H0304pm 06

H0304pm 06

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

4th Session, 37th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Tuesday, March 4, 2003 Afternoon Sitting Volume 12, Number 6 THE HONOURABLE CLAUDE RICHMOND, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Honourable Iona Campagnolo 4TH SESSION, 37TH PARLIAMENT SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Claude Richmond EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council................................................................................. .........................Hon. Gordon Campbell Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations.............................................................................. ..................... Hon.

Greg Halsey-Brandt Deputy Premier and Minister of Education ....................................................................................... ..................................Hon. Christy Clark Minister of Advanced Education................................................................................................. ...........................................Hon. Shirley Bond Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations.............................................................. .................... Hon.

Geoff Plant Minister of Children and Family Development.................................................................................... ..............................Hon. Gordon Hogg Minister of State for Early Childhood Development.............................................................................. .................................Hon. Linda Reid Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services......................................................................... .................. Hon.

George Abbott Minister of State for Community Charter........................................................................................ .................................. Hon. Ted Nebbeling Minister of State for Women's Equality ......................................................................................... .................................... Hon. Lynn Stephens Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise ................................................................................ ..................................Hon.

Rick Thorpe Minister of State for Deregulation ............................................................................................. ............................................ Hon. Kevin Falcon Minister of Energy and Mines................................................................................................... ....................................... Hon. Richard Neufeld Minister of Finance ............................................................................................................ ....................................................... Hon.

Gary Collins Minister of Forests ............................................................................................................ .................................................. Hon. Michael de Jong Minister of Health Planning .................................................................................................... ............................................ Hon. Sindi Hawkins Minister of Health Services.................................................................................................... ................................................ Hon.

Colin Hansen Minister of State for Mental Health ............................................................................................ ...................................Hon. Gulzar S. Cheema Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care ............................................................................. Hon. Katherine Whittred Minister of Human Resources.................................................................................................... ............................................Hon.

Murray Coell Minister of Management Services................................................................................................ .........................................Hon. Sandy Santori Minister of Provincial Revenue................................................................................................. ................................................Hon. Bill Barisoff Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ................................................................................ ..................................Hon.

Rich Coleman Minister of Skills Development and Labour...................................................................................... .............................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Minister of Sustainable Resource Management and Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries ..................................Hon. Stan Hagen Minister of Transportation..................................................................................................... .................................................... Hon.

Judith Reid Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection..................................................................................... ....................................Hon. Joyce Murray LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Deputy Speaker................................................................................................................. ..............................................................

John Weisbeck Leader of the Opposition ....................................................................................................... ...........................................................Joy MacPhail Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ........................................................................................... .............................................. Harold Long Clerk of the Legislative Assembly .............................................................................................. .........................................E.

George MacMinn Clerk Assistant ................................................................................................................ ................................................................... Robert Vaive Clerk Assistant and Law Clerk .................................................................................................. ........................................................ Ian D. Izard Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees........................................................................................ ............................................Craig H.

James Clerk Assistant/Committee Clerk................................................................................................ ............................................ Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sergeant-at-Arms ............................................................................................................... .........................................................A.A. Humphreys Director, Hansard Services ..................................................................................................... ........................................

Anthony Dambrauskas Legislative Librarian.......................................................................................................... ............................................................. Joan A. Barton Legislative Comptroller ........................................................................................................ .................................................................Peter Bray Published by British Columbia Hansard Services, and printed under the authority of the Speaker by the Queen's Printer, Victoria.

Rates: single issue, $2.85; per calendar year, mailed daily, $298. GST extra. Agent: Crown Publications Inc., 521 Fort St., Victoria, B.C. V8W 1E7. Telephone: (250) 386-4636. Fax: 386-0221. www.leg.bc.ca/hansard In addition to printed transcripts, Hansard Services publishes transcripts on the Internet and broadcasts Chamber debates on television.

Party Standings: Liberal 75; New Democratic 2; Independent Liberal 2. ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Abbott, Hon. George (L) ....................................................................... Shuswap Anderson, Val J. (L) .............................................................Vancouver-Langara Barisoff, Hon. Bill (L)............................................. Penticton–Okanagan Valley Bell, Pat (L).........................................................................Prince George North Belsey, Bill (L).................................................................................

North Coast Bennett, Bill (L) ........................................................................... East Kootenay Bhullar, Tony (Ind. L) ................................................................. Surrey-Newton Bloy, Harry (L).................................................................................. Burquitlam Bond, Hon. Shirley (L).........................................Prince George–Mount Robson Bray, Jeff (L)......................................................................Victoria–Beacon H ill Brenzinger, Elayne (L) ...............................................................

Surrey-Whalley Brice, Susan (L) ............................................................................Saanich South Bruce, Hon. Graham P. (L)................................................ Cowichan-Ladysmith Campbell, Hon. Gordon (L)............................................. Vancouver–Point Grey Cheema, Hon. Gulzar S. (L) ..........................................Surrey–Panorama Ridge Chong, Ida (L)................................................................ Oak Bay–Gordon Head Christensen, Tom (L) .............................................................

Okanagan-Vernon Chutter, Dave (L) ........................................................................... Yale-L illooet Clark, Hon. Christy (L) ..................................................Port Moody–Westwood Cobb, Walt (L) ............................................................................. Cariboo South Coell, Hon. Murray (L) ........................................ Saanich North and the Islands Coleman, Hon. Rich (L) .............................................. Fort Langley–Aldergrove Collins, Hon.

Gary (L).........................................................Vancouver-Fairview de Jong, Hon. Michael (L)....................................... Abbotsford–Mount Lehman Falcon, Hon. Kevin (L) .......................................................... Surrey-Cloverdale Hagen, Hon. Stan (L) ................................................................... Comox Valley Halsey-Brandt, Hon. Greg (L) ..................................................Richmond Centre Hamilton, Arnie (L)............................................................Esquimalt-Metchosin Hansen, Hon.

Colin (L) .....................................................Vancouver-Quilchena Harris, Roger (L)......................................................................................Skeena Hawes, Randy (L) ............................................................ Maple Ridge–Mission Hawkins, Hon. Sindi (L).......................................................... Kelowna-Mission Hayer, Dave S. (L) ................................................................... Surrey-Tynehead Hogg, Hon. Gordon (L) ........................................................

Surrey–White Rock Hunter, Mike (L) ...................................................................................Nanaimo Jarvis, Daniel (L)...................................................... North Vancouver–Seymour Johnston, Ken (L)............................................................ Vancouver-Fraserview Kerr, Brian J. (L).............................................................. Malahat–Juan de Fuca Krueger, Kevin (L).................................................

Kamloops–North Thompson Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP) ...............................Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Lee, Richard T. (L).......................................................................Burnaby North Lekstrom, Blair (L)................................................................. Peace River South Les, John (L) .......................................................................... Ch illiwack-Sumas Locke, Brenda (L) ...........................................................

Surrey–Green Timbers Long, Harold (L) ...................................................Powell River–Sunshine Coast MacKay, Dennis (L)....................................................... Bulkley Valley–Stikine McMahon, Wendy (L).............................................Columbia River–Revelstoke MacPhail, Joy (NDP) ..........................................................

Vancouver-Hastings Manhas, Karn (L) .............................................Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Masi, Reni (L) ...................................................................................Delta North Mayencourt, Lorne (L) ..........................................................Vancouver-Burrard Murray, Hon. Joyce (L) ........................................................... New Westminster Nebbeling, Hon. Ted (L) .......................................... West Vancouver–Garibaldi Nettleton, Paul (Ind. L)..................................................Prince George–Omineca Neufeld, Hon.

Richard (L)...................................................... Peace River North Nijjar, Rob (L)...................................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Nuraney, John (L) ...............................................................Burnaby-W illingdon Orr, Sheila (L) ...........................................................................Victoria-Hillside Penner, Barry (L)....................................................................... Ch illiwack-Kent Plant, Hon. Geoff (L) ......................................................... Richmond-Steveston Reid, Hon.

Judith (L)............................................................Nanaimo-Parksv ille Reid, Hon. Linda (L) ................................................................... Richmond East Richmond, Hon. Claude (L) ................................................................ Kamloops Roddick, Valerie (L)..........................................................................Delta South Sahota, Patty (L).....................................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Santori, Hon. Sandy (L)..............................................West Kootenay–Boundary Stephens, Hon.

Lynn (L) ........................................................................ Langley Stewart, Ken (L)...................................................... Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Stewart, Richard (L) ...................................................... Coquitlam-Maillardville Suffredine, Blair F. (L) ................................................................Nelson-Creston Sultan, Ralph (L)....................................................... West Vancouver–Capilano Thorpe, Hon.

Rick (L) ..........................................................Okanagan-Westside Trumper, Gillian (L)................................................................Alberni-Qualicum van Dongen, John (L).........................................................Abbotsford-Clayburn Visser, Rod (L).................................................................................North Island Weisbeck, John (L).........................................................Kelowna–Lake Country Whittred, Hon.

Katherine (L) ...................................North Vancouver–Lonsdale Wilson, John (L)........................................................................... Cariboo North Wong, Patrick (L)............................................................Vancouver-Kensington LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Clayburn................................................................John van Dongen Abbotsford–Mount Lehman ..............................................Hon.

Michael de Jong Alberni-Qualicum.......................................................................G illian Trumper Bulkley Valley–Stikine ..............................................................Dennis MacKay Burnaby North..............................................................................Richard T. Lee Burnaby-Edmonds............................................................................Patty Sahota Burnaby-Willingdon......................................................................

John Nuraney Burquitlam ........................................................................................ Harry Bloy Cariboo North ..................................................................................John Wilson Cariboo South .................................................................................... Walt Cobb Chilliwack-Kent ............................................................................. Barry Penner Chilliwack-Sumas .................................................................................

John Les Columbia River–Revelstoke....................................................Wendy McMahon Comox Valley .......................................................................... Hon. Stan Hagen Coquitlam-Maillardville .............................................................Richard Stewart Cowichan-Ladysmith .......................................................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Delta North.......................................................................................... Reni Masi Delta South................................................................................

Valerie Roddick East Kootenay .................................................................................. Bill Bennett Esquimalt-Metchosin...................................................................Arnie Hamilton Fort Langley–Aldergrove ..................................................... Hon. Rich Coleman Kamloops ....................................................................... Hon. Claude Richmond Kamloops–North Thompson ........................................................Kevin Krueger Kelowna–Lake Country...............................................................

