1992 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 35th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, APRIL 23, 1992

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 2, Number 10

[ Page 919 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

Hon. A. Hagen: Visiting in the precincts today is a group of students, a grade 6 class of Mr. George Connell from my riding of New Westminster. I'd ask the House to join me in welcoming them to the House for their tour of the buildings.

Hon. M. Harcourt: I have the distinct honour of welcoming to the precincts once again one of the longstanding members of this Legislature, who has been serving British Columbia as the agent general in London. I had the pleasure of being hosted by him and Helen when I was in London and Europe a few months ago. I would like this House to give a very warm welcome to our agent general, Mr. Garde Gardom.

R. Chisholm: I rise today to introduce to the House Tony Lodder, Judy Thompson and Ben Brandsema. These people are members of the British Columbia Federation of Agriculture and are visiting the House today. Would you make them most welcome.

W. Hurd: It's my pleasure today to introduce a group of 45 grade 9 and 10 students and their chaperones from Earl Marriott Secondary School in my riding. Would you also welcome their teacher Muriel Haack to the House today.

H. De Jong: In addition to the three people representing the B.C. Federation of Agriculture who have already been mentioned by the member for Chilliwack, I would just like to recognize all members who are here today representing the B.C. Federation of Agriculture and give them a hearty welcome.

J. Beattie: I would like to welcome to the precincts today a hard-working farmer from Summerland, who is a member of the BCFA. He is here with the BCFA lobbying all members of government. His name is Frank Lauer, and I'd ask the House to join me in welcoming him.

K. Jones: Visiting with us today is a delegation from Surrey. These gentlemen represent the Save the B.C. Transportation Museum Committee in Cloverdale and bring greetings to Victoria on behalf of the Cloverdale Board of Trade. Would the House please make welcome Mr. Ronald Sloan, Mr. Blaine McEwen, Mr. Larry Coonce, Mr. Fred Davies and Mr. John Lewis.

Introduction of Bills

WATER AMENDMENT ACT, 1992

Hon. J. Cashore presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Water Amendment Act, 1992.

Hon. J. Cashore: The Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks has begun a complete renewal of the legislation necessary to provide responsible, progressive and effective environmental management. Review of water management legislation is an important part of this legislative renewal program.

Today I'm introducing the Water Amendment Act, 1992, which is very much in the spirit of this review, but which is considered urgent at this time and cannot await the outcome of that work.

The Water Amendment Act improves the effectiveness and enforceability of current stream management activities, delegates decision-making authority to the most appropriate individuals in the ministry's regional offices, standardizes the appeal process relating to the cancellation of licences and makes the penalties associated with offences consistent with other environmental legislation. I commend this bill for your consideration and urge its passage.

Bill 24 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

PAYMENT OF MEMBERS' LEGAL FEES

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, my question is to the Premier, and it has to do with a settlement in the Stewart-Firestone case. Hon. Speaker, I'm mindful of the point of order that was raised yesterday....

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, before you proceed, I should advise the House that the matter pertaining to this issue is under advisement and being studied by the Speaker. With respect to her not having brought the decision down on this matter, I would appreciate it if you would raise another question.

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, I am mindful of the fact that the point of order raised yesterday was with respect to the question being put to a member prior to the member forming government. My question today quite clearly relates to a settlement that took place after November 5, and it is clearly in the purview of the time that the Premier was Premier of the province and was responsible for the actions. So it is not on the question raised yesterday.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. That may well be the case; however, in light of the fact that the matter is being studied in its totality, I don't feel that it would be appropriate for us to raise the matter until a ruling with respect to the matter has been brought in by the Speaker.

D. Mitchell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With respect to the point of order that you referred to, which was raised yesterday by the hon. Attorney General, this point of order -- which has not been ruled on yet by the Speaker -- clearly dealt with a question of whether or not a question could be asked in question

[ Page 920 ]

period that dealt with a matter relating to a previous parliament. The hon. Attorney General also raised the matter of whether or not a question could be asked that came under the ministerial competence of a minister. Clearly the Leader of the Opposition today is asking a question not to the minister involved, but to the Premier as leader of the government, and it's clearly on a matter relating to an event that took place subsequent to the government coming into power. I would argue that the question is clearly in order, Mr. Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you for your point of view, hon. member. Nonetheless, I believe it is appropriate for the Speaker to respect the propriety of the privilege of the Speaker in this matter, and she is, hopefully, going to bring a decision down as soon as possible. At that time we can determine whether or not the matter can be addressed in question period.

[2:15]

J. Weisgerber: So that there's no confusion on this side of the House, is the Speaker in fact saying that any question related to the expenditure of public money by the government related to the entire question of the suit by the Minister of Labour involving Mr. Firestone, former Attorney General Bud Smith and all related issues is, until such time as the Speaker rules, not open to discussion in this Legislature?

Deputy Speaker: Obviously this is a matter that is not going to be dismissed without the due care and attention by all members of the Legislature, and I'm not suggesting that it be delayed unduly. However, it's quite clear that we would be wise in ensuring that the matters we are addressing are in order. This is what the Speaker is studying and will be bringing in a ruling with respect to what is in order and what is out of order.

This is all I'm suggesting, so I would ask that we address other questions until such time as that ruling comes in. I understand it will be tomorrow. Although I haven't been informed of that, I anticipate it will be quite soon.

HOSPITAL LABOUR DISPUTE

G. Wilson: My question is to the Minister of Labour, and it has to do with the resolution of the crisis that we have in B.C. health care. A letter from Vancouver General Hospital today to the Minister of Health, April 23, suggested this dispute will obviously not be solved at the bargaining table, and he urges your government take immediate action to end the dispute. Would the Minister of Labour tell us: when can the people of British Columbia expect action from this government to resolve this crisis?

Hon. M. Sihota: I am pleased to report to this House that as we speak, a series of meetings are being held -- were held this morning and will continue this afternoon -- that involve the parties, both the HEU and the HLRA and others, with a view to bringing this matter to a resolution forthwith.

Deputy Speaker: Before I recognize the hon. leader of the official opposition, I would advise the House that due to the points of order, the question period will be extended by four minutes.

G. Wilson: Supplementary to the Minister of Labour. Would the minister tell us, with respect to these meetings, what is the timetable, what is the timeline that the government has with respect to a resolution? This current conflict has gone on now for a week longer than the 1989 strike. We have a recommendation from an independent third party with respect to binding arbitration. How much longer does the minister need to meet? Can he give us a time in which he is going to make a recommendation so that the weighty length of waiting-lists can be addressed immediately, and people can again expect to have health care delivered in British Columbia?

Hon. M. Sihota: So that British Columbians aren't misled, health care is certainly being provided now. Secondly, in answer to the hon. Leader of the Opposition, I'm expecting a report at the end of the day from Vancouver.

G. Wilson: Do I take it, given that the report will be coming at the end of the day, that the minister will either take action with respect to binding arbitration or through some other method have the labour action in the hospitals dealt with by day's end? Is it now appropriate for the minister to tell us at what time this government feels enough is enough, and that there is time to end this conflict?

Hon. M. Sihota: If I had my druthers, the matter would come to an end today. I'm expecting a report today, and based on that report there will be some advice with respect to timing. The hon. member makes reference to the Kelleher report. It's important to note that there's no reference in terms of the timing for the implementation of binding arbitration. I think it's fair to say that I will assess the advice that I get today, and I would hope to be in a position to announce the next move on the government's part tomorrow.

I don't want to unduly raise expectations in that regard, but I'm telling you quite frankly that that's the objective that I'm working under. And the advice that I get will, at the end of the day determine the time that we set for the next intervention.

SCHOOL FUNDING

L. Hanson: I have a question for the Minister of Education. Not long ago the minister announced a $75 million capital program for the Surrey School District. In that announcement there were a number of figures presented: $16 million for the Guildford addition, $22 million for the Scottsdale addition and so on. To give the minister the question: in September the request for those capital programs were, in the case of Guildford's secondary addition, $11 million; the approval amount was $16 million. In the case of Scottsdale, the request in September was $18 million; it was approved at $22

[ Page 921 ]

million. In the case of Fleetwood, it was requested in September at $13 million and approved at $20 million. Can the minister give us some explanation for the huge increase?

Hon. A. Hagen: Hon. Speaker, I'd be very happy to take the question on notice and provide the member with detailed information as soon as possible.

HOSPITAL LABOUR DISPUTE

L. Reid: My first question is to the Minister of Labour. In the recent election campaign your party promised to provide "hospitals and health care...that we can count on." My question to the minister is: is the current situation his idea of fulfilling that promise, or was the line simple election rhetoric?

Hon. M. Sihota: It was clearly not rhetoric, as evidenced by the changes to the health care budget, the increases that this government has provided for health care and the shift away from institutionalized care towards community care in the province. So we're fulfilling that commitment, and that's evidenced by the decisions taken in the budget. There's no intention there at all.

L. Reid: My supplemental is to the Minister of Health. The same electronic campaign document commits that this government will eliminate waiting-lists and make sure that all quality health care is available to all who need it. Does the minister feel that she can support binding arbitration today, or can she support back-to-work legislation? Will this crisis in British Columbia health care be resolved?

Hon. E. Cull: You're asking a question that should be directed to the Minister of Labour if you're talking about binding arbitration or other ways of resolving the dispute.

L. Reid: A supplementary. I was in fact asking your opinion. I'm not sure that he carries your opinion, but it's an interesting comment.

My final supplemental is again to the Minister of Health. So many surgeries have been cancelled and so many people's lives have been and continue to be compromised due to the current situation. Will she tell the people of B.C. how much longer she's willing to let their lives and health be compromised?

Hon. E. Cull: I share the member's concern about the effect that the dispute is having on patient care in this province, and I am becoming very concerned about the number of people who are not able to get into the hospitals to have needed surgery done and about the people who are going onto the waiting-lists. For that reason I have been working with the Minister of Labour to do whatever can be done to bring about a speedy resolution to this dispute.

G. Farrell-Collins: My question is to the Minister of Labour. Last week the Minister of Labour said his patience and the patience of his government was wearing thin. He told us to wait for the Kelleher report on Tuesday. Well, Tuesday has come and gone. How much longer do the people of British Columbia have to wait? What's the deadline?

Hon. M. Sihota: I would refer the hon. member to the answer that I gave to the Leader of the Opposition.

G. Farrell-Collins: The answers that we've been receiving from whichever minister, or the Premier, simply haven't been adequate for the people of B.C. Over 3,000 people in the last month had to have their surgery postponed or cancelled. It will take up to six months to work through that backlog. Enough is enough. When will the minister finally take a decisive stand and start governing for the benefit of all British Columbians?

