areas, and the minister tells me "children in care," what I . . . . First of all, she didn't give me an amount, although I suspect that the amount -- $29.6 million -- is going into services for children and families. I asked her to confirm that. Then $4.2 million is going into services for adults, and I've asked her to confirm that as well.

I'm hoping that she can break that number down a little further for each of those categories. We certainly had this debate -- it was a long, protracted debate -- during interim supply. I suspect that her officials have had some time to think about that between then and now. It's been a month and a half or two months. I'll ask the question again and hope that we can get an answer this time.

M. Sihota: Can I have leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

Interjection.

M. Sihota: I would hope I'd get respect while I'm making an introduction, particularly in the middle of a pause.

In any event, in the gallery today there are a number of students from Old Yale Road Elementary School in Surrey. They're joined by a longtime friend of mine, their teacher, Mr. Raminder Randhawa -- someone I know from my days at UBC. He's an excellent hockey player and a great comedian. I hope he entertains his class as well as he entertained us during our days at UBC. Would all members please give Mr. Randhawa and his class a warm welcome.

Hon. L. Boone: Let's just get this clear. Yes, the money that was in the special warrant has been factored into this year's budget; we have added that amount to it. If you want to say: "Hey, that's not an increase . . . . " I think it is an increase, because we were dealing with the estimates of last year, which was what our budget was, and we had a special warrant. We recognized the needs out there as a result of that special warrant. Those dollars have been factored into this year's budget. That is an increase over the amount that we were working from last year.

In addition to that, we have some $36 million that is an increase for this year. If you want to say that's not an increase, that we only have an increase of $36 million, fine -- go ahead and say that. But the bottom line is that we have over $60 million more in the ministry budget this year than we had in the estimates last year, when we were in fact dealing with this. That was the budget that this ministry was working from.

C. Clark: My point is that the money has been spent. That's my point. I don't know how I can put it any simpler than that. The money was spent last year. So it's not $60 million that's there for new staff. It's misleading to represent it that way -- to say that we have $60 million in new money for staff -- because the ministry doesn't have $60 million for new staff. Half of that has been spent. It was spent last year on children in care and, I think, on services for adults. I think that's where the ministry spent the special warrant.

Yes, it's been factored into the base budget, but it's been spent -- the money's gone. So you've got $60 million over your estimates for last year, but you've got less than $30 million over what you actually spent last year. It's a mug's game to compare estimates from last year with estimates for this year.

The only way we can get a real sense of where the government is spending its money is if we compare the actual spending from last year, or as close as we can get to that, with the estimates for this year. We don't have $60 million for new social workers in British Columbia, and it's misleading to represent it that way. It's misleading to say that's the case, because we don't. We have less than $30 million. We have $27 million or $28 million in new money for this year that hasn't already been spent and that can be allocated to new initiatives by the government. Much of that may not even go to social workers -- I don't know. We'll get into that debate when it happens.

[11:15]

My point is that when we compare the actuals to the estimates, when we take out the $60 million that's actually already been spent -- and was spent in the last fiscal year; it's already done with -- we're left with less than $30 million in new money for this year. The baseline I'm trying to set -- and I recognize . . . .

Part of the reason I'm asking this question is because I recognize that part of what the minister is saying is quite correct. That new money, the entire amount, has been factored into the total budget, because we're working from a new baseline. When you add in all the money, the $32 million that the government has already spent in Children and Families, it's gone; it's out the door. The cheque's been written -- no more money coming out from government. No more new social work is going to be paid for with that.

The money that they've already cut the cheques for is accounted for somewhere in the actuals from last year. That sets the baseline for this year. When the minister says that it's been factored into this year's budget, she's quite correct, because we're working from that new baseline that's been set. The other $25 million to $28 million that's been added in is on top of that.

I want to try to be able to set that baseline. So my question is: where is it in the actuals? When we revise the new forecast -- revise the actuals for last year -- where is it line by line in the budget, so that we know what baseline we're working from when we talk about the estimates for this year?

[ Page 8791 ]

Hon. L. Boone: We're having a disagreement over here as to what it is you actually want. Hon. member, do you want to know, in the special warrant from last year -- from last year's revised estimate -- where that special warrant money went into that line by line? Is that what you were looking for?

C. Clark: Yes.

Hon. L. Boone: Under special warrants last year, under children: public health services, $1.8 million, an increase there; child protection, $1.8 million; family care specialized resources, $26 million; and residential services, $2.8 million.

C. Clark: That will allow us to go on with the estimates and set a baseline for where the money's been spent. Obviously it's important to get to the real increases and the real amount of money that the ministry has allocated for this year. When we were in the interim supply debate, the minister indicated that $4.2 million was going into services for adults. Do I take that to mean, then, that public health residential services are considered to be services for adults? Is that how we'd reconcile those two statements?

Hon. L. Boone: Residential services is $2.8 million, as I stated earlier. Then, in addition to that, there are smaller sections which I never mentioned earlier: training and support, $0.7 million; services for community living, $0.5 million; alcohol and drug programs, $0.2 million. Those are the adult services.

C. Clark: So the $4.2 million that we talked about in special warrants for services for adults was incorrect. When I look back at the special warrants debate, we determined that there was $29.6 million for residential and related support programs for services to children and families and that the $4.2 million to make up the $33 million in the special warrants went into services for adults. Was that incorrect, or have you revised the forecasts since then?

Hon. L. Boone: I just read those out to you: $2.8 million, $0.7 million, $0.5 million and $0.2 million. That comes to $4.2 million.

C. Clark: I appreciate that.

Before we get into some of the issues that I want to talk about this morning, particularly with respect to staffing and FTEs and those issues, I just want to continue to set a bit of a baseline here. When I look at the estimates book, I see that the operating costs for the ministry were up by about $18 million last year. I wonder if the minister could just tell us why the operating costs were so much higher than anticipated last year.

Hon. L. Boone: Can you explain where you're getting those figures from? If you look on page 107, we've got the total expenditures by group. The operating costs went down from $79.396 million to $72.64 million. I don't see the increase that you are in fact talking about.

