British Columbia Hansard — TUESDAY, OCTOBER 29, 2002 (37th Parliament, 3rd Session) (20021029pm-Hansard-v9n11)
20021029pm-Hansard-v9n11
British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
2002 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 37th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes
only.
The printed version remains the official version.
Official Report of
DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
(Hansard)
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 29, 2002
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 9, Number 11
CONTENTS
Routine
Proceedings
Page
Introductions by Members
Statements (Standing Order 25 B )
Kitimat charity telethon
R. Harris
Auto crime in Surrey
B. Locke
Burnaby bid for 2009 World Police and Fire Games
P. Sahota
Oral Questions
Income-testing model for Pharmacare program
J. MacPhail
Hon. C. Hansen
Privatization of B.C. Rail
J. Kwan
Hon. J. Reid
Kyoto accord
B. Lekstrom
Hon. G. Campbell
Canadian history in school curriculum
T. Christensen
Hon. C. Clark
Tabling Documents
Response to the Judicial Justice Compensation Committee 2002 Report to the Attorney General
Third Reading of Bills
Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 64)
Committee of the Whole House
Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2002 (Bill 62)
(continued)
Hon. J. Reid
J. Kwan
J. MacPhail
Reporting of Bills
Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2002 (Bill 62)
Third Reading of Bills
Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2002 (Bill 62)
Committee of the Whole House
Community Services Interim Authorities Act (Bill 65)
K. Stewart
Hon. G. Hogg
T. Christensen
J. Kwan
S. Brice
W. McMahon
Report and Third Reading of Bills
Community Services Interim Authorities Act
(Bill 65)
[ Page 4135 ]
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 29, 2002
The House
met at 2:03 p.m.
Introductions by Members
Hon. G.
Abbott: It's a great pleasure for me to rise today to welcome members of the
B.C. Professional Firefighters Association to the House this afternoon. The note
said 15, but I think we've actually got a stronger representation than that here
today. Many firefighters from all across the province have travelled to Victoria
for a two-day conference over at the Empress. I had the good fortune to speak to
the association yesterday and very much appreciated their gracious reception.
They're meeting with their MLAs today to discuss a variety of important issues.
I know that these meetings have been both constructive and productive.
Would all
members of the House please join me in welcoming these members of the
Firefighters Association and acknowledge and salute the important and wonderful
work they do for their communities.
[1405]
Manhas: We've often heard the Premier mention that our population is aging.
At the UBCM conference the Premier asked everyone to look at the person sitting
next to them and asked if they looked younger than the year before. There was
one person who had both of their neighbours on either side of them raise their
hands.
Today I
investigated to find out if there was truth to this assertion, and as I saw a
cheesecake being snuck into her office, I asked what the occasion for this was.
She told me that she was turning 29.
I'd like to
ask everyone in this House to wish a very happy birthday to the age-defying
minister, the Hon. Christy Clark.
Trumper: I would like to take this occasion to welcome the firefighters to
the Legislature today. I have some individuals I would like to introduce: Ted
Greves, Terry Peters, Shelley Barrett, Greg Zimmerman, Larry Hooge, Frank
MacDonald, Larry Powell, Jerry Kustaski, Mike Burgess and the two most important
ones, Ed Francoeur and Herb Nadig from Port Alberni, and Calvin Thompson. Please
make them very welcome. They do a great job for us.
Sahota: I'd also like to welcome the firefighters. It's a privilege for me
to introduce six heroes from Burnaby, who on a daily basis put their lives at
risk to ensure our communities are safe. Would the House please make welcome
Mike Hurley, John McQuade, Joe Robertson, Jim Peever, Jeff Clark and Miles
Ritchie.
Hon. K.
Falcon: I have the pleasure to introduce two separate groups to the House
today. First in the galleries we have Eileen O'Halloran, who is the 89-year-old
relative of a very valued constituent of mine, Mary Martin. She is visiting from
Ireland. She is joined by her sister Kathleen Curtin and their friend, Myrtle
Gagnon. I welcome them to the House.
The second
group is a group of Kwantlen University College students, who are elected
representatives of their student council. I had the opportunity to have lunch
with them today. We had a very pleasant discussion and dealings both in the
lunchroom and in my office. I would like the House to make welcome Chris Moyer,
Laura Anderson, Aaron Spires and Brian Baker. Would the House please join us in
making these two groups welcome.
Visser: I'd like to introduce a couple of firefighters from Campbell River
who are friends of mine. I was going to make a joke, but I won't embarrass them,
other than that one beats me in curling every time we play. Scott Kratzmann and
Ken Dawson are here. Would the House please make them welcome.
Hon.
S. Santori: I, too, would like to welcome all the members of the B.C.
Professional Firefighters Association, but specifically two of my good friends
up here, Richard Melnyk and Jason Milne with the Trail Firefighters Association,
who do an excellent job for our community. I wish that the House would make them
all feel welcome here today.
Mayencourt: I also have some of British Columbia's firefighters here in the
gallery. I'd like to introduce them and have them welcomed. They're here to
ensure that their firefighters have access to emergency medical assistance
training, something that we are very committed to doing, and to discuss
occupational disease that is faced by their firefighters and how the WCB deals
with this.
It's my
pleasure to introduce the members from the Vancouver Fire Department. They are
Rod McDonald, Rob Hall, Colin Thompson, Gord Wilson, Martie Cameron, Bob Hollier
and Joe Foster. Would the House please make them welcome.
Stewart: I join with my colleagues in recognizing the professional
firefighters who have come to the capital today, and in particular two
professional firefighters from Coquitlam, Troy LeTrace and Terry Wyatt. Would
the House please join me in welcoming them.
[1410]
Manhas: I join my colleague from Coquitlam in welcoming the Coquitlam and
Port Coquitlam area firefighters. I'd like to welcome a constituent of mine, Joe
Robertson. He's also the vice-president of the B.C. Professional Firefighters
Association. I'd like to thank all the firefighters for coming down, and thank
them for their commitment to the safety and well-being of British Columbians and
the people of the communities they serve. Thank you.
Roddick: On behalf of Delta North and Delta South, please make welcome all
of our Delta firefighters.
Christensen: I, too, want to welcome some professional firefighters from
Vernon to the precinct today.
[ Page 4136 ]
I'm pleased to welcome Brent Bond as well as Bob Brett, who is the president
of the B.C. Professional Firefighters Association. Would the House please make
them welcome.
Hayer: On behalf of all my colleagues from Surrey, we'd like to welcome all
the firefighters from Surrey. We appreciate them coming up and sharing their
time to have a meeting with us. Would all the members of the House please make
them welcome.
Mr.
Speaker: Thank you. Are there any firefighters from Kamloops? Welcome to the
House.
Statements
(Standing Order 25
B) KITIMAT CHARITY TELETHON
Harris: A couple of weeks ago I had an opportunity for the second time to be
the co-host to a very special event in Kitimat. This was the annual Aluminum
City Telethon. This year was the telethon's twenty-third year. It's an event
that has become a lot more than just a telethon. It has become an annual
exercise in community-building that I believe has few equals.
Each year
the telethon raises money for service groups within the community. This year's
recipients were the child development centre, the hospice society, Kitimat
Status of Women, Kitimat home support, the acute care hospital as well as the
multilevel care facility, Kitimat Victim Services and the Kitimat
chapter of the
B.C. Special Olympics.
What's so
special about this event is not that it's been around for 23 years but, in fact,
the level of community involvement that it takes. Over 400 volunteers come
together to not only put on an 11-hour showcase of local talent and energy, but
they create a festival atmosphere that involves everyone. From the smallest
child to the senior, from the unions to the business community, everybody takes
a role in this event. People attending it can enjoy an international food fair
as well as get a full day of activities for their children.
This year's
telethon raised over $54,000. Over the 23-year history of this telethon, they've
raised over $1.4 million. On a per-capita basis, the Aluminum City Telethon
raises more money per person than any other telethon in North America — all
this from a town of just 10,000.
I'd like to
take this moment to thank the dedicated volunteers who again this year put on a
tremendous show and allowed me to participate again. To the organizers,
especially those who have been at for all 23 years, I'd like to congratulate you
on your dedication and commitment. The community is a better place for it. To
the citizens and businesses of Kitimat who have so generously supported this
event: you should be very proud of your accomplishments, and I look forward to
being there again next year. Thank you.
AUTO CRIME IN SURREY
Locke: All too often it seems that as a society we have a fascination for
bad news, which is reflected in the newspapers and on TV. We focus on statistics
that are misleading and tar the reputation of communities. The latest statistic
from ICBC shows that there are lots of cars stolen in Surrey, giving the
impression that our community is crime-ridden and a haven for criminals.
Let's be
upfront. There are problems. There are thefts, and there are people who think
it's easier to steal than to make an honest living. According to the RCMP, ten
to 15 vehicles are stolen daily in Surrey. But the numbers also don't tell the
whole story about what a wonderful place Surrey is and how, as a community, we
are working together to combat the problem.
The RCMP
and security at various malls are working together to reduce auto crime through
the Surrey Crime Prevention Society's mall patrol. Patrollers are equipped with
mini computers, binoculars and radios as they check for stolen vehicles. As we
all have to be responsible for reducing auto theft, volunteers will leave a
special ticket warning motorists of possible theft if they continue to leave
their valuables unlocked or in plain view.
[1415]
Even Surrey
auto dealers are getting involved. Some are now putting in anti-theft devices or
other disablers in all of their automobiles.
Another
measure to combat auto crime is to toughen up on Criminal Code statutes around
this issue. We've all heard stories about teenagers who steal a succession of
cars and don't do any real jail time. There needs to be a deterrent that ensures
that stealing cars is not seen as an attractive way to make a living.
We can't
put all the burden on the RCMP and the courts to deal with the issue. This is a
community, and we must all do our part to combat auto crime. We need to put
valuables in the trunk, we need to use the CAT auto stickers, we need to use
anti-theft devices, and we all need to remember that auto crime costs all of us
through higher insurance premiums. Auto crime costs most of us by staining our
city's reputation.
A community
is strongest when its residents work together. I believe in Surrey, and I know
we can work together to reduce auto crime and make our city all it can be.
BURNABY BID FOR 2009
WORLD POLICE AND FIRE GAMES
Sahota: Throughout the day members of the Legislature have had the
opportunity to meet with firefighters to discuss a variety of important issues
that concern us all. Two of the Burnaby firefighters who have joined us in the
gallery this afternoon are here to discuss a bid — not the 2010 bid, but the
2009 World Police and Fire Games bid for B.C. and Burnaby.
The World
Police and Fire Games started in 1985 as a means of promoting physical fitness
and sport within police and fire organizations. Since then, the games
[ Page 4137 ]
have grown to become a truly international event. In fact, it is the
second-largest event outside of the Olympics itself. More than 12,000 athletes
are expected to attend the 2009 games from close to 70 countries.
The Burnaby
bid is a tremendous opportunity for my community, for our province and for
Canada as a whole. The games could have a huge economic impact, estimated to be
between $35 million and $50 million. There is no doubt in my mind that a
successful bid for the 2009 Police and Fire Games in Burnaby will only add to
the momentum of the Vancouver bid for the 2010 Winter Olympics. Athletic events
like these bring a sense of community, pride and renewal. In addition, they
bring spectators, athletes and thousands of visitors to our beautiful province.