John Weisbeck Kelowna-Mission ................................................................ Hon. Sindi Hawkins Langley ............................................................................... Hon. Lynn Stephens Malahat–Juan de Fuca .....................................................................Brian J. Kerr Maple Ridge–Mission ................................................................... Randy Hawes Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows .............................................................Ken Stewart Nanaimo..........................................................................................

Mike Hunter Nanaimo-Parksville ...................................................................Hon. Judith Reid Nelson-Creston.......................................................................Blair F. Suffredine New Westminster ..................................................................Hon. Joyce Murray North Coast ........................................................................................Bill Belsey North Island........................................................................................Rod Visser North Vancouver–Lonsdale.......................................... Hon.

Katherine Wh ittred North Vancouver–Seymour .............................................................Daniel Jarvis Oak Bay–Gordon Head .......................................................................Ida Chong Okanagan-Vernon .................................................................... Tom Christensen Okanagan-Westside.................................................................Hon. Rick Thorpe Peace River North .............................................................Hon. Richard Neufeld Peace River South .......................................................................

Blair Lekstrom Penticton–Okanagan Valley ....................................................Hon. Bill Barisoff Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain.................................................... Karn Manhas Port Moody–Westwood......................................................... Hon. Christy Clark Powell River–Sunshine Coast.......................................................... Harold Long Prince George North................................................................................Pat Bell Prince George–Mount Robson................................................Hon.

Shirley Bond Prince George–Omineca................................................................Paul Nettleton Richmond Centre......................................................... Hon. Greg Halsey-Brandt Richmond East .......................................................................... Hon. Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ................................................................ Hon. Geoff Plant Saanich North and the Islands ............................................... Hon. Murray Coell Saanich South...................................................................................

Susan Brice Shuswap .............................................................................. Hon. George Abbott Skeena.............................................................................................Roger Harris Surrey-Cloverdale ................................................................. Hon. Kevin Falcon Surrey–Green Timbers .................................................................. Brenda Locke Surrey-Newton ............................................................................... Tony Bhullar Surrey–Panorama Ridge................................................. Hon.

Gulzar S. Cheema Surrey-Tynehead .......................................................................... Dave S. Hayer Surrey-Whalley ...................................................................... Elayne Brenzinger Surrey–White Rock ...............................................................Hon. Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Burrard................................................................. Lorne Mayencourt Vancouver-Fairview............................................................... Hon.

Gary Co llins Vancouver-Fraserview ...................................................................Ken Johnston Vancouver-Hastings .......................................................................Joy MacPhail Vancouver-Kensington...................................................................Patrick Wong Vancouver-Kingsway..........................................................................Rob Nijjar Vancouver-Langara....................................................................Val J.

Anderson Vancouver–Mount Pleasant............................................Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey ................................................... Hon. Gordon Campbell Vancouver-Quilchena............................................................ Hon. Colin Hansen Victoria–Beacon Hill.............................................................................Jeff Bray Victoria-Hillside.................................................................................. Sheila Orr West Kootenay–Boundary.................................................... Hon.

Sandy Santori West Vancouver–Capilano ..............................................................Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Garibaldi ................................................. Hon. Ted Nebbeling Yale-Lillooet .................................................................................. Dave Chutter

CONTENTS Tuesday, March 4, 2003 Afternoon Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Introductions by Members....................................................................................................... ............................................... 5201 Tributes....................................................................................................................... ............................................................... 5201 Melodie Elliott Clark B. Penner Laurence Elliott M.

Hunter Statements (Standing Order 25B).............................................................................................................................. .............. 5202 Forest industry in Kootenay-Boundary area B. Bennett Government policies on domestic violence J. Kwan Spotted owls R. Sultan Oral Questions................................................................................................................. ......................................................... 5203 Government action on sea lice in fish farms J. MacPhail Hon. S. Hagen Eligibility review for disability benefits J.

Kwan Hon. M. Coell P. Nettleton Petitions ...................................................................................................................... ............................................................... 5205 J. Bray Second Reading of Bills ........................................................................................................ ................................................... 5205 Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 13) Hon. S. Santori J.

MacPhail Committee of Supply ............................................................................................................ ................................................... 5207 Estimates: Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General L. Mayencourt Hon. R. Coleman J. Kwan B. Locke J. MacPhail R. Lee J. Bray R. Visser S. Orr R. Hawes K. Manhas

5201 TUESDAY, MARCH 4, 2003 The House met at 2:03 p.m. Introductions by Members Hon. G. Halsey-Brandt: Today in the members' gallery we have a special guest from Slovenia. Her Ex- cellency Veronika Stabej is the newly appointed am- bassador of Slovenia to Canada. She is accompanied by Dr. Branko Palcic, honorary consul of Slovenia at Van- couver. Ambassador Stabej is visiting from Ottawa to m a k e h e r o f f i c i a l c a l l s o n t h e g o v e r n m e n t . P l e a s e j o i n m e i n g i v i n g b o t h o f t h e m a w a r m w e l c o m e t o t h i s House. Hon. K.

Falcon: Today we are joined by 66 grade 11 students from the great school of Southridge Secondary in beautiful South Surrey. They are joined by their teachers Mr. Julian, Mr. Knihniski and Mr. Bendl. I would ask that the House please make them welcome today. [1405] J. Les: It's my pleasure today to introduce to the House seven legislative interns who will be working with the government caucus during this spring legisla- tive session.

The seven interns are as follows: Theresa Gerritsen, who is here from the University of Victoria; Jonathan Kim, who is from Simon Fraser University; Azmina Ladha from UBC; Julia Lockhart from UBC; Quinn Newcomb from the University of Victoria; Robert Parker from the University of Victoria; and Ty- ler Wightman from Malaspina University College. I would invite the House to make these people feel very welcome. Hon. R. Thorpe: I'm very pleased to have a con- stituent from Summerland, British Columbia — yes, the heartlands of British Columbia — h e r e t o d a y . I t ' s Debbie Kinvig.

Debbie is the general manager of the Kettle Valley Railway Society, where there were over 14,000 volunteer hours last year. Debbie's here on be- half of the society to sign a lease to have locomotive 3716 in place at the Kettle Valley Steam Railway in Summerland this year. Would the House please make Debbie very welcome. P. Sahota: Joining us in the House today is a con- stituent of mine from Burnaby-Edmonds, Janet Ray. Janet is working on her MA in nursing and currently doing a practicum with the Ministry of Health Plan- ning. Would the House please make her welcome. B.

Penner: Today I have some good news and some bad news. First, the good news. It's my pleasure today to introduce five people from the eastern Fraser Valley. First of all, we're joined today by Clem Sey- mour, an elected councillor with the Seabird Island Indian band, along with Chief John Pennier of the Scowlitz first nation. In addition, we have Sylvia Pranger, the mayor of the district of Kent, as well as Mayor Clint Hames of the city of Chilliwack — I be- lieve he's here in the precinct as well — and Terry Raymond, chairman of the Fraser Valley regional dis- trict.

They're here to discuss things, including gravel removal from the Fraser River. Would the House please make them welcome. Tributes MELODIE ELLIOTT CLARK B. Penner: Now the not-so-good news. It's with regret that I rise to inform the House about the pass- ing of a very distinguished individual who resided in Chilliwack for about 25 years. I learned this morn- ing that Melodie Elliott Clark, born in 1947, passed away on February 25 while with her husband on a holiday. Melodie Elliott Clark overcame tremendous chal- lenges in her life.

She became a quadriplegic as a result of a tragic traffic accident in the early 1970s. Notwith- standing that, she and her husband moved to Chilli- wack and established a very successful business, Elliott Clark Arts. I got to know Melodie when I sought the B.C. Liberal nomination in 1995, because she was one of the other people who also sought the nomination at that time. Their business was very successful and very well known in the community, and Melodie and her husband were well regarded for their involvement in the arts community in Chilliwack. She's been recognized in many ways.

For example, she recently received the Queen Elizabeth's Golden Jubilee lifetime achievement medal in Nova Scotia for her work in the arts, and that's where she and her hus- band have been residing most recently — back in Nova Scotia. I ask that the House please send a note of sym- pathy to her husband and her family. LAURENCE ELLIOTT M. Hunter: I also rise to note with regret the pass- ing of a constituent of mine, Laurence Elliott. Laurence was a director of the regional district of Nanaimo. He passed away last Thursday, a victim of lupus disease, at the age of 55.

Laurence was a real estate professional and a committed and popular public servant and vol- unteer. He's survived by his wife Diana, three adult children, three grandchildren and many others, includ- ing his own parents. Nanaimo is the poorer for his un- timely passing, and I ask that a note go to his family, noting our respect. Introductions by Members Hon. S. Hagen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your kindness in recognizing me today. I'm pleased to in- troduce to the House — they're in the gallery today — well-respected CFAX talk show host Terry Moore and

5202 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MARCH 4, 2003 his producer and wife, Ramona Beauchamp. Would the House please make them welcome. Statements (Standing Order 25B) FOREST INDUSTRY IN KOOTENAY-BOUNDARY AREA [1410] B. Bennett: This government is taking action to strengthen the B.C. forest industry, the creation — fi- nally — of a working forest, a Forest and Range Prac- tices Act that respects the experience and knowledge of forest workers, taking on the encrusted, outdated, byz- antine forest policies of yesteryear.

This government is determined to rebuild our most important industry and to put forest workers back to work. I want to tell the House today the story of another very positive step that impacts the Kootenay-Boundary region, where I live. Not long before the last provincial election the government of the day announced, without any public consultation, that they would arbitrarily change the terms of the Kootenay-Boundary land use plan beyond any balanced measure in place across this province. There are 15,000 families in 28 communities in the Kootenay-Boundary region who depend on forestry.

The government back then refused to listen to those 15,000 families in 28 communities. The opposition For- ests critic pleaded with the government at the time to not sacrifice the 1,300 family-supporting forestry jobs at stake, and the opposition leader, now Premier, prom- ised the people of my rural region that if elected, his government would listen to the people of Kootenay- Boundary. It's important for this House to know and it's im- portant for the people of the region to know that this government and this Premier lived up to that promise made before the last election.

We listened to the people of the region, we took the necessary steps to bring some socioeconomic balance to our land use plan, and we saved those same 1,300 family-supporting forestry jobs that the former government had put in jeopardy. GOVERNMENT POLICIES ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE J. Kwan: This Saturday marks International Women's Day, when millions of people will join to- gether to celebrate a history. As history also teaches us, women pay a heavy price in times of war.