C. Clark: I'll be clearer about that. I'm comparing the estimates to the actuals for last year. The $61.5 million was estimated for operating costs, and the ministry ended up spending $79.4 million on operating costs, or so I take it from reading the estimates. That looks to me like an $18 million disparity between the two. Maybe the minister could tell me how I'm reading the numbers wrong or at least explain why there was an overexpenditure.

Hon. L. Boone: We're still having difficulty trying to figure out where you're getting these figures from. So can you explain to us, please, where you're getting these figures from, because we don't have . . . ? We're not sure where they're from.

C. Clark: Well, the '97-98 Estimates lists the total operating costs for the ministry as $61,446,000. The revised estimate -- and I have to tell the minister, too, that these are my notes that I've written down in my own hand -- is $72,612,000.

F. Gingell: Revised forecast.

C. Clark: The revised forecast. This year we are spending $6.8 million less than that. I know the minister pointed that out: the actual operating costs this year are down from the revised forecast for last year.

So my series of questions on this, as long as she's on her feet answering this, is: why was the estimate last year so different from the revised forecast? Then, when we compare the revised forecast to the amount that's estimated this year, why is that down? And where does the ministry expect to find some savings in its operating costs this year over the revised forecast from last year?

Hon. L. Boone: It's a little difficult going back and getting this historical area, because I wasn't around at that time. But the building occupancy, as I understand it . . . . The dollar figures that you're talking about originally did not include . . . . Well, they included some things that were in wrongly. The building occupancy charges had not been properly indicated there.

Then, as a ministry we were coming together, and some of the costs that came together from five ministries . . . . You can imagine the difficulties when you pull together five different program areas under one. It took us awhile to actually figure those out -- some of the costs associated with that. So that's why the difference in the number that was actually stated in the blue book last year as compared to what the revised forecast was.

[11:30]

C. Clark: So when we look at this year and we see that the total operating costs are down again -- or are down, because they were up and now they're down -- can that be attributed solely to building occupancy and the fact that . . . ? I mean, I'm assuming that the building occupancy costs were mostly attributed to the fact that the ministry had to pay out leases for old offices, move into new offices and all the attendant costs that go along with that.

Is the $6.8 million, I think, that the operating costs are down this year over the revised forecast from last year attributable solely to the fact that those initial building occupancy costs have been spent, and it's a one-time cost? Or are there other reasons for that decrease in the budget?

Hon. L. Boone: About half of it has to do with reduced occupancy costs. Others have to do with reductions we are doing in professional services and contracts, information systems operating costs and offices and business expenses. We've made reductions just in inefficiencies that we're finding within the system.

C. Clark: Are the savings you're getting out of professional services going to be picked up elsewhere in the budget

[ Page 8792 ]

-- in base salaries, for example? Are those contractors going to be integrated into the ministry, or are those services not going to exist in government anymore?

Hon. L. Boone: They are one-off contracts we're doing for contracted services to do various things. We won't be using those services.

C. Clark: The increase in the operating cost was due, as the minister said, in part to the fact that it was a new ministry that needed to find new premises and to shift to a new way of doing things. Are the cuts in the professional service contracts also related to getting the ministry on its feet? What kinds of professional service contracts are those? I wonder if the minister could just give us a quick rundown of what categories of service the ministry has decided to cut in those professional service contracts.

Hon. L. Boone: Those are one-time contracts that are given out -- for example, the D.E. Allen Consulting review on security that took place. There would be different times when you would require professional services. We'll be working very hard not to utilize those professional services as much as we did in the past. Clearly, when we've got efficiencies we have to find, we need to find efficiencies in those areas. We are very concerned to make sure that we maintain our services to people, so we are cutting within.

C. Clark: How much money are we talking about, by the way, for the professional service contracts? Is it a portion of the $6.8 million that has been saved -- or you hope might be saved -- in operating costs this year? How much money is for the professional service piece of it?

Hon. L. Boone: The amount that has been reduced is $1.6 million. That's in professional services.

C. Clark: How many contracts does that represent?

Hon. L. Boone: That depends on the size of the contract. There are different sizes for different things. It depends on the size of the job, so I can't give you an average. It would depend on what we were asking them to do.

C. Clark: Clearly the ministry spent $1.6 million on professional contracts last year. There must have been a certain number of contracts they had that they've decided to cut. I suspect that the ministry is not cutting all of the outstanding professional contracts it has. I suspect that there will still be some professional contracts the ministry continues to pay for. The ministry has determined that they can save $1.6 million by cutting certain professional contracts. I'm wondering how many contracts they've cut.

Hon. L. Boone: You're not understanding what I'm saying. These are one-time contracts that are given out. So it is not that we are cutting ongoing contracts. They're one-shot deals. So we will just not be spending $1.6 million on contracts for professional services. As I said, that depends on the size of the various contracts and what we are asking them to do. I can't tell you what we are not asking them to do, because we won't be asking them to do those things.

C. Clark: The ministry must know how many one-shot contracts they paid for with $1.6 million. That's my question. You spent $1.6 million on contracts last year, and you've decided that you can save that money next year. That's fine; I'm not arguing with that. Whether they're one-shot contracts or long-term contracts is not my question. My question is: how many one-shot, one-off contracts -- because that is certainly the nature of professional contracts -- were in the $1.6 million?

Hon. L. Boone: Contracts vary in size from a $5,000 contract to a $40,000 contract. I can't anticipate what we won't be spending that on, because that's just money we will not be spending.

The professional contracts we will be spending money on are not ones that are on an ongoing contractual basis, where we are spending those moneys for those services every year. They are contracts that come up, where people say: "I would like to have somebody in the profession to review X service we are doing -- such as the Doug Allen review." We won't be doing a Doug Allen review next year, and there are other services out there we won't be doing. But I can't say how many contracts we won't be servicing. If you take $1.6 million and do them each for $5,000, divide it by that.

If you're doing the $40,000 size, then divide it by that. It all depends on the size of contracts we give out and what they are required to do.

C. Clark: I am amazed that the ministry cannot tell me how many contracts were represented by the $1.6 million they've budgeted to cut. I'm amazed that the ministry doesn't have that number. They don't know whether it's 30 contracts they let last year, which they've decided they don't need to have a contingency for this year, or whether it's five.