Firefighters
and police officers play a pivotal role in keeping our communities safe, and we
need to remember the important services they provide. We also need to remember
that these men and women not only serve the community; they live in the
community. That's why these firefighters are willing to put such a tremendous
effort toward getting these games. They know the benefits will go to all British
Columbians.
I want to
thank the Burnaby firefighters and all others for everything they do for our
communities — my Burnaby colleagues from Burnaby North, Willingdon and
Burquitlam. I also want, at this time, to offer our support for the Burnaby,
B.C., bid for the 2009 games.
Mr.
Speaker: That concludes members' statements.
Oral Questions
INCOME-TESTING MODEL FOR
PHARMACARE PROGRAM
MacPhail: The Minister of Health Services says he has no idea whether or not
his Pharmacare income-testing scheme for seniors will wipe out their tax cut. He
said that a few weeks ago, and now he's had time to run the numbers. Can he tell
this House how his Pharmacare income-testing scheme will affect a senior citizen
on a fixed income of $25,000, which is the average income for a senior woman?
Hon. C.
Hansen: We have not yet finalized the various income bands or the thresholds
that will be applied to the various income categories. We're certainly working
on that. We're anxious to get that out as quickly as possible.
Basically,
the underlying principle we have established for this rollout of income-based
Pharmacare is that we recognize that pharmaceutical products are a necessary
part of a good health care system and that no province in Canada can afford to
pay 100 percent. What we're saying is that all British Columbians should be able
to access the pharmaceutical products they need, based on their ability to pay.
Mr.
Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question.
[1420]
MacPhail: I'm pursuing the theme of this government that tax cuts pay for
themselves. The average senior pays $873 a year for prescriptions. On January 1
the Liberals will increase the Pharmacare deductible to 4 percent of income.
That means a senior citizen on a fixed income of $25,000 a year will see her
deductible grow from $200, when the Liberals took power, to $1,000 next year.
These are from the government's own official documents. This senior will now
have to pay her entire drug bill of $873.
To the
minister: does this wipe out the seniors' tax cut?
Hon. C.
Hansen: I think it's rather dangerous for the member to speculate on what
the percentage of income may be. Certainly, there is no such thing as an
official document that would set out the percentage of income that will be
applied to the new income-based Pharmacare program.
Mr.
Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplementary.
MacPhail: Actually, there are official documents on all of this. Let me just
run through the numbers. The minister has actually had several weeks to examine
this himself. A senior citizen living on a fixed income of $25,000 a year got a
tax cut of $259 a year, and that includes the reductions to her MSP premium, but
she will pay $673 more for her prescriptions next year under income testing.
The
Liberals gave $259 with one hand and will take $673 with the other. Seniors gave
into the system their whole lives on the understanding that it would be there
for them when they needed it. Now the Liberals are kicking them off Pharmacare.
Will the minister today commit to backing off his income-testing scheme, and
will he release the secret Pharmacare options paper he has been withholding…
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
MacPhail: …from the public?
Hon. C.
Hansen: As I indicated earlier, those numbers have not been finalized.
Whatever document she has or pretends to have is not finalized, because that has
not been completed.
Let me put
in perspective what happened while the NDP were in office. In 1991, when that
political party formed government in this province, the deductible for seniors
for Pharmacare was $125. They increased that to $200. Now, tell me what
percentage of income increase that was over that period of time. That was
regardless of income. You applied the same increase to the lowest-income British
Columbians…
Interjections.
[ Page 4138 ]
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. C.
Hansen: …as well as to the highest-income seniors. We plan to bring some
fairness based on ability to pay.
PRIVATIZATION OF B.C. RAIL
J. Kwan:
The fact is that the previous government looked at all the options before they
increased Pharmacare costs, but this government went and gouged seniors…
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. Hon. members, let us hear the question.
J. Kwan:
…before they even looked at the books around the tax for the rich. That's what
has happened. That's the reality — the tax that would not pay for itself.
On page 9
of the New Era document, it says: "A B.C. Liberal government will
not sell or privatize B.C. Rail." It's in black and white, but right now a
private U.S. company out of Denver is angling to buy and operate the whole
company. They're holding meetings in the north, testing the waters, right now.
To the
Minister of Transportation: a B.C. Liberal government will not sell or privatize
B.C. Rail — true or false?
Hon. J.
Reid: That is the policy we have stated. When I deal with transportation in
the north, I want to see the very best rail infrastructure for the north. There
are challenges in delivering that. On the 21st of next month, we are going to be
going to Prince George to talk to the people, to give them the same information
I receive on the challenges we're facing. That's what we want to do: deliver the
very best rail transportation service for the north.
Mr.
Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary
question.
[1425]
J. Kwan:
It's a simple question — true or false, yes or no. Are you planning on
privatizing B.C. Rail?
First, the
minister cancels passenger service, and only now does she say that she's looking
for a private operator. It sounds like damage control to me. Let's be clear. The
Liberals have been trying to wiggle out of their B.C. Rail promise for months.
Piece by piece, they've been selling it off, and now they're looking at selling
the whole company.
To the
minister again. British Columbians who live in the interior want to know: will
the Liberals keep their new-era promise to keep B.C. Rail public, or will B.C.
Rail be privatized? A simple question — yes or no? Will you privatize B.C.
Rail?
Hon. J.
Reid: The situation has been very clear with the service plan we've put out.
The core service for B.C. Rail has been the freight service. We've talked about,
and we've talked in this House about, the problems in being able to provide
proper service on the passenger side.
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. Let us hear the answer. Excuse me, hon. members. You
asked a question. Let us hear the answer, please.
Hon. J.
Reid: We have concentrated the resources of B.C. Rail on the freight side.
There are still challenges to work out on the freight side. I'm taking that
information into the communities, because I was asked by the mayors of the north
during the transportation congress to be able to give them that information.
KYOTO ACCORD
Lekstrom: My question is to the Premier. The Prime Minister has announced
that he will not call a first ministers' meeting to discuss the implementation
of the Kyoto protocol. This is clearly astounding, given that every Premier has
already agreed that a first ministers' meeting is necessary. It seems clear,
based on this news, that the federal government either has no plans, or the plan
is so devastating that it is afraid to discuss it with the provinces. To the
Premier: how do you intend to react to this outrageous response by the Prime
Minister?
Hon. G.
Campbell: Well, let me start by saying that I think the Prime Minister's
rejection of a first ministers' meeting on Kyoto is clearly no way to build a
country. It is no way to build understanding across this country of the
challenges that we face with regard to climate change.
We have
been very clear. It's not acceptable to me, to the cabinet, to the government or
to the province or to the people of British Columbia that the federal
government's most favoured response will cost 11,000 jobs in British Columbia.
It is not acceptable to the people of British Columbia or to the province that
the federal government's most favoured response means that British Columbia will
lose more in gross domestic product growth than any other province in the
country.
I think it
should be very important for everyone to know that I intend to work with other
Premiers across this country. I intend to make sure that the federal government
respects provincial jurisdiction and, most importantly, respects the jobs of
individual Canadians across this country so we can move forward.
Mr.
Speaker: The member for Peace River South has a supplementary question.
Lekstrom: This morning I read in the paper that there's talk in Ottawa of
the federal government taking control of B.C.'s forests as part of its plans to
implement Kyoto. We all remember the national energy pol-
[ Page 4139 ]
icy and the devastating impact it had on western Canada. Clearly, the Kyoto
protocol is the national energy policy in fast-forward, except this time no one
will benefit. Can the Premier tell us what actions he will take to protect
B.C.'s interests?
Hon. G.
Campbell: As you know, we live in a federation. The federal government does
have responsibility, indeed, to negotiate treaties. That is their obligation to
all Canadians, but provinces have a responsibility for managing our land and
resources. Clearly, British Columbia owns our resources. We will not allow the
federal government to confiscate British Columbia's resources, and we will
certainly not allow the federal government to blow away 11,000 B.C. jobs because
they haven't taken the time to listen to every single Premier in every province
across this country before they vote on ratification.
[1430]
CANADIAN HISTORY IN
SCHOOL CURRICULUM
Christensen: My question is to the Minister of Education. In recent years
there's been a growing awareness of the need to teach our children the
importance of Canadian history. In reading the National Post today, I was
shocked to learn that in some provinces, Canadian history is not even a
mandatory course. Yet the same
article found that nearly nine in ten Canadians
believe that Canadian history should be considered a mandatory subject. Can the
Minister of Education tell us what Canadian history courses, if any, are B.C.
students expected to take?
Hon. C.
Clark: It is absolutely true that British Columbia children should have a
better grounding in our history. They should know what it is to be a British
Columbian. They should know what it is to be a Canadian. They should know what
it means to have the privilege to be able to cast a ballot to elect our
representatives to our governments across this country. That's why I am
proposing, as part of our review of graduation requirements….
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: One moment, hon. member. We'll wait until we have order in the
House.
Hon. C.
Clark: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That's why I am proposing….
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. Order. Please continue.
Hon. C.
Clark: That's why we are proposing a mandatory civics course in grade 11
that will give every British Columbia child an opportunity to learn about those
important principles, which will give them the tools they need not just to
understand our past but to participate fully in our present and to become full
participants in our civic, democratic system. It's a proposal. It's up for
debate, and I am interested in hearing what British Columbians have to say about
it.
Mr.
Speaker: The member for Okanagan-Vernon has a supplementary question.
Christensen: As we approach Remembrance Day and we think about those
courageous Canadians that gave their lives for our country, it's particularly
discouraging that many Canadians are unaware of their country's proud military
history and of the courage, determination and sacrifice of some of our soldiers.
In fact, a poll earlier this year indicated that only 36 percent of Canadians
were able to correctly identify the Canadian victory at Vimy Ridge in World War
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. Order.
Christensen: Given the shortage of knowledge of Canadian military history,
of some of these events of the past, can the Minister of Education tell us what
she plans to do to ensure that B.C. students of the future have a firm grasp on
Canadian history?
Hon. C.
Clark: We are proposing, in our review of graduation requirements, not just
that students have a firmer grounding in social studies and democratic, civic
and in all those other core subjects that are so critical.
British
Columbia has created 90,000 jobs since December, and we have an obligation in
government and in the Education ministry to make sure that every young person,
no matter where they live in British Columbia, is equally well equipped to be
able to compete for and get those jobs so that they can succeed.
Interjection.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
[End
of question period.]
Tabling Documents
Hon. G.
Plant: Pursuant to
section 32.1 of the Provincial Court Act, I seek leave to
table the Response to the Judicial Justice Compensation Committee 2002 Report
to the Attorney General .
Leave
granted.
Orders of the Day
Hon. G.
Collins: I call report stage of Bill 64.
[ Page 4140 ]
Third Reading of Bills
HUMAN RIGHTS CODE
AMENDMENT ACT, 2002
[1435]
Third
reading of Bill 64 approved on the following division:
YEAS — 71
Falcon
Coell
Hogg
L. Reid
Halsey-Brandt
Hawkins
Whittred
Cheema
Hansen
J. Reid
Bruce
Santori
van Dongen
Barisoff
Nettleton
Roddick
Wilson
Masi
Lee
Thorpe
Hagen
Murray
Plant
Campbell
Collins
Clark
Bond
de Jong
Stephens
Abbott
Coleman
Chong
Penner
Jarvis
Anderson
Harris
Nuraney
Belsey
Bell
Long
Chutter
Mayencourt
Trumper
Johnston
Bennett
R. Stewart
Hayer
Christensen
Krueger
McMahon
Bray
Les
Locke
Nijjar
Bhullar
Wong
Bloy
Suffredine
MacKay
Cobb
K. Stewart
Visser
Lekstrom
Brice
Sultan
Hamilton
Sahota
Hawes
Kerr
Manhas
Hunter
NAYS — 2
Kwan
MacPhail
Bill 64,
Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2002, read a third time and passed.
