1993 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 35th Parliament HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only. The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, JUNE 21, 1993

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 11, Number 10

[ Page 7503 ]

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. M. Harcourt: It's not my pleasure but my duty to rise today on the opening day of the Wimbledon tennis tournament at the All-England Lawn Tennis Club to report on another prestigious tournament that took place over the weekend at a grass-court facility almost as old as Wimbledon: the South Cowichan Lawn Tennis Club in the riding of Cowichan-Ladysmith. As I said, I'm doing this out of duty. Hon. Speaker, your trophy was contested in a very fierce contest between a team representing this venerable institution, the Legislative Assembly, and of course the Scrum of the Earth -- or the press gallery, as they are more affectionately known.

Hon. Speaker, before I get into the results I must let you know that the Deputy Clerk, Mr. George MacMinn -- here before you, hanging his head in shame -- did all he could to make sure that the Speaker's trophy remained in the hands of the Legislative Assembly team, where it belongs. As a matter of fact, his efforts -- and this took a great deal of effort -- included bringing in a former Speaker of the House, Mr. John Reynolds, from Scottsdale, Arizona; a distinguished former member of this chamber and Attorney General, Brian Smith; the son of the Leader of the Official Opposition; and two stellar members of the chamber.

Mr. MacMinn went further to try and defend this trophy by bringing in some of the best tennis players in the region -- ringers, as they are better known. But hon. Speaker, we failed you by the narrowest of margins -- five games in four hours of fierce tennis. I can tell you that the Deputy Clerk and the previous Speaker lost the last game 7 to 2. I don't want to lay blame on anyone at all, except to say that the whole team let you down.

While I was unable to play this year, which some have said may explain the results -- I wouldn't say that, but some would -- I was able to attend a fundraising banquet, as did members of the victorious team, that took place on the beautiful 400-hectare property of Providence Farm, where we were able to serve food and raise over $10,000 for that wonderful facility that provides work programs and training for mentally handicapped people.

All and all, it was a splendid weekend. But I can assure you, Hon. Speaker, that next year we will prevail.

F. Gingell: In the Speaker's gallery today is my daughter-in-law, Nancy Gingell, and my two grandchildren, Jessica and David. I ask the House to please make them welcome.

F. Garden: My wife Margaret is in the gallery today, as well as a very good personal friend and constituent, Mr. Steve Wallace. Mr. Wallace is the mayor of the city of Quesnel in my riding and also the president of the North Central Municipal Association of B.C. Would the House join me in making them welcome.

W. Hurd: I'm pleased to introduce in the gallery today Mr. Chris Gingell, one of my constituents and also my tennis partner for the tournament this weekend. I can say that we're still on speaking terms despite the results of the tournament. I just want to echo the words of the Premier by saying, after reviewing the conduct of the victorious team, that never has the Deputy Clerk had to endure more from less.

C. Evans: In the gallery today is my brother-in-law Rod Thoms, his wife Sandy and their children Jon and Eric. They travelled all the way from North Dakota to see this event. I told them that this would be the most interesting 15 minutes of the day's session, and I just want them to know that we don't always open with a sportscast delivered by the Premier.

Hon. L. Boone: On behalf of the Minister of Women's Equality I would like to recognize two individuals who are in the precincts today: Margaret Nagle from Prince George and Michele Monahan-Brar from Vernon. Would the House please make them welcome.

D. Mitchell: I notice in the gallery today a crony of a former Premier of B.C. Would the House please join me in welcoming Mr. Bill Clancey.

E. Barnes: I'd like to join the hon. member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi in acknowledging the presence of Bill Clancey. I'm sure most of us know Bill from old. He is one of the most venerable entrepreneurs in my constituency, and I am pleased to welcome him. I am sure the hon. member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi has included his stories in some of his books. Please make him welcome.

Introduction of Bills

BEAVER LODGE TRUST LANDS RENEWAL ACT

Hon. J. Cashore presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Beaver Lodge Trust Lands Renewal Act.

Hon. J. Cashore: This bill ratifies and confirms previous Crown dispositions of lands known as Beaver Lodge lands, conveyed to the Crown for experimental work in reforestation and forest management purposes.

This bill permits further dealings with a portion of these lands to create a new and enlarged Crown-managed trust area. The bill permits the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks to dispose of portions of the Beaver Lodge lands not required for the new trust area, including lands scheduled for development. It also permits the acquisition of additional private lands required to increase the trust to 502 hectares and the designation of these lands as trust lands. It authorizes the Minister of Forests to establish a resource use plan

[ Page 7504 ]

for the trust lands; enables the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks to purchase, acquire or transfer Crown lands in exchange for lands which must be designated as trust lands, and expropriate land or property if necessary.

[2:15]

Acquisition costs shall be paid out of the Crown land special account. Under the Land Title Act, it causes the registrar to make an endorsement on the title to land acquired for the trust and core lands, stating that the land is subject to the restrictions of experimental work in reforestation and forest management.

Bill 52 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

LEGAL PROFESSION AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

Hon. C. Gabelmann presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Legal Profession Amendment Act, 1993.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The Legal Profession Act establishes the authority of the Law Society of British Columbia to govern and regulate lawyers practising in the province. The purpose of these amendments is to modernize and improve a number of sections dealing with membership in, and the governance and administration of, the Law Society.

One of the most important parts of this bill is the creation of a new category of membership for non-practising members. This new category would allow non-practising members to continue their involvement in the profession at reduced fees. Under the current provisions of the act and rules, a lawyer temporarily leaving practice must now either continue to pay the full annual practice fee and assessments or cease membership. The new category of membership will help those lawyers who wish to take career breaks and subsequently return to practice.

This amendment is made pursuant to recommendations by both the report of the Law Society's subcommittee on women in the legal profession and the gender bias committee. Other amendments will allow the Law Society to regulate lawyers who act as mediators, allow non-lawyers to be appointed to Law Society committees and permit more expeditious handling of claims made against the special compensation fund.

Bill 53 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

CABINET APPEALS ABOLITION ACT

Hon. C. Gabelmann presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Cabinet Appeals Abolition Act.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The Cabinet Appeals Abolition Act will amend 15 different acts and will eliminate all appeals to cabinet from decisions of statutory decision-makers. Where appropriate, the bill replaces the cabinet appeal with a new appeal process. The most significant amendments in the bill are to the Agricultural Land Commission Act and to the Motor Carrier Act.

The bill fundamentally alters decision-making under the Agricultural Land Commission Act. It restores the integrity of the agricultural land reserve by transferring the power to make decisions about agricultural land from cabinet to the Agricultural Land Commission. The bill also abolishes the appeal to the Environment and Land Use Committee from decisions of the Agricultural Land Commission.