I don't want to get into a big debate about this $1.6 million, but my point is that the ministry should know that. Unless the ministry has said, "We're not going to have any professional contracts at all," and just had a blanket policy, then they must have gone through and done it contract by contract. They must have got the different directors to look in their areas and find out where they could find some savings in their professional contracting. I suppose it's a small point, but it's an important idea that the ministry should be able to keep track of that stuff and account for how many contracts there were. It doesn't seem to me to be an impossible task.

If the ministry has asked its employees to go through and find out where they could find money -- and the ministry hasn't said, "We're not going to have any professional contracts at all" -- then there must be some contingency or some standard each of those people making those decisions uses to say: "Well, you know, it's important that we keep this little bit of money aside for professional contracts in my area, because we might need the contingency." So there must be some kind of standard that people are using to make those decisions about which contract savings they can find and that they won't anticipate next year.

The idea of professional contracts -- or at least it's supposed to be, the way the minister is putting it -- is that it's for unanticipated contingencies, like Doug Allen, when the ministry decides that it might want to change its mind about a policy it's pursuing. That's what that is about, of course. Governments run into unanticipated events, and governments require contingency funds for that. I understand that. All I am asking is: what standard do they use to make the decision? They don't appear to have one -- or they certainly don't seem to be keeping track of the number of contracts that they cut.

That's where I'm going with this. It seemed to me to be a fairly simple question. I had no idea that it would turn out to be such a difficult one for the minister to answer. Maybe we can find that in the budget under other expenditures. When I

[ Page 8793 ]

look at the "other expenditures"

section of the budget, it indicates that the ministry spent $15.5 million more than they'd anticipated. The ministry is also spending the same this year. I wonder if the minister can tell us what happened to increase that amount in the budget so much this year, and maybe she can give us an outline of what's included in that category.

Hon. L. Boone: I just want to go back on this other . . . . If the member is so anxious to get a number . . . . She seems unable to understand the idea that you reduce a budget by such an amount. We are not cutting the contracts that are out there. We are not cutting anticipated contracts. If the member really wants a number, I'll say that we are doing, on the average, $20,000 . . . . The contracts range from $5,000 to $40,000. If you want to take an average of $20,000, that will be 80 contracts that we won't be doing.

I can't anticipate what the contracts would be that would be coming, because they range from $5,000 to $40,000. If you really want a number, we won't be doing 80 contracts next year -- if that makes you feel better.

We will be spending $8.2 million, still, on contracts. That's still in the budget for contracted professional services. Individual ministries out there and regions will still get their budgets. They will know how much they have got to spend in their region on this particular service, and they will work within the budget that is given to each and every region for their services and within the ministry. Within that they may find that they want to spend a fair amount of it on one or two contracts in the regions, or they may in fact spend it on many $5,000 contracts. But if 80 makes you feel better, then say we're going to cut out 80 contracts next year.

C. Clark: You know, hon. Chair, what would make me feel better is knowing that this ministry was keeping track of where it's spending its money. It would make a lot of people in British Columbia feel better to know that this government knew where it was spending its money, that this government had some respect for the people that it was collecting its money from and then knew where it was spending it and was prepared to tell them that. That's what would make me feel better. In the absence of that . . . .

I don't suspect that the Minister for Children and Families is going to be able to get up and make me feel better today, because I don't think she has the answers. I don't think anyone on that side, in that cabinet, has those answers. If they did, then surely they would come up . . . . They would want to make all British Columbians feel better so that they weren't at the lowest in polling history of any government in British Columbia. I think they'd want to make British Columbians feel a lot better by giving them answers, but they don't have them. That's why they don't give them. That's what this is about.

Now I will ask the minister something very specific about contracts. If she's not anticipating that they'll spending it this year, how much did the ministry spend specifically on the D.E. Allen contract, which they are not budgeting for this year and which isn't anticipated in this year's budget? If we're going to set a baseline, we should know how much money was spent on that.

Hon. L. Boone: It was $149,000.

C. Clark: How much of that was salaries, how much of that was travel, and how much of that was other expenditures?

[11:45]

Hon. L. Boone: We don't have all those details here, but I will get that information to the member.

C. Clark: I'd appreciate getting that information before the estimates process is over, if that's possible. The Douglas Allen report was an investment of not just of a lot of money, but a lot of time from a lot of people also went into the, so far, very secret results of that report. Where that money has been spent is going to be important to know.

The ministry, when you look at the budget, has spent $18.8 million on salaries. That leaves $11.4 million extra, I guess, from the $30.2 million increase. I want to first check with the minister that that is indeed correct: $18.8 million of the new money is going into salaries and expenditures, and that leaves $11.4 million for all other increases in the ministry. Is that correct?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, you are correct. It's $18.8 million in salaries and benefits.

C. Clark: And the $11.4 million -- is that the total new amount for everything else in the budget for this year? Is that also correct?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, that's right.

C. Clark: With $18.8 million for salaries and expenditures, how many workers is that?

Hon. L. Boone: The number of additional FTEs, as we originally stated, is 250.

R. Coleman: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

R. Coleman: Today in the gallery, we have a group of students from County Line Elementary School in my riding, along with their teacher, Mr. Mitchell. County Line is very fond of me for a number of reasons. A number of these children are actually neighbours of mine. In addition to that, it was probably the best poll I had in the last provincial election. I'd ask the House to please make them welcome.

C. Clark: So $18.8 million will pay for 250 new FTEs in this year. Is that correct?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, that will cover the cost of hiring the 250. As I stated originally, though, they will not be all be hired at once within this period of time. We are still in the process of hiring some of them. We are going through things, so it will not be an entire year's salary in this budget for those individuals.

C. Clark: If it can't be measured in years of FTEs, then can it be measured in months or by some other measurement? It's a funny and complicated accounting game to play. First, I should establish . . . . Will all 250 FTEs be in the budget by the end of this fiscal year?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes.

C. Clark: When the minister talks about FTEs, she's talking about positions. But for the purposes of the budget, what I'm interested in is: how do those FTEs convert into yearlong positions for the budget? How many person-years are in this $18 million when you factor in the knowledge that none of those FTEs will be working for a full year? I can see

[ Page 8794 ]

the minister's officials thinking about this. If you have two FTEs, for example, that both start in the middle of the fiscal year, that's one budget year for a full-time employee. What I'm asking the minister to do is convert this from positions into actual budget costs over a yearlong basis.