Hon. G.
Collins: I call committee stage of Bill 62.
Committee of the Whole House
MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 3), 2002
(continued)
The House
in Committee of the Whole (Section
B) on Bill 62; J. Weisbeck in the chair.
[1440]
The
committee met at 2:41 p.m.
Hon. J.
Reid: I just wanted to take a moment to introduce the staff with me today
and also to add some information to the record from when we ended off debate
last time, which I believe was the 22nd.
With me
today are Kathie Miller and Kirk Rockerbie. On the 22nd, when we were having
this exchange in committee stage, there was a question around arterial highways
and whether there are any opportunities for privatizing arterial highways. My
comment was negative, and I just want to expand on that. It's part of my service
plan that we are looking at a private partner in the Coquihalla Highway.
Normally we wouldn't think of the Coquihalla as being an arterial highway, but
according to the strict definition within this act, I just want to clarify there
are nine kilometres of that within the bounds of Merritt. I just wanted to add
that to the record.
section
10 (continued) .
J. Kwan:
In our debate last time, I was asking the minister a series of questions in
terms of what plans and discussions have taken place, particularly with respect
to potential privatization schemes with potential implementation of tolls. The
minister had advised there was one possibility, and that was the Fraser River
crossing, although that was not the only possibility. Of course, the minister
also advised it would be a network of roadways, if you will, which may well lead
into potential privatization schemes.
Just
following on those discussions, then, could the minister please advise: outside
of the lower mainland, who else has the minister spoken with — mayors,
councils, regional district representatives — around privatization and their
comments?
Hon. J.
Reid: Over the summer — actually, longer than the summer — since the
bill, which is now 67, was introduced, I have been speaking to communities all
over this province — a total of 19, I believe. Their comments have been
far-ranging — I believe we've had this conversation already in committee stage
— and certainly, I appreciate those comments. I've spoken with members of
councils. I've spoken with mayors. I've received letters. So there has been a
very broad-ranging discussion around all of this subject matter.
[1445]
J. Kwan:
The answer the minister gave last time and this time is of a general nature. I'm
looking for specifics, Mr. Chair, in terms of which mayor, which council, which
regional district the minister consulted with on the issue around privatization.
This is the
section of the bill that is dealing with allowing for arterial highways, if you
will, potentially to be privatized. Then, of course, later on today there will
be further discussion in terms of the transportation authorities act, which is
tied into this piece of miscellaneous amendment. Given that they're two separate
pieces, Mr. Chair, and given that they're related, we have to take all of these
things in context.
[ Page 4141 ]
The
government talks about how they're open, they're transparent and they're
consultative. Aside from speaking broadly — "I've spoken with people, and
they seem to be in favour" — I'm looking for specifics in terms of….
Maybe the minister can advise: which council or mayor or regional district
representative did the minister speak with that is actually in favour of the
privatization of roads and the imposition of tolls?
Hon. J.
Reid: The discussions in the communities have been over the broad
transportation plan, the challenges facing the government and the different
options we have looking at those challenges. So for every given situation —
whether it be from Vernon, whether it be to Prince George, whether it be to
Whistler, or all over the province — as I've been talking with people, we talk
about their particulars. They talk about what's on their wish list. We talk
about what's able to be financed under the current structure for the province
and explain the different options. That's been the discussion. It's been a good,
healthy discussion and dialogue.
I certainly
have not been asking people for specifics, because people understand that if
they want the transportation infrastructure in their areas and in their regions
that they believe are important, we have to look at many different approaches.
I've been open about the different approaches that are possible to us, but none
of that has gone forward for decision-making. None of that has gone forward in a
plan, saying this is what we're going to do and this is exactly the proposal,
because that has not been put together. In fact, I still continue to receive
from every region of this province additional requests for transportation
infrastructure improvements.
J. Kwan:
What consultation, then, will go on with local residents about private tolls
with respect to roads or bridges that will be perhaps a major commuter route?
Hon. J.
Reid: First of all, there is lots of broad discussion around the province
around the concept of how we add to transportation infrastructure at a time when
we don't have those dollars budgeted for these large projects or for significant
improvements. That discussion is already ongoing. That discussion is happening
with TransLink. That discussion is taking place all around the province. As
people are advocating for their specific projects in their specific areas, then
we will have to get down to the specific funding options.
Around
consultation I'd like to refer the member to the record that we have within this
ministry around consultations we have done with inland ferries. This has been
very extensive. This has been going on for quite a period of time since last
spring. The tolls in that situation don't come in until the new year, and that
has been an extensive consultation discussion with certainly participation by
the communities.
J. Kwan:
I know the minister likes to think that this government is very
consultative, but the reality is that it isn't. I'll use one example that's
actually directly related to the minister's area of responsibility. There was a
promised final version of the Creating Opportunities for Expanding
Transportation Infrastructure report. That was promised on July 9 in an
information bulletin, a press release that actually came out of the minister's
office. To date we have not seen the final version. We see these major
legislations before us in this House that we're debating, but no final version
has actually come out yet.
The
consultation that supposedly went on — where is that information? Why isn't
that available? Where is the result of the consultation that supposedly took
place, which is supposed to be made public? The promise from the government was
that that information would also be made public, and so far none of it is and
nobody's seen it.
[1450]
Hon.
J. Reid: There has been consultation around…. I presume the member is
referring specifically to the policy that was put forward with the previous Bill
57, now Bill 67. The priority in analyzing that was to be able to make
amendments to that act. Certainly, I'm willing to talk to it when it comes time
to discuss that. For those questions around that process, around that act, I'd
prefer to comment on that in context when we do get around to discussing those
particulars.
J. Kwan:
Actually, no, I'm not talking about the old act that was introduced. I'm talking
about the final version of Creating Opportunities for Expanding
Transportation Infrastructure , which was a document the government
had put out to feel for input from the broader community. The government had
actually promised that they would release the information by July. None of it
has actually happened. I've just sent a note down to my staff for them to send
that information up so that I can read the press release for the minister's
information.
The point I
want to make relative to this is that the government says: "We're
consultative. We've gone out and done that work. We're open. We're
transparent." The reality is that it isn't. This government is not
transparent. Reports that are supposedly done and promised to be made public on
issues that we're debating in the House on this Bill 62 — and of course a
later bill that's going to be coming up right after this, as I understand, or
shortly after this, Bill 67 — are tied together with all of these issues. But
we haven't seen the report yet. Where is the consultation?
When the
minister says, "Don't worry. We're going to consult with the public,"
with all due respect, I do worry. There's been very little evidence, if any, to
date from any of the ministers on any of the portfolios around having done a
proper, accurate and appropriate job around consultation. This is no exception.
The issue
of consultation has not been fulfilled, and what plans the minister has around
consultation on imposition of tolls, other than this general brief discussion
that the minister talks about…. What other plans
[ Page 4142 ]
are there? The minister said earlier that she has no identified roadways or
bridges or roads on which the government would bring forward tolls, but at the
UBCM the Premier announced a series of wish list projects around transportation
infrastructure. In terms of where the funding is coming from for that and how
the tolls would apply — those are valid questions as well. I'd be very
interested to hear from the minister.
Maybe the
minister can advise first: does she have any idea which project would be up
first for the purposes of privatization or toll imposition? Will it be the Sea
to Sky Highway?
Hon. J.
Reid: I'm trying to respond to the questions but also trying to be able to
put this committee stage debate into a context. What is before us right now
allows partnership funding for arterial highways. This
section does not provide
authority for tolling. In talking about arterial highways, talking about the
partnerships that already exist with communities and in talking with the member
about what partnerships we might have with the federal government, I believe
that would be in the context.
I would
have to say I have no problem with this discussion, but I believe it does need
to be in the context of the piece of legislation that, as the member says, is
coming up shortly for that discussion. I would ask that we look to this piece
about being able to use partnerships with arterial highways. I'm quite willing
to answer all the questions on tolling when we get to the piece of legislation
that actually talks about tolling. This piece does not give any authority for
tolling.
J. Kwan:
As I mentioned earlier, this piece of legislation, this
section here relating to
arterial highways, is to be read in conjunction with Bill 67 in the broader
context. It's true that this
section doesn't talk about tolling specifically,
but when you put in the context of Bill 67, it does allow for tolling. That's
the reality of it.
Is the
minister saying that arterial highways will not be faced with a toll, then?
That's one question. The second question, which I asked the minister earlier,
was around privatization. Is the minister saying, then, that arterial highways
will not be privatized? As I understand it, that's the whole purpose of this
section of the act — for the government to allow for privatization.
[1455]
The
minister likes to call it partnership. You can call it whatever name you want.
The reality is that the government is looking at privatizing. That's one of the
options that is being contemplated. This is enabling legislation to allow for
that. If the minister would answer my questions, I would appreciate it.
Hon. J.
Reid: We have many, many existing partnerships right now with
municipalities. We have existing partnerships with the federal government and
believe that this has worked well for municipalities. The basis around those
partnerships isn't going to change. We have talked about looking at other ways
of being able to provide funding for investment in highway infrastructure.
As the
member opposite states, this does include that type of partnership in this
language — along with the municipalities, along with the federal government
— and certainly is the clarification around the longstanding policy that
already exists. The member has stated that this is part of a broader enabling
legislation plan. I would anticipate that the member understands that what it
means is that you put a framework in place, and then you work from that
framework, allowing the government to then analyze its options, be able to work
with communities, be able to look at what the priorities are and how they're
going to be delivered.
While the
member would like specifics, I've stated before that the specifics aren't
available, because they have not been developed. This is the enabling
legislation to allow us to go and develop that. The discussions I've been having
with communities have been based on a presentation I've given called Challenges
and Choices . That's up on the ministry website. If anybody would like to see
what kind of discussion I've been having with the communities and what kinds of
options I've been putting forward, that's up on the website.
This has
been an open process. I don't believe we can get more obvious than that. In
fact, I've had people around this province saying they don't want to hear me
talk on the subject anymore, because they've heard it too many times. I have
been, actually, repetitive with that presentation and have covered so much
ground in that area. I would reiterate that this is part of enabling
legislation, but it is also a very important piece to provide clarification
around what is existing today in partnerships.
J. Kwan:
I found the news release that was sent up from my office, which actually talked
about consultation and the information that would be available — which is not.
This is the P3 discussion paper aimed at increasing infrastructure, sent out on
July 9, 2002. It goes on to talk about infrastructure needs and so on, and
therefore we need to look at other options and P3 models that need to be
adopted.
Then it
goes on to say: "Look at the ministry's website at the following
address." Then it says, "Comments received by 4:30 p.m., September 12,
will be given consideration, and a
summary of comments received will be made
public. The paper will be finalized this fall." We haven't seen the
information. It's actually not out there.