The bill gives cabinet the power to refer matters before the commission to an independent board for a public hearing into its probable environmental, economic, social, cultural, heritage and agricultural effects, if it is in the provincial interest to do so. In these extraordinary cases, the board will make a public report to cabinet, and cabinet will make the final decision.

The bill eliminates appeals to cabinet from decisions of the Motor Carrier Commission and introduces a two-tiered hearing process by the commission. This process parallels that used for gaming and the process under the labour code.

Hon. Speaker, I move the bill be read a first time now.

Bill 42 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

LOWER FRASER VALLEY EXHIBITION ASSOCIATION AMENDMENT ACT

K. Jones presented a bill intituled Lower Fraser Valley Exhibition Association Amendment Act.

K. Jones: This is strictly a housekeeping amendment to allow this association to use the name of the Cloverdale Rodeo and Exhibition Association. It is a minor change to the act that constitutes their direction.

Bill Pr401, introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Oral Questions

COST-SHARING ARRANGEMENT ON LAND CLAIMS SETTLEMENTS

F. Gingell: Today the province and the federal government announced a cost-sharing arrangement on aboriginal land claims settlements. This includes the province paying 50 percent of third-party interest settlements. Can the Premier advise the House of the estimated costs of these third-party interest settlements?

Hon. M. Harcourt: What we signed today was a cost-sharing formula for negotiations that are going to

[ Page 7505 ]

take place over many years. The agreement, the memorandum of understanding, states very clearly that the primary responsibility and jurisdiction for aboriginal settlements rests with the federal government. The exact amounts are going to be carried out over the next generation or so. The discussions will take place over the next generation or so. I cannot give an exact amount, except to say that the amounts are within the commitments that I gave over the last few years. They will have to be within what the taxpayers of British Columbia can afford. The yearly budget will be through the budget process that we all follow and will have to approved through Treasury Board.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

F. Gingell: I am sure that the Premier didn't make those statements without having some proper, thorough economic studies done. Perhaps the Premier could advise the House of the scope of the dollar cost that these studies will have determined.

Hon. M. Harcourt: No, I can't. As I said, these negotiations and agreements are going to cover many years. It's my opinion -- and that of the Leader of the Opposition, I'm sure -- that British Columbians are going to be far better off after we have concluded these modern treaties.

What we have right now -- the conflict, litigation, uncertainty and unpredictability -- in British Columbia is scaring away a great deal of investment. What we have now -- aboriginal people living in poverty on artificial communities called reserves, under the Indian Act and run from Ottawa -- is unacceptable. We're able to work with the aboriginal people to help them move towards self-government within Canada and self-sufficiency and to have healthy, viable communities. There will be a net benefit to British Columbians.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

F. Gingell: I hear the Premier saying that they have gone and signed a blank cheque. They haven't done any study, none at all.

Anyway, if a significant compensation were to be claimed by a resource company in which the province holds an equity interest, how would you deal with this apparent conflict of interest?

The Speaker: Unfortunately, hon. member, that is a hypothetical question and does not fall within the guidelines of question period.

The hon. member for Okanagan-Vernon.

ADVERTISING OF CANADA GAMES

L. Hanson: I have a question for the Premier. Earlier he demonstrated his interest and expertise in the area of sport. Last Thursday, he was in Kamloops, the site of the upcoming Canada Games. Could the Premier possibly explain to this House and to British Columbia why his government decided to erect road signs advertising the 1994 Commonwealth Games but declined to advertise the Canada Games in Kamloops?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: At a number of locations around the province the ministry is assisting in erecting signs prepared and paid for by the Commonwealth Games Association. The same thing has been facilitated in the vicinity of Kamloops for the Summer Games. Provincewide attention has been given to the upcoming Commonwealth Games because it is a more significant international event that deserves a higher profile.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

L. Hanson: It's interesting to see the attitude of the government. Vancouver and Victoria are okay; anywhere else in B.C. is out of sight, out of mind and beyond hope. This question is again to the Premier: why wouldn't the government consider using those signs that they've dedicated to the Commonwealth Games to advertise the Canada Games, which will happen in about a month and a half? Surely the signs could be used for that purpose to the benefit of all British Columbians.

Hon A. Charbonneau: If the hon. member opposite wishes to take up with the Commonwealth Games Society why they chose to print signs of a certain nature and size, be my guest. With respect to the support of the Summer Games in Kamloops, this government has done a fine job, exemplified most recently by the delivery of a cheque for half a million dollars to assist with a world-class swimming facility in Kamloops, which the people of Kamloops were quite delighted with.

WINDY CRAGGY PROPOSAL

D. Jarvis: Hon. Speaker, my question is to the Premier. The Kemano completion review will cost thousands of dollars to the taxpayers, yet your government has already admitted that it will not or can not make any changes. On the other hand, it refuses to allow any public consultation on the Windy Craggy proposal, where it is solely responsible for making that decision. Can the Premier explain this apparent hypocrisy?

An Hon. Member: Can you explain your question?

D. Jarvis: Again to the Premier, information has come out which indicates that Americans have been under the assumption that the government decided to disallow Windy Craggy over a month ago, yet the government continues to insist that no decision has been made. Has your government made any decision on Windy Craggy as yet?

An Hon. Member: Out of order. Come on!

[ Page 7506 ]

D. Jarvis: Seeing as we're not getting any answers, perhaps the Premier will answer this. Does the Premier know whether the issue of Windy Craggy was discussed by the Prime Minister and President Clinton during their meeting earlier this month? If so, did you provide the Prime Minister with any advice, what was the nature of this counsel, and what was the result of the discussions?

[2:30]

Hon. M. Harcourt: The member had the wrong minister for his first question. He had the wrong rule on the second; he knows very well that it's a matter of future policy. On the third, he went out of the country to ask the question. The real issue here is that whatever the Prime Minister or the President of the United States thinks about British Columbia, I can assure you and the people of B.C. that any decision about the northwest area of B.C. will be made right here in B.C. for British Columbians.

NANAIMO COMMONWEALTH HOLDING SOCIETY

W. Hurd: I have a question for the Attorney General. This morning my office received a letter from Mr. Ace Henderson, special prosecutor in the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society investigation, who advised us that with a year gone in this investigation, his office has yet to receive one document of evidence. Can the Attorney General tell the House whether any members of cabinet have been requested to furnish information to the RCMP as their investigation continues?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: These questions are not appropriate. I will make no comment on that investigation.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

G. Farrell-Collins: My question is for the Minister of Finance. Over the last few months -- indeed, since the beginning of this session -- the government has spent over $1 million on propaganda put out to the public in this province. Can the minister state what has changed since the days when he was in opposition and ranted and raved about the propaganda brought forth by the government? Is the level of propaganda production by his government directly proportional to their crash in the polls?