Hon. M. Sihota: As I've said before, this government is always interested in governing to the benefit of all British Columbians. In our policies and programs structures are designed with that in mind, and they will continue to be.

G. Farrell-Collins: A supplementary, hon. Speaker. Once again we're all over the place on this. We're not getting any hard answers.

The minister told us yesterday that we would have to wait until Friday before there was any movement on this issue, but that he was reaching the end of his rope. My question is: how long is the minister's rope, and when will the minister stop pussyfooting around and show some decisive leadership? It's time he put a knot in the end of his rope.

Hon. M. Sihota: Obviously the hon. member was not listening to the reply to the first question.

Interjections.

Hon. M. Sihota: Well, if you'd settle down for a moment and listen carefully this time.

The fact of the matter is that we are meeting currently with the parties involved. The hon. member knows as well as I do that this is a delicate and difficult dispute. We are meeting with the parties today. We are expecting a report back today. Once we have that report back, we will make the next appropriate announcement. I'm hoping to be in a position to do that tomorrow.

GOLF COURSES

ON AGRICULTURAL LAND

H. De Jong: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. It deals with the removal of a proposal for a golf course from the moratorium. A number of conditions have been the subject of this removal. I would just like to read one of the removal portions.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, do you have a question?

[ Page 922 ]

H. De Jong: Yes.

Deputy Speaker: You should not be bringing information, hon. member.

H. De Jong: My question is whether the minister approves that the removal from the moratorium is specific and applies to the person, firm or corporation that made the proposal but will not apply if the lands or assets involved in the proposal are sold, transferred or leased, or if there is a change in control of the firm or corporation which made the proposal. Is the minister in agreement with that?

Hon. B. Barlee: It was a rather convoluted question on a very serious matter. As the member well knows, we are trying to safeguard approximately 5 percent of the agricultural land of British Columbia -- and that's all, one out of 20 acres. We think that the decision we arrived at in cabinet was reasonable. Sixty out of 102 golf courses were cancelled. That was something we inherited from the previous government which I think was very ill-advised. Order-in-council 1141, I believe, was giving the thin edge of the wedge to speculators, not developers. The decision we made in cabinet, which was released to these various people who were concerned, was a just decision and was well thought out.

H. De Jong: Does the minister mean that he supports the establishment of a golf course only on the basis of ownership instead of proposed land use?

Hon. B. Barlee: Mr. Speaker, if I may be so bold as to ask the member to rephrase that question; it was rather difficult to understand.

H. De Jong: If the minister supports what we read in this letter that was sent to an applicant.... In my opinion, it states that he supports the establishment of a golf course only on the basis of ownership rather than on the proposed land use. Is the minister in agreement with that?

Hon. B. Barlee: I hope that I'm not too obtuse, but I have great difficulty understanding that. First of all, I don't know what letter the member has in his hand. I have not perused that letter. I would be quite willing to answer that if I have a chance to peruse the letter first.

[2:30]

COMMISSION ON RESOURCES

AND ENVIRONMENT

J. Tyabji: My question is to the Minister of Environment. The minister has appointed a commission of resources to study sensitive issues in the province. If an area is under study, is he allowing any resource extraction prior to the report of the commission?

Hon. J. Cashore: I assume that the hon. member is referring to the Commission on Resources and Environment. Is that the commission that the hon. member is referring to?

I'm glad we've had a question on this issue, because it's an initiative of this government that we are extremely proud of. It's going to enable British Columbians to come together to the table and work on issues together.

With regard to the reporting procedure, as I understand the question, the reports that come forward from the commission will be made public. The decision-makers, then, will have to base their decisions on the information that comes forward and which the public will be fully aware of.

Orders of the Day

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I call Committee of Supply, both committees.

The House in Committee of Supply B; E. Barnes in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

SOCIAL SERVICES

On vote 56: minister's office, $350,718 (continued).

V. Anderson: Let me ask a very current question, because there's been some misunderstandings among the people in the province. This has to do with their not receiving their cheques on this current pay-out on the 22nd. The main concern seems to be on two accounts: (1) that they were not notified of the change; and (2) that there were not three working days indicated between the 29th and the 30th. This has caused a great deal of difficulty to many people, a number of them being unable to pay their month-end rents as well as going without food for the period of time. I'm wondering if the minister could enlighten us about the current situation.

Hon. J. Smallwood: The member should know, first of all, that this is a historic problem. This is not a problem that government has not had to deal with in the past. This is the first time that this government has had to deal with this problem. Let me tell you what we are doing. There has been notification in each of the offices about the scheduled dates for cheques. What we are doing for future cheque runs is notifying each person individually about the predicted scheduled cheque dates.

In addition to that, we are currently reviewing the issue of five weeks between cheques. That happens three to four times in a year, depending on the year. We're currently looking at the impact those extended periods have on clients. The number of options before us indicate that most options will cost government a considerable amount of money. We are exploring those and will have a conclusion to that shortly.

L. Reid: I liked what you had to say yesterday in terms of supporting families and providing opportunities. My questions will revolve around the areas of

[ Page 923 ]

special-needs children in the province. Perhaps you could start by talking a bit about the services available on special-needs day care.

Hon. J. Smallwood: Because there are a number of areas around day care specifically -- there's been a major announcement today, which the member may be aware of, through the Ministry of Women's Equality -- I'm in the process of trying to sort out what future announcements we have in our ministry with regard to day care. There are still a couple of programs housed in this ministry. One of them, as you have identified, is the special-needs program -- as well as the subsidy program, which is an extensive program. There will be some future announcements with regard to those programs in the next couple of days, so I won't elaborate on government policy with regard to that.

The special-needs program is highly respected in the province. The people who have been working on this program for a number of years have earned a considerable reputation for the work they have done. I think that needs to be recognized.

The budget this year for special-needs has increased, and the increase is $9.4 million. That's $23.6 million for the previous year to $33.17 million this year.

Hon. J. Smallwood: I just shared the full amount that has been allotted for this program. It has been increased and is now $33.17 million for special-needs day care. We'll see if we have a regional breakdown and the number of spaces that provides, and we'll provide that to you -- if you'd like to continue.

L. Reid: I appreciate the global amount, but I would wait a long time to find out how the dollars break down across the province.

Hon. J. Smallwood: I would like to reinforce the commitment I've already made to provide the member with the information about spaces and the distribution of those spaces. Our ministry is the most decentralized ministry in the province; we have services throughout the province. It is a goal of this ministry to provide services and support for families where they live. We have a long way to go. We're still working on that, and this budget will help us improve the situation that currently exists.

We are waiting for that information. We may not have the breakdown, and I may have to provide that for you at another time. But you might like to ask another question. I know there was one there, and it escaped me.

L. Reid: Again in the area of special-needs children, we have a lot of special-needs children, particularly in my riding, who are currently in foster care. There seems to be confusion over funding the special medical needs that they have while they are in foster care. Those families that would choose to adopt those particular children have fewer services at their disposal. That is a significant issue if your ministry is about supporting families. It shouldn't be more difficult to welcome a child into your family through the process of adoption than it is to have services available for that child while in foster care.

Hon. J. Smallwood: I should start by tying a few loose ends around special-needs day care in particular. We currently have a study under way where we will be consulting parents and community groups to have them advise us how we can better enhance the program. The fact is that for a new government, realigning programs and priorities, we're committed to ensuring that the experts -- the parents that are on the front lines, that know their children -- have a voice and can advise us with their expertise to ensure that our programs reflect that expertise.

Secondly, as far as support for special-needs adoption is concerned, I have recently met with advocates. They are providing us with some insight about the difficulty they have with the current program, and likewise, we will be addressing their concerns as soon as possible.

L. Reid: Just a question as a result of a comment you just made in terms of the study on special-needs day care: can you enlighten me as to when that study will be completed and when we can expect a report?

Hon. J. Smallwood: I don't have the date for the conclusion. At this point the ministry has so much work on its plate, we are proceeding as quickly as possible on a number of fronts, and the commitment that the member has from me is that as soon as we can, realizing

[ Page 924 ]

that everything this ministry does impacts people's lives directly, and understanding the full responsibility and weight of that, we will expedite our work as quickly as is humanly possible.

L. Reid: Through the Chair to the minister, I thank you for that most sincerely.

Foster care in this province. Can you tell us how many children are currently in care, and how many dollars are attached to that? And is there any regional breakdown in that area?

[2:45]

Hon. J. Smallwood: The number of children currently in care in the province is 5,637. There are a number of different categories, age groups and types of care provided within that range. Children are cared for in fostering situations throughout the province, and it's a policy and goal of this ministry that children are taken care of in their communities close to home, so that there is the least disruption possible.

There are a number of types of fostering: foster homes, special-care foster homes and parent-counsellor. The rest are more specialized: either group homes or some type of specialized care for children.

L. Reid: The minister touched on special-care foster homes. I'm very interested in that area. Are you able to expand on that in terms of where they're located, and what the process is for having a child in such a care situation?

Hon. J. Smallwood: Rather than going through each of the numbers, what I did for one of your colleagues was to provide a fact book that we have developed. This ministry is embarking on a process of opening up and sharing a number of these issues with communities. We're continuing along its commitment to develop consensus, and we believe the best way to do that is through information, so that we can have an informed dialogue. We will ensure that you have a copy of the publication about children in care. It lays out in fairly specific detail the types of care, the number of children, and all the rest.

L. Reid: I would welcome the receipt of that -- it would be wonderful.

My next question revolves around the issue of child support. Currently women who receive child support must declare it as income. If indeed this ministry is truly committed to children, to families.... It seems, if that money goes directly to the children, that it is allotted on behalf of the spouse who gives the dollars. Does your ministry have a position on how those dollars cannot be taxed back on behalf of the parent, but will in fact directly benefit the child?

Hon. J. Smallwood: There are a number of issues that you've raised, one around the law that requires the declaration of that income for taxation. That's federal, and that's not within the mandate or jurisdiction of this ministry or this government.

Around the issue of family maintenance, our family maintenance program is very popular and strongly supported by families in this province as well as this ministry. I can tell the member that we are reviewing family maintenance -- our particular provision within the family maintenance program -- and I hope to have an announcement later during this session of the House. We're hoping to be able to improve that program in some way.

As far as the impact of maintenance on GAIN cheques is concerned, we're also doing a review of GAIN legislation and regulations, in the hopes that we can deal with the current act to facilitate a more open and supportive system for parents and families and for all individuals who rely on this ministry for support. I would encourage the member to look forward, as I do, to a very full and broad debate around income support programs and issues of poverty generally in the year to come.