With a new war looming in the Middle East, this International W o m e n ' s D a y w i l l b e i n v e s t e d w i t h a p a r t i c u l a r u r - gency. That urgency is also felt here at home in British Columbia. Recently the United Nations singled out our gov- ernment for very specific criticisms of its policies and the effect they're having on the lives of women in B.C. The UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimina- tion Against Women pointed to changes in the way the Liberals are prosecuting domestic violence. It pointed to cuts in legal aid and welfare assistance.

It pointed to the elimination of the Human Rights Commission. It pointed to cuts in support programs for victims of do- mestic violence. Taken together, the committee said, these changes are having a disproportionately negative impact on women, in particular aboriginal women. The committee urged this government to undertake an analysis of these changes and to amend them. To be singled out in this way by the world's top international body is extraordinary. It is a useful meas- ure of just how thoughtless, misguided and discrimina- tory many of these policy changes have been.

As a sig- natory of the convention on the elimination of all forms o f d i s c r i m i n a t i o n a g a i n s t w o m e n , s i g n e d i n 1 9 8 0 , C a - nadians undertook to live up to certain standards. This U N re p o rt s ay s , l o u d a nd c l e ar, t h at i n B . C . we ' re no t meeting our obligations. If the B.C. government truly wants B.C. to take a more prominent place on the world stage, I trust that each and every member of this caucus will read the UN report and will reflect long and hard on its criticisms and its recommendations for change — positive change. SPOTTED OWLS R.

Sultan: I would like to make a statement about spotted owls. The B.C. government and B.C. business are committed to their survival in our old-growth for- ests. The New York Times recently suggested that con- servation takes a back seat to logging in British Colum- bia. Our Premier quickly responded, describing our commitment to the recovery of the spotted owl. No question — the bird's in trouble for reasons not well understood. Both Canfor and Interfor have temporarily ceased logging in all spotted owl management areas to allow for assessment of habitat issues.

The province's spotted owl recovery team will recommend how forest compa- nies should proceed. In October conservation officers took the unprecedented step of capturing a very rare juvenile spotted owl from the Pemberton-Lillooet for- est. The Grouse Mountain Refuge for Endangered Wildlife in my constituency volunteered to give this little owl temporary refuge. Like Interfor and Canfor, Grouse Mountain is committed to conservation.

For example, it takes in orphaned grizzly bear cubs that would otherwise have to be destroyed. [1415] Juvenile spotted owls in the wild have less than a 25 percent chance of surviving their crucial first winter. I'm pleased to report that my constituent owl, appro- priately named Hope, received excellent care and overwintered splendidly. Hope has provided Grouse Mountain wildlife professionals and the spotted owl recovery team with valuable scientific data. Having survived her first winter, her chance of surviving sub- sequent winters rockets to 90 percent.

Later this month, Hope will be safely returned to the wilds. We expect she will do her part to save the species from extinction, and we wish her well.

TUESDAY, MARCH 4, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 5203 Mr. Speaker: That concludes members' statements. Oral Questions GOVERNMENT ACTION ON SEA LICE IN FISH FARMS J. MacPhail: Yesterday we learned from one of B.C.'s most reputable scientists that the first run of pink salmon smolts has come early and is covered with sea lice, but a spokesperson from the Fisheries ministry says that fish farm operators are reporting low levels of sea lice.

My question to the Fisheries minister is: is he going to listen to fish farm operators, who gave the Liberals big bucks in the last election, or is he going to listen to scientists and immediately fallow every fish farm in the Broughton Archipelago? Hon. S. Hagen: First of all, let me say that this gov- ernment is committed to preserving and protecting wild salmon on the coast of British Columbia, includ- ing the pink salmon. Secondly, let me say that the NDP were in government for ten years — the ten worst years of government this province has ever seen, I might add — and did nothing.

What we've had to do is clean up the mess left by the previous government. I can tell you that we are using scientific informa- tion. The scientific information that was provided yes- terday is very premature. The runs have not started coming out yet. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans tells us they are monitoring constantly. We've sent eight of our people up to the Broughton to moni- tor and report back. DFO has said it's going to share information with us as it becomes available. Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question. J.

MacPhail: It's interesting to note that the minis- ter, until this very moment, has relied on the scientific report produced in the 1990s for his defence. The only difference was that the previous government put in a moratorium. This government justifies the expansion. Scientists say…. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. J. MacPhail: I do understand how troubled the Lib- eral government is by the mishandling of this scandal. I do understand. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Let us hear the question. J.

MacPhail: Scientists say that if the government had fallowed these farms two months ago, the run might have been saved, but because of this govern- ment's inaction, which continues at this very moment, that run is likely destroyed. In about six weeks a sec- ond run of pinks will begin. If the minister doesn't take action now, we risk losing this wild salmon species for good. I ask the question again. Does he want to be re- membered as the minister who destroyed the pink salmon run, or will he take action right now to fallow every farm to save what's left of it? Hon. S.

Hagen: I would like to quote the John Fra- ser report, which talks about reducing the rhetoric and getting down to the science. That would be my recom- mendation to the members opposite. I would also like to say to those members opposite that to make such claims and recommendations as she has just made — whether it's in this House or in the media — which are based on such preliminary information, is not scien- tific. It is, in fact, irresponsible. As I've said, the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries has eight fisheries inspectors and one fish health veterinarian on staff, who are up in the Broughton.

We are hiring two new inspectors and widening the inspection authority across the ministries of Water, Land and Air Protection and Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further question. [1420] J. MacPhail: John Fraser may have said to lower the rhetoric. He didn't say to sit idle and do nothing while the fish die, which is exactly what this government is doing. Every time this government has taken a position on fish farming, it's been wrong and the scientists have been right — government wrong, scientists right. Right now scientists are saying a disaster looms.

Communities, fishers, scientists and conservationists are screaming for action from this government. The only people who say there's no problem are fish farm operators and the B.C. Liberal government — oh, and the minister's spokesperson. Why is the Minister of Fisheries stalling? Is it because he's worried that his campaign funds will dry up if he takes action to save the wild salmon stock? Hon. S. Hagen: May I remind the members oppo- site that under their tenure as government, as horrible as it was, nine new fish farms were located on the coast of British Columbia. Since the B.C.

Liberals were elected, no new fish farms have been located on the coast of British Columbia. Let me also point out to the member, who talks about the John Fraser report, that this is the Pacific Fisheries Resource… Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. S. Hagen: …Conservation Council report that she just drew attention to. The recommendations from this report are as follows: firstly, strategic fallowing of salmon net pens judged to be the highest risk to pink salmon. We have done that.

5204 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MARCH 4, 2003 Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. S. Hagen: Secondly, accelerated marketing of mature fish to fallow those pens. We have done that. Thirdly, the strategic application of therapeutics, which we have also sent a letter about. This letter went out to all salmon farms on the coast of British Columbia. I'll just read a couple of sentences. "Follow- ing the discussions at the forum that was held Febru- ary 22 to 24…" Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Wrap it up please, minister. Hon. S.

Hagen: "…it has been collectively deter- mined that all farms must implement monitoring and treatment plans for sea lice." ELIGIBILITY REVIEW FOR DISABILITY BENEFITS J. Kwan: We know that the Minister of Human Re- sources has spent close to $3 million to pay doctors who help fill out forms for people faced with disability reviews. What has not been made public is the amount of money that the minister has given to community agencies to help clients who have yet to file their re- view forms.

These are additional costs that are added to the list of doctors' fees, government staff time and the suffering that has occurred as a result of his ill- conceived eligibility review. Can the minister please tell this House how much he has had to pay non-governmental agencies and how much he expects this $3 million-plus witch-hunt to cost the government in total? Hon. M. Coell: Yesterday the member asked some questions about eligibility, and I just wanted to give her a couple of responses. In April of last year I said that the criteria would be inclusive.

No eligible person with a disability will lose their assistance. In October of last year I said that if all 18,000 people meet the criteria, we'll fund all 18,000 people. In December I again said that this is not about sav- ing money; it's about making sure that people meet the definition. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. M. Coell: If the member wants to talk about wasting money, it reminds me of a time when the New Democrats got elected in 1991. Jobs were being created, unemployment was going down, and they doubled the number of people on income assistance.

One in ten British Columbians was on income assis- tance. Six in ten single parents were on income assis- tance. Success for the socialists was putting people on welfare. Success for this government is making sure people have employment and looking after people with disabilities. Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary question. [1425] J. Kwan: We know that the minister's stuck when he cannot answer the question. I am absolutely alarmed that the minister cannot get us a total of what he expects this witch-hunt will cost.

Surely, he must have had some idea of the costs that would be incurred before he started along this road. Surely, he must have some target in mind — some estimate of how many individuals he thought were receiving benefits who shouldn't be. Could it be the minister who thought that: "Hey, we can't trust the existing files on each and every one of the clients because socialists are running the province"? Is that the reason for the witch-hunt — by putting… Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order. J.

Kwan: …people under enormous stress, when the minister should have known all along that these individuals were qualified to receive disability bene- fits? Will the minister have the courage to table in this House the briefing notes that laid out the eligibility review and his decision to launch this witch-hunt? What were the targets that he set to justify these extra expenses — extra expenses that, I might add, should be spent on people who require the support or perhaps the women's community, which the Minister of State for Women's Equality has cut the funding for? Interjections. Mr. Speaker: All right.

Order, please. Order, please. Hon. M. Coell: As I mentioned yesterday, we have increased our budget for people with disabilities on continuous assistance by $80 million. There are 3,200 more people receiving disability assistance with this government, and 6,000 people have taken the opportu- nity to give us their applications. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Let's listen to the answer. Hon. M. Coell: When I look back at the doubling of t h e i n c o m e a s s i s t a n c e b u d g e t b y t h a t f o r m e r g o v e r n - ment, and I think of the waste of money and no re-

TUESDAY, MARCH 4, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 5205 search to show it, when unemployment was going down, jobs were being created…. The former minister didn't even do any tracking of the people on income assistance in those days. Success for them might be just more people on welfare. Success for this government is putting people back to work, which we're doing. P. Nettleton: For three days I've watched the Minis- ter of Human Resources duck questions regarding the conduct of the disability benefits review. His failure to answer the questions gives me no comfort.

I do know, having been a government member on the Health Committee until last fall, that the minister did imple- ment this eligibility review because he believed that there were many individuals receiving disability bene- fits who should not. That was the logic that led to a program that we know cost close to $3 million just for doctors' fees alone. Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Order. P. Nettleton: Can he please tell this House how much this review has cost government in total and how many individuals who have submitted their review forms have been told they are ineligible for ongoing disability benefits? Hon. M.