Yet we're
debating these major pieces of legislation that are relevant to the information
that's supposed to have been received, which the minister had actually promised
would be made public. As I say, to date, it has not been. Pardon me if I don't
accept the minister's vague promises around consultation and information that
will be forthcoming, because so far we have seen no evidence of it whatsoever.
On the issue around arterial roads, the minister says this is not about tolls.
It's not about what those projects are going to be, because we don't know what
the projects are going to be.
[ Page 4143 ]
[1500]
Let me ask
the minister this question, if she doesn't have a list of projects. What will
happen to proposed projects if no private sector proponents come forward and if
the minister decides that the proposal is unworkable in terms of a private
partnership? What if no private partner comes forward to join in with the
minister? Will this mean that the project is dead? Will it mean that it will be
financed by the government? What will happen?
Hon. J.
Reid: I'm going to contain my remarks to the current discussion. While the
member is asking a broader range of questions, as I've said, I believe they are
more adequately expressed in the context of further legislation, so I'm going to
address my remarks to this piece about the arterial roads.
We have
situations in this province right now in partnerships where, as we're looking
for the best arrangement to be able to provide transportation infrastructure,
there have been occasions that have already occurred where a municipality has
wanted to see a development along an arterial road where there's a developer
that would benefit from having access to that arterial road. There's been a
working-out of this so that there has been a developer who has been able, as a
result of their development, to pay for alterations to the arterial road that
benefit the municipality and help them reach their goals.
As well,
we've had municipalities which have desired to have urban improvements and have
funded them, such as curb and gutter projects, bus bays and street lighting.
This is what has been going on. They've been entering into cost-sharing
agreements with the province. Again, with the federal government there have been
cost-sharing agreements with the province. This has been the practice in the
province for decades. As I said earlier, this piece of legislation has been long
on the ministry's books to bring forward for that clarification. I believe it
does it succinctly. It recognizes the current reality that exists, and it
enables us to further develop those partnerships with the federal government as
opportunities come in. There can be opportunities for the private sector as well
— again, as we've expressed — whether they be on an individual basis, such
as the developers I've talked about that already participate in these
partnerships….
If we want
to get into further discussion of building toll roads, I am not going to do it
under this discussion. I will be doing that when we get to the debate around
Bill 67.
J. Kwan:
I was asking the minister this question. If she wishes to engage in a discussion
around the tolls under Bill 67, that's fine. We can do that. I'll ask the list
of questions I have here that the minister has not answered when we debate Bill
67. I actually want to ask this question before I ask the specific question I
had relative to this amendment.
To the
minister: under what
section in Bill 67 would I be asking those questions? Would
it be under the
definitions of the tolls around 67? I just want a clarification,
because the minister advises that that's where I should ask these questions.
Would it be under the
definitions
section of 67 that I should ask those
questions?
Hon. J.
Reid: I'd be happy to take those questions under
definitions, under any
particular
section — however the member would like to engage in that. Then we
can do it in the context of that bill, which I believe would be appropriate.
J. Kwan:
That's fine. I'll ask the toll questions and related questions when it comes to
Let me go
back, then, to this question for the minister. I asked what would happen if
proposed projects on a list…. I can only assume the minister will be working
towards building a list. Perhaps this list will start with the list of
priorities the Premier announced at the UBCM in terms of road infrastructure. Is
that the list the minister will be working from? I'm assuming there's some sort
of list, although it's not a finalized list, which people are working on and
working towards for privatization — not for tolls but for the purposes of
privatization.
[1505]
This piece
of legislation, this amendment, allows for arterial roads to be privatized.
In that
light, what if no private sector proponents come forward? What if the minister
decides that the proposal is not workable, even if there is a private proponent
who's come forward with a proposal? What will happen then? Will the
infrastructure project still continue? Will it be funded by government? What
will happen in that case scenario?
Hon. J.
Reid: There have been situations in the past where developers had been
looking for a certain benefit and were willing to invest along arterial roads
with municipalities. When they found that their contribution wouldn't give them
the benefits that they were anticipating, then those projects were either
restructured or didn't go ahead. That has happened in the past. That's life.
J. Kwan:
The project would either be restructured or be dead; that's basically what the
minister is saying. The option of government coming forward with the funding,
even though it's a priority project, would actually not happen then.
Hon. J.
Reid: We have lots of options. You can reconfigure projects; you can look at
other forms of partnerships. Sometimes you wait to see whether there's federal
funding that's going to be made available. All those options exist.
When the
private sector wants to get involved, then obviously there has to be a business
case. If there isn't a business case, we have to look at what other issues are
involved. We have to look at safety in certain intersections. We have to look at
traffic flow. We have to look
[ Page 4144 ]
at what would fit under current budget parameters or whether it doesn't. All
that conversation takes place with the municipalities. We have very good working
relationships with municipalities when we're trying to get projects through. We
have a number of discussions underway as municipalities are looking for
improvements in their own area.
J. Kwan:
What happens, then, if a private company comes forward with a proposal for an
infrastructure project that is not a priority of government? Would the
government not even entertain such a proposal, or would it somehow be
considered? Would the government move forward with such a proposal?
Hon. J.
Reid: The framework that has been the history in the past for these
developers participating in infrastructure is that they're going to get some
benefit. These exist right now. These are current realities where developers
have participated in the costs of these improvements. The ones that are current
have come up with municipalities. Needs have been identified. It's over a period
of time, working with municipalities. Obviously, it has to work for all those
parties involved.
Right now
there are partnerships that do involve private sector investment in the
development of infrastructure, and those aren't toll situations. Those are
situations where the developer is going to get some benefit, the municipality is
agreeing, and there's a pooling of dollars in order to get the project
accomplished.
J. Kwan:
That's what I'm saying. If it is not a priority project, not on the list of
projects to be done, but yet a proposal comes forward, what would the minister
do with it? Would it just be set aside, saying: "This is not a
priority"? I understand that as you're working with municipalities, amongst
others, proposals come forward and you consider them. What if the opposite
happens, and the proposal is put forward and is not on a priority list?
[1510]
Hon. J.
Reid: I would talk to the municipality. I would find out whether this was a
priority to them or not, whether this was something that they wanted me to look
at or not. It would be looking at the wishes of the municipality in that case.
J. Kwan:
If the municipality says, "No, this is not a priority for us; no, in fact,
we don't want to privatize roads, to see arterial roads privatized," then
the minister will respect their wishes and say: "Okay, we'll respect that,
and we'll stay away from the imposition of the potential privatization of a
project."
Hon. J.
Reid: I was referring to the context of when a developer is participating
because the access to that arterial road is going to provide some kind of
benefit. There has to be working together with the municipality in that case in
order for that benefit to be realized, or else the situation is not realistic.
Those are not the situations that exist today. That is not privatization; that
is a partnership where private sector dollars have gone in to fund work on
arterial roads. That's a reality today; it's happened. There are opportunities
for that in the future, and municipalities are wanting to take advantage of
those opportunities. I work with the municipalities to identify those. It does
become a true partnership, and it doesn't work without the cooperation all
around.
J. Kwan:
Would the principle of respecting municipalities by not forcing them to comply
with a plan they're not ready or willing to accept be applied to the general
principle of privatization of roads — in this case, arterial roads?
Hon. J.
Reid: The examples we're looking at, where there have been these kinds of
developments and participation, are certainly examples that exist historically.
We look at other examples where there are federal dollars going into projects,
and we have to evaluate them on the basis of safety and other considerations.
As we move
into looking at the provincial transportation plan, there's a lot of work that
we have to do to evaluate the safety of roads, the condition of roads, the use
of the roads and the movement of goods and services. That is a responsibility of
the province to see that that provincial transportation grid functions well.
When we're
talking about the arterial highways, when we're talking about a developer coming
onside and working in that partnership, when we're talking about the
application…. As the member would like to say: "Well, how broad can this
application get?" There is a role for the province in establishing an
effective, efficient network in transportation.
I deal with
situations all the time where, as times change, we have to expand a roadway.
There are always people who say: "I moved here, and it was a two-lane road,
and I don't like that it's now a four-lane road."
That's part
of the responsibility the ministry has to undertake. There are times when we do
have to develop that provincial grid. We work with municipalities to the very
best of our ability, but I'm not going to say that the province can always make
all people happy, because as the member opposite knows from her time in
government, that's just not possible. There is a provincial requirement here,
and safety is a very large part of that requirement.
[1515]
J. Kwan:
So the answer is no. If the municipalities don't agree with the minister on the
privatization of a particular arterial road, the minister will proceed in any
event. This is what I heard from the minister.
That's a
simple question that I think I'm asking of the minister. This is in light, of
course, of the entire context of what this government had promised to
municipalities: that they would not offload — in fact, they would outlaw
offloading of services and costs to local
[ Page 4145 ]
governments. Privatization of roads is another way of downloading costs to
municipal governments.
The
question is: if they don't agree with this concept, would the government force
it on them anyway? That is the crux of the question.
What I
heard from the minister, in a very fancy long-winded kind of way, is that she
said: "No, we will force it anyway. We would not respect the wishes of the
municipalities." Am I not correct in understanding that's what the minister
basically answered to my question?
Hon. J.
Reid: I know it's hard for the member, because she has a lot of excellent
questions. It's difficult because under this piece of legislation, it doesn't
give me the ability to expand on all the different provisions we envision for
working with municipalities and working out problems and concepts and all that
wider, broader discussion.
Again, I'm
willing to have that discussion around Bill 67. It doesn't enable me to have
that discussion here, because we're not talking about all the sections that the
member would like to discuss.
There is,
as the member knows very well, a provincial responsibility. There's a provincial
responsibility to maintain safe roads, to do works that are going to benefit the
province. The member knows that. While we will work with municipalities — as
she, when in government, worked with municipalities — you still have a
provincial responsibility. I think that's a very, very clear answer to the
question.
J. Kwan:
We can canvass this broader concept under 67. There's no doubt about it that we
can do that. But under this bill, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, (No. 3),
2002, it's dealing with a
section that talks about how some or all of the costs
of construction and maintenance of arterial roads may not be borne by the
ministry. What that tells me is that somehow government will find a way to
off-load the cost onto somebody else, whether it be through what's called a
public-private partnership or through another partnership, onto the local
governments or onto any other body which the government can impose the cost on.
The
question I ask of the minister is very relevant to this
section of the bill in
relation to arterial roads. If a municipality said, "No, we do not want you
to exercise this right that you have brought in under legislation to off-load
this cost onto us. We do not want it…."
Given that
this government, the Liberal government, has promised it would outlaw
downloading onto local governments, when a local government says, "No, we
do not want you to off-load the cost of maintenance and construction on arterial
highways onto us," will the minister respect that wish? Consistent with the
statement made by the Premier and the minister responsible for municipal affairs
— it's now called the Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services — would the
government respect the wishes of local governments? That's the question I'm
asking. It's a simple question — yes or no?
Hon. J.
Reid: I've stated before, and I'll state again that this is not downloading.
This is clarification of language of a situation that currently exists. I've
already answered the member's question.
The
province has a responsibility to deliver safe highways. We will work with
municipalities in every way possible. We have been working with municipalities
in every way possible.
This
amendment clarifies actions that currently exist and allows us to enter into the
partnerships with the federal government. It is a responsibility to deliver
transportation infrastructure.