L. Reid: I appreciate your comments on maintenance. I do have a couple of questions that I want to ask about that.

But I need to return to the child tax credit situation, fully appreciating that it is federal jurisdiction. Are you prepared to support the British Columbia women -- mostly -- who have a dilemma when it comes time for them to complete their tax form and they have to list that as income? It's not viable; it does not directly benefit their children. Can we work together on this issue to ensure that we can resolve this?

Hon. J. Smallwood: I should let the member know that we're currently discussing issues of income security with the federal government; in May I will be attending a provincial ministers' meeting with the federal Minister of Health and Welfare. At that time we'll be exploring a number of issues, and have chosen.... While I recognize there is a need to deal with some issues immediately, I am not very well disposed to tinkering with the system, as much as I am to reforming the system. So the member can take from that that we will be acting on issues of immediate need, and will be pushing for considerable reform to the system overall.

L. Reid: A question on the child maintenance enforcement program. There seems to be tremendous frustration out there in terms of how women access that program. There seems to be a telephone number. Certainly the folks who have come to me suggest that it's not possible to visit the office and receive immediate service. If you can touch on how that process works, that would be most helpful.

Hon. J. Smallwood: The member may well know that there are two components to that program. The enforcement component is through the Attorney General -- so I can't speak to that. As for service to our clients, to the people who visit and look for support from our ministry, they have access, through our ministry office, to information and support in working through the family maintenance program.

[ Page 925 ]

L. Reid: Is there a storefront? Is there somebody they can talk to, whom they can make an appointment with? The concern seems to be that it's not possible to do that.

Hon. J. Smallwood: We have approximately 300 offices throughout the province for the Ministry of Social Services, so any family receiving income assistance and eligible for family maintenance can access that program through our offices. We have 77 specialized family maintenance workers within the Ministry of Social Services, but each and every office we have can provide information and support to our clients.

L. Reid: I'll be happy to take that back.

Disabilities and programs. I need to talk a bit about employment opportunities, what kinds of services are available for retraining for individuals with disabilities, and if there is any likelihood that service levels will be increased in the next mandate of your office.

Hon. J. Smallwood: All of our employment and training programs have been enhanced. It is a priority of this government to develop bridging programs to support people to full employment. We recognize that there is a need to develop more comprehensive and sensitive bridging programs for everyone. The disabled community is not excluded from that. We have a number of programs that specifically support the disabled community. We have an employment initiatives program that currently services 743 of our clients. We have professional support services.

We have a self-help skills program for our clients, and that has been increased by 27 percent. Also included in our budget are achievement centres and supported work.

L. Reid: I've had the opportunity to sit on a platform with the minister in terms of mental health issues, and it certainly seems to be a significant issue for both of us to advance. My concern rests with counselling services available to children at this time. As an administrator of an elementary school, I often had the problem of parents being told that their child was not of the correct age to access a program. I'm interested to know what kinds of things are in place for elementary-age children in terms of severe emotional difficulty -- psychiatric involvement.

Can we have some services in place for younger children so that they don't have to suffer those symptoms for so many years, as the problem then becomes compounded because they have behaviours at that point that need to be unlearned?

Hon. J. Smallwood: A number of the issues the member refers to flow through a number of ministries, as I'm sure you're aware -- the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Health. The Ministry of Health specifically is responsible for mental health services, for assessments. But for this ministry, we have one program in particular that.... I shouldn't single one out; we have a number of programs. One of which I like especially well is the at-home program.

The infant development program provides support for families, for very young children before they even enter the school system, in the hope that not only will we support families in dealing with often extraordinarily difficult situations, but support those children and provide them the best opportunity possible so that they are able to enter the school system and achieve their goals.

In addition, there are a number of programs specific to specific needs. One of those I might mention is the autism program. We have a budget that will be enhancing that program. There is a rehab program in school. We have interministerial work that is ongoing around sexual abuse. We have worked with the Ministry of Education as well as Health to enable people working with children in school to identify and support children that are victims of sexual abuse. That particular program is a program that also has a very good reputation.

For the first time in this ministry there is a dedicated amount for the Sullivan protocols, which specifically address our relationship in support of children in school. That amount is $4.7 million, and I think it is important for us to acknowledge that the previous budgeting process -- even though the previous administration had the Sullivan report -- did not choose to fund it, so we are a little bit behind. There is funding in this ministry as well as the Ministry of Education for the Sullivan protocols. We'll be looking forward to that money supporting children and families.

L. Reid: The programs that you especially like, I also believe are absolutely outstanding. I am very familiar with the infant development program and the autism program.

My question is regarding services to elementary-school-age children who require counselling. Typically those students are special-needs students, and you mentioned that it's an interministerial dilemma. That is exactly my point. There seems to be tremendous confusion over who delivers the service. It's not an education issue if the child is special-needs, and it certainly doesn't seem to be a social services issue. Someone needs to take responsibility for those students who are experiencing difficulties -- compounded by a special-needs difficulty. A psychiatric counselling model needs to be in place.

I would like to know if one ministry is going to take responsibility for it, so that parents in this province will know who they can address their questions to.

Hon. J. Smallwood: The Sullivan protocols specifically target younger children, and the amount of money in the Sullivan protocols is $4.7 million. That is a considerable commitment to begin the programs within schools and will provide a base for us to build on in the years to come. In addition, this ministry has family advancement workers. We will have an announcement in the next while around a package of money in support of families. The family advancement workers are workers that we feel are instrumental not only in supporting families and children that are in need of support, but specifically in helping families address children with needs, even within the school system.

[ Page 926 ]

L. Reid: Can I deduce from your remarks that counselling services for elementary-school-age children are in the bailiwick of the Ministry of Education?

[3:00]

Hon. J. Smallwood: Yes.

V. Anderson: I'm just following up a couple of questions of concern that came because of the confusion over payments of cheques this week. One of the concerns came from a disabled person and another one came from a person that's normally not able to get out, so their cheque comes by mail. I am wondering if there is a way that they can get some assistance because of the difficulty that occurred in this past week. Some of them have indicated that if they could go into the office, they might get a crisis grant, but they're not able to do that in a very easy or effective way.

I'm wondering what facilities are available for them or for others in similar conditions, because of the confusion that has arisen.

Hon. J. Smallwood: There are two options if people are in need. We provide crisis grants and will do so. If an individual is homebound and unable to go to the office to obtain a crisis grant, you should advise them to call their worker, and the worker will then be able to make a home visit and provide support.

V. Anderson: One of the other issues that came up in the same phone calls this week -- well, two of them -- was a concern that the three-day period before the end of the month, which they thought normally was three working days before the cheques came out, has been shifted to two. That was confusing, because they were counting on that.

The other was about the exemption you announced of $100 for a single person instead of $50 and $200 for a family. When did that come into effect? There seems to be some confusion out there as to when that was effective. Is it retroactive to a certain date, or what is the date of effectiveness of that program?

Hon. J. Smallwood: The effect will be on the May cheque, which will be the end of May. Formal announcement of that is forthcoming.

V. Anderson: The effect of this is on the May cheque, so that would apply to money that was earned in April. If you earned extra money in April, would it apply in April? I guess that's the question. What period of time that the money was earned in would this apply to?

Hon. J. Smallwood: Our cheques are actually payments in advance. So the cheque coming at the end of May would be the first cheque to actually be affected by this change.

V. Anderson: Naturally, when a change comes, everybody would like to have it sooner rather than later. But thank you very much.

You have been dealing with a cross-section of views as people have brought their current questions to you. I would like to go back to the process we were doing at the beginning of working through the estimates for a little bit, in order to follow through the pattern.

We were on the area of adoptions when we ceased that process before. A couple of questions came up in that regard, and I wasn't sure that I completely understood the answers to them. What is the ministry doing to help persons who wish to work through a private adoption process rather than the ministry adoption process?

Hon. J. Smallwood: If the question is about what this ministry does to facilitate private adoptions, this ministry does not facilitate private adoptions. We have an adoption service within the ministry. As far as private adoptions in this province are concerned, there is legislation governing private adoptions that was passed in the House last year.

V. Anderson: I didn't quite hear the end of the response. Did you say that private adoptions were handled through the Ministry of Attorney General? They're private under the regulations passed by what body?

Hon. J. Smallwood: The law is ours.

V. Anderson: The law is within the Ministry of Social Services. That's what I was trying to understand.

The Chair: Hon. members, I must request that you address the chair, and furthermore that you be standing in your place when you speak.

V. Anderson: I have one other question on adoptions. This is a question that people have asked and one that I personally have had some experience with. What kind of process or counselling is required of persons coming through the ministry for adoptions?

I might give you background. We have an adopted youngster ourselves -- not a youngster any more, but grown up -- and in the process that we went through there was nine months of counselling. No matter how you got a child, it took you nine months. There was nine months of counselling, once a month -- both individually and collectively -- and it was a process that we found very meaningful and helpful. I was wondering what kind of process is used here for counselling of families, in selection of and approving them.

Hon. J. Smallwood: Currently within the ministry, for each potential adoption we do an extensive home study. The member is correct that home study, because it is so extensive, often takes about nine months. During that process the ministry goes through all of the issues with the potential adoptive parents and works through any questions or difficulties they may have.

V. Anderson: As some of the issues have already been covered in your previous discussions with other members, I would like to move on to the community support services to that particular group of ministries. I

[ Page 927 ]

notice that in this particular area the vote increased by $62 million. This was on top of $26 million the year before, even though out of this total the at-home program had been subtracted -- which would have probably indicated a decrease. But there's been an increase, and I'm wondering just where the major thrust was in the increase in this particular

section on community support services.

Hon. J. Smallwood: The item that the member is looking at -- community support services -- is merged under day care and services for special-needs children. The budget allocation is $64.43 million. I'm not sure what specific question the member had.

V. Anderson: Maybe we could focus for a moment, under community support services for STOBs 80 and 82, where there has been an increase of $10 million on one hand and $50 million on the other hand. I'm wondering about the focus of these increases and the focus of the program or changes resulting from this $62 million increase.

Hon. J. Smallwood: The member should know that the comparisons he's making are not valid comparisons. The budget book that he's using for last year is not the actual amount spent. There are a number of differences between the books that he has, and they are impacted by administrative changes of programs between ministries and differences or changes in the uptake of programs, etc. What we're doing here is comparing apples and oranges. If the member would like to ask specifics about the policy and implications for this program, such as where we're headed and how much we spent last year, I'd be more than happy to....

V. Anderson: Earlier we were discussing the special-needs children who come under this category within this area. Is the assessing of these children's special needs done by social workers or by medical doctors and medical personnel, or is it a combination of these? Is that report then made available to the families? I know there are people wondering how this is arrived at.