Coell: I think that member actually voted for both pieces of our legislation last year. There are 10,000-plus people who have handed in their review forms — 6,000… Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. M. Coell: …new people who have put in re- view forms. If all of those people, plus any others that put in their forms, are found eligible, we'll fund them. As I've said in the past, if all 18,000 people are ap- proved as eligible, they'll be funded. Mr. Speaker: The member for Prince George– Omineca has a supplementary question. P.

Nettleton: It's clear that the minister has invested significant government resources into testing the eligi- bility of thousands of people with disabilities, the sole result being hardship for individuals and families. Now an individual has taken his own life, leaving be- hind a suicide note that… [1430] An Hon. Member: Shameful. P. Nettleton: …told of his fear and anxiety — yes, it is shameful — related to the review of his eligibility. The minister's remarks in the media and the House this week confirm that this review was intended as an eli- gibility screening for ongoing benefits.

Get beyond the arrogance, minister, and answer the question. Mr. Speaker: Will the member please put his ques- tion. P. Nettleton: And I will. Why did the minister's staff tell the regional coroner who reviewed Mr. Rist- vedt's death that his benefits weren't at risk, when they were? Hon. M. Coell: This government does everything in its power to make sure that people in its care, whether it be Health or Human Resources or Education, are treated with fairness and dignity. The review criteria have been designed to make sure that people who are in need of help get that help. [End of question period.] Petitions J.

Bray: I rise to present a petition signed by 96 residents in Victoria opposing the privatization of food services at the health authority. Orders of the Day Hon. G. Collins: I call second reading of Bill 13. Second Reading of Bills FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 Hon. S. Santori: I move that Bill 13 be read a sec- ond time now. Bill 13 amends the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act in response to a comprehen- sive review of the legislation requested by the Premier. The intent of the review was to increase openness and reduce compliance costs.

The amendments were pre- pared in consultation with stakeholders and the infor- mation and privacy commissioner. Bill 13 addresses the results of the review in a num- ber of ways. First, the bill includes four amendments that change an outdated name for the archives of Brit- ish Columbia to one that is generic to ensure that the act is current without further amendments whenever the name of the archives is changed in the future.

Second, the bill changes the wording of the original legislation so that when a public body places its archi- val records in the archives of another public body, these records are still subject to the legislation. Third, the bill clarifies notification requirements for the indirect collection of personal information. This will reduce confusion and administrative burden in circumstances where indirect collection is already per- mitted by the legislation.

5206 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MARCH 4, 2003 Fourth, the bill clarifies that researchers cannot use personal information from a public body for the sole purpose of contacting prospective research subjects. This change will increase privacy protection for indi- viduals in an area where the information is often very sensitive and will have limited impact on researchers.

Fifth, the bill addresses a concern expressed by public bodies that if the public body discloses records that are subject to solicitor-client privilege to the infor- mation and privacy commissioner at his or her request, that privilege may be harmed if not waived altogether. The bill ensures that solicitor-client privilege is not waived in these circumstances. Sixth, the bill adds a local government body that has not previously been covered and removes refer- ence to the University of Northern British Columbia as it has become unnecessary, given a change to other legislation.

The bill also addresses a number of concerns raised by the information and privacy commissioner. These amendments will lessen administrative burden and provide increased flexibility to enable the commis- sioner to continue to meet his mandate in a time of restricted resources. [1435] The amendments also remove unintended conse- quences of the original drafting. First, the bill corrects an inadvertent error in the original act and clarifies the circumstances under which the commissioner can pre- sent a special report to the Legislature.

Second, the bill enhances the mediation role of the information and privacy commissioner's office by pro- tecting them from being compelled to give evidence in legal proceedings. Third, the bill expands the commissioner's powers to delegate authority to his staff by permitting him to dele- gate the review of records withheld by public bodies under the law enforcement exception, except in limited circumstances.

The bill recognizes that some law en- forcement records are particularly sensitive and pro- vides a means for senior law enforcement officials to request that the commissioner not delegate access to certain records. The inclusion of this restriction provides the enhanced protection necessary for these records. Fourth, the bill permits the commissioner to request authorization from an adjudicator for relief from repeti- tious, vexatious, systematic and frivolous requests that the commissioner has received as head of the public body.

The legislation currently permits public bodies to make an application to the commissioner to seek relief from such requests, yet does not provide the same ave- nue of redress to the commissioner. This amendment eliminates the inconsistency in the legislation and re- duces the administrative burden for the commissioner. The bill also contains a number of provisions that will improve the administration of the act and address compliance issues.

The bill removes the potential for the inconsistent application of the collection, use and disclosure principles for personal information handled by contractors acting on behalf of public bodies. With current wording it is possible that the use and disclo- sure principles could be interpreted as not binding to contractors acting for public bodies.

The provision of this bill will increase the openness and accountability of government, reduce compliance requirements, improve the protection of personal in- formation, reduce administrative burden for the com- missioner and ensure clear policies, practices and stan- dards for public bodies in administering the act.

These changes will guarantee the continuation of the tradition of British Columbia having the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act that is the most open and the strongest on privacy protection in Canada and will position British Columbia to lead Canadian jurisdic- tions in electronic government initiatives. J. MacPhail: It is interesting to note that this bill is about ensuring protection of privacy information when the government contracts out work.

Here we are, once again, in a situation where, because of this govern- ment's ideological agenda to contract out no matter what it costs, there's more red tape. There's more that has to be looked after. I n this particular case it's not a bad thing, because it's about freedom of information and protection of privacy — with a few hiccups. Yet just because this government has an ideological zeal to contract out work, even to the extent where in the health services this government is going to be contract- ing out work that will cost triple the amount they'll save, they're still proceeding.

Over three years the govern- ment will be spending $225 million on booting well- trained, loyal, senior health care workers off the payroll, and they're going to bring in contractors, and they're only going to save $70 million over three years. Let's see. That's a good deal. That's Liberal economics. Spend $225 million to save $70 million.

Today we're dealing with the consequences of that contracting-out of work, and so we have to have a piece of legislation where this govern- ment will say: "Well, that contractor has to be subject to protection of privacy of information." Interesting, isn't it, that we have to do this? [1440] There's still controversy even within that. There's a disagreement about how this legislation actually has to apply. It says there's a disagreement between the com- missioner of the freedom of information and protection of privacy and the responsible bureaucrat for that legis- lation.

I say that the public official responsible, Chris Norman, who is the director of the corporate privacy and information access…. They have a disagreement. It can be resolved. It can be resolved either through an amendment…. Well, actually, it should be resolved through an amendment. I'll detail that in a moment. What we have here is an expansion of protection of privacy to deal with this government's ideological bent to contract out work that was previously done in the public service.

They have to change the law, but they've also reduced — cut back — the available resources for the freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy commissioner. At the same time that people have to be even more vigilant, this government is cutting back on the resources available to maintain that vigilance.

TUESDAY, MARCH 4, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 5207 Of course, it's vigilance that's key to the protection of privacy. This is another example not only of the hoops that the public are now going to have go through to deal with this contracting-out agenda but of the threat to personal privacy being greater if the vigi- lance is diminished. This government has diminished the vigilance of the freedom-of-information and protec- tion-of-privacy commissioner. I will be asking questions about how this minister can guarantee proper vigilance with the resources available to the FOIPP commissioner.

If, indeed, this minister tries to use the defence that that should be talked about in estimates, it will prove the point that this government doesn't want to be held accountable for its changes in legislation. Here is the dispute between what the commissioner is saying and what the public official under this minis- ter's ministry is saying.

Section 10(

a) amends

section 33 of the act by striking out "a public body may disclose personal information" and replacing it with "a public body must ensure that personal information in its cus- tody or under its control is disclosed" only. By drop- ping the word "may" and inserting the words "must ensure," the

section will, at best, have the unintended effect of causing confusion about whether it is permis- sive or mandatory and will, at worst, make it a manda- tory provision. Those who believe that this

section should remain permissive are now in a state of confu- sion, by this legislation. A second point is that the government's underlying intent of the amendment is unclear. The wording of the amendment, according to the information and privacy commissioner, is different than the understanding of Chris Norman, director of the corporate privacy and information access branch. Disturbingly, each individ- ual has a significantly different

interpretation about the underlying intent of the amendment. As I understand it, and I've had this confirmed by others, the two individuals' views are this. Mr. Lou- kidelis, the freedom of information commissioner, in- terprets the amendment to seek to impose an obliga- tion on public bodies to take steps to ensure that per- sonal information that is disclosed to contractors who perform services for the government will be protected by the provisions of the act. Mr.

Norman, the public official working directly for the minister, in contrast, has indicated that the intent of the change is to clarify that government may enter into such agreements to respond to a concern that the act's current wording may preclude the government from doing so. Accord- ing to Mr. Norman, it would be a matter of government policy to create contractual agreements to ensure that contractors comply with the act.

There's a big differ- ence between the two points of view. [1445] I put these comments on the record at second read- ing so that the minister has time to take them away and eliminate the confusion — table an amendment and eliminate that confusion. I also say that it is time for the government to acknowledge that their agenda to con- tract out, contract out and contract out carries conse- quences. The consequences are this. As the government disperses what used to be held in the public service, and with all the protection of privacy of that informa- tion being held tightly within the public service….

It will now be dispersed. It will now be dispersed through their contractors. We saw that as an example last week in a leaked document. The document didn't have to do with Pharmacare, but it was a program this government was setting up, putting it into the private sector for good optics. Issues of freedom of information and protection of privacy stand there as well. Now we have a situation where the government's own bureaucrats are suggest- ing in some way that it's entirely up to the government to decide how far they go to protect that public infor- mation.

It is a flaw in the bill, or a misunderstanding at best, that the minister should clarify and clear up through amendment. Mr. Speaker: D e b a t e a t s e c o n d r e a d i n g o f B i l l 1 3 continues. The minister closes debate. Hon. S. Santori: I'm very proud of the amendments that are being brought forward, which give us an op- portunity to recognize that there are other ways to conduct business in government and how we can pro- vide services. It does allow us to expand our services to the private sector and to do what's in the best interests of the taxpayers of this province.

Furthermore, we are putting the changes in place on the freedom of infor- mation and the protection of privacy to respond di- rectly to the transformation that this government is undertaking. On that note, I'm looking forward to entering de- bate in committee stage with the member opposite. At this time, hon. Speaker, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House. Mr. Speaker: Excuse me, minister. We do second reading first. The question is second reading of Bill 13. Motion approved. Hon. S.