Hon. L. Boone: I'm not quite sure what the member is getting at. We are hiring 250 new positions that will be on staff. In addition to that, within this year's budget we have regular increases, such as yearly increases for people who have moved up in classifications and increases for people as they get their normal one-year, two-year increases or whatever it is. There are some increases that have come through hiring various other people through classifications and that. There are all kinds of variables that go into the salaries and benefits that accrue to this STOB.

So I'm not quite sure what it is you want in terms of person-years, employment-years. We are looking at hiring 250 new workers to be on the job within this year. Those are the individuals that will be out there doing the work. There are also ongoing costs within the ministry that happen every year. I'm not quite sure what information you want.

C. Clark: I'll be clearer then. What I'm asking the minister for is the full-time equivalency. Her ministry would have had to make assumptions when it budgeted for its salaries as to how many months each of those people would be on staff. The minister has said that she did not assume in her budgeting process that each of those 250 FTEs would be for a full budget year. Some of those FTEs might be being paid for by the ministry out of this budget for ten months; some of them might be being paid for two weeks. The ministry had to make those assumptions, and I am trying to find out what those assumptions were.

The only way I can see to do that -- and maybe the minister can come up with a better suggestion -- is to convert those 250 FTEs from positions and, for the purposes of the budget, tell us how many months . . . Maybe we can measure those months in periods of years, so if you have 12 months, you have one year. How many actual budget-years are those 250 workers going to be paid for out of this budget? It's called FTE: full-time-equivalent. That's what I'm asking. The ministry will have made those assumptions. I'm sure that the minister's officials will have those answers.

I think what I'll do is give the minister a chance to think about the answer to that.

The Chair: Minister, noting the time.

Hon. L. Boone: Approximately 130.

Hon. Chair, seeing the time on the clock -- it's a few minutes to the noon hour -- I'd like to move that we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

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

Hon. L. Boone moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The House in Committee of Supply A; E. Walsh in the chair.

The committee met at 10:12 a.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EMPLOYMENT AND

INVESTMENT AND

MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR HOUSING

(continued)

On vote 28: minister's office, $380,000 (continued).

T. Nebbeling: I would like to start this morning by focusing on jobs -- job opportunities and some of the strategies that the ministry has introduced in the last two years. What I would like to see is if the minister could give me . . . . When we talk about the jobs and timber strategy, Power for Jobs and some other initiatives, how does the ministry focus on measuring the results that have been initiated by the ministry when it comes to job creation initiatives? How are those results used to evaluate the success rate or the lack of success -- the whole process that happens to keep control over that element? Can the minister extrapolate on that?

Hon. M. Farnworth: In the broad picture, in terms of employment and job statistics and the overall number of jobs in the economy, that takes place within the Ministry of Finance. What this ministry will particularly focus on is looking at specific projects or specific initiatives. We can take two examples, one public and one private. One public example would be the Vancouver Trade and Convention Centre. That's an initiative that takes place from within the ministry. We would look at what's projected, how long it takes to get it on, how many people it takes to get it working and what happened as the end result.

In the private sector an example would be, let's say, an aluminum smelter, from when contact was first made and the initial proposal started to work its way through the system, and the efforts of the ministry in trying to bring something forward. Ultimately it's either successful or it's not, and then you'd be able to measure the number of jobs created once the project is up and running.

[10:15]

T. Nebbeling: I understand that the strategy is created in part by the Ministry of Employment and Investment, when it comes to "a jobs strategy." The minister often talks about the Power for Jobs strategy, for example, which I think is a new concept that comes from his ministry. That you've worked with other ministries is a given. As you said, you start a strategy, and obviously you put some money towards it. Then you follow up by saying that, ultimately, you see where you are at the end of the line and how many jobs are being created. There must be somewhere between that conception stage and a stage where you say: "Ultimately we can judge whether it's

[ Page 8795 ]

working or not." There must be check-and-balance periods when the ministry looks at the objectives and says: "We are not getting where we want to go. Where do we change the goalposts, or where do we shift?" How are those kinds of moments incorporated into evaluating the value of what you're trying to pursue?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I guess I'll make a couple of points. We can and do approach this on a sectoral basis. So we have, as we discussed earlier, a number of areas that we see as key -- high-tech being one of them, for example; the aluminum industry I've mentioned before. I guess at the beginning of the process the question you start with is: "Where are we today?" And then you ask: "Where do we want to be?" In the case of high-tech, there are set growth rates by which we can measure how much the industry is growing per year, and then we can plan on that basis accordingly.

For example, meeting with the industry itself: "What changes do you need to put in place to make things grow faster or to encourage you to invest and create jobs here?" Once you start to make those changes, then you can measure the increase or decrease, as it were, compared to what's taken place before. That way you're getting a good sense of whether you're on the right track.

In the case of aluminum, for example, or a similar type of industry, where you're trying to attract something new to the province, in the initial stages of the plan it's like: "Okay, here's where we are. The first objective is to get them to come to British Columbia." Then we have some sort of time line in terms of the amount of investment that's required and what the end result is. Ideally, you get them to commit to do some work. At the end of that, there's a decision that has to be made by industry, in the case of the private sector. Are they going to proceed further?

Clearly, if they proceed further, then you're on track. At each point there will be goalposts that will probably dictate it, I guess on the basis of what the needs for industry are.

In the case of aluminum, for example, it's the feasibility study, the identification of sites and looking at costs. Then the decision on their

part is to go further or not to go further. In the case of the Trade and Convention Centre, a public project, it would be to do the groundwork -- let's say geotechnical work, for example. What's the foundation going to cost? Can they do it for the price? Then they've got a decision to make: whether to proceed from there and go on to the next stage. In

part it depends on, first, whether it's public or private and then where you are and what the ultimate goal is that you're trying to achieve. So there are key points along the way where you can stop and evaluate what's happening.

T. Nebbeling: Let's stick with aluminum and the desire of this government to see aluminum extraction become a major industry, beyond what it already is. In order to entice foreign aluminum producers to come to British Columbia, it's clear that the producers will look at the economy of British Columbia. They will look at the policies that drive this government and how they relate to free enterprise or businesses. They'll look at power. Many of these elements will be have to be considered by government to be favourable.