Hon. G. Clark: As the session wears on, it's obvious -- and I've been there, so I know -- that it's hard to maintain new questions. As the days go by and the answers get shorter, it means that they run out of questions sooner. So I'm delighted to answer this question again.

As we move forward with some major land use decisions -- like the Clayoquot Sound -- it is important that British Columbians be informed of the facts so that they can make decisions for themselves about a sound land use decision. We are very proud of a decision which upholds sustainable development policies, which upholds the highest environmental standards and which gives people a sense of where the government is going to ensure the integrity of the land base and the working forests. We want to communicate that information to British Columbians so they can make an informed decision for themselves.

G. Farrell-Collins: You don't need to spend $1 million for the public in this province to know exactly where this government is going and what their intentions are. They know that this government is going right down the tubes at record-breaking speed. When the NDP was in opposition they ranted and raved about all these expenditures. Now that they are in government they do exactly the same thing, only worse. When will this government finally stand up for the things they said they would do when they were in opposition, and stop betraying the people of British Columbia?

Hon. G. Clark: First of all, let me advise the House that the advertising budget for the government of British Columbia has been cut significantly, in two successive budgets, from what we inherited from the previous administration. Second, let me advise members to look at the Clayoquot brochure that was sent out. There is no partisanship and no politics. This is a straight information sheet to give people the facts about an outstanding land use decision so they can make the decision themselves.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

G. Farrell-Collins: Perhaps we can check some of the facts of that brochure that this government spent so much money on.

A question to the Minister of Environment. Is he aware that the front page of that wonderful glossy brochure they sent out was in fact a picture of Flores Island, due to be logged within the next year?

Hon. J. Cashore: I think that if the hon. member looks objectively at that brochure, he will agree that it is a very balanced presentation that serves the purpose of getting information out to the people of British Columbia.

ICBC ROLE IN INTERSECTION REDESIGN

L. Fox: I'll do my best to get the question out. I've got a bit of a problem with my throat.

My question this afternoon is for the Minister Responsible for ICBC. Bill McCourt, your new ICBC president, was quoted Saturday as saying that ICBC's social responsibility is to promote better driving and extends to fixing signals and redesigning troublesome intersections. Is it the minister's understanding that ICBC premiums will now be used to supplement the provincial government and municipal budgets?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: It is possible that ICBC may invest money in a pilot project to see whether or not the improvement of an intersection might in the

[ Page 7507 ]

long run save ICBC a lot of money in settlement claims and hence enable a reduction in premiums. That would be a very reasonable thing to do.

L. Fox: It would seem to me that was the government's responsibility, not ICBC's responsibility.

My supplement is to the Minister of Finance. Is it the minister's intent to offload interchange redesign costs from the Highways budget to ICBC, thus further disguising the true financial position of this government?

Hon. G. Clark: When we took office, we inherited an unbelievable mess at ICBC because of political intervention by the previous government to artificially lower rates. It was a scandal of monumental proportions. In the last two years ICBC has acted like a commercial operation. I am very proud of the job they are doing to act in a businesslike manner, to make sure decisions are made to bring those rates down for the motoring public -- not artificially and politically, as the previous government did, but on a businesslike basis. That's what Mr. McCourt's instructions are, and that's what we expect.

D. Mitchell: Hon. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Members of this assembly have a right to seek information from the government. Indeed, that's one of our roles here as members of the assembly. One of the procedures available to us under the standing orders of this assembly are written questions. Standing order 47, in particular, outlines our right to seek information from the government with written questions in this assembly. For over three months, there have been 32 written questions standing on the order paper in my name. These are simple questions dealing with information about public opinion research.

The government has failed to answer any of these questions; they continue to fail. This government, which claims to be an open government that believes in the spirit of freedom of information, refuses....

The Speaker: Hon. member, I need to call you to order.

D. Mitchell: Can I get to my point of order, please?

The Speaker: Very briefly, hon. member.

D. Mitchell: My point of order is simply this: we have standing orders in this assembly. What good are rules in this assembly if the government will not respect the rules? We have standing orders in this House that prescribe our rights and indeed our duties, and the government will not respond, after three months, to 32 simple written questions. I appeal to you as the presiding officer of this assembly to give some direction to this government with respect to honouring the standing orders of this assembly.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member well knows that the presiding officer gives directions to no one, except on points of order. I think that this point of order has been raised several times before. Clearly, hon. member -- and all members of the House -- the orders certainly make provision for written questions, but it is not a point of order to require answers to them.

W. Hurd tabled a letter from Mr. Ace Henderson.

The Speaker tabled the 1992-93 annual report of the Commission on Resources and Environment.

Orders of the Day

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, I call Committee of Supply. In Committee A we will review the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and in Committee B the Ministry of Social Services. Later in Committee A we may move to another ministry.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF SOCIAL SERVICES

On vote 54: minister's office, $392,165.

Hon. J. Smallwood: I rise today to present the 1993-94 budget estimates for the Ministry of Social Services. Over the last year my ministry has improved and streamlined existing programs and services. During the '93-94 fiscal year we will be bringing in further reform to ensure that British Columbians receive timely and effective assistance to deal with job loss, poverty and family breakdown. There's an old adage that you reap what you sow, and if we want a more prosperous future for B.C., we must be willing to invest in our citizens today.

We must ensure that the economic recession and fiscal deficit today not become the social deficit of wasted human potential in the years to come. We must help dislocated workers and young people to acquire the skills demanded by our changing labour market, and we must support them through the difficult transition from welfare to work.

We need to help families deal with crises that threaten to tear them apart -- crises, I might add, that are often related to the pressures of poverty. A stable family is a child's single most important resource. The ministry is expanding partnerships with communities to enhance their ability to support individuals and families under stress. One of the biggest causes of pressures on the family today is economic hardship. The pace of economic change across Canada has had a profound effect on many British Columbians.

Globalization, new technologies and misdirected federal economic policies have led to business failures, job losses and the in-migration of workers and their families from other parts of Canada. This in turn has stretched our resources. I am proud to say that while acting to control spending growth and cap the deficit, this government has reaffirmed its commitment to

[ Page 7508 ]

funding vital services. Our economic assistance caseloads grew by 16 percent over last year. Today, one in ten of us depends on income assistance to pay for food and shelter.