The subsequent question is: what kind of funding or support comes with the designations after they have been arrived at? Is that simply for the children and for the children in the family concerned?

Hon. J. Smallwood: The assessment is done in a variety of ways. It's a team assessment. For the most part, though, that is the responsibility of the Ministry of Health, often done through the public health nurse. The actual support is provided in a number of different ways, depending on the specific needs of the child.

V. Anderson: Since that has been quite adequately discussed in many of the other questions, I would move on to the program for mentally handicapped adults, because this is getting increasing interest, attention and support. I noticed the increase for this year is $40 million. I was wondering, in this particular area, how much of this is due to increasing caseloads, or how much of it is due to the downsizing of persons who might have been in other kinds of care and are coming back in? How much of it is due to the increase in the kind and nature of services now being offered to these people?

Hon. J. Smallwood: All of the above.

V. Anderson: If the minister wouldn't mind, Mr. Chairman, could she give me at least a brief explanation of what all of the above means? It could be helpful. Thank you.

Hon. J. Smallwood: The member is correct. The increases are impacted by all of the above. If that was the question, that is the answer.

C. Serwa: Mr. Chairman, at the expense of being ruled out of order by you -- often -- I'm very pleased to enter these debates on the Ministry of Social Services.

On the whole, throughout the years that I've been involved in government, I certainly have the highest regard for the senior and local staff involved with the ministry, who do an exceedingly fine job, and I commend all of the staff throughout British Columbia for the conscientious and compassionate job that they do in often very difficult circumstances. Often there is a tendency in some individuals to abuse them, but on the whole they do a tremendous and creditable job. Perhaps I have less comfort with the present government, and the present minister will certainly have to earn my respect for a commitment to the people who require assistance at the present time through her ministry.

[3:15]

It seems to me that if the present government was as committed to providing job opportunities for the people of British Columbia as the minister is committed to providing additional social service benefits to those requiring it, we would indeed have a far superior province. I think the minister, because I've heard her when she was the opposition critic in this particular area, is well aware of the holistic approach that we have to take for the benefit of individuals out there -- and that's the mental, emotional and physical as well as the spiritual.

Simply increasing funding on the GAIN program does not strengthen or enhance the capacity of individuals to make their own way in society, and certainly the fulfilment for all of us is recognizing that we have that capacity within ourselves, and that we have a government that is concerned about providing an environment where we can in fact do so.

I have some specific questions with respect to people who are, perhaps through birth or through polio at a very early age, physically handicapped. We have a situation in Canada where to qualify for the federal disability pension, you had to have contributed for I believe five years, and had to have been injured on the job. Then you can collect your federal disability pension, which I believe is substantially superior to the provincial handicapped pension. The handicapped pension that we have in the province is superior to the GAIN, but it's exceedingly difficult for individuals to

[ Page 928 ]

qualify. In my constituency, I have a number of individuals who are severely handicapped yet apparently not severely enough to qualify for that particular program. They are virtually doomed to a whole lifetime of frustration -- with the inability to satisfy their ambitions for even a very basic, minimal quality of life. We doom them to inadequate housing and inadequate quantities of nourishment of all types. I think that something has to be done.

I would like the minister to advise me of her thoughts on this subject, and how we could enhance the opportunities for those in genuine need who are physically handicapped.

Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm very pleased to see that member find his feet. I'm also very tempted to ask that member a few questions myself, starting with: where were you? Since you outlined all of those difficulties.... Your government created this mess. Your government created a situation where we have a 20 percent increase of expected caseloads over last year and had 17 percent the previous year. That has to do with economic management.

I agree with you totally. This ministry can only function if it functions in a holistic manner -- if we function in cooperation and consultation and in a planning, proactive way with other ministries of this government. There is no separation in my mind between economic and social.

The solution is not cleaning up the mess after another government has failed. This government and this ministry will be involved in creating new jobs and new opportunities, because we feel very strongly that the talents, skills and strengths of those people on income assistance are being wasted. It will be the responsibility of this ministry to support and recognize the contributions that they can make to this province and support them in fulfilling their personal goals and making British Columbia a much stronger and much more active province economically.

The member asked about the pensions issue. I don't have to remind this member that pensions are federal and that this government in particular chose not to provide a pension for the disabled, but rather developed a needs-based program. The program within this ministry -- GAIN for the disabled -- is needs-based. It is not a pension.

The problems that you have outlined are problems that this government has inherited because of your inaction. We are reviewing the programs and will look for an opportunity for meaningful input, not only from you -- and we'll welcome that -- but from the community, from disabled people and from their families to develop a program that is more supportive. Once those questions have been put on the table in a fulsome and holistic fashion, we'll look at real reform to income support, including support for disabled people in this province.

The Chair: Before I recognize the hon. opposition House Leader, I wonder if the committee would permit me to introduce our new Clerk of Committees, Brenda Fraser, from the New Brunswick Legislative Assembly.

D. Mitchell: Mr. Chairman, I was rising to do the same thing: to welcome to this committee and to this House today a new Clerk at the table, a new table officer, Brenda Fraser, who has served as a table officer in the Legislature of New Brunswick. It's an important occasion. I don't mean to interrupt the good debate which is ongoing, but this is an important occasion, where we have a female table officer joining the table. I think it will add to the House. The table officers add an important element of stability to the proceedings of this Legislature, which is sometimes much needed. We all welcome Brenda Fraser and look forward to her advice and counsel over the many years to come, we hope.

C. Serwa: Mr. Chairman, I was suspicious for a while that you might rule the minister out of order for diverging and becoming entirely political. It's such a foreign element to become political in this Legislature.

Nevertheless, if the minister cares to check her files, she will find a number of letters written over the past number of years to me by various Ministers of Social Services, with my specific concerns. I haven't been silent -- in letters or in caucus. The fact of the matter is that in spite of a minister who protests perhaps a bit too much, the obligations are on that minister and on this current government to do what they know has to be done to make things better for those people who are physically or mentally handicapped.

In that vein, rather than reminiscing over their version of what has transpired over the past five years.... I noted that the minister agreed with me about equality and competence in the ministry, and I'm quite proud of that. Nevertheless, I want to know what this current government is going to do to open up. When we talk about access for either mentally or physically challenged individuals, how do we open up the access into employment for those individuals -- albeit perhaps part-time and at lower levels of pay? It's exceedingly important.

The ministry -- and the minister in the House at the present time -- has to be the doorway, the opportunity, for that to transpire. What is happening there? What is the ministry doing to enhance employment opportunities for both physically and mentally challenged individuals in the province?

Hon. J. Smallwood: I won't go over the information that I've already shared with the member and other members just very recently on employment programs and support for disabled people around a variety, and quite a wide range, of employment and supported employment opportunities.

What I will do is bring to the member's attention the fact that we have increased the earnings exemption. Since we've already been talking about it in the House even prior to our announcement, the House may feel some comfort in knowing that discussions around earnings exemptions happened here first, even before they were officially announced to the rest of the province. The earnings exemption will help support all people who are eligible for income assistance, including the disabled community. That sort of bridging and support to either part-time or full-time work will vastly

[ Page 929 ]

improve opportunities for the disabled community to gain work experience and skills.

Finally, the member indicated that if I would look at my files, I would see that on a number of occasions he offered advice to the previous minister. Sadly, I have to report that when I acquired my office, all of the files were gone. So I'm unable to check to see what the member's record was or, indeed, what the previous minister's record was.

C. Serwa: Mr. Chairman, I'm very pleased; the earnings exemption increase is certainly welcome. As a matter of fact, I think you should look at escalating the earnings exemption increase to encourage those people who are employable. The shock of going to work is certainly substantial. When you look at the economics of the situation, there is the cost of going to work -- driving to and fro -- and the cost of clothing. There is a substantial increase in costs, so somehow there has to be a systematic approach to facilitate that transition. There's a psychological transition and an economic transition, and both are difficult challenges for those individuals.

The question that I wanted to refer to the minister is: what is this government going to do to create the environment? Surely the government can't expect the private sector to create the environment where there are job opportunties. Surely the government has to facilitate and perhaps show systematic leadership in providing employment opportunities for those who are physically and mentally challenged in order to give them the opportunity to fulfil their opportunities in the world of today.

Hon. J. Smallwood: I'd like to thank the member for all of the good support he has given the work we have underway in the last five or six months. I encourage the member to look at the record of debate, because a number of the issues and the opinions that the member is bringing forward reflect my very comments.

V. Anderson: Mr. Chairman, I think there is one place on which the minister, the member from the third party and myself would all be in agreement, and that is in affirming the validity of increasing the exemptions that people may keep from their earnings and also urging that those exemptions be increased even further so that they may keep more of what they earn.

I know from talking to many of them that they would like to be out earning and getting the experience. They would be able, through that experience, to get the references they need before they're able to get a full-time job. We hope there will be more announcements forthcoming in regard to the increase of those earning exemptions. If there can be any encouragement from the minister, we would be glad to hear that and to share that.

Along with that, I was interested in the discussion between the last two speakers on a pension rather than on a need-based program. I would be delighted to hear more about what that might involve and the possibility of that in the future.

Hon. J. Smallwood: I am very strongly committed to a process of consultation. I'm not going to presuppose the information that will come back to us through that consultation. I've already advised the member that we will have future policy and hopefully something for this Legislature within this session. I look forward to the member's support around that.

[3:30]

Currently I have a number of ad hoc advisory groups in place that represent the disabled community, both disabled people and their advocates, as well as professionals providing information on a range of issues, including the important questions that the previous member had for us around employment support programs and bridging programs. I can't emphasize enough the need for appropriate and sensitive bridging programs that support people back into the workforce rather than set them up for negative experiences.

I would like to share with the member a previous question that you had, just to elaborate on it a little bit. You asked about the increase in the adult mentally handicapped portion of the budget. There are three, as you had indicated. Those are placements of persons from institutions; that increase is $20.6 million. For placements of persons currently in the community there's an increase of $9 million. Included in that is a commitment to wage-parity enhancement that is $10.3 million, because we are very concerned that those people providing support and working with people in the community have wages that will encourage good training, good quality of service and stability.

V. Anderson: I am glad of those and would approve of all the things that you have suggested, because I had mentioned previously how important it is that the workers in the field get the kind of support they need. I presume that will go to the clerical staff and the other staff, as well as the other front-line professional staff.

Coming back for a moment to the mentally handicapped concerns, as has been mentioned many times, housing is a major concern for many people, and for some of those people with mental handicaps this is an increasing difficulty in the shortage of housing and the cost of housing. Are the two programs I'm aware of at this moment -- the semi-independent living program and the community residence program -- being increased, and if so, what might be the nature of these increases, and how would people be able to access them most effectively?