Santori: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today. Bill 13, Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2003, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today. Hon. G. Bruce: I call Committee of Supply for the estimates debate of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General. Committee of Supply The House in Committee of Supply B; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

5208 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MARCH 4, 2003 The committee met at 2:50 p.m. ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND SOLICITOR GENERAL On vote 34: ministry operations, $480,862,000. L. Mayencourt: I recently had some meetings w i t h a n u m b e r o f c h a r i t i e s t h a t r e s i d e i n m y neighbourhood, which provide some very valuable services. Some of the questions that resulted from that I would like to canvass the minister on in terms of estimates.

The first issue that comes up for charities in my area, such as the West End Seniors Network and the 411 Seniors Centre, is the issue around bingo top-up. Their concern is that for a period of time, the gaming policy and enforcement division has been providing top-up to bingo charities to provide them with some additional funds. Can the minister please tell me what the policy is going to be on bingo top-up? Hon. R. Coleman: A s t h e m e m b e r k n o w s , i n t h e service plan a year ago we were looking at the possibil- ity that top-up would not continue, as a saving to gov- ernment.

What top-up is, is actually a grant program that subsidizes those charities in the bingo facilities of British Columbia. It was tied to an agreement with charities. M y c h a l l e n g e , g i v e n t o m e b y T r e a s u r y B o a r d l a s t year, was to find ways to restructure how we did busi- ness so that I could protect the top-up. I can advise the member that we've done that. It was in the budget speech. The member can rest assured that for the chari- ties in his riding and the other 2,500 charities around the province, top-up has been protected and will be protected. L.

Mayencourt: Thank you to the minister for that response. The other issue that's coming up is the amount of moneys that a charity could apply for under direct ac- cess. I understand that there is some talk of a cap at $100,000. Could the minister please clarify that for the charities? Hon. R. Coleman: That is not a change in policy. That policy has been in place for a long time. Organiza- tions have been allowed to go up to $100,000. Those with provincewide programs, however, have been al- lowed to exceed the $100,000. That's where the confu- sion may be, but that is not a change. L.

Mayencourt: Thank you to the minister for the answer. The other question I have is regarding something that's maybe inappropriately called double-dipping, in which a charity might access bingo dollars as well as direct access. For those charities that have those two pools that they draw money from, it is a concern. If they lost one of those, how would they make up for any lost revenues? Could the minister clarify for those charities what we are doing on the issue of double- dipping, direct access and bingo dollars? Hon. R.

Coleman: There was a paper that went out that, frankly, wasn't for public digestion at the time that it went out and that has caused some confusion with regards to charities. We are not eliminating one group from one stream or the other. They will still be able to access both streams. [1455] L. Mayencourt: I live in a community that has three schools. They are inner-city schools, and they have parent advisory committees.

Sometimes I've found in my travels through the province that not every school has a parent advisory committee, and not every parent advisory committee has the people with the skills to be able to fill out a gaming application. I really believe that parent advisory committees should have access to gaming dollars as a way of supporting enhanced ser- vices within those schools, particularly for those that are inner-city or may not have the kind of skill set to put forward an application.

Will the minister give us some clarification on what he's going to be doing in terms of PAC, parent advisory committee, eligibility for gaming access? Hon. R. Coleman: As we did our review of the di- rect access program, one of the things we identified is that there was a huge, disproportional amount of suc- cess between PACs with regard to receipt of money from direct access either because they had access to material or larger PAC groups in larger schools — whatever the case may be.

We looked at it and deter- mined — as I we nt throug h t he province area by area and riding by riding — that there were some ridings receiving as much as 1 percent and 2 percent of the total amount of money and others receiving huge per- centages of the total amount of money we gave to PACs last year. What we did was basically first take the approach of how much we were going to allow for PACs in the province. We've decided that should be about $20 a student. Before, if you actually got a grant in and you got approved, you got $40 a student.

We then took that process through a committee and through discussions and came to the conclusion that in fairness, it would be best if every PAC group in the province, by their stu- dent population, receive $20 a student directly to their parent advisory council early in the school year. Al- though some schools don't have PACs, they will be encouraged to start them and to set up their board and bank account. When they have, they will be eligible for the funding as well.

The good news about this is that this is simply a case of a PAC being identified and existing in a school with the proper bank account and board, and then they will all be funded. Without having to go through an onerous grant application process, we will be funding PACs across the province. Whether you are in Bulkley

TUESDAY, MARCH 4, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 5209 Valley–Stikine or whether you are in Vancouver- Burrard, you will be treated the same across the prov- ince by school, and you will all receive an equal amount of funding based on your student population. It is very good news about the stability it will create f o r P A C s t o k n o w y e a r u p o n y e a r w h e t h e r t h e y w i l l have funding available. You will find in the history of the direct access program that some people in PACs would receive money this year but maybe did not re- ceive it last year or the year before and vice versa.

This will give them the stability and the knowledge. In addition to that, as we went through that process, we became really aware of the fact that there is a group in the middle between the provincial parent advisory council and the school parent advisory council. They are the district parent advisory councils. They have no access to any funds unless a school board actually gives them some money for small operating….

This is the group that actually brings together the presidents and executives of PACs in each district and gives them an opportunity to share ideas on fundraising and how they can improve different programs in their school — ideas they can have. We've decided we will give a small amount of money to every district PAC in the province so that they can pay for the bare essentials that they're saying they can't pay for today unless they get money donated back by the PACs. I think we've actually struck a really nice balance.

We will be advising all the PACs as we move forward how this will work for them, but there will be some disciplines in the market. There will be some notice of a small application that says, "This is who we are. This is our bank account. This is the board," so that we at least know we're sending the money to the right place. One of the anticipated questions that may come out of this discussion is: will you send the money to the principal of the school if there's no PAC? No, we will not. We will only be sending money to the PACs for use as the PACs see fit. L.

Mayencourt: I think that's really good news for many schools in British Columbia, because it is equita- ble, it provides for some stable funding year over year, and the application process can be quite onerous for those schools. It's also good news for the DPACs, the district parent advisory committees, so I'm grateful to the minister for that. Can the minister let us know how a school that does not have a parent advisory committee will be- come aware of the fact that there are funds set aside for them? How will we be notifying them? [1500] Hon. R. Coleman: In a number of ways.

First of all, we will be advising all the schools and the provincial parent advisory council people about this change. They are expecting it. We will also be advising all existing P A C s , b e c a u s e w e a c t u a l l y d o h a v e a p r e t t y g o o d r e - cord of who they are, if they have applied with us. Ob- viously, we will let school districts know this. Hope- fully, the MLAs will take the opportunity to advise their different PAC organizations of this great oppor- tunity they have facing them for their communities. We wouldn't want any school to go without this opportu- nity in the province of B.C.

L. Mayencourt: I personally will take you up on that one, and I'm sure many members here will want to be able to inform their PACs of that good news. This next item I wanted to ask the minister about is the issue of the variety of categories under which someone becomes eligible to apply for a gaming grant. I understand there's some talk about a reduction in the number of categories, and I'm concerned that might result in some people, who currently receive gaming funds, being disqualified. I would like to know, first off, what the rationale is behind the reduction in the number of categories.

Secondly, is there anyone cur- rently eligible for gaming funds who is going to be- come ineligible as a result of those changes? Hon. R. Coleman: There are presently 11 categories of groups that are eligible for gaming funds in the province. They will all still be eligible. What we are doing, though, is collapsing the categories into four categories. Within the four categories, all 11 will be eligible. The reason we're doing that is that we want to go, in the next fiscal year, to a quarterly intake. We will take a quarterly intake in each of the four categories that will cover off those 11.

We will do the quarterly intake so that we can actu- ally be comparing application to application within a category, versus what's happened in the past, where applications were coming in at different times of the year. That will allow us to do two things. It will in- crease our efficiency so we can get it down to what we hope will be a 12-week-or-less process period, so the money can be stable and get into the hands of the groups or the organizations as quickly as possible. It will allow us, within each area, to assess the applica- tions as to the community benefit to the programs that they're going to fund.

That's what this is about. It is a grant program. It will also allow us to basically stream- line our process and management. Now, having said that, we recognize that in year 1 of going to quarterly intake, there will be some groups in the first quarter or second quarter or even third quarter who would normally have received their funds early and who need them for their programs to pay for them in this fiscal year. We are, therefore, going to transition any groups that are affected by quarterly intake so that they can get their money earlier.

We will take care of everybody — keep them whole — and then adjust to the entire quarterly intake process by the next fiscal year. L. Mayencourt: I have a number of charities within my community that provide really valuable and impor- tant service. I think of B.C. Persons with AIDS Society, AIDS Vancouver and the 411 Seniors Centre Society. These people also receive funding from other govern-

5210 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MARCH 4, 2003 ment sources — through the Ministry of Health, through Vancouver coastal health authority, etc. They have a concern that as a result of receiving a fairly significant chunk of their operating dollars, changes might affect their ability to access gaming dol- lars. Specifically, they use those gaming dollars to de- liver not their core services but, rather, the enriched services. It might be a shopping service for a senior. It might be a hospice program for someone living with HIV/AIDS.

Will those charities still be able to apply for gaming dollars for those programs for which they do not re- ceive funding from a government source or for which they receive less than 50 percent, for example? Hon. R. Coleman: This has been one of those actual portions of discussions in and around grant programs for some time, as to how you actually manage them. One of the challenges we recognized as we looked at the program was, in fact, that people were looking at a grant program as basically a guarantee for the opera- tion of their society or whatever the case may be. We looked at this from a number of aspects.

We looked at it from the aspect of how, when we give out a grant, it's for a particular program funded by an or- ganization within the community — whichever one of those organizations the member mentioned — not their core funding but for programs they may have, like you described, for seniors or whatever the case may be. [1505] W e f e e l t h a t a n o r g a n i z a t i o n s h o u l d h a v e s o m e community support and involvement.

We looked at the possibility of saying that if organizations were ac- tually receiving more than 50 percent of their entire dollars from various sources of government, maybe we should look at how we would do direct access with them. We've raised that bar to 75 percent. As long as an organization has some other value in it that's coming from a variety of sources that can be reflected and they're not receiving more than 75 percent of their money from government, they'll be fine.

Having said that, we are going to allow things like goods in kind, volunteer labour and that sort of thing to be accounted for as charged back as part of the con- tribution to the organization. We know we may find some that are on the edge, and we're going to help them with that as we go forward. The intent of the program is not to have it where 100 percent of the dol- lars are coming from a particular grant program.

We'd like to see them also have money coming from other sources where they raise it within the community from whatever means they do or they actually have volun- teer labour in kind or materials in kind so they balance it off. We think we've struck the balance there. We're go- ing to work through that. We know we have some is- sues in and around transition houses, which we've already addressed. We're going to find a way to deal with that one, because we know they have to change their accounting somewhat so they can get to the per- centages and be comfortable.