Ironically, B.C.'s relative prosperity is one reason for our growing number of cases. Thanks to our position on the Pacific Rim and to good fiscal management by this government, British Columbia has the strongest, most expansive economy in Canada. Statistics Canada reports that our economy grew last year by 2.2 percent, the highest rate posted by any province. By comparison, the national average was just 1.4 percent. Many responsible Canadians move to B.C. in search of better economic prospects. Some succeed right away; others don't.

Income assistance statistics for March show that 14,381 recipients, or nearly 8 percent of the caseloads, had arrived from other provinces during the previous year. I want to emphasize that our economy, not our welfare rates, is providing that attraction. B.C. leads the provinces in economic growth, but we do not pay the highest welfare rates. The National Council of Welfare did a comparison of rates across the country, and it shows B.C. in the midrange of benefits offered by provinces.

[2:45]

Under the terms of federal-provincial cost-sharing through the Canada Assistance Plan, people who cannot support themselves or their families are entitled by law to financial help. My ministry takes very seriously its responsibility to fulfil this mandate. At the same time, taxpayers must be confident that their dollars are going only to people who are legally eligible for assistance. Let me restate what I told the House on May 6: it is critical that the Ministry of Social Services apply the highest standards in managing income assistance.

Fraud reduces the amount of money available to people in need, and it brings the entire welfare system into disrepute. Over the past year we have introduced many tough new measures. New computer technology is identifying people who make claims at more than one office. Unique characteristics added to cheques are making them difficult to counterfeit. Electronic monitoring is telling us how many cheques are being delivered to any one address.

As you know from my earlier statements, these are just a few examples of what we have done. We will be taking further steps over the next year, but prevention of fraud and error is always preferable to intervention after the fact. We have requested 135 more financial assistance workers to cope with the heavy caseloads, and we will be giving our workers more training. At the same time we will be able to ensure that those in need of benefits receive what they are entitled to and have the best services to help get them back into the workforce.

We have eligibility officers to compile baseline data for administrative error and to train staff in this area. In addition, our regular investigators will have a specialized unit to detect and prevent high-tech crime and organized crime. As well, a senior prosecutor was hired through the Attorney General's department.

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

We are also hiring more employment counsellors. These workers help clients get the training or hands-on experience needed to find permanent work. Employment and training programs are a major focus of this coming year. We must update and upgrade our income security program to ensure that people who lose their jobs do not remain unemployed. Employment and training programs are among the best long-term investments we can make. They teach people the skills needed not just in today's market but in tomorrow's as well.

To underscore the importance we place on these programs, we wish to direct $58.71 million to them this year. As of today, $16.5 million has been earmarked for employment and training programs in B.C. 21, our government's long-term strategy for strengthening the economy as we head towards the next century, in addition to this ministry's investment. Employment and training programs give clients the opportunity to fill gaps in their education, acquire new skills and get hands-on experience they can use to open doors to permanent employment and independence.

It is not just clients who benefit from these programs. There are many advantages for business and industry as well. By joining a program that offers a wage subsidy, employers may be able to hire extra staff they would not otherwise be able to afford. Our employment opportunities program is one of several that are successful in moving people off welfare and into the workplace. It is cost-effective: for every dollar spent on this program, $2.40 is saved on income assistance payments.

We will be putting $8.46 million into the employment opportunities program this year -- $6.46 million directly and the other through B.C. 21. We have set aside another $8 million for the community tourism employment training program -- $5 million is from the ministry and $3 million from B.C. 21. This program supports locally initiated projects that encourage tourism. Every dollar spent saves British Columbia 41 cents on income assistance and provides 50 cents' worth of product to the community.

One sector where we are improving and expanding on-the-job training is forestry. We have contributed $12.9 million to the forest worker development program that we operate jointly with the Ministry of Forests -- $6 million of this amount comes from B.C. 21; the other $6.9 million comes from our employment and training budget. This level of spending allows us to add new elements to the program that will bring long-term benefits both to the forest industry and to people who work in it.

We are now offering three levels of training and employment instead of just one. As before, there are entry-level opportunities for people with no experience in forestry; but in addition, we have created bridging-level opportunities for workers who have been in the field but need more training to round off their skills. There are also new opportunities for fully trained people to work with local contractors or to become contractors themselves.

It is not just income assistance recipients who will benefit from improvements in the forest worker development program; there are advantages for

[ Page 7509 ]

communities, too. We anticipate that the forest worker development program will provide economic recovery in areas outside Vancouver and Victoria where the recession has had a significant effect on employment. Of course, a program that relieves unemployment in one region of British Columbia will be quite inappropriate for another. The key to success is recognizing regional diversity and responding accordingly. We have a regionally initiated special employment program known as RISE, which creates opportunities in areas that community members identify as priorities.

The workers in my ministry are familiar with local conditions and resources, so they can help design programs that address specific needs. For instance, one program being developed at the moment targets single mothers who are leaving abusive relationships. They are looking at how best to meet their special needs as they prepare to re-enter the workplace.

My ministry is also designing programs to meet the needs of young people, who will make up the workforce of the future. YES, which stands for Youth Employment Skills, provides young people with the education and training they need to break the cycle of poverty early in adult life.

The staff of my ministry serves on the front lines, helping families and communities cope with the ravages of recession. It is not easy work, and I am proud of how they are able to cope with the growing caseloads. Administrative tasks are being streamlined and computer technologies upgraded so that our workers can spend less time on paperwork and more time with clients. We want clients to be served promptly and efficiently, and to have access to services that help them regain their independence and contribute fully to the economic and social well-being of our communities.

Traditionally, federal and provincial governments took a cooperative approach towards social safety net programs. Today there is an erosion of the federal role, and employment benefits have been reduced and access to benefits limited, pushing many people onto provincial welfare roles. If that was not enough, Ottawa has reduced the welfare support it provides to B.C., Alberta and Ontario through the Canada Assistance Plan, or CAP. In 1990, without consultation, the federal government put a ceiling on the growth of its CAP payments to B.C. Now B.C. pays an even greater proportion of its share of those costs.

The federal share has fallen from 50 cents on each dollar in 1990 to 36 cents on the dollar this fiscal year. It will slip to 29 cents on the dollar next year. The reduction in federal contribution represents a loss of $1.6 billion to B.C. in the next five years.

In March we released a discussion paper called "The Challenge of Change." In it we focused on challenges this nation must meet if we are to avoid the long-term social deficit of families and generations living in poverty. Our national system of social safety nets needs to be cooperative federal-provincial action to design and implement the reforms necessary to take Canadians to the next century. We will be continuing this dialogue with our federal and provincial Social Services counterparts.