[M. Lord in the chair.]

Hon. J. Smallwood: The figures I just shared with the member reflect increased support for placements; that is the accommodations for people coming out of institutions and for individuals in communities needing placement.

V. Anderson: Could you elaborate just a little bit on the final one in this particular area? What is the program of increasing the number of spaces and

[ Page 930 ]

opportunities for people available in the community that would be more effective and also more livable than some of the places that people have been living in the past?

Hon. J. Smallwood: If the member is referring to people living in institutions, I take the opportunity to restate this ministry's and this minister's commitment to community living and to supporting individuals living in their community. I believe that the enhancement in this area indicates this minister's support for those community placements. We recognize that the issue around the institutionalization is not complete.

We will continue that process, but only with the full assurance that we have the community placements there and the infrastructure available for those individuals -- and for their families so the families can be comforted that their family members have good, decent, secure places to live.

V. Anderson: I wasn't thinking particularly of those coming out of the institutions, because I'm very aware of what you're trying to do in that regard. I was thinking more of those people who have been living independently but in private facilities that were really not acceptable. Because there has been a cutback in federal housing programs, what projects are underway to increase the availability of private housing these people might be able to rent with funds that would enable them to get into that kind of housing?

Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm a little clearer now where the member is heading. The issue of private housing is no longer within this ministry. The issue of housing, and support in particular for affordable housing, falls under the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

V. Anderson: I'm aware of that, and as has been discussed in other areas, what we're raising again is the need for interministerial cooperation, because they have the houses and you have the people, and these two have to be put together. It's that process that needs to be worked on.

The other area is the question of the grants and contributions. The grants have gone down and the contributions have increased. I'm wondering, what is the difference between the grants and the contributions? What do these particular areas cover?

Hon. J. Smallwood: Perhaps the member can refer to the specific STOB that he is reading. As far as the description of grants and contributions, I refer the member to the description or the definition in the front of his book.

V. Anderson: The community projects funding -- I'll move on to that one at the moment. The community project funding is just one figure there under STOB 82, which is just over the $7 million. Would you indicate as to what the areas of the funding are in this category?

The Chair: Member, could you clarify your question, please?

V. Anderson: Under community projects funding, the STOB 82: $7,265,000, the contributions: what is the area that these contributions cover? What are the contributions to, or for?

Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm just looking at the time, and it's 3:40 p.m. I have a number of pages here -- I'm not sure how many -- but if the member would like, I could read the specifics. No? The types of community grants or community projects fall within a number of categories. Family service projects: those projects are to assist families through counselling programs, parenting and support and training for self-help groups. Youth projects provide activities for young people to enable them to participate in their communities in a positive and responsible fashion.

Programs vary according to the needs of the youths served. Low-income groups help low-income families and individuals in their communities. Services include: information exchanges; organizational assistance for self-help groups; counselling; and practical assistance in such areas as accommodation and moving, money management and effective use of community resources. Services to the handicapped provide services to people with disabilities in a variety of program areas. Volunteer services: funding is available for volunteer bureaus to assist in coordinating the efforts of local volunteers.

I have broken out the regions, and I'll give you a spattering of some of the agencies that we actually provide support to: Deltassist Society, volunteer services, Family Services of Greater Vancouver, Richmond Family Place Society, Richmond volunteer society, Association of Neighbourhood Houses of Greater Vancouver, Big Brothers, Big Sisters, Catholic Family Services, Crisis Intervention and Suicide Prevention Centre of Greater Vancouver, John Howard Society, Indian Homemakers' of British Columbia, Marpole and Oakridge family place society -- is that possibly in the members riding? -- Riley Park Community Association, Vancouver Life Skills Society, and the Vancouver volunteer society.

In Region B we have: Capilano Community Services, Queen Mary Community School, West Vancouver -- and I really am picking randomly because I think that if I gave you all of them, this may take a little longer than even the member's prepared for.

Region C, which is Fraser north: the Canadian society for information for children, citizens' development fund, Big Sisters, Coquitlam SHARE Society, Greater Coquitlam volunteer bureau, Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows Community Services Council, Mission Community Services, New Westminster, Lower Mainland Community Housing Registry, Fraserside Community Services, Port Coquitlam.

And it goes on and on: Abbotsford, Agassiz, Chilliwack, Hope, Surrey -- not enough here for Surrey -- White Rock, Castlegar, Creston, Kelowna, Nelson, Penticton, Armstrong, Kamloops, Salmon Arm, Mackenzie Counselling Services Society, Dawson Creek friendship centre, Fort Nelson-Laird Native Friendship Society, Fort St. John, North

[ Page 931 ]

Peace Community Resources Society, Houston Health Care Services Society, Kitimat Community Services Society, Queen Charlotte Islands Health Care Society.

Region K: Comox, Nanaimo and Parksville; there are a number of services in each. South Island -- and I'm not only skipping community projects, but now I am skipping communities. Into South Island: Cowichan Lake, Duncan, Saltspring, Victoria area. And we have a number of provincewide grants including the B.C. Association of Volunteer Centres, B.C. Parents in Crisis, Canadian National Institute for the Blind, Canadian Paraplegic Association, Canadian Wheelchair Sports Association -- just to name a few.

V. Anderson: The comment of my colleague sitting next to me was: "That's an awful lot of things to be done with a little bit of money." He was quite impressed. I think more people need to be made aware of how much is happening in this area and how much this money in itself is complementary to the volunteer work and to the other programs that these people are putting in. That's a message within itself.

[3:45]

I hope your sharing will enable us to get it across to more people. Unless they have been directly involved, people are not aware of these programs -- they don't always get that much publicity -- as being related to the Ministry of Social Services. They seem to be independent, unrelated projects, so I think it's important that they're aware of this.

The last one in that category is Woodlands. We've had a number of questions about the present state and future of Woodlands. Just looking at the budget figures, we noticed that there's a steady decrease over time. Perhaps the minister could share with us the plan and undertakings with regard to Woodlands at this point.

Hon. J. Smallwood: I'd like to agree with the member. Again, that is important work -- to recognize not only the contributions that those community groups are making to families and to their community, but also the support and good work that is provided by this ministry. I take that as a good piece of advice. I agree with the member and will be encouraging and supporting the ministry's work in the years to come.

We're doing a little bit of -- I'm tempted to say -- bragging, because we feel very proud of the support that we give to that good work. For the member's reference, I would point out that the full list of community projects is included in our annual report. If you're interested in that full list and the extensiveness of that list, you might look at our latest annual report that was tabled in the House.

As far as Woodlands is concerned, with its continued downsizing, the deinstitutionalization and the investment that this ministry is placing in communities to support those individuals who are leaving Woodlands, its budget subsequently is being reduced. We are currently at a point, however, that the reductions in the cost of supporting Woodlands are slowing down because of the need to support the plant or the infrastructure as we continue this deinstitutionalization.

At present there are approximately 150 residents at Woodlands. The previous year saw 250 residents, so that refers to my earlier comment about the reduction. The reduction is not commensurate with the number of current residents, because it costs more to keep the plant going.

V. Anderson: I'll move on to the category of programs for independence, which is of course one of the larger categories of the ministry and which has already received many questions and discussion within the ministry. Perhaps there are some specific questions that come up here that we might raise particularly.

One of these has been the recognition of family size with regard to recognition of moneys that persons are able to earn in their earning exemption, whether there may be a shift as part of your review to take into account the family size for the amount of money that people may earn and keep out of the earning, and whether this may also apply to the amount of money being kept that comes through maintenance payments.

Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm afraid that I'll have to make the same reference to the member with regard to this question. This is impacted by the GAIN review, and we'll be looking at a comprehensive package around income support programs. We have increased the allowable-earnings exemption for families. In pushing it further than we're able to push it, we come up against a number of significant issues. Those issues will be grappled with by a very public and open review.

V. Anderson: I have one other question that came up earlier in the discussion with one of the colleagues here. When those people on GAIN are applying for assistance in receiving the child maintenance enforcement support, one of the difficulties that many have had is having to sign over to the ministry their authority under the child maintenance enforcement. I'm wondering if that is in the process of being changed, or whether it's at least under review at this point.

Hon. J. Smallwood: That program is under review, and is the subject of a future announcement.

V. Anderson: I know that the minister has received the proposed charter of welfare rights from the Federated Anti-Poverty Groups. I am wondering whether this program will also be considered seriously as part of the review, or whether some serious reflection has already been given as part of your openness and communication, so that people are very clearly aware of rights and responsibilities that people on all sides may have.

Hon. J. Smallwood: The member is absolutely correct. I have received rather extensive communication from Federated Anti-Poverty on a number of issues that are of importance to them. We have addressed a number of those issues. We will be announcing some of those on a continuing basis, subject to announcements within this legislative session. For some of the issues that are little more difficult and take a little more time,

[ Page 932 ]

we will be inviting groups such as Federated Anti-Poverty to be included in the discussion and the recommendations coming forward with regard to the bigger picture and the bigger package.

V. Anderson: I might be able to speak on their behalf for the encouragement at least. Knowing that this legislative session has to end between now and summer, I presume, then that's not such a very long period of time in which to expect these announcements. So that's a fairly encouraging sense that we have at least that time-frame within which to work, and also a sense that the issues not dealt with directly in this period of time are going to be identified and put out for study, so that people actually know that they're being worked on and that something constructive is going to be done on their behalf.

So I'd like to thank the minister for that sense of direction and encouragement she has shown.

One of the concerns that has come up with persons on social services who would like to be able to have employment and get off social services -- and this may be a combined ministry response that's needed, I'm not sure -- is that while they are on social services, on GAIN, they have medical and dental coverage for themselves and particularly for their children. If they are to go off GAIN, then the cost of the medical and dental coverage then falls upon them.

This is not a gap that they're able easily to cover, so they're reluctant to make the shift and lose that security, particularly realizing that there are already many people in British Columbia who do not have medical or dental coverage, even for the basic needs of children.

Hon. J. Smallwood: We have transitional programs in the workplace for single parents, for those qualifying for GAIN and for the handicapped. That would include the provision of health and dental care for a full year in that transitional period. We are -- and I'm feeling slightly repetitious here -- looking at all of these programs. I think it is only responsible for this government to do so, to take this time to address both the most immediate issues and plan in a comprehensive way with those communities and with those individuals that indeed are the experts.

The member talked about the Federated Anti-Poverty Groups that have been working with families as advocates and have spoken out very strongly and very eloquently on behalf of people living in poverty in this province. I think it is important that I recognize and acknowledge the expertise that they will bring to the table, including issues around medical and dental services.