[1520]
The member
doesn't like my answer, but the answer stands. There is a provincial duty to
provide safe roads. While we want to work with municipalities — that still
exists and, I believe, is obvious and, in fact, an important part of what the
government does — I believe that the people of British Columbia want the
provincial government to deliver safe roads. I cannot imagine that anybody would
want the provincial government to not do that. That is part of what the
responsibility is. We take that seriously. We're looking for ways to be able to
do that. We're working with the public, and we're working with municipalities.
We will move forward to fulfil that which people are asking me for, and that is
an increase in transportation infrastructure.
J. Kwan:
The issue is not about whether or not the government should be responsible for
delivering safe roads. Of course the government ought to be doing that. There's
no doubt about it. But you know what? In the minister's own
section notes under
62, what we're talking about is this. The Liberal government, this minister, is
off-loading costs onto somebody else. The explanatory notes say very clearly
what
section 10 is. Let me read that into the record for the minister's
information, and perhaps the minister can respond to that.
Section 10 says:
"Highway Act, repeals and replaces
section 29(1), removes the obligation of
the Ministry of Transportation alone to fund the full cost of construction and
maintenance of arterial highways and instead provides that the minister may
provide some...or none of that funding."
The
government is off-loading the costs onto somebody else, and who's likely going
to be on the receiving end of this off-loading? Well, local governments, because
the arterials are in their communities. That is what is going to happen, and
that is what this bill says. For the government to say, "Oh no, we're just
clarifying something, and, really, it's like a grammar thing," or something
or another is false. The explanatory notes of the bill itself say that what this
government is doing is off-loading the costs onto somebody else. Nobody is
saying they shouldn't be responsible for safety in the transportation network.
Nobody is saying that they shouldn't be, but the issue here is that they're
off-loading the costs onto somebody else. This government also promised they
would actually not off-load costs onto local governments. In fact, they outlawed
it. It was
[ Page 4146 ]
said at the UBCM. I have newsletters to show for that, to quote directly that
here's what the government said.
For the
minister to pretend something else is going on, sort of like all the other
sections in this Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act…. This government so far
has said: "You know what? We're going to exempt FOI information for the
government caucus committees, but that's really just a technical change."
What the government is doing is hiding information from the public. That's what
they're doing. Let's be clear about it. On the issue around changes on the
welfare disability and income assistance, government is bringing retroactive
penalties for people on income assistance so they wouldn't qualify for another
60 days. That is what is happening, so let's call it what it is and be truthful
about it.
I don't
know why the minister cannot admit, with her own explanatory notes to this bill,
that this is what this government is doing — off-loading costs. There's no
commitment I've heard so far from this government that she, this minister, would
actually commit to respecting the local government's opinions and perspective on
that.
To that
end, Mr. Chair, I have an amendment to make which is on the order paper, and the
amendment reads as follows:
[10
Section 29 (1) of the Highway Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c.
188, is repealed and the following substituted:
(1) Subject to subsection (2),
some or all of the cost of construction and maintenance of arterial highways
may, but need not, be borne by the ministry but only after consultation
with, and agreement by, the local government, or governments, within whose
jurisdiction the arterial highways lays. ]
That's the
amendment in my name on the order paper, Orders of the Day , and I move
the amendment.
On the
amendment.
The
Chair: Speaking to the amendment?
J. Kwan:
Speaking to the amendment, Mr. Chair, is the crux of the issue. I'm actually
just trying to help the minister here to respect what her own Premier has said
at the UBCM and prior to the UBCM — that this Liberal government would outlaw
off-loading from local governments and would not do any such thing until they
have full agreement and in full consultation with local governments.
It is in
the spirit of this New Era document that's been out there since the
election and prior to the election for the Liberal government to actually say
they will be open, consultative and transparent. This is exactly in that spirit,
and I would not understand why the government would reject such an amendment. It
supports the local community, and it supports the premise that they would not
download onto local governments unless if they've agreed to it. It does not
compromise the issue of safety. Nobody's asking for the government to compromise
the issue of safety. I want to be very clear about that. At least the minister
tried to create confusion by somehow suggesting that if they don't off-load the
cost to somebody else, they would be forced to compromise safety.
[1525]
The issue
is about priorities. The tax cuts that have never paid for themselves have
caused some of the problems. Those are some of the problems this government has
caused on their own, and those are the problems we're now faced with. So it is
about priorities. It is safety for the roads, and people say: "Do not
off-load the cost onto us anymore because we cannot take it." For an
average family who's already been hit hard by the increased costs, whether it be
from health care, school cutbacks, income assistance cutbacks or Pharmacare —
the list goes on — whatever the costs might be that the government has already
imposed and off-loaded onto British Columbians…. When they say, "We gave
you a tax cut," we already know the tax cuts have not covered the average
British Columbians' increased costs that this government has imposed on them.
Let's be
clear in terms of what this amendment means. It means to say that the government
will not privatize a road, not off-load a cost unless they have done the full
consultation with local governments and they're in agreement with it — what
the government had promised prior to the election and what they promise even
now. They pretend they're promising such things. Well, let's put the money where
your mouth is. Vote for the amendment.
Hon. J.
Reid: Speaking to the amendment. The member, in our discussions, has refused
to hear the current situation that we have with municipalities. The consultation
requirement in the amendment is redundant as the ministry's policy and practice
as contained, as I've already stated, in circular G23/87. This is what we use as
a basis for working with communities. This is what's existing. This is the
practice. It already features a consultation requirement prior to works being
carried out on arterial highways rights-of-way.
For
example, if a municipality requires infrastructure improvements — such as, as
I've said, bus bays, curbs and gutters and sidewalks — that municipality would
make those requirements known to the ministry. Ministry staff would then meet
with the municipality and negotiate cost-sharing and the planning and work at
implementing the improvements as per the policy. Consultation is inherent in the
existing policy.
Further,
the requirement to obtain an agreement with the municipality effectively gives
control of the arterial highway right-of-way to the municipality with respect to
construction, maintenance and rehabilitation activities for which the
municipalities would neither be legally responsible nor accountable. As a
result, giving municipalities this measure of control is unacceptable and is not
in the interest of the province.
MacPhail: The policy that's from 1987 has been abandoned by this government.
That was made clear at the Union of B.C. Municipalities as well. Those sessions
[ Page 4147 ]
were not widely reported, but the Union of B.C. Municipalities delegates told
this minister in particular that they were extremely upset about the
downloading, the off-loading, without any notice let alone any consultation.
One example
is the beautification maintenance of highways next to the borders of
municipalities — just done completely. When I was travelling the province with
the committee on the prebudget consultation committee, every single Liberal MLA,
as well as I, on that committee heard mayors report that they were spending
thousands of dollars — these are very tiny municipalities — just this year
because of the off-loading of responsibility for beautification maintenance
without any landscaping maintenance, without any consultation whatsoever.
[1530]
The second
thing this government has done without any consultation whatsoever, but has had
to back off of because there's push-back, was on the downloading of policing
costs. The minister will stand up, because in her little message box there it
says: "Oh well, that isn't my responsibility." This government,
without any notification — in fact, in complete reversal of the promise they
made — said they were going to download policing costs onto towns of less than
5,000, but they were forced to back off.
That's why
my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant is actually tabling this amendment
so we don't have to go through this extremely confrontational, exhausting,
stressful exercise by municipal leaders that will have to fight this once it's
passed. All the amendment says is that they should consult and get the agreement
of municipalities before they download the costs. In fact, it basically
incorporates the new-era promise into legislation.
I love it.
I sit on a legislative committee where one of the questions on the checklists
that we have to answer — it's a bit unusual; I spoke to the Chair about this,
and he fully understood — is: do the Crown corporation goals and objectives or
something meet the test of the new-era commitments? Well, this is just making
sure the legislation meets the test of new-era commitments.
Municipalities,
we heard in our prebudget consultations, are very concerned about downloading.
That policy the minister refers to as if it's gold was in existence when they
raised all of these concerns. If you vote against this amendment, you're voting
against the new-era document.
[1535]
Amendment
negatived on the following division:
YEAS — 2
MacPhail
Kwan
NAYS — 68
Falcon
Coell
Hogg
L. Reid
Halsey-Brandt
Hawkins
Whittred
Cheema
Hansen
J. Reid
Bruce
Santori
van Dongen
Barisoff
Nettleton
Roddick
Wilson
Masi
Lee
Thorpe
Hagen
Murray
Plant
Campbell
Collins
Clark
Bond
de Jong
Stephens
Abbott
Coleman
Chong
Penner
Jarvis
Anderson
Harris
Nuraney
Belsey
Bell
Long
Chutter
Mayencourt
Johnston
Bennett
R. Stewart
Hayer
Christensen
Krueger
McMahon
Bray
Les
Locke
Nijjar
Wong
Bloy
Suffredine
MacKay
Cobb
K. Stewart
Visser
Lekstrom
Brice
Sultan
Hamilton
Sahota
Hawes
Manhas
Hunter
[1540]
The
Chair: Is it the wish of the members to waive the time?
Some
Hon. Members: Aye.
Section
10 approved on the following division:
YEAS — 68
Falcon
Coell
Hogg
L. Reid
Halsey-Brandt
Hawkins
Whittred
Hansen
J. Reid
Bruce
Santori
van Dongen
Barisoff
Nettleton
Roddick
Wilson
Masi
Lee
Thorpe
Hagen
Murray
Plant
Campbell
Collins
Clark
Bond
de Jong
Stephens
Abbott
Coleman
Chong
Penner
Jarvis
Anderson
Harris
Nuraney
Belsey
Bell
Long
Chutter
Mayencourt
Johnston
Bennett
R. Stewart
Hayer
Christensen
Krueger
McMahon
Bray
Les
Locke
Nijjar
Bhullar
Wong
Bloy
Suffredine
MacKay
Cobb
K. Stewart
Visser
Lekstrom
Brice
Sultan
Hamilton
Sahota
Hawes
[ Page 4148 ]
Manhas
Hunter
NAYS — 3
MacPhail
Kwan
Sections 11
to 27 inclusive approved.
Title
approved.
Hon. G.
Plant: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with
amendment.
Motion
approved.
The
committee rose at 3:43 p.m.
The House
resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Reporting of Bills
Bill 62,
Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2002, reported complete with
amendment.
Third Reading of Bills
Mr.
Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?
Hon. G.
Plant: By leave, now.
Leave
granted.
Bill
62, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2002, read a third time and
passed.
Hon. G.
Collins: I call committee stage debate on Bill 65.
[1545]
Committee of the Whole House
COMMUNITY SERVICES
INTERIM AUTHORITIES ACT
The House
in Committee of the Whole (Section
B) on Bill 65; H. Long in the chair.
The
committee met at 3:48 p.m.
On
section
Stewart: I have a couple of general questions, so I'll ask them now. As this
is an interim authorities act, I would like to ask the minister, with regards to
putting some historical context as to where this is today, where they're
planning on going with this and what the time frame is. Can he give me some
understanding of the format of the board of directors, the number of directors
and how they will be represented within this act?
Hon. G.
Hogg: There are a number of questions blended within the request there.
Before I
start, perhaps I can introduce to the House two staff members with me today. On
my right is Jeremy Berland, who is the executive director of services to
aboriginal children and families. After that ovation, I will turn to the….
[Applause.] Thank you very much. Equally deserving of a thunderous ovation, to
my left, is Janice Aull, executive director of strategic management and
intergovernmental relations. [Applause.] Thank you so much.