We'll work with all the organizations to make that transition fine. L. Mayencourt: Just to get a further clarification, we're talking about programs as opposed to global funding for an agency. Is that correct? Okay. Then the other question I have is: how soon will it be before those charities — unless they're watching, of course; they'd know today — that are affected by these pro- posed changes will know what the ramifications are for themselves? Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, I don't think there are ramifications for any charities. I think we're okay with the formula we've selected.

If we find one there that isn't, we're certainly going to work with them to solve that ramification for them. We expect that the charities will actually receive a letter in writing from us within this week advising them about the quarterly intake, about the fact that we protect the top-up, the fact that we've funded the entire agreement with charities and that the grant money actually goes up next year by the amount of the cost of living tied to the Vancouver index. It's all the good news, which is: "Folks, you don't have to worry. The money is still there. You're still eligible." Everything else will go out.

Then we expect, obviously, to have some questions back. We'll deal with those concerns. Frankly, if anything, I would say about the branch in this particular case and this portion of my ministry that I think they've done an exceptional job taking a program we were concerned about not being sustain- able for the charities of B.C. and making it sustainable. Last year, for instance, we had well over 300 or 400 charities that did not receive money from direct access because we ran out of money early.

By actually manag- ing the program better, we were able to fund close to 400 additional charities this year through this program while still funding the organizations we funded in the past. I'm pretty comfortable that we'll continue to be able to do that. L. Mayencourt: I'd like to move on to community police offices for just a moment. I had a meeting earlier today in which someone said we had cancelled funding to the community police offices. That's not quite my recollection. I'd like to get from the minister what is available to community police offices in the city of Vancouver.

I know that we have been helping them in a shared arrangement with the city of Vancouver for a while. Can the minister please clarify what is available to the Vancouver community police offices right now? Hon. R. Coleman: The issue the member is dealing with is really a Vancouver-only issue. Back in about 1996, as an announcement of a day where I think the ministry was making announcements to…. I don't know whether it was press releases or announcements or whatever the case may be, but $150,000 for the community policing offices grant was announced for

TUESDAY, MARCH 4, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 5211 1996. It was announced by the then Attorney General. It was supposed to be one-time thing. It continued on. [1510] There are 18 community policing offices in the city of Vancouver. Last year I met with the then mayor of Vancouver and explained to him the situation — that I thought the funding for community policing offices should be fair for all communities. The community of Mission or the community of Langley or the commu- nity of Surrey doesn't receive extra funding for the community policing offices from government.

We do have a program where, by making an appli- cation, community policing offices are entitled to a grant of up to $5,000. They have to make the applica- tion. They actually have to tell us what they're going to do with the money. We like to make sure those offices are interacting well with the police and they're per- forming the function that's comfortable for the police as far as their relationship with the community policing offices. When we do those grants, we actually ask for feedback and endorsement from law enforcement within the community about how well this is working for them.

We changed that grant, and we will now make Vancouver, like any other community, eligible the same way. That is, they can apply for the up-to-$5,000 grant. Each one of those community offices would be allowed to do that. The city can choose to match it in w h a t e v e r w a y i t w a n t s , j u s t l i k e t h e y d o i n a n y o t h e r community. L. Mayencourt: My final question to the minister revolves around the Residential Tenancy Act. We have

an act that was approved in the last session. At this stage the minister is dealing with issues around the regulations. There are two issues that keep coming up in my community, and I'd like to get the minister's re- sponse to those. First off, I want to know how we are dealing with the tenant and landlord associations. How are we working with them to find the rent fairness item? Out in the community we have some fears that tenants might see unfair rent increases. Frankly, I've worked reall y hard to make sure we have fai r rent leg islatio n, and I think it's covered in this act.

The other issue that comes up again and again is the issue of retroactivity. I wonder if the minister could tell us what the status is of the talks that are going on between landlords and tenants to find a fair balance for the rights and responsibilities of both tenants and land- lords in the province. Hon. R. Coleman: The regulations have not been written for the Residential Tenancy Act as yet. We are still in the middle of consultations. Our staff are out meeting with both the tenants groups and the industry groups, and we're receiving input back towards those regulations.

There have been some concerns in and around the issue the member has described. We're go- ing to look at those as we move forward with the writ- ing of the regulation, and I will keep him apprised of those initiatives as we move forward. We're not in a position to make a comment today, because regulations have to come to cabinet. But as we draft them, we are taking those concerns into account. J. Kwan: I understand that we sort of switched the agenda a little bit in order to accommodate the member for Vancouver-Burrard, who has to head back to Van- couver.

Perhaps before we begin, the minister may want to make some opening statements and introduce the staff with him, and I have a series of questions. Hon. R. Coleman: I appreciate that. I do know the other member had to leave, and we will get used to that. I will introduce my staff. The reason I look behind me is because Derek Sturko, who is the director with regard to the gaming policy branch, was behind me. He has now left. He has been replaced by Gary Martin, who is with compliance and consumer services.

Also, I have Deputy Minister Alison MacPhail beside me and Assistant Deputy Minister of Management Services Jim Crone here to my left. Behind me is the director of re- source analysis branch, Barbara Kaiway. I will now continue on with my opening remarks. Our government has made public safety a key priority. Over the past year we've been working to reform pub- lic safety in the face of significant challenges and to keep spending under control without compromising essential services, and we are experiencing success. Over the past year we have made some significant gains in carrying out our action plan.

Here's a brief

summary of what we have done. [1515] Consolidation of correctional facilities, January 2002. Correctional facilities were not operating at ca- pacity. They were not operating even at close to capac- ity in some areas. Therefore, efficiencies and cost sav- ings were possible through consolidation of facilities. Some facilities that were old and updated were closed, and savings were achieved by not upgrading these facilities. That allowed for more correctional resources to be focused on supervising high-risk offenders.

In gaming, management restructuring and intro- duction of new gaming policies and a new gaming act in March 2002. That eliminated the duplication by con- solidating five gaming management agencies into two. It improved the accountability and saved administra- tive costs. It protected the consistency in distribution of gaming funds and gaming revenues to charities. The amendment of the Name Act in April 2002 was to prevent people with criminal records from changing their name to avoid criminal-record check detection.

It improved public safety as a result, and it closed a loophole that allowed people with criminal records to change their names and hide their criminal pasts. The restructuring of victims services in June 2002 was the establishment of 24 new programs — both specialized and police-based victims programs — and a new 24-hour, seven-day-a-week crisis line to be im-

5212 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MARCH 4, 2003 plemented this year. More programs in more commu- nities throughout B.C. is a result. The elimination of duplication and funding inconsistencies, actually measuring the success of programs within communi- ties and what they were directed to, and the preserva- tion of current funding in totality for victims programs within my ministry…. Vehicle impoundment for street racing in June 2002. It was to work on increasing the public safety.

It provides more tools for police to fight street racing by allowing them to impound for up to 48 hours vehicles of those who are involved in street racing. This gets dangerous drivers and dangerous vehicles off the streets immediately. We also allow for up to two years of suspension by police in cases of street racing with a 24-hour line to the superintendent of motor vehicles, and we doubled the points for excessive speed. The new crime victims assistance program in July 2002 increased the range of programs available to vic- tims.

There is more flexibility to target victims funding where it is needed the most; faster adjudication of claims, so benefits reach victims faster; and alliance with other jurisdictions by removing pain and suffer- ing awards, which are unfair, difficult to judge and time-consuming and which revictimize the victim. Liquor law reforms in August 2002 through to De- cember 2002 allow liquor inspectors now to focus on public safety issues, including service to minors, overservicing, overcrowding and illegal sale of liquor. It simplifies and streamlines the licensing process.

It will stimulate the economy, support tourism and help small business. It improves choice and flexibility for consumers. The modernization of the Residential Tenancy Act legislation, October 2002, increased the clarity and pro- tection of tenants and landlords. It will revitalize the rental housing market. It fulfils a new-era commitment to modernize the Residential Tenancy Act to properly protect the interests of landlords in plain language so everyone can understand. It will reduce the needs for arbitrated disputes. We've done a separate act for manufactured home park tenancies.

We anticipate the further consultation on the regulations to be finished this spring and our regulations to be ready by early summer. Formal inauguration of the integrated Esquimalt police force and the amalgamated Esquimalt-Victoria police force in January 2003. This enhanced public safety by putting two police forces together. It allowed for cost-efficiencies, effective use of policing resources, less duplication, and increased secure opportunities for the officers involved in both departments.

Agreement to review and enhance avalanche safety in February 2003, which is to enhance public safety, to support the economy and tourism, to establish a fair and effective regulatory environment, and to work, frankly, to put this thing in a stable, long-term funding relationship with both government and the private sector for the benefit of all British Columbians. The expansion of PRIME, the police records infor- mation management environment, which just took place in February 2003.

Legislation has been brought to the House to make it law that there will only be one police records information management environment in British Columbia. All police forces will be on it. It will be the first time in history that we are aware of that a jurisdiction has actually had one system for all police forces and law enforcement in their jurisdiction. This will obviously enhance public safety. It will im- prove law enforcement capabilities.

It will protect our citizens and communities from crime and give us the data management necessary to do policing in the twenty-first century. [1520] In the future, we will maintain provincial police funding. We will ensure equitable enforcement and targeting of organized crime. We're going to continue to pressure the federal government to cancel the gun control registration program and allocate those re- sources to front-line policing enforcement. We will institute PRIME provincewide.

We will review the cost of funding for police communities under 5,000 in rural areas in consultation, as we've just advised the munici- palities a few weeks ago. We are going to continue with the integration of police services where warranted, something that is a priority of the ministry — whether it be an integrated homicide team, forensic ident, dog teams or any other integrated team that's necessary across borders — so policing will not have boundaries and silos in its way in the effective management of policing in this prov- ince.

It is absolutely vital that we do that, and jurisdic- tions across the province that think they don't want to participate should be aware of the fact that they will participate, because we're going to do what's right for our citizens, protect our children, protect our commu- nities and deal with major crime. In corrections we will rationalize probation ser- vices, seeking to reduce administrative costs while maintaining services.

We will further the development of effective rehabilitation programs for our offenders, a s w e ' v e d o n e b y t a k i n g a n u m b e r o f t h e m i n - h o u s e and working on consistent levels to make them suc- cessful. There will be new legislation to reduce red tape in the marketplace, improve consumer protection and allow for self-regulation of certain sectors such as travel services, funeral services, etc., reducing govern- ment involvement.