On the provincial level, I am expecting the first recommendations of my recently appointed Advisory Council on Income Assistance to begin the reform process. The 15-member council in British Columbia represents clients, client advocates, business, labour and people with disabilities, among others. They will be proposing strategies involving government-community partnership and improvements to effective service delivery throughout the province. They will be reviewing and assessing employment and training programs, health services, benefits for people with handicaps and issues related to the working poor.

They will be giving us community input into improving the way we use available resources to deal with the causes and effects of poverty. In other words, the council will be a vehicle for British Columbians to speak to their government about change.

My ministry has been asking British Columbians to tell us about the kind of society that they want to have now and in the future, so that together we can identify and implement necessary reforms. A little over a year ago I appointed a community panel to review provincial legislation on family and children's services. Panel members visited communities across the province, holding public consultations where people with the widest range of interests could discuss their concerns and propose solutions.

This mass of information and ideas was the basis of two reports which Premier Harcourt and I proudly received last December. In all, the panel gave us 264 recommendations to empower individuals and families and to build partnerships between government and the communities to address the serious problems that face society today. They asked us to act early to prevent crises and violence in families and communities rather than to intervene after the damage had been done. We have responded to some of these recommendations already; others will be entrenched in new legislation.

Under the Family and Child Service Act, the protection of children is the primary mandate of my ministry. Child apprehension was once the typical response of ministry staff to a family crisis when a child was in jeopardy. Increasingly, we are finding options which see the child's best interests served in a strong, supportive family environment. Therefore my ministry is shifting the emphasis from crisis intervention to prevention of child abuse.

We are increasing staff training and reducing the administrative burden on social workers so that they can get on with what they do best -- providing family and community support. We want to strengthen the family as a whole and build partnerships that ensure that communities have the resources to respond immediately and compassionately to children and families facing difficulty. Despite tough financial times, we are committed to investing in people to ensure a secure and healthy future for children and youth. My ministry is committed to fulfilling its mandate.

That means eliminating the effects of poverty by helping those in financial difficulty to regain control over their lives and ensuring that children are raised in a safe, healthy environment.

[ Page 7510 ]

I am happy to present the estimates to the House and look forward to any questions and, I am sure, an in-depth discussion of the estimates and the work that is underway in our ministry.

[3:00]

V. Anderson: Thank you, hon. minister, for your very thorough and comprehensive presentation. I also want to welcome the members of your staff who are here with you today and to thank them for a number of briefings they have shared with us over the last year. We appreciate the kind of communication that has taken place, not only in briefings about the work of the ministry itself but also in dealing with particular cases or concerns that have come before us. I want to express our thanks and appreciation to you for the cooperation that we have received from your staff right across the province in that regard.

I think they deserve that recognition, and I hope it will be conveyed to them from our side of the House.

The opportunities and the challenges before us all are in one sense difficult and overwhelming. We are very much aware that finances are a major concern to people, both to those who are living in poverty and to other people who are paying taxes. The balance between those is something that we need to continually understand. A great deal of this has to do with education and an appreciation of what we're undertaking. The attitudes portrayed here, as we work together in the House, are very important.

I say together -- as I said last year -- because I wholeheartedly believe that with regard to this ministry in particular we must all be concerned and work together. We will have different suggestions about process and different questions and answers to present, but that is all part of our process of working together.

In listening to the hon. minister up to this point, I was impressed by the fact that she almost sounded like the Minister of Economic Development, the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Forests or the Minister of Agriculture. We have sat in on the estimates of some of the other ministries, and there was no clear presentation, such as she has made, on job creation, education and training and experience within those various fields. I'm not sure whether the other ministries will be jealous or a little concerned that their ministries are being taken over by the extension of programs within this particular ministry.

I find it interesting that this is the focus that's coming forward, and from that point of view, I appreciate the focus very much.

We are aware that 99 percent of the people in difficult financial circumstances are not there because of their own actions, as the minister has said; they are there because of historical actions, community changes or economic changes in the community around them, and they have suddenly been caught in a difficult situation.

One of the groups the minister did not mention is widows, but they will probably come up at another point. In my meetings, I have come across many widows who were family members and who suddenly found themselves without any means of support and without any job training because they had stayed at home for the last 20 or 30 years. They were suddenly left completely handicapped in an economic sense. I trust that we will look at that particular group of people sometime in the estimates, because I have come across a very high percentage of them, from age 30 to 65, who come into that category.

They are suddenly caught in a bind, not knowing where to turn. There is very little support and few opportunities within the community to meet their particular needs.

The minister also mentioned partnerships and struggling to work in cooperation with the federal government. I know that in other reports she has mentioned cooperation between the western ministers of Social Services and other provincial Social Services ministries across the country. She also mentioned the opportunity of working with community groups, to support them and enable them to undertake programs that are important within the communities. I agree wholeheartedly with that.

One area I did not hear her mention directly was cooperation with municipal bodies. Hopefully that will also be raised later on in our discussion. It seems to me that as we begin to look at meeting the needs of local and regional community areas, as the minister mentioned earlier, we need to look at the responsibility and opportunities of working with municipal councils. Municipal councils have a very important place with regard to the programming for a local community area. It seems to me that in the past we have neglected to work with municipal councils.

We have had a body of private agencies that we have been working with, which have not been coordinated with each other. We have had a whole host of government agencies working in communities, through ministries that are also not coordinated with each other. These various groups were not coordinated through the municipal councils. I trust that we will look at some of those possibilities within the area.

I realize -- as does the minister, I believe -- that the employment and job training we had in the past were short-term processes. People learned how to write a resume or knock on doors to find a job, without the realization or affirmation that once you learned those things, there were still no jobs available and the short-term skill development you received in those programs did not have the weight of even a community college diploma.

Those short-term job-training programs need to be in a cycle of recognition in the community, so that people come out with the kind of diplomas and recognition upon which they can build. They need to actually be not "end" educational programs, but "beginning" educational programs as people move into the future.

The concern I have here is that there be a focus not only on the kind of jobs that we've had in the past, which as the minister has mentioned are not likely to be available in the future, but also on the future-oriented jobs that will lead people to the cutting edge of opportunities, not only giving them the skills but also somehow tying them into a process where they have the resources to move.

No doubt we will be canvassing this later on, but one of the simple things among most of the people I hear from who are caught in the plight of economic poverty

[ Page 7511 ]

is that in order to go to an educational program, find a job or even participate as a volunteer within the community, you have, besides food and shelter, the requirement of transportation. Without a bus pass, most of the people I deal with cannot get to the educational, recreational, volunteer or work-training programs that are available to them. Also, without the opportunity for adequate clothing, they are not able to get there.