The intent,
with respect to this act, is to move to create a legal entity and to put in
place the authority to start the planning functions to move to the permanent
authorities, which is legislation that we hope to be able to bring in sometime
in the spring.
[1550]
At this
point in time, services are all still being provided by the ministry and through
the ministry. There are a number of delegations that are helping to provide that
within the aboriginal communities, and there are further delegations that we
will look at providing out of the authority granted to the minister for the
provision in community living as well as in child and family services.
The process
in terms of the boards. I have had an interim chief executive officer in place
in each of the five regions for a number of months now, and there have been two
co-chairs, one aboriginal and one non-aboriginal, in each of the five regions.
With the
completion of this legislation, we will be able to appoint full members to that
board. We can appoint a different number of voting members to different interim
authority boards. Those numbers will probably be somewhere in the range of eight
to 12 for each of the regions, depending on the needs of those regions. They
will be appointed once this legislation is complete. They are out looking at the
appointment of members now and searching within each region. In fact, some
regions have recommendations with respect to interim board members in place now.
Stewart: With regard to the regions, do they parallel the health regions
geographically, or are they set up in line with other regions? Or are they set
up with different boundaries? Are we being consistent with the boundaries in
this particular bill?
Hon. G.
Hogg: They are consistent with the health regions with the exception of the
interior, where there was one small modification that has not yet been
finalized. That is with one of the aboriginal authorities, because some of the
traditional aboriginal lands are slightly different than the organizational
structure of the Ministry of Health and of the boundaries we had put in place.
With that small modification, they are all consistent.
Christensen: I apologize if I'm wrong here, but are we dealing with
section
1 at this point? I missed the beginning.
[ Page 4149 ]
The Chair:
We are on
section 1 of Bill 65.
Christensen: My question is in respect to the fact that there are
definitions for both administrative services and community services. It's my
general understanding that the intent of the bill is to eventually devolve both
administrative services and community services to regional authorities. Can the
minister give me some background on why it's necessary to separate the two areas
of service?
Hon. G.
Hogg: The separation of the administrative services allows for the
possibility of there being shared administrative services across two service
delivery authorities. As an example, in one region we may have an aboriginal
authority and a non-aboriginal authority, and they may wish to share the types
of administrative services that would support them, therefore generating
economies of scale and efficiencies that would ensure there would be more
dollars that would be able to move to actual service delivery in that context.
J. Kwan:
Under the
definitions section, the term "administrative services" is
used. The definition of administrative services includes legal services provided
to that minister. Could the minister please advise what the significance of that
is? What kinds of legal services will be utilized by the minister and for what
purpose?
Hon. G.
Hogg: The legal services that will become available through this process
will not all be available through the Ministry of Attorney General. Legal
services will be required by the authorities as well. They may be in child
protection services where they will need to retain counsel for matters that
appear before the courts. Those services need to be made available to the
authorities so that they can respond to their legal needs.
[1555]
J. Kwan:
Then they would extend beyond the legal services provided to the minister. The
authorities would also get legal protection, legal advice and representation or
whatever is required in the process.
Hon. G.
Hogg: That is correct.
J. Kwan:
Under the definition of administrative services, why doesn't it say that? It
just says it "includes legal services provided to that minister." Why
doesn't it include the authorities that will be established under this act?
Hon. G.
Hogg: Under the Attorney General Act, all legal services are currently
required to be provided through the Attorney General ministry. This provides the
ability for counsel to be retained by the authorities outside the Attorney
General ministry to give that type of independence. I'm sure that responds
specifically to the member's question. If it does, I'm delighted; if not, I'll
seek clarification.
J. Kwan:
Actually, no, it doesn't quite answer the question I had.
The intent
of the definition of administrative services is, in part, that legal services
are provided, first, to the minister and, second — when I asked the question
earlier — to the authorities that are established under this act. I understand
they would be outside sources, so there would be independence and so on and so
forth, but it doesn't actually say, under the administrative services provision,
that legal services are being extended to the authorities established under this
act. If the intent is to make sure that they, too, have legal services available
to them, why doesn't it say that under the administrative services component?
Hon. G.
Hogg: I'm advised that in the finest of legalese by the Attorney General's
draftspeople, that's exactly what this says, but I appreciate that it is not
perfectly clear to those of us not trained in the intricate wording of the legal
profession. Certainly, in terms of the policy we put forward to be developed and
the intent expressed by the ministry, that was what was asked for. This is what
was provided, and I'm sure we should be just delighted.
J. Kwan:
Is the minister saying: "Thank God, we're not lawyers, so we can actually
read what is actually written and what it means"?
Interjections.
J. Kwan:
I was speaking for myself and the minister. Now, that was a comment from your
colleague, who actually asked the question of whether or not lawyers actually
have feelings. That was actually a comment from your colleague. I just want to
be clear: it wasn't from me.
Interjections.
J. Kwan:
Okay, where's the Attorney General when we're looking for him?
Could the
minister then advise, please: with the legal services provision that would be
provided to the authorities that are established under this act, would the
minister have to approve that request? How would that trigger the legal services
representation for the authorities established under this act?
Hon. G.
Hogg: I'm sure the reference to lacking some heart does not include those
members today. Certainly, the member for Okanagan-Vernon has provided very
emotive and emotional responses to the issues here and, by his words, would be
excluded from those comments that were made — somewhat extraneously, I'm sure.
[1600]
The
authorities would be delegated budgets. Within those budgets they would have the
ability to contract with legal counsel of their choice to represent them as they
saw fit.
[ Page 4150 ]
J. Kwan:
Following the administrative services definition, we then have the community
services definition, which includes a long list of nine different types of
services to be included under the definition of community services. Does the
minister anticipate that any other services could be added to this list? Is this
meant to be an exhaustive list?
Hon. G.
Hogg: Yes, we do anticipate that there may well be other services included
in that, which is why there's a subscript after item (
i) which says:
"…and includes other types of services provided pursuant to the powers,
functions and duties of the Minister of Children and Family Development that are
prescribed by the minister." That condition will provide for the ability to
put more services into the legislative framework to make it more exhaustive than
is contained in (
a) through (i).
J. Kwan:
The list that is now identified under this act, the services that are provided
for…. Given that there isn't a (j), as an example, is it because the ministry
has not yet identified what those other services might be? Was the provision
that says "and includes other types of services provided pursuant to the
powers" allowed just in case other services might pop up, so they could be
added? Given that it's a long, exhaustive list — not an exhaustive list; it's
a long list, but it could be added to — do we not see other items beyond (
i) because they have not yet been identified by the ministry at this time?
Hon. G.
Hogg: The list contained herein was developed by referencing the Child,
Family and Community Service Act. The majority of them are contained within the
act. They were added to where issues of service currently exist, and we're
working with the community on those. We may well add others as we look at how
these function and as the authorities come back with other issues that they may
wish to have contained within their ambits of responsibility.
J. Kwan:
Would the minister, then, accept proposals from the communities or the new
authorities that will be established under this act, which have identified new
services that need to added, and then in that situation the new services would
be added? Is that how it would work? Would it be done by regulation, or would
there be amendments to the act that would be brought back to the House?
Hon. G.
Hogg: Under the act, if it passes in this condition, they can be added by
being prescribed by the minister. Authority would be granted for the minister to
prescribe those.
With
respect to the first part of the question on discussions that are taking place,
and as an example that may happen, I met this morning with the four elected
aboriginal leaders and a number of the service providers. One of their concerns
in ongoing discussions has been the provision of federal funding and federal
support for aboriginal services.
One of the
possibilities would be that these authorities might also be able to take funding
from the federal government, which currently funds children who are in care on
reserve but does not fund them when they come out of care. That is counter to
the direction we're trying to go, which is to give more authority for the
aboriginal communities to make decisions in a more holistic fashion. We'd want
to look at models that would allow for those authorities, as they saw areas
where they might be able to provide more and better services in the best
interests of keeping children safe — ways that might be done, including
further services that are currently funded by the federal government….
[1605]
It may also
look, at some point, at some other services that may be provided by other
provincial ministries — again, believing that if the decisions are made in the
local communities, they'll be more responsive to the needs of those communities,
and believing that as ministries, we have columns in terms of our service
delivery which don't always reflect the best interests and needs of a
coordinated, integrated and holistic approach at the community level. This would
allow us to have some flexibility to allow those services to be more inclusive
and more responsive to the needs and the nuances of various communities and the
challenges that exist within them.
Section 1
approved.
On
section
Christensen:
Section 2 deals with the purpose of the interim authorities.
The wording contemplates that the purpose of the interim authority is to perform
some or all community services or administrative services in place of the
ministry. Can the minister give us some idea of how he sees this evolving over
the course of time? Presumably, all of these services aren't going to be shifted
at one single point in time. And presumably, these interim authorities and the
communities that the interim authority will be serving are going to be involved
in determining at what point the eventual new authority is in a position to
actually assume responsibility, given the importance of these types of community
services to all citizens of the province and, in particular, some of our most
vulnerable citizens. Can the minister give me some idea of how he sees that
transition evolving?
Hon. G.
Hogg: The uniqueness about this process is that usually we, as government,
will pass legislation and expect the communities to respond to that and deal
with it. What we're trying to do with interim legislation is involve the
community, firstly, by serving notice through this act that we are serious about
moving to a new style of governance and, secondly, about creating a legal entity
and, thirdly, about the process of
[ Page 4151 ]
transition, of planning to move exactly as the member is suggesting.
This piece
of legislation is to reflect and develop the social policy to ensure that the
communities have a chance to influence the final legislation, the legislation
which will no longer have the adjective "interim" appended to it as we
move forward. Each of the authorities which will be framed under this
legislation will have the ability to do that planning. They will have a legal
entity, but they will not be able to provide direct services other than those
delegated to them through the authority of the minister. They will have
delegated authority. Once permanent legislation passes, then they will have
legislative authority for the provision of those, so we're moving from a
delegated to a legislated form of the provision of services.
Now, our
intent is to follow that process by ensuring there's certain thresholds that are
met before those authorities become legislated and invested within communities
to be delivering them. We don't want to have different sets of authorities or
different levels of authority and responsibility existing in different areas of
the province without them meeting the same threshold that we have to meet across
the province. The state will be ultimately responsible for the funding, for
ensuring that there are standards which are kept across the province and for
holding authorities accountable for the delivery of services at those standards.
As the authorities meet the threshold, then the delegations will take place to
them to carry that out.
Christensen: Following up on the minister's comments, is it possible that
community services, as a bundle, aren't necessarily going to devolve at the same
time but that over the course of time, as these new authorities are ready —
or, in fact, the interim authorities, if it's delegated — they may get some of
these community services, and those will then be built upon as the interim
authority is in a position to properly provide those services?
[1610]
Hon. G.
Hogg: This interim legislation and then the permanent legislation envisage
at least three forms of those authorities: one authority for community living,
and its delegation may, in terms of its full function, be at a different time
than the aboriginal authorities, which would be a second one we'd have to meet,
and then the third one being the regional authorities for the provision of child
welfare services. So there are three different divisions that exist with those.