Our intention is to bring together a number of consumer legislations that exist out there with regulatory process to have it in one consumer transaction act so that we can actually manage the pro- tection of consumers in this province in a better and much more integrated manner. We have made significant gains in the second year of our three-year service plan, but there's still more to do. We'll continue to take action, making our streets safer; our homes, communities and schools better places to be; and giving our business community the flexibility and protections they need to thrive.

I a m p l e a s e d w i t h t h e w o r k o f m y m i n i s t r y i n t h e past year, considering its considerable challenges with

TUESDAY, MARCH 4, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 5213 regard to some serious investigations in policing and some costs with regard to the provincial emergency program. I think that we're moving in the right direc- tion, and I am pleased to answer any questions the members might have. J. Kwan: I have a number of areas on which I'd like to ask the minister questions. Perhaps I could start off with the gaming area first.

Over the last while I have been receiving numerous correspondences and phone calls from community agencies and so on around the gaming issues, some of which are now outdated, of course, because they were dated back to the year 2002 — September, November, June, October, etc. The issues surrounding those were primarily around the processing of applications. Even though people were approved for their gaming dollars, they were not able to get the dollars. Those issues have now been resolved, but I just want to ask this one ques- tion, though.

I'm not going to read all of these onto the record from each of the associations who sent me let- ters then, because it's now outdated. I can only assume that all of those applications have been processed. We also made calls to the gaming branch to inquire about it, and we know that some of them have, such as East Side Family Place as an example. I just want to ask a broader-scoped question relat- ing to that. Is it the case and is it a safe assumption that those applications from last year have now all been processed, and those organizations that were qualified have now received their funding? Hon. G.

Cheema: May I have leave to make an in- troduction? Leave granted. Introductions by Members Hon. G. Cheema: Mr. Speaker, I have about 18 stu- dents from Kwantlen College. They are accompanied by their teacher, Joan Robertson. These students are new immigrants to this country. They're from India, Pakistan, China, Taiwan, Korea, Hong Kong, Poland and Ivory Coast. I would like the House to please make them very welcome. Debate Continued Hon. R. Coleman: Unless they're an application that's for next year, they would have been processed within the last 12 weeks.

My understanding is that we have nothing that is older than 12 weeks within the branch. Anything would be for next year. If the mem- ber has a specific one — I offer the same to any mem- ber of the Legislature — you can contact me, and I will get you the exact details of the status of any application that's before the branch. My understanding is that we have now processed all applications for funding for this year. We know how much money we've spent, and we have now completed our funds. [1525] J. Kwan: Could the minister please advise how much money has gone out the door for the gaming funds from last year?

In this last 12-week period, in the year leading up to it, how much money has been ap- proved for gaming, and how does it break down in terms of bingo moneys, direct access, etc.? Hon. R. Coleman: This year for direct access, we distributed $61.5 million. Next year that figure will be $65 million. The total guarantee that was put together back when the member was in government related to gaming and charities, which is the top-up in the bingo and the direct access, is a total of $133.2 million this year and is expected to be $136.5 million next year.

Bingo top-up and bingo revenue combined this year was $71.7 million, and it's expected to be at $71.5 million next year. That difference would be as a result — we hope, as we've modernized the bingo sector — of the bingo halls making a bit more money, so the top-up reduces, which we automatically apply to direct access. J. Kwan: I s i t s a f e t o a s s u m e t h a t t h e f o r m u l a i n calculating how much money would go into non- profits…? Has that changed? Hon. R. Coleman: No, it hasn't changed. What we did this last year is that we certainly were a bit more rigid on the use of the funds.

We looked at records to see if they had actually used last year's funds, and we are approving the funds that had to go out. When I became the minister the first year, we were basically six months into the fiscal year and out of money for direct access, and about 400 to 500 charities couldn't get money in that particular fiscal year.

By disciplining it and watching that the funds were actually being spent on the programs they were sup- p o s e d t o b e a n d b y m a k i n g s u r e t h a t t h e p r e v i o u s year's funds were used, etc. — and, I frankly think, because of some good management at the branch — we managed to fund an extra close to 400 charities over what we did last year. We have kept the funds sustain- able until now, which is quite an accomplishment, given that we've actually had money for four or five months longer. J.

Kwan: Is it possible for the minister to provide us with a list of the organizations that were approved for the gaming funds and for how much? Instead of me going down through a long list of organizations that have written me, it might be easier if I just get the list and can cross-reference it myself. Hon. R. Coleman: Yes, that list is available. We will get it to the hon. member with regard to both top-up and bingo. When we generate the list, it also shows you which ones made money in charitable gaming, which isn't applied to either of those aspects. We're more than happy to provide the list for the province.

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

5214 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MARCH 4, 2003 t h a t h a v e r e c e i v e d s o m e f o r m o f m o n e y f r o m g a m i n g last year. J. Kwan: I'd like to thank the minister for that in- formation. It would just be easier i nstead of us as king each question about who got approval and who didn't, etc. On the flip side of that, could we also get the list of the people who were rejected? Hon. R. Coleman: We believe we can generate that list for you. If we can, we will. Otherwise, we will give you a briefing on who might not have been eligible. [1530] J.

Kwan: Then on to potential changes to the gam- ing policies. The opposition also received a number of letters and heard a number of concerns from the com- munities who were anticipating changes, perhaps, to the gaming policies.

These concerns deal with issues around delays in processing, the increased complexity of the application process — the concern is creating inequitable access to gaming funds — changes in eligi- bility that may disqualify organizations or reduce the funds they receive, the possibility of a capping of direct access grants at $100,000, removal of the top-up fund- ing, removing the proceeds from electronic bingo and the requirement that gaming funds only be applied to programs or organizations that receive 50 percent or less of their revenues from government.

These are just some of the concerns that people have raised. I'd like to canvass with the minister around poten- tial changes in policies. I have a document with me that actually quotes the minister on a number of points. I wonder whether or not this is now the new policy that the minister has put forward. The document is from the B.C. Association for Charitable Gaming. It high- lights the reply from the minister on February 27, 2003. There are many points, so I'll go just through them one by one. According to this document, the following points have been made by the minister.

One is that he has managed to protect the entire commitment to charity bingos, top-up and direct access along with the annual cost-of-living increases. Should I just go through it one by one and then have the minister answer? You have that document. Okay. The second issue goes on to say that no groups will be eliminated from being eligible. The third point is that a move to quarterly intake and direct access will, however, transition any groups that need their grant earlier. The parent advisory committee will now re- ceive $20 per student instead of $40. Formerly it was $40.

Now there's a reduction, essentially, of 50 percent of that fund. Groups will be able to access both bingo and direct access. Maybe I'll just stop there. Those are the first five points, if the minister could comment on them. Hon. R. Coleman: Most of these questions were asked by the member for Vancouver-Burrard just a little while ago, so I will walk through them again. I have the member's letter from February 2003 with regard to this, and I'll deal with her points as well. The one question the member, as she went through that…. We protected the top-up funding. That was in the budget speech.

That still includes electronic bingo as part of the money that goes to charities in that package. None of that has changed. That money is protected. As to groups being eligible, they're all remaining eligible. What we're doing is…. We have 11 different eligibility categories now. We're going to collapse those into four, but all 11 groups will still be eligible within the four so that we can go to a quarterly intake, man- age our funds better and actually speed up our applica- tion approval process.

One of the challenges when we do that, as I said to the member for Vancouver- Burrard, will be that some groups that need their fund- ing in quarter one may be in quarter four. If that is the case, with anybody that has difficulty with that, we will transition early so that they will not be stressed with regard to the operation of their charity. That's a quarterly intake. The member's take on the $20 per student is actu- ally an unfair comment with regard to going from $40 to $20.

In the past, parent advisory councils could only get money from gaming by actually filling out a grant application, and the cap was $40 per student. They actually had to go through the whole grant application process, which proved onerous for a number of schools, particularly inner-city schools and those who maybe didn't have the technology or the assistance on a strong PAC to do it. We found, when I did my analysis, that there was a disproportionate amount of money from riding to rid- ing and school to school.

By doing this $20 per student, we will actually put $3 million additional into parent advisory groups in B.C. next year. I think last year we gave about $9 million to parent advisory councils, and this year, with 600,000 students, that would be $12 mil- lion, so an additional $3 million will go out to PACs. The difference will be that PACs globally, wherever there is a PAC, will be eligible for $20 a student.

It doesn't matter whether you are a school in Bulkley Valley–Stikine or a school in Langley or a school in Vancouver, you will be treated the same by simply providing us with your bank account information and your board information, and we will forward the funds to the PAC for the school. This is something that most PACs I've spoken to are very excited about, simply because it actually lets them know they're going to have this funding year on year.

One of the things that happened in the past was that a PAC might get $40 a student this year, and the next year they applied they weren't eligible or there wasn't enough money for them, and they didn't get it the next year. They weren't getting it every single year and not all schools were getting it, simply because they weren't all applying. [1535] One of the things we've done with this is do that, plus provide some small amount of funding for district parent advisory groups so that they can coordinate PACs in the area, with regard to PACs. In actual fact,

TUESDAY, MARCH 4, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 5215 what we've done with PACs…. My understanding is that the provincial PAC groups are comfortable with it, the DPACs are, and certainly the PAC groups that I've met with are as well. They actually see this as some- thing that says: "We all know now. If we're a school of 300 students in some small rural community, we can have $6,000 for our PAC.

We know that money's com- ing, and we can plan for those students." I think, frankly, it's very fair to do it that way, so every school i s f u n d e d v e r s u s h a v i n g w h a t w o u l d b e c l a s s i f i e d a s winners and losers with regard to the PAC funding on an annual basis. Your other questions were basically about the delay in processing and application of funds, which was in your letter to me. We are down to 12 weeks of process now. We're doing very well with that.

The whole idea behind going to quarterly intake is so we can reach the goal of being 12 weeks or under, for every application that comes to government, to process and have the money back in the hands of charity. Basically, as a re- sult of that, we think we can take care of the complex- ity issues that you've mentioned. There has always been a capping of $100,000 in direct access grants with regard to individual organiza- tions. It's the provincial organizations, with province- wide programs, that are allowed larger amounts of funding. We still do that.

We've worked with each one of those as we've worked through that, as we've been discussing this. The whole goal in dealing with this is to make it sustainable for as many charities as possible in British Columbia to receive money from direct ac- cess bingo funds in this province. J. Kwan: Just to clarify, then: the organizations will be capped at $100,000. That's direct access. The provin- cial cap will be at $250,000. With respect to organiza- tions that make more than $250,000 through licensed gaming in the last 12 months, is it the case that they would not be eligible for direct access? Hon. R.