And for children, one of the major concerns is that they're not able to participate in many of the community functions -- sports, recreational, school and team functions -- that are fundamental as part of their growth and education. Some people regard these as frills and not part of the basics of life, but in the wholeness of the personality that the minister has mentioned, these recreational, social and community activities are a part of the wholeness of life. They are important.

The minister has implied -- not directly mentioned today, although she has at other times -- that the whole opportunity and necessity of working along with those people who have come from many cultural backgrounds, making our programs accessible to them within their own cultural thinking and also enabling them to interrelate in the responsive way of being "both/and," not "either/or," in their cultural understandings. Part of that process is to enable our own people who have grown up within this country to understand new cultures and communities which are here among us.

I commend the minister for the educational and employment programs which she is attempting to undertake. We will look at other issues as we progress. I thank her for her opening statement and a sense of direction of where she's planning to go in the coming year.

Hon. J. Smallwood: I appreciate the member's comments about the reformed directions of this ministry. We made a decision in the ministry very early on that there was a need for significant change. Because of the economic pressures across Canada, we needed to do things differently. We needed a system that was more proactive, one that met people on income assistance with support in the challenges they faced individually, to ensure that their stay on income assistance was minimized to the greatest extent possible.

To that end, we have worked extensively with our government's planning board and with the Ministries of Economic Development and Advanced Education to look for opportunities and indeed for vehicles to support and enhance the work our ministry has had underway for the last year. I think that the commitment this government has brought to public spending through B.C. 21 to achieve both social and economic goals for the province is a good indicator of the support we have gained in those reform initiatives.

I think it's also important to recognize that the work our ministry does, both at its senior and local levels, is reaping some rewards. People in communities are truly excited about the potential of our enhancements around employment and training, our work in a number of varied communities with some of the social planning departments and/or committees of Municipal Affairs and the local service-delivery and client-based groups, as well as our partnership with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs with respect to their new housing policy and initiatives in finding decent and sustainable accommodation opportunities for people.

In addition to that, I want to reference some of your comments around our employment and training programs specifically. Over time, the ministry has documented which programs work and which don't work quite as well. In a project we have had underway with Camosun College, we've managed to analyze the successful programs and built on those. The forest training program that we've launched with B.C. 21 is one such example.

We know that by investing in training along with on-the-job practical experience, over a five-year period 60 percent of the people who have been in those programs are still attached to the workplace, thus meeting our goal to eliminate the cycle of poverty. So we're learning what works, we're investing and building on what works, and we're moving forward.

The comment that the member made around our support for culturally appropriate services and training in the ministry is an acknowledgment again of the good work of our ministry staff. Over the past year we have had an opportunity to support staff in recognizing the varied cultural richness in British Columbia and desiring to meet the aspirations of those communities for healthy and strong families.

[3:15]

So we've learned a number of things in the last year, and we're building on what we have learned. We have provided some leadership across Canada. In the last year, for example, we've seen Alberta come and study this government's employment and training initiatives; indeed, they took those programs back home and put them in place in their province. So we not only have shown our ability to support people back into the workplace but have provided leadership through our innovations.

The work that we have done across Canada with other provincial ministers is also showing some progress. In the last ministers' meeting in Regina, there was acceptance for this province's work in chairing a task group that identified barriers to employment and put forward proposals in support of people back into the workplace. Even though the provincial ministers' table represented a fairly broad spectrum of political views and ideology, we're very pleased that there was a commitment and a recognition that the pressures on caseloads across Canada are such that we had to redesign the way we deliver service and support people more actively back into the workplace.

I'm sure the member has other more specific questions, and I'll be glad to answer those as he raises them.

V. Anderson: I appreciate your comment, and I'll come back to some of those later, as we move along. I would like to reflect on some of the promises -- I say promises; some of the statements -- that you made last year, when we were looking at estimates, of things you

[ Page 7512 ]

were planning to do during the year and have your responses as to how they were carried out. I think people would find it helpful to see the flowthrough of those particular activities.

Let me quote this one first: "My ministry will no longer reflect the paternalistic approach to social programs." Will the minister say what we have replaced that paternalistic approach with? What did she understand that to mean at the time, and what is the change of direction? She went on to say: "We will build programs that support and empower clients -- not trap them in a cycle of poverty, abuse and dependence." That was the intention, yet many people still feel trapped in that cycle of poverty and dependence. I acknowledge that the shift isn't going to come in one year or in six months.

You don't just snap your finger, and change takes place. I think it would be helpful if we were to define, a year later, the essence of this new approach.

Hon. J. Smallwood: Without restating a number of the points in my introduction, I would point the member to our employment and training initiatives, where we have provided real opportunities for people rather than simply allowing them to stay on income assistance without hope. We've met that challenge by supporting people, rather than taking the direction of the previous administration -- a very punitive direction that did not acknowledge the realities in individuals' lives. We recognized that many small communities did not have jobs.

We met that challenge by providing not only a governmentwide initiative through B.C. 21, investing tax dollars in individuals and in economic and social infrastructure, but also through the ministry's RISE program to actually create jobs where there were none. It is being done through that kind of supported investment in skills that indeed deserve to be invested in. Having people on income assistance represents a waste of human potential.

The reference to paternalism refers to the ministry owning the problem and seeing that we have the responsibility to solve it. It refers to the shift in recognizing that only through community partnerships and active involvement of the people we serve in the search of solution are we going to be able to bring about the kind of reform and changed direction that we believe will not only benefit people on income assistance but will show real returns. It is a real long-term investment in this province, where we will see people able to function as full citizens in the economic prosperity of this province.

V. Anderson: You've made a number of references to B.C. 21, the Build B.C. program. That program, which wasn't directly mentioned a year ago as the means by which the minister would undertake these, seems to be the major new thrust which enables the minister to fulfill the promises which she had made earlier. Perhaps she would comment on the significance of that bill and indicate whether this kind of programming is something that builds in a continual dependence upon the government for the same kind of undertaking.

The concern is that many federal and provincial government summer work programs built a dependency which became an ongoing pattern for the government. I know the movement is away from that, but in building so much on a particular program, B.C. 21, are we now building in a new kind of dependency within the government rather than in the community itself?

Hon. J. Smallwood: The purpose of referring to B.C. 21 is to point out the partnership. The government has recognized that there is strength in tying social and economic objectives together and has committed itself to investing in the people of B.C. as well as in the economic infrastructure. I'm sure the member is well aware that the minister responsible for B.C. 21 is the Minister of Finance. I would encourage you to ask specific questions of that program during his estimates.

Our ministry has continued to build on its employment and training initiatives. This year we have $58.71 million for employment and training and will be receiving an additional $22 million on top of that from B.C. 21. In total, our clients will have access to approximately $80 million of investment in employment and training. That's either through training, wage subsidy programs or actual job creation. It is a reflection of our commitment as a ministry to support getting people back into the workplace, and a recognition that the most significant tool to alleviate poverty in this province is a livable wage.