The member should know that while we are unable to deal with all of the issues in one short year, or indeed in five short months that we have been in government, we have made significant progress in reforming the system, making it more approachable and respecting the people that come to this ministry for support. I want to emphasize that the fundamental principles that are important to me are respect for not only the families, the children and for the individuals that come to this ministry, but indeed respect for the ministry workers and the good work that they are doing.

That principle of respect and informed choice will drive the decisions that we are making and will govern the policies that we will bring forward to this House, both in this session and in the next.

V. Anderson: It raises another area that I would put before you to see if it's being considered. I know there was a time in the past when the NDP was in government, and some support was given to low-income advocacy groups. Many of them began to develop on their own with a minimum amount of support, which low-income people in poverty certainly can use. When that support was withdrawn for those groups, other groups like the churches, the groups that I'm aware of like PLURA, came in and gave them some support, which enabled them to continue to grow and develop in a limited way.

Would it be a part of this ministry's program, in using these services once again and recognizing the validity of them -- as you have done here today -- to be able to give at least some limited core funding to help them, at least in their travel expenses and meeting expenses? They would thus be able to support you in a much more realistic way if that kind of opportunity is available to them.

Hon. J. Smallwood: The only thing I'll say at this point in time is that I believe it's fundamentally important not only to recognize that expertise, but to support that voice in the decision-making process. This ministry takes that responsibility seriously and will look forward in the next months to opportunities to do that.

V. Anderson: I know that each of us will put our own definition of what support might mean as you work into the future. But even with the fact that you have indicated the principle of support -- of recognition of the validity of these groups and the work they're doing -- is very significant and important in and of itself, as we discovered with some other things we've talked about, the expectation level of what that means will probably rise faster than the minister can respond. But that's the way life is sometimes.

[4:00]

The final area I will move to now.... The area of program independence is a very important one and would normally take a lot of our time; it has been covered in many of the other questions that have been put before you, and I don't want to repeat that.

One of the interests that I have about these services to seniors.... If I remember rightly, in your previous discussion you indicated that the number of seniors who had this particular need for the services of your program was declining. As with some other members, we hear that, but find it difficult to understand, because in our experience in the community the needs of seniors seems to be increasing rapidly. We'd like to get a little more explanation of this program, which has basically either decreased or remained static in its funding.

The increase you have mentioned is in senior counsellors, which is primarily a volunteer group, so there's not a lot of funding involved there. I'd be interested in this very important area of seniors -- why that seems to be

[ Page 933 ]

decreasing in its importance within the ministry rather than increasing or at least holding the line.

Hon. J. Smallwood: As I indicated to the previous questioner, the program itself -- the requirements to qualify for that program -- has not changed. What is happening is that there is a decreasing population qualifying for that program. You should realize that because the income supplement program is part of the income safety net, it will be subject to the reviews, so we'll have an opportunity to look at any problems arising from that program. We'll ensure that seniors have a voice in that review.

V. Anderson: You anticipated my question which came from your comment the other day when you mentioned that the requirements to qualify for this program had not changed. I think I understood by your comment that there is a possibility -- and I hope a necessity -- that the requirements to qualify for this program will change, because circumstances certainly have changed for seniors out there. Like everyone else, they are finding it difficult to find housing to live in under the circumstances and income available to them, because the cost of living, of course, has increased considerably.

Seniors are becoming highly pressurized, particularly those in many areas who have no supportive families and who are living completely on their own, unrelated to other supportive persons. Could the minister comment on what review might be taking place in the seniors' program?

Hon. J. Smallwood: I'll only restate my earlier comment. This is an income support program and will be subject to review, as are all our income support programs. I make the commitment once again that we will seek the expertise of those in need of this program and other seniors' advocacy organizations to help guide us in the development of our program, as we will do in all of our programs.

V. Anderson: I would like to perhaps do a brief

summary and wind up at this point. From many of the responses which the minister has given, and will continue to give, I would like to indicate that as with the response regarding seniors that you gave just now.... I expect that although there have automatically been many submissions to the minister in her new position.... Having opened up as she has done in this discussion, indicating that she wants to hear from people, I am quite aware that she may receive many more submissions from now on than she has received to date. Hopefully they will have a different tone to them.

In the past, many of the submissions from groups have been: "Here's what we want, but we don't even think you'll read these, much less respond to them." Now there may be a tone to them indicating: "Since we expect that you will not only read them but may respond to them, here is what we would like you to hear and see, and we would like you enter into dialogue with us." My premonition is that if the minister has been busy -- and I have no doubt she has been -- she's going to be even busier with what she has presented, through this discussion, to the public at large.

I have very much appreciated the openness. I will promise the minister that she will not be neglected in question period in the future. She will get her fair share of the questions that come from us.

I want to acknowledge the changes that she has suggested are in place and will be put in place, starting with the computer program phone-in number which she is using as one means of making information available to people -- and many other ways that it would be made available to them. She has indicated that there will be a decrease in the caseloads of workers -- and that's a very significant undertaking -- in order that those who come for this service will feel that they're more personally dealt with in this program.

I'm also aware that she has indicated there would be new training opportunities for the people within the community, and that these training opportunities will be revamped and revised, using the clients themselves as part of those people raising issues and concerns, as well as the professional resources that are available. I am interested that she has emphasized the place of family and children, and that children in care will be seen first of all as children in care with their families, and secondly as in care with substitute facilities which will be as familylike as possible.

She has reflected the multicultural awareness of the community in which we live, and she has reflected the particular needs of the aboriginal community. In addition to the particular needs of the aboriginal community, I hope she will also be picking up the particular wishes and desires of the aboriginal community. I have discovered in the past that what others may feel are their needs are not really their desires, and we need to respond to that.

The minister has said that she will be engaged in interprovincial and federal-provincial discussions in these areas of joint concern. I hope we will hear some positive results from those discussions, because they are very important.

She has also indicated an interest -- I'm not as sure of the details of this -- in the area of teenage concerns and programs for young people: job understanding, education, community adjustment, street people. The whole area of teenage programs of responsibility is one that seems to be very important in the community in which we live and needs to be responded to.

The question of revamping the responding to the needs of children who may need some protection and care, but balancing this with the same family protection and care, is most important.

She has indicated that the GAIN rates are very inadequate; that the poverty in which people have had to live for so long is unacceptable; and that, to respond to this awareness, there will be fairly drastic changes, I trust, which will go across the whole range of age groups, including seniors and families, single parents, young couples, whatever the need might be.

She's also indicated that 80 percent of her programs go to non-discretionary funding, funding which she is required by law to deal with. I understand that in these

[ Page 934 ]

areas, perhaps, she'll also be working across ministerial boundaries to have these statutory regulations altered.

Finally, I might say at this particular moment that the open-door policy that she has suggested is very important. It will probably take a little while for it to get across to people, because I would reflect to the minister that even during this week, as people have tried to deal with the concern about cheques not arriving -- attempting to contact the service offices, the information line and even the minister's office itself -- they did not feel that the lines were open or that the response was acceptable to them.

I wanted to just feed that back, because I think the open-door policy means that people are very sensitive when they try to respond to it and they do not find it open to them -- even more sensitive than they would be if they had the experience, as in the past, when they didn't expect the doors to be open. But when they expect the doors to be open and find the information is not available or the response is not positive, then they're even more critical of it.

I would like to thank the staff also for their diligence in being here, for putting up with a variety of ways of responding to questions that we have presented and for being friendly and wholehearted about it. I hope you still look forward to working with us, as we look forward to working with you. It seems very important to me that, as a total Legislature, we serve the people of the province and our constituencies as one unit so that what we do is not to their detriment but to their benefit.

I would thank the minister and the staff for this opportunity of sharing her understanding of the programs, to which we look forward with a great deal of interest, anticipation and critical oversight. Thank you very much, hon. Chairperson, for this opportunity.

[4:15]

Vote 56 approved.

Vote 57: ministry operations, $2,364,217,282 -- approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS

On vote 60: minister's office, $392,000.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: We now turn to Transportation, of course. I'd like to make just a few introductory comments. We have taken office obviously at a very difficult time. In the budget process that we are partway through, we are all aware that my ministry has given up some 15 percent of the budget from last year -- approximately $180 million -- in order to meet critical requirements in other sectors of our administration, specifically health care and education.

As a consulting engineer in a former life, I'm well aware of the needs we have in transportation. I'm well aware of the consequences of not providing the enhanced transportation system that we need. But we've had tough decisions to make, and we've made those decisions.

I've sat down with perhaps 40 or 50 mayors from around the province and explained to them the situation we find ourselves in. I have asked for their cooperation in this difficult fiscal period, and I'm pleased to say that they have all understood. They've all said that they will be back next year, but they have all understood that this is a matter of some pain that must be shared widely.

As a result, we are not undertaking any new major projects in our ministry -- for that matter, any new minor capital projects this year. Instead we have enhanced slightly our rehabilitation budget in order to take proper care of the infrastructure we have -- some $12 billion worth. We have, frankly, not provided enough to even do that task properly. We could probably have used another $70 million to $100 million just for rehabilitation. Unfortunately, although the need is real, the purse is empty, so we must live with a modest enhancement of last year's effort at rehabilitation.

We have left untouched the maintenance elements because they, of course, in the 28 maintenance districts, are contractual. We have entered into, as you would be aware, new roughly three-year-term contracts for that element totalling some $300 million. We are completing multi-year contracts on capital that add up to some $170 million around the province.

I've made every effort to share the pain fairly around the province and will be pleased to accept from members opposite any questions regarding our intentions for the coming year.

D. Symons: Madam Chairperson, I appreciate the opening remarks by the Minister of Transportation and Highways. I note that British Columbia has about 47,000 kilometres of roads and highways, and this a vital transportation network that has served the province well. The building of many highways in the fifties and sixties -- much of it under the direction of the famous, or possibly infamous, Minister of Highways Phil Gaglardi -- has much to do with opening up the economic development in this province.

But due to the economic slowdown of the last decade, we've seen cutbacks in the Highways ministry. We heard just moments ago of that continuing in that vein. This, combined with heavy use as population and traffic grows and as the size and weight of today's commercial vehicles increase, makes it more important than ever to invest in the maintenance and expansion of this important asset. On average, traffic has been increasing by 4 percent per year, and this increase has reached over 10 percent in rapidly growing areas such as Kelowna, Nanaimo, Richmond and the whole lower mainland of Vancouver and the Fraser Valley. Our highways have not kept pace with this growth.

At a time when all levels of government face extreme pressure in preparing budgets -- and this is such a time -- there is a temptation to reduce the investment in roads in spite of how essential that infrastructure is to economic and social development, or in spite of how essential it is to employment generation. Unfortunately, that approach of reducing spending in our highways and roads seems to be the approach used by this government in this budget for Highways and Transportation spending in the fiscal year 1992-93.