Now, if we watch the news and read the papers and we do an analysis of what economists tell us about what's happening in British Columbia, it's clear that there is uncertainty created about the wisdom of investing in British Columbia because of the impact of the policies, regulations and taxation that are in place today. This is not news to us; we see it presented in the news on a daily basis. This was already the case in 1995 before the Asian flu, as it was the case in 1996.

From time to time, when consideration was given by foreign investment to a new initiative in British Columbia, they looked at all these policies, taxation and other issues that I mentioned. Often corporations were deterred from making the final decision to come to British Columbia.

So when you introduce a new initiative like jobs for energy, somewhere in your deliberations when you start producing that program, you must have a moment when you say: "Listen, we have tried to entice so many foreign investments to our province, and up to now we haven't gone anywhere because of these factors that are controlled by the government: the economy, the overregulation, the taxation, environmental rules and regulations." How does the minister, within the system, make these elements more palatable?

What kind of approach does the minister take with the overseas investors to find a level of comfort so that the decisions are not going to go against British Columbia because of these factors?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Again, I'll come back and address this on a sectoral basis. I think one of the key ways we can deal with some of these issues is to look at them from that particular perspective, because each one has different issues that are of concern to them and issues that have a differing degree of importance in where you ultimately make a final decision.

I would put forward a couple of points. One is that a lot of the work is interministerial. The key is to identify the areas that you want to focus on, and you need to do analysis on the particular requirements of that sector, whether it's the film industry, tourism, oil and gas, mining, forestry or aluminum. Then, before you go out there, ideally it's: what are the strengths and advantages? Are there things we can do here to change before we go talk to the different players in each sector? That's one of the things that has been taking place.

We're starting to see some of that, for example, in the mining sector and the oil and gas sector. We're trying to find out what some of the key problem areas are that need to be addressed that will enable them to invest more in British Columbia.

Having said that, though, a lot of what we do is self-generated here in British Columbia, in terms of criticism about being unfriendly. I'll bring up the case around aluminum, for example. We went out and got the first, as I said yesterday, two or three companies to come and look at British Columbia. They liked what they have seen here, and now we have other companies coming here -- we're not having to go out and get them. There is talk within the industry that what they're looking for is here, so they're now coming to see what's going on here and looking at making investment decisions. That, in part, is taking place.

I think the key underlying factor, once you've determined which sector you want to focus on, is that before you go out there, you try to address what some of the concerns are going to be and see if you can deal with them ahead of time, so that you are in a position to put the best of British Columbia -- the best face -- forward.

T. Nebbeling: I understand what the minister is trying to say. If the world were coming together as the minister sees it happening when it comes to the future of British Columbia, then some of his arguments would make sense. However, I think the real world clearly shows that no corporate entity today is willing to make decisions that will require enormous investments in this province. There are still regulations that are in place and overtaxation and maybe also a little bit of fear that things do change quickly in British Columbia. Today we are welcomed, and tomorrow we don't know where we are.

What I'd like to hear from the minister, recognizing the importance of dealing with these issues and concerns that are

[ Page 8796 ]

no doubt expressed to him, is why, at this stage, British Columbia is maybe not the favourable place to come to. How does he work within his interministerial approach and his contact with the ministers? How does he deal with these issues, and how does he, in a sense, eliminate these barriers? Because I've never been able to find that out, I'm under the impression today -- and I think many are -- that in spite of all the activities that we are undertaking as a province to entice foreign investment, people are just not interested.

They do not see the signals that this government is serious about recognizing the barriers and even more serious about eliminating these barriers so that we would indeed again become a province where people dare to invest and thereby create jobs.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The answer that I give in terms of my approach -- and my sense of the approach that is being taken by the ministers in the other economic development ministries -- is to look at some recent examples. Again, they focus on a sectoral basis. The changes dealing with mining, for example, that were made in terms of legislation just passed this session came about in large part through discussion with the mining industry to try to identify key areas of concern and deal with those particular issues.

We put in place some of the demands and requests that the industry is asking for, that they say they require in order to have a stable investment base. Those have been done, and that sends a strong signal. We're still dealing with part of the problem of depressed commodity prices. As I said yesterday, we can make all the changes we want in a number of areas, but if commodity prices are low, it doesn't matter where you are. You're not going to get the investment.

We did a similar thing with oil and gas. There's the new Alliance pipeline going in that has got to be filled. That requires a substantial increase in exploration in this province, to deliver the gas to that pipeline, so that once it's built you can fill it right away. The key to getting that investment taking place was some of the regulatory changes that have taken place, which the Premier announced. These are changes that the oil and gas industry asked for.

The other thing I want to say and put on the record is that a lot of our criticism is internally driven. We don't step back and see a lot of the positive things that do take place here in British Columbia, and the fact is that there is a willingness among foreign investors in a number of industries to invest in British Columbia. The evidence is that they are investing. The high-tech industry is growing by 20 percent a year.

I've now been in the presence of the vice-presidents and CEOs of three of the largest aluminum companies in the world when they were asked by the press: "Well, British Columbia is a bad place to do business. Why would you want to come here?" The answer they give is: "No, British Columbia isn't a bad place to do business. We like what we've seen here. We think we can invest here, and that's why we're here." They're not looking at Washington State to build a new aluminum smelter, and they're not looking at Oregon. They're here in British Columbia.

An industry that is growing by roughly 3 percent a year, even with depressed prices, is clearly an industry with a future that has capacity that has to be filled by the construction of new smelting capacity -- and British Columbia is the place where they are looking to invest. So there you go.

I agree that there are lots of things that we can do better, and there are lots of areas of regulations that need to be addressed. I'll be the first one to admit that. At the same time, it's not black and white when it comes to how the world perceives British Columbia. There is a lot of interest in B.C. from outside foreign investment, and that is starting to happen. We can always do better, but the fact of the matter is that we're working on a sector-by-sector basis, and I'm quite confident of the direction that things are going.