The
envisioned model for community living is a provincewide authority,
whereas we
have the five separate authorities for each of the aboriginal and child welfare
models. Each one of those may be moving at a slightly different pace in terms of
their readiness to meet the readiness criteria to be able to take over the
functioning. The legislation, when proclaimed or when moved into permanent
legislation, would allow us to look at and to ensure that the OICs — the
orders-in-council — necessary to have them up and running would allow for us
to do that based on them meeting the readiness criteria at whatever rate that
may be.
Brice: Minister, you make reference to provincial standards, and as you
devolve down to the local level and have a requirement to have provincial
standards maintained, I wonder if you would elaborate on that for us — how you
anticipate that's going to unfold.
Hon. G.
Hogg: The ministry has developed an accountability framework that will guide
both government and the authorities to ensure that the services are of the
quality standards which we believe the people of this province deserve, and
they'll be focused on the kinds of positive outcomes that we want for children
and their families.
There will
also be performance agreements with the authorities which will further
articulate the desired outcomes. The ministry has also been looking at the whole
process of accreditation to be a part of that. By using international
accreditation standards, we can be assured — and the people of this province
can be assured — that the services being provided by the service providers
throughout this province do meet internationally recognized standards. I don't
believe the ministry should be exempt from that as well. The ministry should
also have to meet those international standards that we would ask the service
providers to meet.
Those would
be three of the steps we would see in terms of ensuring that the readiness
criteria are met. As an example, currently in our delegation and enabling
agreements with the aboriginal communities, there are three stages to the
delegation agreement where they can come in at, where they start to create and
meet certain steps to finally get to the full ability to do child protection.
There are tests that have to be met in terms of doing that, and the same type of
process would be the process we would look at in terms of the delegation here.
That's how we would maintain some degree of control over the quality and the
standards that are applied.
Brice: Thank you for that response. Obviously, I know, minister, you're
absolutely committed that this devolution to the community is the preferred way
to go. Certainly, your accountability framework there sounds that it will in
fact ensure provincial standards.
I guess as
I look and see the 23 percent reduction your ministry is facing, and I know the
whole point of this process is to provide a better service to vulnerable
children, youth and families…. Can you perhaps give us some idea of how you're
going to meet that challenge with the 23 percent reduction in your budget and
still maintain these provincial standards and this solid delivery?
Hon. G.
Hogg: Well, the 23 percent budget is across the whole ministry, and I'm sure
I and all of us would love to be able to be doing this without having to have a
budget target that sees a reduction in terms of the funding levels we're having
to do. But because of our
[ Page 4152 ]
broad agenda as government, we have to do that. We've committed to that, and
we ran on it.
As we look
at it, we looked at the 23 percent overall in terms of service delivery, and
some decisions have been made with respect to how those will interpret with each
one of the service delivery models. So in the community living and special needs
sector, we're looking at a 17 percent reduction. The rationale for getting to
that number was simply in meeting with the sector. They said to me that if we
could create an authority with a different model and a different governance
structure, they felt they could provide the same level of services for some 20
percent less. So the simple way of getting to 17 percent was that we have a
recognition that there are about 6,700 special needs children on wait-lists
today. One percent equals about $15 million, so if we were able to do it — if
the community is right about that, and I believe they are — then we're going
to be able to do that and actually have, if this works out the way we'd like it
to, $45 million available in that model for dealing with issues for special
needs children.
[1615]
We have a
committee that's been working with our transition group, with representatives
from the community and service providers and the B.C. Association for Community
Living, which has been working over the past two weeks straight to try and look
at those budget numbers and get them into being able to address the targets.
They're very close to that; they're now less than 1 percent apart in terms of
doing that. I take some solace in my belief that they're going to be able to
manage that.
What that
means, of course, on the child protection side is that because we've reduced it
there, we're going to have to have a higher percentage reduction on the child
protection side, another major part of what we do. In that sector, as the member
may well know, we currently have seen an increase of over 60-some percent in the
number of children coming into care over the past six years. The growth has been
pretty dramatic post–Matthew Vaudreuil and the issues that grew out of that.
We're looking at ways we can actually bring those numbers back to more
traditional numbers and numbers which are consistent with the averages across
Canada.
The number
of children in care across Canada averages about nine per 1,000 of population.
In British Columbia we've been over 11 per 1,000 of population. One of the
things we want to do is rather than have the bureaucratic response we have now
— we have the largest child protection system in Canada through this ministry
— we want to look at a model that says we're not just going to apprehend
children, but we want to build supports around children to allow them to stay
within the context of their family.
About 70
percent of the children we apprehend today are apprehended from single parents,
usually women, who are on B.C. Benefits or on income assistance. We believe most
people want to be good parents, and if we can provide them with some supports to
keep their families together, we know from research worldwide that the outcomes
for those children are going to be better. We know that they have a higher
probability of being employed, a higher probability of graduating, a higher
probability of having a healthy life.
With those
types of models and the funding around that, when we bring a child into care, it
averages about $40,000 a year fiscally for each child in care. If we can provide
supports for them that are going to keep them in the context of the family,
their performance outcomes will be better. Not only will it be fiscally
responsible, but I think it's morally the right response to give and to deal
with them. Within that broad framework, that's how we're trying to look at that
target of 23 percent, with those frameworks.
All of that
is contingent upon and dependent upon partnerships with the community where the
state is saying: "Here's the funding envelope we have. How can we best work
with you to ensure we're providing the best services possible to the most
vulnerable people of this province as we move forward with a new governance
model and a new governance structure with this envelope of funding?"
J. Kwan:
Just a couple of comments before I ask my questions. The minister actually said
that the reduction of the budget, the 23 percent being contemplated for this
ministry that will come in place for next year's budget, was something the
minister ran on. That's not true. The Liberal government during the election did
not run on cuts to services at all. In fact, there was only one candidate who
did that, and that candidate disappeared from the campaign trail very quickly
after he made that comment. That was the candidate for Vancouver-Hastings who
ran against my colleague, who is now in the House. I just wanted to actually say
that as well, because that simply is not true. I don't believe any of the
candidates ran on cutting services and cutting budgets.
Relating to
that issue, of course, is the issue around the authorities that are now being
established, the groups which the minister is consulting with. It worries me a
little bit when I hear the minister say that they're very close to actually
meeting the budget targets the minister has set out and that he's confident they
will. The issue is not that I don't have confidence in the community, who can
deliver and perhaps do a better job than government. I've seen many occasions in
a variety of areas where they could do that. It worries me greatly, though, when
I hear the minister saying that it is they who are doing that and that they are
going to deliver this budget reduction.
In the
eventuality that they're not able to or if something goes amiss as a result of a
lack of resources, I worry very much that it will become a pattern and trend of
this government to say: "Hey, you know what? I didn't do that; somebody
else did." We've seen it time and again in different ministries. We see it
most prominently in the Ministry of Education, where the Minister of Education
just blames the school trustees
[ Page 4153 ]
for all the cost pressures the minister has caused on a reduced budget for
education with increased service demands.
[1620]
It worries
me a little bit, but nonetheless, I just want to flag that. I want to flag that
for our attention, for our diligence as we watch and see how this progresses. I
hope the minister will recognize that if the realities of materializing the
goals of what the minister, I believe, genuinely hopes to achieve, but not the
bottom-line goal that the minister will actually step up to the plate and say
that the communities are struggling and the authorities are struggling to
achieve this goal because they haven't got the resources to do it, and the
minister will step up to the plate and ensure adequate resources for them to do
the job they've been tasked to do….
The issue
around budgets around the interim authorities is an important one. So, too, is
the staffing component, because the other piece with which people are going to
be faced under the new budget is, I believe, a 22 percent reduction in staffing.
So when you have a budget crunch, you have a staffing crunch. It creates
difficulties for the interim authorities. Again, we'll watch that, as well, in
terms of where that goes and whether or not problems surface.
Will the
minister please advise: will staff be transferred to the interim authorities?
I'm assuming that they will. In our briefing, when I spoke with the minister's
staff, I think they advised that the staff would be transferred to the interim
authorities. Could the minister please confirm that in this House?
Hon. G.
Hogg: No, the interim authorities will not have staff transferred to them.
That would have to wait for permanent authorities. The interim authorities do
not provide services, nor do they have direct staff employed by them. They will
be able to contract with staff to support, and there may be some secondments to
them, as well, to allow them to carry out their planning functions. Their
functions are around the planning, not service delivery. There will be no staff
who will be directly employed by the interim authorities.
If I
confused the member with respect to the issues of budget, then my apologies. My
intent was to say — and I hope I did say — that what we ran on as a
government was a balanced budget of government, not the issue of services.
J. Kwan:
Yes, for that clarification in terms of the member, the minister and the
Liberal government now ran on a balanced budget. But at the same time, they also
said that tax cuts would pay for themselves and that therefore there would be no
service cuts. I want to put it all in context. Let's just be clear in terms of
what was promised and what is reality now, and therefore the dilemma that I
anticipate the authorities would be faced with down the road.
I hope that
my fears and my concerns don't materialize. I'm not just standing here to be a
naysayer but rather to say that I want to flag these things. Having worked in
the community, I have seen time and time again where the pressures and resources
are inadequate and how the communities get hurt at the end of the day, and I do
want to flag that very clearly.
So the
staff would not be transferred for the interim authorities, but they would be
transferred to the permanent authorities once they are established. Can the
minister advise, then, for the interim authorities what kinds of budgets they
would be working with? What kind of staff complement does the minister
anticipate they would have in terms of doing the work they've been tasked to do
under this piece of legislation?
Hon. G.
Hogg: Some of the questions around the issues of staffing are covered in
section 11. I'm sure we'll get more clarity with respect to that once we move on
to that. With respect to the overall budgets, that is an issue for budget and
for our estimates debates. At this point in time, we're looking at trying to do
allocations of somewhere in the range of $11 million of planning funding for the
various authorities, the three or ten or 11 authorities, as we move forward
looking at that within this fiscal year.
[1625]
J. Kwan:
The $11 million is coming, then, out of the minister's existing budget for
the interim authorities? They are not taking over services as of yet, but it's
just merely setting it up. But the ministry's going to lose $11 million from its
existing budget from areas including service delivery for the interim
authorities' setup costs.
Hon. G.
Hogg: Well, $11 million is correct, but we were given funding as a ministry
to look at the development of transitions. This is funding that was given for
this purpose specifically, so it is not taken out of any of our services or any
of the other provisions we have. This is an add-on with respect to the
restructuring costs associated with this ministry. It is funding allocated
specifically to that.
J. Kwan:
Once the interim authority is set up, this is not ongoing funding, then. It's
one-time transitional funding of $11 million. I presume then, once the permanent
authorities are set up, they will get permanent ongoing budgets to provide the
services they have been tasked to provide under new legislation that I guess
will come forward for the permanent authorities.
Hon. G.
Hogg: That is correct.
Section 2
approved.
On
section
McMahon: You're establishing the interim authorities, and from the
authorities come the boards. I'm just wondering when you expect them to be up
and running.
Hon. G.
Hogg: I certainly hope that when and if this act passes, we will be able to
appoint them imme-
[ Page 4154 ]
diately. We'll go through a process of doing that. In each of the regions,
the interim chief executive officers and the interim co-chairs are looking for
people who are interested in and have an aptitude for and an ability to work in
this field and an interest in doing that. Once this legislation passes, I'm
hopeful we'll be able to have the boards up and running and functioning as soon
as those names come to us and are approved. That, hopefully, will all be
completed by some time in January, but if this legislation passes and gets royal
assent, it may well happen before that.