V. Anderson: I appreciate that, and I think I understand what the minister is saying. I'd like to follow up this question a little bit more. This last week the Minister of Advanced Education has said to colleges and universities that they have to cut back on their training and educational programs. We also hear of a cutback in the support for many community groups and their activities, which at one point were subsidized through lottery funds.

Do I understand that the education, training and skill development of the lifelong education program to which the Ministry of Social Services is now oriented is not primarily a ministry program but is now a Build B.C. program? Has it become a kind of major educational training source funded apart from the budget that the minister is able to work with in this current year. That would imply that this program, and similar programming over the next number of years, would mean a whole new shift, not only in the social services department, but in the whole undertaking of how Social Services works with other ministries.

Hon. J. Smallwood: The programs that we deliver are directly through our ministry or with money that is provided through B.C. 21. Again I want to point out to the member that almost $59 million is within this ministry's budget, with an enhancement of $22 million from B.C 21. So the vast majority is directly in our ministry. But even the additional money invested by B.C. 21 will be delivered specifically to our clients through our ministry offices. That will mean that we will either buy seats in community colleges or provide training and employment opportunities directly in

[ Page 7513 ]

communities where colleges don't exist or where the college programs need to be enhanced in other ways.

The point that our government is making, not only in this ministry but in other ministries, is that while money is hard to come by, we are all challenged to do things differently. There is still a need to invest in people in British Columbia, whether that be young people or people challenged by labour adjustment in the province, and it is going to take partnership both with the established institutions -- community colleges and universities -- and with communities and challenged individuals.

I think that is best highlighted by the Premier's Summit on Education and Training, which is bringing together those partners to try to identify how we can do things differently and how we can meet those challenges within the money available to the ministries for the specific needs in the province.

V. Anderson: Following up some implications of that, I hear the minister saying that there are funds available to people on social assistance for what would otherwise be called scholarships or bursaries in order to take the kinds of educational programs they are not able to get on their own. I know there will be people who will raise the question: is it necessary to quit your job and go on welfare in order to better access the scholarships and bursaries that you cannot get if your income is just above a certain level? Is this opportunity available to everyone or only to a select group?

Hon. J. Smallwood: Our programs are targeted to those most in need. They are delivered through our offices in the communities. In reference to the member's comment, when a single person on welfare makes $535 for a full month, that must pay their shelter and their support. That's not exactly a panacea, and there's not much of an incentive for someone to quit their job and go on welfare. It's pretty hard to be able to feed oneself and provide for transportation and clothing, etc., never mind meet the challenges the member talks about.

The fact of the matter is that there is a waiting list for most of our programs. When we announced the forest worker program, many offices were able not only to fill those spaces but have a fairly significant waiting list of people who were most in need and wanted to work by taking advantage of that program. To alleviate any concern the member may have that we are indeed offering a panacea, I want to assure him that while investing in people is a different way of doing things, it is simply a tool to support the incentive that people on income assistance already have to get back into the workplace themselves.

[3:30]

V. Anderson: I appreciate the minister's comment because in former times, when I was involved more directly with the food bank, which had no particular requirements, we were asked how we knew that the people who came really needed food. Our answer was very similar to yours: if you stand in line for three hours in the pouring rain to get a bag of food, it is an indication that you have a need. So I understand what you're saying in that regard.

In a slightly different vein, last year the minister commented that $10 million would be allocated to address both wage inequities and staff recruitment and retention issues in contracted services across the province. Would the minister respond on that particular undertaking during the last year? I might comment that when I looked at the wage parity provisions in the budget, the increases came to about $17 million.

Hon. J. Smallwood: There are a couple of different initiatives under wage parity funding in both family and children's services and community support services. The distribution of that money last year was done in consultation with all of the ministries that provide funding for the community sector: Attorney General, Ministry of Women's Equality, Ministry of Health and ourselves. In many instances you find that different ministries are funding different programs under one umbrella organization through that community sector.

There was a real need to try to coordinate it among the ministries and at least make some principal decisions as to where the money would go and what our mutual targets were. The work we have underway with the Korbin commission will help us to target that money more effectively and efficiently to ensure that we can carry out government's goals as they pertain to wage parity.

I'll get you the overall budget numbers for the two sections. Hopefully we can give you the numbers compared to last year.

V. Anderson: At the same time last year you were also commenting on an additional $1.9 million to non-profit organizations. Can you comment on the general direction of that $1.9 million?

Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm sorry, I'm not quite clear on the question. There was a volunteer program last year, and an advocacy program. I'm not sure which program the member is referring to.

V. Anderson: The

section I was reading from says: "We will increase our reliance on community participation and provide an additional $1.9 million to assess non-profit organizations in providing programs that support and complement ministry initiatives." I realize it may be difficult to pull that out; we may come back to it later.

Hon. J. Smallwood: Sorry. With that description, I'm unable to identify the specific program.

V. Anderson: Both last year and this year the minister mentioned a review of the Family and Child Service Act. Could you comment on where that is in the process at this point?

Hon. J. Smallwood: It's my hope that within the next couple of weeks, before the session is over, we will be able to provide that information to the House. I'm unable to do it at this time.

[ Page 7514 ]

V. Anderson: I'm sorry I asked, hon. minister. We may not be out of here until August now, instead of July 1. That's increasingly becoming a possibility and the probability, as things come in. But that's another discussion.

Last year you commented on the decreasing number of children in care. Can you comment on whether there is still a decreasing number of children in care, or has the number of children in care been reversed? Are more are coming into care, or less? What's the trend at this present time? We hear about so many children in poverty, but what about the question of children in care?

Hon. J. Smallwood: We'll get the exact numbers for you. That provides me with an opportunity to talk about some of the investments that we made in family support last year. We have been running a couple of pilot programs in the province where we have actually been able to provide support for families to stay together. Some of the initial information out of those pilot projects indicates that it is money well spent: we have actually been able to reduce, in a specific area under that pilot, the number of children who have come into care.

The statistics for 1992-93 show that the number of caseloads dealing with children in care was 6,109 as of March 31; for the same time period in the previous year, 6,084. With the population increase, that shows that this province has been experiencing an actual decrease, by ratio, in the number of children who are in care of the province.

We believe that it's early to tell the overall impact of the support money we have put in, but all of the initial information we have indicates that where child protection workers in the past would have had no option but to remove children, they are now able to support that child and family in staying together. As the member well knows, that investment is far less onerous on the province than actually taking a child and supporting that child outside of their family.