[10:30]

T. Nebbeling: I have a couple of points before I go on. I can see that aluminum producers would look at British Columbia. We have the natural resources to back up that industry. We have the deep-sea ports to accommodate the oil to be brought in, in such a manner that it is very workable. I also recognize that companies are not talking about next year or five years from now; they're talking about long-term planning. When the minister says that they want to come here because they see B.C. and it is a beautiful place . . . . We know that B.C. is a beautiful place; it's a great place to be.

I think that what stops companies today from making decisions, really, is that we don't have the right government. I really feel that we have a bad government and a great province. The basics are there. We have to make some changes in other areas, to give the companies the level of comfort that I believe will bring them here in the long run.

We can go on and on. I think that when we get into Hydro we're going to come back to this one again as well. There are still some values that I do not believe the government is recognizing when it comes to the local users and what their place is going to be -- compared to the people who have been enticed to come to this province by the lure of cheap power in front of them -- and how the equity between the local and commercial users and the new industries is going to work out. There is uncertainty about it, and the minister is aware of it.

The minister also used the mining industry and the recent changes to the Mines Act as an example of where things are working. I know that when you look at the announcement and the changes made, it looks very positive, to say the least. Then you have to ask yourself: "Okay, because of this accord we're going to see an investment of $25 billion in the next ten years in the mining industry, because the government understands what the mining industry needs . . . . " The first question, of course, is: is that $25 billion over and above what the mining industry would invest anyhow over the next ten years?

They do invest $1.7 billion to $1.9 billion annually, which is $19 billion or $20 billion over the same time frame. That is a question you have to answer. Is that $25 billion over and above the $20 billion that the industry would spend anyhow? What are you giving the industry in return to justify that expenditure over and above the $20 billion, if that's the case?

They are giving some tax reductions. Does that apply to the existing holes that are in operation today -- so it would be meaningful -- or does it apply only to drilling holes that will be done in the future? These questions have to be answered. I think it would be meaningful if it applied to the drilling holes that are in existence as well. If it is just an enticement to go make additional investment to get more drilling holes, regardless of whether it is driven by need or driven by industry, can the users absorb the increase? These are questions that should be answered.

When the minister uses the mining industry as an example of how thoughtful the government is and how much they've begun to listen, then it had better be meaningful and not just a great PR opportunity where some numbers are thrown on the table, but when you analyze it, it is really not very meaningful because it is really something that was going to happen anyhow, regardless of the introduction of a bill.

[ Page 8797 ]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I guess we can look at this two ways. We can either say that government is bad and nothing is happening, which is what I've heard in a lot of discussion taking place . . . . We can debate the merits of whether we're a bad government or a good government, and we'll never agree, I'm quite sure.

T. Nebbeling: Or you can see it my way.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Exactly. Or you could see it my way.

T. Nebbeling: No, that would be out of the question.

The Chair: Order, members.

Hon. M. Farnworth: See? It's absolutely out of the question.

The point is the fact that there is exploration taking place. The key to what we've done and what we're trying to do is to put in place changes to encourage more investment here in British Columbia. The changes taking place came about through discussion with the mining industry. You're always talking about the fact that we need to have more exploration in the province and the fact that we need to find more ore bodies so we can bring them into development, because the cost of bringing . . . . There's a considerable time difference between when you discover an ore body and when it comes on stream. There's quite a length of time.

One of the things that has happened in the province has been a decline in mining exploration, which predates this government. It's something that's been happening in this province for a considerable amount of time now. The government recognizes that it has to be reversed; the mining industry says it has to be reversed. So the government and the mining industry sat down and came up with a number of things that the mining industry says have to be in place in order to change that and encourage more exploration.

Well, that's what's happened, and the focus has been on new holes in the ground. It's not on existing holes. They're already there; they're already producing. Depending on the price of copper or lead or zinc, for example, or whatever the commodity is, the key is to get new mines coming on stream and new ore bodies found. That's where the concern around the industry is -- and on making sure there are stable ground rules that they can plan from. That's the focus, and that's what we're trying to do. So that will bear fruit.

I think one of the things that we have to do is to look at industries not on the basis of just the short term but also on the basis of the long term. The member made the reference, in terms of the aluminum industry, that there's long-term planning around some of these projects -- which is right, because it's a long-term industry. That's what we need in this province. We need industries that, once they start here . . . . Even though it takes a long time to achieve a fully mature industry, the fact is that they're going to be around for a long time.

I think that's key to the type of investment we want to see, because once you have that in place, then you can start to build on it. Then the private sector can build on that, because they see that there's long-term stability and a long-term investment commitment. Then you'll see the emergence of secondary industries around that, relating to the initial investment.

T. Nebbeling: My colleague would like to ask some questions on a different topic -- the trade and convention centre in Vancouver. Then I would like to come back to the economy and the lack of economic growth.

Before I do that, I want to state for the record that when I talk about the long-term involvement of these companies -- aluminum or any other industry -- I'm talking about before these companies make the decision whether or not to come to British Columbia. They want to see some fundamental changes, and they're not going to make up their minds and decide, yes or no, that British Columbia is where they'll start operating from -- until they see these fundamental changes. Once they're here, obviously with the kind of capital investment that's required, it has to be a long-term commitment.

But the commitment itself, to me, is the key -- to bring companies over here, to let them do some exploration and checking out and say: "Well, if everything were perfect, this would be the spot." That's one thing. But it doesn't really mean anything.

The contract signed -- that's what I'm waiting for, and companies are clearly indicating that that is maybe going to take up to ten years before they will make that commitment. And that, in my belief, depends to a certain extent on how this province evolves, not only in recognizing the value of foreign investment but also in how comfortable this government is, in the long run, with seeing these investors have a fair return on their investment.

I give the floor to my colleagues.

R. Thorpe: I'll just ask the minister a couple of questions with respect to the proposed new trade and convention centre in Vancouver. Is your ministry the lead ministry? Are there various ministries involved in this project, and which ministries are they?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The answer to your first question is yes, we're the lead ministry. There are other ministries involved: Finance and Small Business and Tourism, for example.

R. Thorpe: Your ministry is the lead ministry. Often in projects dealing with many ministries of government, you get bogged down here or bogged down there. Who is the file champion within government on this project?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I am.

R. Thorpe: Could the minister advise us of the value of this project?

Hon. M. Farnworth: For the total components -- everything all in -- approximately $750 million.