J. Kwan:
Sorry, the minister might have touched on this question earlier when I was
getting materials for the debate, when another member rose in the House. I
didn't quite catch all the answers from the minister or the question which was
put, so if I am repetitive, I apologize. Does the ministry anticipate that there
would be more than one interim authority set up, that there would be more than
one interim authority created under this act?
Hon. G.
Hogg: Yes. There will be at least one for community living that would be set
up under this act and perhaps five for the services that are currently included
in all of the child welfare services and five for regional aboriginal
authorities. We could have up to 11 within that context.
J. Kwan:
Where would the one community living authority that will be set up be located?
Would there be a centralized office somewhere? Would it be in Victoria or in
Vancouver? I don't know. I'm just guessing here. Where would it be based?
Hon. G.
Hogg: There will be transition funding provided, and it will be up to them
to make the decision as to where they want to have their offices and how they
want to provide those services.
J. Kwan:
Will the Ministry of Children and Family Development offices that deliver
services in local communities be replaced, then, with the one centralized
authority, for community living in this instance?
[1630]
Hon. G.
Hogg: Well, this is the interim authority, so there will not be services
provided through the interim authority. The interim authority's responsibility,
again, is to start the planning process to move to boards of a permanent
authority.
In effect,
we have parallel structures in existence now. The ministry is still in
existence, and the ministry is still providing all of those services. At the
same time as the ministry is doing that, we're putting in place a parallel
structure that will allow us to transition to the governance model we're
describing. This is an interim authority that allows them to create the legal
entity to start the process of planning for the permanent authorities and to
help us influence and shape what the permanent legislation will be.
In response
specifically to the member's question, no, those offices will remain in
existence and continue to provide the services they do today as we start this
other process in place. As we move into the permanent legislation, then we will
be moving the services over in permanent legislation, but that's not a part of
this legislation.
J. Kwan:
The interim authorities to be set up would not replace any of the existing
Ministry of Children and Family Development offices, but once the permanent
authorities are set up, that may well take place and likely would take place.
That is what I'm gathering from the minister's comments. It would be up to the
permanent authorities, of course, to see how they would ensure the services are
being provided, but the only way the minister could maintain those offices would
be if the minister had increased funding. That's not the case, because the
funding would actually be transferred into the permanent authorities for
operations and service delivery. That would really just mean, then, that those
offices will shut down once the permanent authorities are established.
Hon. G.
Hogg: This legislation provides for the interim authorities to act to
develop the service delivery plan that makes most sense for their communities.
They envision and will work at that service delivery model. They will submit the
service delivery model to the ministry as they see it, given some terms of
reference around how best to do that. They will submit the service delivery
plan, and it will go through the checks and balances we've talked about
previously in terms of wanting to make sure they meet certain thresholds with
respect to services, as other members have requested.
This is a
process of developing a service plan, making sure it's responsive to the nuances
and needs of various communities and regions, then submitting it and having the
submission go through the due diligence necessary to ensure that it meets the
standards of care the ministry has set across the province.
J. Kwan:
If the minister doesn't have this information here, I wonder if he could send
the information along to our office. I would appreciate that.
Could the
minister please advise how many offices of the Ministry of Children and Family
Development now exist in local communities and where they are located? I would
anticipate that the minister wouldn't have the information right at this moment,
but if it could be sent along to my office, I would appreciate that.
Hon. G.
Hogg: I've been advised that the number is approximately 158 across the
province. We'd be happy to provide the list.
J. Kwan:
Thank you to the minister for committing to provide that information.
[ Page 4155 ]
I do just
want to put on record, as well, that there were concerns about the aboriginal
authorities that are not mentioned in this bill. I understand there is still
work to be done, but I understand, however, that it is to be a priority of
government. Many were hoping it would actually surface in this bill in terms of
the establishment of the interim aboriginal authorities. Will the minister
pledge that this enabling legislation will indeed lead to the legislated
establishment of regional aboriginal authorities as promised by the minister to
the first nations, the aboriginal communities, on numerous occasions?
Hon. G.
Hogg: Yes, it is the commitment of this government to develop aboriginal
authorities. That has been approved, and we are proceeding with that. That will
be part of the legislative framework we hope to bring forward in the spring.
[1635]
J. Kwan:
I know the minister touched on this in second reading debate, but I want to get
it on record once again. Could the minister please advise of the time lines for
the aboriginal authorities that would be established at a future date?
Hon. G.
Hogg: As I think I said to the member earlier, I met with the aboriginal
leaders and service providers again this morning, and we are working at exactly
the intent as expressed in this legislation. The time line for the creation of
those authorities is that it could take up to three years for planning and five
years to take over full service delivery. We expect to have all of the
aboriginal authorities in place and functioning by the year 2007. I'm hopeful
we'll be able to do it much sooner than that, but there are issues of capacity
and development. The aboriginal community obviously does not want to have issues
placed on them until they've reached the degrees of readiness necessary to take
them on. We are in constant discussion with them, trying to help them build the
capacity and the readiness to take this on.
That's the
broad framework and time frames. I wanted to set an outside time frame so that
we had some specific goals. Certainly, as we meet the criteria, or the
aboriginal authorities and service delivery models meet the criteria before
that, then we will move much more quickly than that.
It is a
comanagement model that I have with the aboriginal communities. We are putting
the resources of the ministry there to support them, and the decision-making is
vested collectively in that group, because I believe that's the best way we can
ensure we get the best form of delivery.
J. Kwan:
Would the minister only proceed if all of the authorities, the five different
regional authorities, are ready to go? Or as the authorities come to be ready
— the regional authorities, one by one perhaps — would the minister then
proceed as they are ready to move forward?
Hon. G.
Hogg: Certainly subject to those overall time frames, we will move as soon
as the authorities are ready. As soon as they meet the criteria, we'll move as
quickly as we can. It may be one or two or three — whatever the number. We
don't have to have them all ready at the same time.
Section 3
approved.
section 4.
Christensen: Can the minister provide us with some indication of what the
thinking is behind the appointments to these interim boards and the type of
qualifications the minister will be looking for in making those appointments?
Hon. G.
Hogg: Certainly as we've appointed the interim co-chairs, they have been
people who are active in their communities, who are aware of the resources —
the social capital that is in existence within their communities. They are
people who have shown a penchant for and an interest in the delivery of human
services. That's the type of people we want to have.
Included in
that, obviously, is the need to be able to manage a budget of a significant size
in terms of the models of service delivery. People who have had experience in
working with large budgets, who have had experience in the delivery of human
services, who have organizational skills and who would represent a good
cross-section of the community would be the type of people that we would be
looking for.
We would be
looking for, as we go into regions, geographic representation in terms of that
as well as the different types of service delivery and the skill set that allows
them to be members of boards of directors. It is not a hard and fast set, but it
is something that is representative of the community, and it is representative
of a board of directors who will be responsible for the provision of services
over a large area and with a large budget.
J. Kwan:
Is it the case that the minister has sole discretion on the appointment of the
members to the board?
Hon. G.
Hogg: Yes, for the interim legislation, that is in fact correct.
[1640]
J. Kwan:
The minister can also choose the size of the board. Could the minister please
advise how many members he is anticipating he'll be appointing to the interim
boards?
Hon. G.
Hogg: The range we've been looking at is in the eight-to-12 range, but
certainly the community living sector may be larger than that, and their
proposal is slightly larger. We want to have flexibility and, again, be
responsive to the needs that exist in each of
[ Page 4156 ]
the service delivery areas and in each of the regions of the province.
J. Kwan:
Is there remuneration for the board members, and is there a rate discrepancy
for, I presume, chairs of the different authorities? I assume there would be
chairs.
Hon. G.
Hogg: The remuneration is covered in
section 5. Shall I proceed with
responding on
section 5, or are we…?
Hon. G.
Plant: Wait till we get there.
Hon. G.
Hogg: Wait till we get there. Thank you, Attorney General.
J. Kwan:
It doesn't matter with which breath the minister answers these questions. It's
all the same to me as long as the answers are forthcoming.
How will
the minister ensure that there would be fair representation in terms of the
construction of the boards? Would there be regional representation from
designated areas? How would the minister try to achieve a fair representation?
What will fair representation look like for this board?
Hon. G.
Hogg: We will be looking to the regional advisory committees now to help us
with that and to make recommendations regarding that, to the aboriginal
community to help us with that in terms of their representation and to the
community living sector to help us with that as well. It's a partnership, and
it's an agreement, and it's a discussion. The community living sector, in the
submission of their recommendations, have some ideas as to how that might be
achieved, and we have to look at those and put together a model which is going
to be representative both geographically and in terms of service provisions
across both the regions and the province. There isn't a hard and fast model for
doing that, but it will be achieved as a result of the planning committees that
are in place and the recommendations they make around that.
J. Kwan:
The people who are now working with the minister, if they forward a
recommendation to the minister for appointments to be made for so-and-so….
Would the minister then, on that basis, accept the recommendations and then
appoint those individuals to the board? Or is it just for the minister's
consideration, and so in the meantime the minister can actually come up with an
entire list of people and then not accept the recommendations from the people
from whom he is seeking advice?
Hon. G.
Hogg: I have invited the people who are sitting on the planning committees
to look at transition and to possibly sitting on interim boards as well. There
may well be many, many more names submitted than we will want to reasonably have
sitting on a board, so the discretion exists with the minister to make the
decision with respect to both the numbers and who sits upon those boards.
J. Kwan:
Will the minister put out a request for proposal for members to be participating
on the board, aside from recommendations from those who are now advising the
minister?
Hon. G.
Hogg: That's the process we followed to develop the interim planning boards.
We went out and asked for anyone who was interested to submit their names. We
went provincewide to do that. That's the same group we're asking to continue
with this process, and we'll be seeking guidance from them with respect to how
they feel they will be best able to put together a representative group for the
board from each of their regions.
J. Kwan:
What will the aboriginal representation be like on the board? Does the minister
have any notions on the regional aboriginal authorities? I would imagine the
majority, if not the entire authority, would have aboriginal representatives.
For the rest of the authorities, would they also have aboriginal representation
on those boards? Is that the vision of the minister at this time?
[1645]
Hon. G.
Hogg: We're certainly open to suggestions that come to us from the planning
committees that exist. The current planning committees that I've been meeting
with in the aboriginal sector are virtually all aboriginal members, although
there may have been some that they have brought to those committees that are
non-aboriginal. I don't know that for sure.
Certainly
we have ensured as we've gone through this process that there is aboriginal
representation on the community living sector, that they have representation,
that the child welfare sector has representation from the aboriginal
communities, so that we can ensure that the interaction takes place. We know
that we have to have an integrated service delivery model if we're going to be
able respond in an integrated way to the holistic needs of children. We'll have
to do that cross-referencing as we build the models.
Again,
we're looking for guidance, support and advice from those aboriginal
communities.
J. Kwan:
During second reading stage, I brought a number of criticisms to the minister's
attention in terms of what's taken place to date around the current structure of
the transition steering committee. I hope the minister can commit that he will
take those concerns and work to address them while he is creating the board of
the interim authority. I hope that's a commitment the minister can make in this
House.
That's one
piece that I want to ask the minister about. The second piece is that I hope
that the new board would not just be the same people who have served on the
transition steering committee. Is that the minister's anticipation — that it
woul