Coleman: Basically, yes. The capping on the direct access, $100,000, has always been there. The $250,000 has always been there, in policy. Over the years that may not have been standardized or managed correctly, but in actual fact, that's the way it is sup- posed to be with regard to the direct access grants. This is basically how these grants have been operated for the last number of years. This isn't a change. J. Kwan: T h e s e c o n d p a r t t o t h a t q u e s t i o n w a s about the ineligibility for direct access if people get $250,000 or more through licensed gaming in the past 12 months.

Is that the case? Hon. R. Coleman: Yes, that's true. The direct access program has always been to try and fund programs on the basis of merit within the community. But if you have somebody that's making $1 million in licensed gaming in B.C., and organizations that need the funds…. That's why we've actually controlled that cap — so we can make sure the organizations that are in need of the money can get access to the money. J. Kwan: Is there a cap on raffle tickets? Hon. R. Coleman: N o , t h e r e i s n o c a p o n t h o s e forms of gaming. As a matter of fact, it was one of the changes I made early on.

I think the member might be familiar with the argument. It was always around the seniors lottery. In the seniors lottery they actually had a cap of how much they could make. If the first two in a given year were too successful, they were actually not allowed to run their third lottery in the year. We re- moved that in December of 2001 so that they would be able to have…. If they're successful, they're successful, and we encourage them to be successful. [1540] J.

Kwan: On the issue around the 50 percent fund- ing source, if your funding is 50 percent or less from government agencies — federal, provincial or a combi- nation — then you're eligible for gaming funding. If you're over that 50 percent in terms of your revenues from a government source, then you're not eligible for any gaming funding. Is that correct? Hon. R. Coleman: No, it's not correct. That was in the initial discussion document. We raised that to 75 percent. There are some organizations that will be above 75 percent just by the nature of the service they give, like transition houses.

In order to make that calculation, any goods or ser- vices in kind and any volunteer labour will be allowed to be added to their financial statement to reduce the amount of money, as a credit for moneys that are not coming from government. By looking at our package, we think that 75 percent…. We actually don't affect any charities at all with regards to access to the money, but it does put a standard in place. J. Kwan: The 11 categories that the minister men- tions, which have been reduced to five.

Are these the categories — human and social services, public safety, arts and culture, protection of the environment, and PACs? Hon. R. Coleman: It's art, culture and sports, but she's correct. We feel the 11 existing categories can all fit within those four categories, plus the PACs. The other thing we will allow for, if we have the funds, is access to capital for capital projects in communities. Our experience so far is that the programs and the g r a n t s h a v e s u c h a l a r g e d e m a n d o n t h e m b y g r o u p s that we haven't experienced having money left over to make capital matching grants. J.

Kwan: The old categories that have been elimi- nated from direct access are health care facilities, foun- dations, post-secondary organizations, adult sport, education streams and religious organizations. Are any of the categories that were formerly part of the old

5216 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MARCH 4, 2003 categories, although they've now been reclassified un- der the five…? Is it fair, then, to say that none of these groups would not be able to access any portion of the gaming funds, as long as they meet the earlier criteria we highlighted, which were the five that we talked about? Hon. R. Coleman: Just so we're clear, none of those organizations will be ineligible to apply with the changes. They will all still be eligible to apply now within the four categories versus the 11. No organiza- tion is being made ineligible as a result of these changes.

They will all still be eligible to apply and get direct access grants. J. Kwan: Okay. Is there a difference between access to bingo funds, electronic or otherwise? Why I ask the question is this: if there's a difference between elec- tronic bingo funds versus non-electronic bingo funds in terms of access from non-profits to those funds — if there's a difference in application there….

I did get a letter from a couple of community groups that were concerned about that and who had heard the rumour — or speculation, if you will — that electronic bingo proceeds might actually be eliminated from the pot of funds which non-profits could access. Is that just a ru- mour, and is it completely false? [1545] Hon. R. Coleman: Just for clarification for the member, I think I'll give you a full description so that we all understand bingo. In the bingo sector there is paper bingo, there's electronic bingo, and there's top- up.

All of those combined form the amount of money that goes to charities within that sector of the charity gaming money. The electronic bingo is not being re- moved. It is still there as part of the revenue to chari- ties. The paper bingo is not being removed. It is still there as a revenue to charities. There are still the top-up grants, which amount to about $35 million a year to charities.

O u r h o p e i s t h a t w e s e e g r o w t h i n t h e p a p e r a n d the electronic part of the business so that we can reduce the amount of top-up, which then allows us to increase the money that we give in direct access because one grant just flows over to the other. We are not affecting the revenue. We're not taking out the $10 million that we presently do in electronic bingo and reducing it to charities. It's staying in there as part of the total calcula- tion. J.

Kwan: Is it safe to say, then, that all of the sources of gaming funds — whether it be paper bingo, elec- tronic bingo or otherwise — are available to all non- profit groups who wish to make an application? The only difference in terms of the fluctuation or the amount of dollars would actually be an increase in the amount to the funding pot and not a decrease, and the increase is projected on the basis of increased revenues in gaming generally. Am I understanding that correctly in the short form? Hon. R. Coleman: You are correct.

The revenues and the dollars that are presently available to charities are still available to charities, plus the increase that I alluded to earlier, which is the amount of money re- lated to a cost-of-living increase that's in place in the agreement to charities each year. Last year $133.2 million from direct access, elec- tronic bingo, top-up and paper bingo went to charities. Next year it will be $136.5 million. That's our estimate. That has been done, just so the hon. member knows, in light of the fact that….

Even though some people think we're actually seeing increased revenues in gaming, the Lottery Corporation actually projected net revenue to be less in this fiscal year than it was in the last fiscal year. We still managed to…. Going outward, now that we have allowed…. Now that they will hopefully build their business case, we will see some of these things balance out. We are protecting the money to charities in direct access, top-up, paper bingo and electronic bingo. J.

Kwan: I know I said I wasn't going to go through group by group, and I'm not going to, but there are two groups who have specifically asked me to raise these questions with you. One actually must be watching Hansard TV and sent up a fax to us with their question. I do want to ask these questions on behalf of these or- ganizations. The Progressive Intercultural Community Services Society, known as PICS in its short form, wrote to me and raised the concern, amongst various other con- c e rns , i n re l at i o n t o t he g am i ng b ranc h f u nd i ng .

T he y advised that they have been cut 70 percent in their funding, therefore reducing their resources and ability to service the broader community. PICS, for the minister's information, is an organiza- tion that provides work particularly for the multicul- tural community and for people who are living in pov- erty, who are low income, who are faced with home- lessness. Of course, they also work on housing initia- tives as well, to that end. They also do advocacy in the area around employment, immigration, schooling, health, welfare, legal services and other related ser- vices.

This particular question, of course, is around the funding cut they have received. I wonder if the minis- ter can provide answers to PICS in relation to the con- cerns they have raised with me. [1550] Hon. R. Coleman: I am not familiar with the spe- cific group or the specific reasoning for levels of fund- ing. I would caution the member to understand that this is a grant program. In actual fact, therefore, it's not an entitlement program.

People apply for their grants each year and are processed each year based on the merit of the program that they want funded or the amount of funding they want for any individual pro- gram. One of the cautions we always tell organizations when we actually send them their money is to make them understand that this is a grant for a particular

TUESDAY, MARCH 4, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 5217 year, not a year-on-year-end funding envelope because direct access, as it was conceived by the former gov- ernment and has been continued by this government, has been about grants to charities to put broad-based community benefit programs back into communities. What we will do for the member on this particular issue…. The director is here. He's made note of it. He will provide the member in writing with the details with regard to this particular organization at his earli- est convenience.

When there are 5,000 organizations getting various amounts of money out of a $133 million fund, it's pretty tough to pick one out and say that's the reason. J. Kwan: Fair enough. What I'll also do, at the end of the estimates process, is send a copy of the letter I've received to the minister so that he can respond more specifically to that issue around the 70 percent cut for the organization. Also, another group who has just sent the informa- tion over is the Inner City Women's Initiatives Society. They have been denied a direct access grant, and they were informed of the decision on January 27, 2003.

This is another issue this particular organization has raised. I wonder whether or not the minister would have in- formation on this one. Or is it similar to the previous one, for which the minister will ask his staff to look into the matter and get back to us? Hon. R. Coleman: There are a variety of reasons an organization could be denied direct access funding year over year. It could be that they haven't used the funding from the previous year and have put it into an account when it was supposed to go to programs, or it was used improperly for what it was directed within the grant.

It could be that the financial statements or the status of the organization is not in order, or it could be that the program they're asking for money for is maybe not eligible, versus another year. What we will do for the member is…. There are two things you should be aware of. One is that if an organization is denied, there is an appeal process. They can appeal the denial. We will provide the information as to how they can do that. At the same time, we will provide you with the information with regard to this particular group and answer your ques- tions. J.

Kwan: In fact, the documentation — I'm just go- ing through it because it was just sent up to me — does highlight some of the reasons, in a January 27 letter to them, why they were denied access to the funds. The reasons range from the amount being asked was too h i g h … . I t g o e s o n t o t a l k a b o u t i s s u e s a r o u n d n o n - funding of new programs and other eligibility criteria around different eligibility categories to which it would apply and so on. They, of course, in their own letter also put in their points of view on disputing the gov- ernment's analysis of that.

I will pass this letter on to the minister too, and perhaps the minister can get his staff to respond directly to the concerns that have been raised and the rationale to counter the government's decision in denying the funding to this particular group. I'd like to actually move on, on the gaming side, to another sort of situation. I know of community groups who h av e b e e n d i re c t e d b y g o v e rnm e nt t o g o a nd t ry and find funding or resources elsewhere. This instance particularly relates to the area of child care.

Organiza- tions, as the minister knows, have been receiving fund- ing cuts as well as a reduction in subsidies that impact parents and families in accessing child care support. To that end, some of the child care organizations have tried really hard to look for ways of how they can re- duce costs to their organization. [1555] One of the ways they came up with was to see whether or not they could get savings, and they're at- tempting to do that through administrative purposes.

They are amalgamating — not the organizations but only the administrative piece of the organizations — in order to see if they can find some savings in doing that. One organization — I suppose you can say the head organization — will be doing the administration of, let's say, a subgroup of five child care centres who are delivering their o

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	H0304pm 06
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	H0304pm 06
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	6ee8d4f8210573e90e655352d0ac27bc4e03ead3

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).