[ Page 935 ]

I am concerned with this approach, and I ask what justification can be given for the priorities or lack thereof. I mean justification by way of this government's failure to recognize the importance of this ministry. In "A Better Way," the NDP campaign booklet for the election, promises 16, 25, 27 and 38 all promised better transportation highways. All these promises have been abandoned.

I would urge the government to consider expenditures on roads and alternative forms of transportation as essential rather than discretionary. Roads require substantial rehabilitation after about 15 years. If this investment is done in a timely way, it will not only deliver the benefits of good roads but bring enormous savings in the long run. Neglecting or postponing rehabilitation leads very quickly to the need for rebuilding, and that costs many times as much.

The benefits of a good road system are enormous, in both economic and social terms, to business, industry, government and individuals. Roads provide access to resources and markets. Good roads contribute to competitive transportation costs. They mean safer driving conditions and a reduced number of accidents, which impacts on insurance rates. I've not mentioned the time lost while people crawl along in their vehicles in traffic backups and the frustration that causes.

It also contributes an extra amount of pollutants to our atmosphere, adding to that problem. That, of course, brings out not only the need for good roads moving people quickly and efficiently, but it also brings up the need for alternative and more environmentally friendly modes of transportation. I would like to bring that up later during our discussion of these estimates.

I have maybe talked too long philosophically about my thoughts and concerns on Transportation and Highways, but I thought it might be valuable if we understood where each of us were coming from before we begin our item-by-item discussion of the ministry's budget estimates. I would invite the minister to respond to my opening remarks.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Before I respond, I'd like to correct an oversight on my part and introduce my staff: the deputy minister, Vince Collins; ADM on finance, Gordon Hogg; ADM on planning, Bruce McKeown; and ADM on operations, Dan Doyle.

I would further beg the indulgence of the House and all members present to make an introduction in the gallery, and before members vote, I would remind them that there are highway projects in all of your constituencies. So could I have the indulgence of the House?

Leave granted.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: It's an honour to introduce, visiting from the province of Alberta, the city of Calgary, my brother and sister-in-law, touring through British Columbia and visiting us for the first time here in the House. I would ask the House to help me make them welcome -- Pat and Jack Charbonneau.

F. Gingell: Madam Chair, seeing that we were successful in getting through one introduction at an unscheduled hour, I would ask leave of the House to make a second.

Leave granted.

F. Gingell: I would like to introduce my longtime friend, Mr. Jim Campbell, who is far more concerned with transportation to islands than he is with roadways. Mr. Campbell is well known in this province as a long-serving school trustee, a trustee of the Islands Trust, and a director and chairman of the Capital Regional District board. I ask this House to make him welcome.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: With regard to the hon. member opposite's introductory comments, many of his points, of course, I am in agreement with. There are environmental consequences, business cost consequences, safety consequences and social consequences. But we cannot, just by the wave of a magic wand, create the $4 billion or $5 billion that would be required to address all of these problems.

Whatever we desire to do, our desires must be bounded by the funds available. It is because of severe limitation of funds available, and I'm sure the member opposite would agree with our general thrust of attempting to get the deficit under control. If that is the case, we have difficult choices to make. We have made the choices of putting what resources we have into education, health care and social services on a priority for this fiscal year.

There are no projects abandoned, of course; there are projects that have been postponed. Far from neglecting the rehabilitation of our existing infrastructure, we are enhancing that budget above previous years' budgets. We have actually taken a modest but correct step in the right direction. I have no further comments on the opening comments and would now entertain any specific questions.

D. Symons: It's interesting to note that some time ago the NDP produced a document that talked about the need for integration of all the transportation functions under one ministry. I wonder if we could start this off with a few simple questions.

Is this still the belief of the NDP government? If that's the case, why is it that the B.C. Ferry Corporation and B.C. Transit are no longer funded through this ministry?

One of your members in this House during the estimates debate in 1990 commended the previous government for this integration. We know that you rarely praised that government for anything. Could you outline exactly why these changes are necessary? Could the minister tell us what the makeup of the transportation planning council is at present, and how often they meet?

[4:30]

Hon. A. Charbonneau: In answer to your first question, we certainly see that there is a need for coordinated services across all branches of transportation. At the present time, due to financial difficulties

[ Page 936 ]

within the B.C. Ferry Corporation and B.C. Transit, they have been moved over to the Minister of Finance. Nonetheless we will, through cross-ministry cooperation and coordination, continue to provide the kind of overview necessary in the transportation system.

With regard to your question on the transportation commission, I can provide you with the specific names at a later date. I'll take the question on advisement.

D. Symons: The last question was how often they meet. Is there a

schedule or a regular meeting pattern for the transportation planning council?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The committee will be meeting on a regular basis. It has not yet come into function. It consists of myself, the deputy minister, the ADM of planning and the executive director of transportation and planning, plus the CEOs of B.C. Transit, B.C. Rail and B.C. Ferries. It will be meeting from time to time with that membership.

D. Symons: I thank you. Given that the CEOs of B.C. Transit, B.C. Rail and B.C. Ferries and the Attorney General are involved, doesn't it seem strange that your government has abandoned any form of integration of these services under your ministry? Or does the minister feel that B.C. Ferries can operate in isolation without consultation or support from the Ministry of Transportation and Highways?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: No. They will have to act in concert. To show evidence of that, we have funded a major transportation plan in the greater Vancouver area and also in the Capital Region to see to it that we have coordination all through the transportation sector. Those committees will be reporting next year; and before any major undertakings occur, we will have the benefit of the recommendations from those comprehensive studies. In the meantime, if there are specific decisions in those areas, there will be coordination between the ministries and with the ongoing studies to make sure that we're not pre-empting any recommendations coming down the line.

D. Symons: I thank the minister for that answer, because it's vital that these operations are coordinated in a way that would be meaningful to all of them. It's certainly difficult to imagine expansion of the ferry fleet or docks without having highways to meet that expansion.

I would like now to get into the specifics and discuss vote 60 in the minister's office. With STOBs 3 through 6 under salaries and benefits, how many staff members are there in the minister's office now, and is this a greater or lesser number than under the previous administration?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: We have an authorized complement of eight on the minister's staff. At the present time there are seven.

D. Symons: Hark to the question, sir, that asked how many there were in the previous administration. Was it the same number?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Same number.

D. Symons: Thank you. It's sort of like tennis, isn't it?

I notice the total amount of salaries and benefits is the same as the 1990-91 fiscal year. Can we assume then that the salaries of the minister's staff have been frozen? And I'm curious: with a 15 percent cut in the global ministry budget, doesn't the minister feel there should be some changes in the staff levels?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: There are no contemplated changes in salary levels at this time.

D. Symons: Under STOB 30, the office and business expenses under Vote 60, the amount shown is $17,500. Not a large sum of money, but last year this number was just $6,500 -- one-third of this amount. Could the minister please outline why his office has needed three times the amount for office and business expenditures?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: In the current fiscal year there is an allowance of some $11,000. My intention is to sit as the minister in Kamloops approximately one day every two weeks in order that mayors, councils and regional district people would be able to travel to Kamloops to discuss ministry business, to save them the considerable expense of travelling to Victoria. I might say that I have been undertaking this out of my MLA's office up to the present time, and I have met with a number of citizens' groups from various parts of the region, as well as perhaps four or five mayors.

D. Symons: If there is going to be a regional office for a minister, I would assume that it might be better to have it more centrally located at a place like Prince George. Is this going to be common practice for other ministers, each one of them opening a regional minister's office? You can't answer that.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: If you would look at the map of British Columbia in terms of providing an office anywhere in the interior that would be more or less central to the population of the interior -- all the way from Prince George to Cranbrook -- it would be Kamloops. The expense of around $485 a month to have that space -- both for my executive assistant, who is posted in Kamloops, and myself, from time to time -- to accommodate those meetings is truly a trivial amount. That much would be saved several times over by a single municipality, in the process of a single visit. I'm pleased to say that the mayors who have thus far taken advantage of this are quite grateful for that opportunity.

D. Symons: I'd like to move on to vote 61, if we may. Under administration and support services, I understand that this vote applies to the executive, financial, administrative, personnel, information systems, internal audit and public affairs programs for the

[ Page 937 ]

ministry. I understand also that this is a different way of accounting this year, as last year's policy, planning and municipal programs weren't broken down as a subvote. Is this correct?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Yes, that is correct.

D. Symons: Could you elaborate on the reason for this change? It made it more difficult for us to try and track things when there is a different accounting procedure this year than last.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: It was done to provide a better disclosure of the programs within the ministry.

D. Symons: I thank the minister for that. I found those in the 1992-93 budget were easier to follow and more meaningful, in a sense, than the previous ones. But, as I say, it was difficult to coordinate the two of them because of that change.

Under the transportation planning and policy branches, how many full-time equivalents are there in this department? Has this number increased or decreased?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The total number is 67, and it is unchanged.

D. Symons: Again, as I mentioned earlier, I'm concerned that there seems to have been a reasonable cut in the total expenditure of the ministry, yet this does not seem to show up in any of the figures involving staffing and so forth. Should there not be some sort of cutback in that department then?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The ministry has assembled over the years a very competent staff to undertake a certain level of capital construction. We're suffering through a 15 percent reduction this year, which we do not anticipate will carry on in future years. Until such time as we are able to come back to full stride on our capital construction project, we wish to keep the team more or less intact to enable us to do that.

[Mr. Barnes in the chair.]

C. Tanner: We all are aware that contracted-out work is done on the highways through maintenance. Has the department in the past contracted out planning work within the department head office?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Yes, we have.

I might just add, if I could, a point with respect to the previous question on the total staffing costs. It should be understood that because we have privatized the substantial amount of the engineering work related to design, the major reduction in design costs falls now on private consulting engineering firms. In fact, I met with the Consulting Engineers of B.C. a month and half ago to warn them that they could expect up to 220 layoffs in their industry. So the decrease of total design services is where the hit has fallen, as opposed to ministry staff.

C. Tanner: The planning of a highway and of new roads is an extensive process. Would it be your determination that having contracted out, the quality of planning has deteriorated? I'm not saying that the private contractor can't do it as well, but I'm saying that probably an inconsistency occurred in the past. Was that illustrated when you took over the ministry in November?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Your question is with respect to design?

Interjection.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: No, I wouldn't say that there has been any deterioration. We have extremely competent transportation engineering consulting firms in the province, which have been in that business in a very major way for decades. They provide top-quality service when we do retain them. Many examples could be given to you of that. Beyond that, keep in mind that we retain within house the quality-assurance functions, so the quality is still to our standards, not to the standards of any individual consulting company.