R. Thorpe: Earlier in the minister's comments he made reference to time lines. Could the minister advise us what the key time lines are on decisions related to this project?

Hon. M. Farnworth: In terms of -- and I mentioned this earlier when we were talking about time lines . . . . All the geotechnical work is currently underway. That needs to be completed by the end of the summer so that we're in a position in October to make a go or no-go decision; that's the key time line. Then, hopefully, for the final time line, we're starting to look at around the end of 2001. If you put into place the Canada Place refit, for example, that would probably be until 2003.

[ Page 8798 ]

R. Thorpe: With the exclusion of the geotechnical work that's currently being done and awaiting decisions on that, what are the other key issues related to this project that have to be resolved?

Hon. M. Farnworth: In no particular order, some of the key ones will be, clearly, the permitting and zoning within the city of Vancouver, the requirements there: relocation of the SeaBus terminal; agreements with the Port Corporation around the construction of the new cruise ship terminal; and then, of course, final agreement with the hotel.

R. Thorpe: Could the minister advise, just on those key issues that he talked about, when the key decisions will be made with respect to each one of those items?

Hon. M. Farnworth: In the case of the permitting and the approvals required from the city, they have to go through a hearing process that, hopefully, should be completed by late fall, early winter. By that, I mean sometime in December. On the SeaBus issue, I have had some decisions to make on that in the past week. Hopefully, we'll be able to make a final decision on the relocation of the SeaBus terminal over the next couple of weeks.

The Port Corporation and the upgrade around the cruise ship terminal has federal government involvement, and right now it is anticipated that the decision should be made within about a month. The Marriott . . . . That's very much an agreement in part with Greystone, and that will probably be in the next two to three months.

R. Thorpe: Thank you to the minister for those answers. One would assume that there is a business plan that outlines many of the issues and time lines with respect to this project. Could the minister confirm that in fact there is a business plan, and would the minister provide the official opposition with that business plan?

[10:45]

Hon. M. Farnworth: We are in the third stage of that plan right now. We can brief you on the details of that plan. There are still financial negotiations underway that will have some commercial value that we can't release a report on right now. But I do commit to giving you a full briefing.

R. Thorpe: Just in wrapping up, I do look forward to the briefing that the minister has committed to -- sometime right after estimates are completed, if we could.

Can the minister advise us of the province's financial commitment to this project?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I can't give you an exact dollar figure, because there are a number of steps currently in place that need to be taken, but roughly around a third of the costs will be borne by the province. There are some issues that need to be addressed. One is the size of the federal government contribution. The other is issues around Greystone; we're negotiating on a number of aspects. You know, they have one thing; we come back and say no, we have another . . . . Also, there is a smaller element with industry itself. The best estimate right now is around a third.

R. Thorpe: I realize that there are i's that have to be dotted and t's that have to be crossed. But for ballpark figures, the province is looking at making a cash contribution of $250 million to a $750 million project. Is that correct?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I guess, ballpark, you could say we're looking at $200 million to $300 million, but it's not a cash contribution to the overall project. It's to deal with a specific component, which is the convention centre. The hotel is private money, but the convention centre is what we're involved in, in terms of what we're paying for. As a ballpark, you're looking at $200 million to $300 million.

R. Thorpe: I understand that there's the private, there's the feds and there's the province. But then what I'm hearing here is that the province's commitment is to pay for the new convention centre. Is that what I'm hearing?

Hon. M. Farnworth: That's correct.

D. Jarvis: I want to talk to the minister about some of the statements he made last night, for example, with regard to mining in British Columbia and why it's not bubbling the way it should be. The minister seemed to resort to the fact that in South America, for example, the quality of the ore is richer, and all the rest of it. But he failed to mention the fact that we have mineral deposits throughout British Columbia. If you look at some of the geological maps, we are loaded with minerals to explore and mines that will produce a lot of wealth for this province and employment for our people. The cost of electricity, water rentals and all of that in South America is way down.

That's the difference and is why we have such a problem here in our exploration. It's the cost in the end run. It's a catch-22 situation. The majors aren't going to come in because the cost of everything is too high. We have to look at Highland Valley, for example. The Premier has talked about bringing in a smelter because Highland Valley is finding the cost of running that mine to be too expensive. They're virtually scraping. They cannot open up a new ore body because it's going to cost too much money; it's going to cost hundreds of millions of dollars to open up a new pit.

But if the electricity and water rental costs were down, and if the capital corporation taxes and the general taxes were removed, then we would be competitive with some of these other countries -- not necessarily the cheapest, like somewhere in Uruguay or Chile or something like that, but we would be competitive with the rest of the world, in the sense that when world prices start dropping, the cushion is already there. They have money in the bank, and they're able to go with their cyclical ups and downs. This is not what has happened. The government previous to this one . . . .

There's no question that they starved the industry as far as exploration went. But this government came in and exacerbated the situation. We had a steep decline in exploration; it was the lowest in the history of British Columbia -- in our modern day, anyway.

What we're looking at is an aspect of what they are intending to do about it in the long run. You cannot expect these major companies to come in and buy a junior mine when they know that they're going to be taxed to death. This is only going to result in fewer jobs in this province. We see that the cost of mining in British Columbia is very expensive now. Wages are high. We also have high taxation and high costs of physically mining.

Mount Milligan -- Placer Dome has now announced that they're pulling out. There's a major mine that could have been developed, that could have hired 400-some-odd men. We have the Huckleberry and Mount Polley in . . . . You say you're talking to the mining industry about costs. Well, those two, we

[ Page 8799 ]

know, have been talking to the jobs commissioner for several months now. I'd like to know if the minister has had anything to do with the jobs commissioner and those two major mines. We hear today that in the coalfields up in the northeast -- in Tumbler Ridge -- 91 men are laid off as of today. There are another 450 men in another coalmine being laid off. This is a growing problem that's going to cost this government real dollars in the long run, and jobs.