C. Tanner: As a policy, has the department ever considered having what you might call a superministry, which would include not only B.C. Ferries and B.C. Transit but also municipal government and tourism to be consulted on an ongoing basis when you're planning new highways or new arterial roads?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: First of all, in repeating from a previous question, I believe very much that we should strive toward the consolidation of the transportation functions back within a single ministry. We will leave that for sometime in the future. Before that occurs, it's going to be up to us as a ministry to make sure that the necessary planning occurs across ministry boundaries as required.

D. Symons: I would like to pick up on something that was asked by my colleague here. You responded that the cuts might come through one of the contracting-out companies. I'm curious, though -- and I haven't found that out; it was coming up later in my questioning -- as to where the funding for the salaries and so forth for those contracting companies would appear in here. Is it under planning or maintenance? Do they come under those salaries and benefits, or where do those figures occur in the estimates?

[4:45]

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The individual amounts would be within either the minor or the major construction project budgets. Typically, 5 to 10 percent of each of those budgets would reflect design services associated with them. The cuts, then, will be within the 15 percent cut in our overall budget.

D. Symons: Thank you. That cleared up my concern about where the contracting figures would appear in the estimates.

[ Page 938 ]

How many people in the policy department are examining the possibility of tolls -- something that you brought up recently with the press -- and has any money in this budget been earmarked for studies of this sort? How much might have been put aside to study the feasibility of tolls on roads or bridges?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: There is no one in the ministry currently studying that. There is one individual -- me -- talking about it, and there is perhaps a media committee of several hundred working on it.

D. Symons: If the minister is interested in this concept, I think it might make sense to study it and have some ministry people look into it, especially with regard to the feasibility of tolls. It isn't planned for in this budget, but might it be looked at in a more formal way, rather than just in a casual way as it currently seems to be?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: You can certainly rest assured that before any policy of tolls is implemented, it will receive thorough study and discussion. I have raised the issue generally in order to spark some debate on it, because I believe that we do have very severe transportation problems. Some of those problems could not realistically be addressed within the next 15 years if we left it to the regular budgetary process. If, for example, we turn to the suggestion of Peat Marwick.... Under my pressure, they've looked into that and have recommended that, yes, for example, we could go to a capitalization route.

But it still remains: from where does the sinking fund get funded? I've simply raised the possibility that tolls would be one idea.

D. Symons: As the member may remember from my remarks to the press when they phoned and asked, I wasn't totally against the idea, although I had some concerns about the extent to which such a concept might be implemented. How far in advance does the ministry plan? Is there a comprehensive transportation plan for the province? Would this by chance be the Delcan report? As I recall, this report was not accepted by the NDP as a definitive provincial transportation plan when they were in opposition. I'm wondering if the NDP have changed their minds on this, or is your department now developing a new plan? If so, could the minister outline for us how this plan is being prepared and by whom?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The report that the hon. member opposite refers to, the Delcan report, was a precursor to the plan broadly given under the Freedom to Move plan of the previous administration.

At the present time, of course, we have had to delay. Number one, the Freedom to Move account never did exist in terms of money in it; it was a bookkeeping entry. We are no longer following that particular plan, but as I said earlier, we have major transportation studies occurring in the greater Vancouver area and in the capital region. We have a large variety of projects that have been planned -- trying to look several years ahead -- in the various regions and districts of the province on a rolling horizon basis. As funds become available we will firm up the particular plans that we wish to follow.

D. Symons: Part of my previous question involved a comprehensive provincewide plan. I think you answered that that's not quite in the works yet. You answered part of my next question, which was how far in advance, and it didn't seem to be a very long time-line there, but you might want to respond to that in a moment.

What guidelines are there for the priorities in this planning, for example, for the Commonwealth Games in Victoria? Has this had any impact on the planning process that should be ready for the traffic that the event will engender in this area?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Various occurrences around the province would be from time to time considered in the plans for the coming several years. In an example raised by the member opposite just this morning, the Commonwealth Games entered the planning picture -- albeit by the back door -- by taking the decision earlier today to proceed with a couple of elements at the McKenzie interchange in order to make sure that we could complete that project a month or two ahead of the Commonwealth Games, so that the ongoing construction doesn't interfere with the use of the roads at that time.

D. Symons: I must compliment the member on his extremely good eyesight in being able to read the next question, which was precisely on the McKenzie intersection that each of us probably passes on our way to and from home on the weekends. It's good to hear his plans to have that intersection completed before the Commonwealth Games takes place.

How many full-time-equivalents are there under administration and support services, and is this the same number as last year?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The total is 225, and that is unchanged.

D. Symons: Are there any transportation economists in the department or any other department in the ministry? In the past your colleagues were extremely concerned with the lack of transportation economists, and I wonder how many the minister has hired since he was appointed last year.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I have not hired anyone since I assumed the portfolio, but we do have an individual with a doctorate in transportation economy. My assistant deputy has just pointed out that we also have a graduate student from UVic in transportation and economics working on staff.

D. Symons: Thank you. I believe it was Mr. Lovick who kept asking questions of that sort, so I thought I would just throw one of his questions back to you.

In this same way, he asked: "Are there any agrologists, geologists? Are there any people who know

[ Page 939 ]

anything about water tables, water drains, seepage, etc.? Who is in the planning department?" Again, this is Mr. Lovick's concern with the previous Ministry of Transportation and Highways.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: There's a hydrologist. There's a geologist. We do not have an agrologist on staff. Perhaps you could repeat all of the other "gists" that you mentioned.

D. Symons: Water table: you've got hydrology, drainage, seepage. I think hydrology would cover those. Any other specialty people in that line in your planning department in those particular interests?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Yes, we have specialists in each of the broad divisions responsible. That is to say: on the rail side, on the marine side, on the aviation side and as well, of course, on transportation.

D. Symons: I wonder if I could just revisit the answer a moment ago dealing with the McKenzie intersection, because I and my colleague here differed a little bit on what you had said. I'd assumed you said that the intersection was going to be completed, and you used the words: "It wouldn't interfere with the traffic." I'm wondering if you could reassure the House that that intersection will be completed in its final stage over the next short period of time.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The decisions that I took today have to do with excavating along the existing route of McKenzie Avenue, and transferring that over into a preload pad on a portion of the Pat Bay Highway where we have some soft ground conditions. The reason that I've taken that decision is that I've come to understand in the past few days that that preload has to sit for a year in order to accomplish what it needs to accomplish.

If we didn't proceed with that particular work now -- some $1.5 million that we're finding out of other projects on the Vancouver Island Highway project -- we were then not going to make the deadline of the games. By putting that preload on now, you can be assured that we will be able to complete the project in its entirety by roughly May or June 1994 -- a couple of months in advance of the games.

D. Symons: I thank you. I'm assuming a preload is what looks like sandbags built up on one side there of the road, and that's going to connect in with the bypasses. It seems to be constructed over to the east. I think I've got my directions right -- east side? Thank you.

This again is in vote 60, STOB 20, under professional services. What would these services be?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Those would primarily be consulting contracts.

D. Symons: Could the minister outline for us how many people would be providing professional services to the ministry to the tune of over, I believe it's $4 million in one of these figures under transportation policy?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: If your question is with reference to outside consulting, it would be in the order of 400 persons.

D. Symons: Under STOB 82, contributions, I note the figure of over $12.5 million. Last year, this figure was $20 million. Can all of this $8 million be accounted for through projects that are now completed? And if not, how are the municipalities, where I assume these contributions are going, going to finance projects?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Is the member opposite referring to the item of municipal incorporation grants?

D. Symons: Yes.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Those grants are offered to municipalities which, in the process of restructuring, take in certain roadways that are presently outside their limits. We have found that in the past, we've somewhat overestimated the amount of restructuring that would occur, and there was typically a surplus left in that particular account. We've reduced to $6 million for the coming year, but in fact we anticipate that all requests regarding restructuring will be able to be met.

[5:00]

D. Symons: What is the nature of these municipal grants and contributions -- you partly answered that -- and how are the projects prioritized: by municipalities, ministry or in consultation? On what basis are they justified as higher priorities than other municipal projects? Or will each municipality receive a proportional amount of that money?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The priorities are, in effect, set by the municipalities. If a municipality wishes to restructure in any given year, that's their decision. They simply come to us looking for a grant to cover upgrading of the road structure, such that they take it in at a higher level and save the local taxpayers the cost of doing that.

In addition, we grant them a five-year maintenance. We include it in our regular maintenance for some five years beyond that, before they have to take over the maintenance with municipal funds.

D. Symons: I just have about three more questions on this issue. I asked the question about prioritizing these, because I can imagine that each municipality feels that the project in their jurisdiction is the most important one in the province. Somewhere along the line someone has to decide how much each municipality is going to get for the projects that they have in mind. How can you, as Solomon, decide who gets how much? How is this priority decided?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I'm not certain if the member opposite is asking about the municipal

incor-

[ Page 940 ]

poration grants or about revenue-sharing that is handled by Municipal Affairs, which Highways then carries out or checks -- vets. If you're referring to the municipal

incorporation grants, then again I'm saying that the history has been that the uptake by municipalities on their own priority basis has been less than the amount budgeted. Although we have decreased the budgeted amount from $7.7 million to $6 million, we still anticipate that we will have sufficient in that budget item to cover all of the requests related to restructuring which will come through the fiscal year from the municipalities.

D. Symons: I'm having some difficulty, because you're referring to figures different from those I'm looking at under STOB 82, under the transportation policy planning description. I've got a $12,859,000 figure. Those were the contributions, and I was assuming that those were the contributions to municipalities. Then the concern was: how are these contributions prioritized between the municipalities? I'm sure that they all have many expensive projects they would like to see done and would like to approach the ministry on for funding.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I think that the number the hon. member is looking at is the total of several different programs. There's the air transport assistance program, bridge assistance program, secondary highway capital program, secondary highway maintenance program and municipal incorporation grants program. The total of those would be in the $12.5 million category.

The largest single item is the municipal incorporation grants, which, as I say, are typically undersubscribed. On some of the other ones -- like secondary highway capital, which is about $4 million for this year, and the bridge assistance program, which is $1.2 million this year -- projects are brought forward by municipalities. We vet them to see that they fit within our own transportation plan and, on a priority basis, grant funds to municipalities for specific projects.

D. Symons: I think that it might be an opportune time, because I see Committee B coming in, that I say we rise and report progress.

The House resumed; E. Barnes in the chair.

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

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

Hon. C. Gabelmann moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:12 p.m.