I'll leave it at that point and ask the member: is he dealing with the jobs commissioner in any way, in trying to assist him to . . . ? Does the jobs commissioner come into his department and say: "Okay, we've got mines like Mount Polley and Huckleberry that are having problems, and Highland Valley needs assistance in electricity if they're going to make this smelter work"? I'd like to hear what the minister has to say.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'm going to start by making a couple of comments. Yes, the job protection commissioner does come under my ministry, and yes, we are working with him on a number of files. Some of those include mining companies. There are a couple of points I want to make. Part of this will come from experience, because I have worked in a mine. I have worked in the mining industry; I've worked underground in a lead-zinc mine, 3,500 feet underground, so I know exactly what it's like. I've worked on exploration crews, drilling for lead-zinc, and in coal exploration. I've also worked in oil exploration. So I have some idea of how the industry works and what it is they're looking for.

Key and first and foremost is in terms of geology -- the type of geology. Here in British Columbia we have something called porphyry copper. We have quite a bit of it, but on the whole, as I said yesterday, it's low-grade. Chile has extremely rich deposits of copper, and that's where they're going. In part they're going there because of the size of the ore bodies -- literally monumental, bigger than anything we have here in Canada and bigger than anything in the United States. That's why mining companies go and look -- because they want the big copper deposit. They want the big ore deposit.

That's where the focus has been. We can make all the regulatory changes we want, and we can go right to the same standards as Chile. But if at the end of the day you're finding 2.5 percent copper ore by volume per tonne, that's where you're going to go and drill. You're not going to go and drill when it's 0.5 percent. You're going to go where you can make the most money.

Likewise, if you're looking at a gold and silver deposit where you may have, let's say . . . . I once worked in a mine where a

section of the mine was 1,000 ounces per tonne of silver. That got a lot of attention. They weren't focused on the part of the mine that could only produce 25 ounces of silver per tonne; they went where the ore was. Now, you want to have in place a regulatory change or the regulations that can encourage investments. But at the end of the day, you go where . . . . You've got the best regulations in the world, but at the end of the day you go where the ore bodies are.

We need more exploration in this province. The mining industry said that because there are ore bodies to be found, and that's what we want to encourage. Over the last number of years, there have been more mines opened up in British Columbia than under the previous Social Credit government. One of the key factors, though, in mining exploration, in terms of whether the mine continues to operate -- once you've found it, once you've got it to a production stage -- is the price of commodities.

Again, you can give all the breaks you want on power and on environmental regulations, but if copper is at 80 cents a pound and no one's buying it, you're not going to stay in production. If lead and zinc are at record low prices, your mine is not going to stay in production. You've got a recession in Japan and Korea. That's where coal goes; they funded the exploration of northeast coal. We developed northeast coal in the early 1980s to supply the Japanese market; there was a demand from Japan.

Well, at the same as they were doing that, I was on an exploration crew in Queensland, which was also looking for coal -- bringing coalmines on stream to supply the Japanese market. Well, if there's no market there, because Japan is in a recession, we're not selling a lot of coal, and coal shuts down.

The key thing is the ore deposit, the price of the ore or the price that the commodity's going to get. There are areas right now that are . . . . For example, the member points out a number of mines. He says there were 91 laid off up in the northeast, at Quintette, and that's true. What he doesn't mention is that there's another mine opening up -- Royal Oak's mine at Kemess. There are 1,000 people on that site right now. They're producing gold at approximately $126 an ounce, so they can stay in production.

The key that we've decided on, in terms of how we approach this on a sectoral basis, is to put in place the changes that the industry needs to sustain long-term exploration. They've asked for regulatory changes and some tax changes, and that was done between the governments and the industry. Social Credit didn't do it; this government has done it. It may not be perfect, it may not be everything that you want, but I think it's a good, strong first step to build on and carry forward.

There is a lot happening. The government is making changes. It's not just as cut and dried as saying: well, if you make regulatory changes, the rest will follow. It depends on a lot of other factors, and key among them are (1) the global economy and (2) the price for commodities.

D. Jarvis: The minister's comments were rather interesting. First of all, I'd just like to mention that they're not laying off men in the coalfields in Australia. It has good contracts and it's working on it -- and they're out there working.

[11:00]

The new mines you talk about opening up in British Columbia are our old mines that were discovered back in the fifties, during the Social Credit reign, and that is a fact. They're not what you'd call new mines that were created through exploration during your term of office. That's a fallacy. If you think that that is what's happening, find out when the ore bodies of Mount Polley, Huckleberry, Kemess and all the rest of them were discovered. That's not new. Eskay Creek, for example, was back in the fifties as well, and that was opened up a year and a half ago.

Kemess -- I'm almost positive -- does not have 1,000 men working on the construction job up there right now. If there are that many, I would like you to show me the evidence that there are 1,000 men working up there.

Another thing was that there is a new mine potentially coming on, and that's the Taseko mine, which is having problems just outside of . . . . Is it Williams Lake? No, it's the old Prosperity or Fish Lake mine. It's out in the Chilcotins there, anyway, west of Williams Lake. It's having problems with the federal government with regard to the Fisheries department. That's the only thing holding that thing up. I want to know when that is possibly coming on, if he could throw any light on that aspect.

[ Page 8800 ]

The other mine is the Tulsequah Chief up in the northwest. Is he aware of any problems that are holding that up now and whether they've passed through their environmental situation?

There are two new mines that could come on, that were discovered some time ago too -- not during the NDP reign.

Hon. M. Farnworth: On the last one, Tulsequah, I think there's an environmental assessment process that's underway. In fact, on some of the technical details on some of the specific minesites, we can get that information for you from the ministry of mines.

On the whole, though, the fact remains, given what the member was saying earlier on, that these mines opened up under our administration. That's when they have to pay the costs of labour; that's when they have to pay water rentals; that's when they pay the costs of power. So they've opened up under our administration. The other point I will make for the member's edification is: give us another term in office, and the exploration that's taken place since we've become government will result in more mines opening up under our administration.

T. Nebbeling: Just as a quick follow-up on the answer the minister gave to my colleague from North Vancouver-Seymour, as the reason why mines today in British Columbia are not operating in a manner that is comparable to mines in Chile, for example -- because the ore body is so much richer than it is here . . . . So if the choice has to be made about where we are going to mine, we're going to go to Chile because the ore body is better.

The minister should know -- and he would know if he had been in business -- that when these mines are opened, they are there for the long term. The price fluctuations of