V. Anderson: Perhaps relating to children and families, the minister also mentioned last year, as she has also done this current year on a number of occasions, the emphasis on culturally sensitive services to aboriginal people. Could she highlight some of the main directions of those culturally sensitive services with aboriginal people that have been put forward this year?

Hon. J. Smallwood: There have been a number of initiatives in the last year. We have signed agreements around child protection with both the Squamish and Cowichan nations, announced a moratorium on adoptions of aboriginal children, posted an aboriginal deputy superintendent position and enhanced the ministry's ability to meet first nations in their challenges to return their children, recognizing that those are interim arrangements, and that the objectives of government are to meet first nations in self-government discussions and to support first nations in their agendas with respect to taking back that responsibility for their children.

In addition to that, I have been working very actively with the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs in identifying tables to meet aboriginal leaders in this province in discussions regarding transitional legislation for child welfare issues, as well as discussions about on- and off-reserve cost-sharing with the federal government for aboriginal communities. So there has been a considerable amount of progress in the last year. We are encouraged by the reception these initiatives have met with from aboriginal leaders and families alike.

It is a tremendously exciting time to be part of government. The healing process underway in this province is very painful and encouraging and exciting for all of us.

V. Anderson: Responding to that -- and perhaps going a little further -- you mentioned you had been working with particular bands. Is there any overall grouping of bands -- as well as individual bands -- that you are able to work with in the aboriginal area? Working with bands related to their band territories is one thing, but I would also ask what is happening with respect to working with aboriginal people within the urban community, where there is not such a clear-cut organizational grouping of people to work with.

Hon. J. Smallwood: Through the leadership of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, government has been able to identify two specific tables for many of the discussions. Discussions about child welfare have taken place with the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. We have had one very productive meeting. Another meeting is scheduled for the summit, which will give us an opportunity to put those issues on the table and have the kind of policy discussion necessary to ensure this type of partnership we are talking about with first nations people.

As I said, we continue to meet with specific bands and tribal councils regarding their specific issues. To the best of this ministry's ability we support their goals, particularly with reference to the work done with aboriginal communities or individuals off reserve and the M�tis communities. We have been working with the M�tis in this province to develop protocols. We are optimistic that that will be concluded very shortly and that we will be able to make an announcement on that front. With respect to off-reserve communities, we work with both Indian friendship centres and the UNN.

[3:45]

The other area that I would like to comment on has to do with work underway within our ministry. We are conducting a review of permanent wards of the state with an eye to developing life plans for aboriginal children in the care of the state, and ensuring the ability of connecting those children with their families, their extended families and/or their aboriginal communities of origin.

V. Anderson: I think those are excellent directions in which to be moving, and I'm particularly glad you mentioned the permanent wards, because that is one

[ Page 7515 ]

area that very seldom comes to the surface for discussion.

We started this discussion, in part, by talking about children, and we talked about adoption within the aboriginal community. What about the general services for aboriginal families or single people on income assistance? Is there a special relationship within the ministry toward aboriginal people, as opposed to others who may be going in for services?

Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm sure the member is aware that there is an agreement whereby the federal government provides income assistance on reserve, and our responsibility is off reserve. While we do not identify income assistance recipients by race, where there are significant communities we try, to the best of our ability, to provide culturally appropriate services. In the last short while I believe there has been an enhancement and support for some of the work being done by Indian friendship centres and the programs they provide for aboriginals off reserve.

R. Neufeld: I have just a few questions about what's happening with regard to child welfare on reserve lands. Maybe you could explain it a little more. How do you perceive this being handled better? I tend to agree that aboriginal children should be looked after on reserve. But how does that come about? We're mixing federal and provincial.... What ability do we have to make that happen, so that children or young people in care can be looked after within their own culture?

Hon. J. Smallwood: Currently there is an unsigned memorandum of understanding between the province and the federal government. It states that the federal government has the responsibility for services to aboriginal people on reserve, and the provincial government provides services off reserve. We are quite distressed about the fact that the federal government has not lived up to that responsibility. If the member has reserves near his community, I'm sure he knows that the services are not being provided by the federal government, as far as equity of service on reserve and off reserve is concerned.

The provincial initiatives will do two things. Because of our superintendent's ability to delegate authority when aboriginal communities are in a position to take back that responsibility, we enter into discussions with those communities and sign agreements around the delegation of responsibility, with the province's commitment to support culturally appropriate services. Clearly, because of their culture, the services deemed appropriate by a band may be different than the services we provide.

In addition to that, as I said to the opposition critic -- you may have been out of the House at the time -- we are presently in discussions with first nations leaders about that transition, whereby they can achieve the full responsibility, the return of their children and the provision of service. The province will not take that initiative with the federal government until we have an agreement from first nations leaders regarding how to take that next step.

R. Neufeld: I'm reading off a news release that one-third of all children in care are aboriginal. Can the minister explain if the number of those native children in care has been reduced in the last year? Have we been able to take a certain number of them out of care and put them in the care of bands with which you've made agreements? I think you've made agreements with two or three bands across the province. Have a significant number of those children been transferred there, or as your new statement says, are they still in care?

Hon. J. Smallwood: I can't give you direct numbers at this point. You are correct in that 2,000 of the 6,000 children in care are of aboriginal origin. The review of permanent wards, which is underway, will be able to not only provide that support for those children but also give us a better database against which we can measure our successes.

The member should recognize that some communities are not ready. Some communities and families are not able to take those children back. To make the point, a family may be able to support a child 10 percent. We bring a commitment to the work that we are doing to ensure that that child can have that 10 percent, which perhaps in the past they did not have, and hopefully we can increase the support and involvement that the family is able to give to that child over time and eventually return the child to that family.

As I said, it is a policy direction that has been received very well by communities. Some aboriginal communities are more able to make that transition. The two communities that I would point to -- the Cowichan and the Squamish -- are actively involved with us in that transition and have been asking for it for some time. This government is quite proud to be able to meet them in that challenge. But this is not something that is going to happen overnight. The healing that has to take place, both within individual families and communities generally, is significant and substantive.

It will take a long-term commitment from this government and subsequent governments to ensure that we undo the many years of pain and suffering that have gone before us.

R. Neufeld: Is your government proactive in soliciting from different bands across the province? I have a number of bands in my constituency, and I know that they are quite progressive bands. Do we wait until the bands come and talk to you as government about this type of involvement with the children, or are we actively out there talking to different bands? There's hundreds of them.

Hon. J. Smallwood: First of all, I'd like to clarify. When we are talking about the on-off reserve split and the role of the federal government in the provision of services, the child protection mandate of this ministry is to protect children on reserve, and it is cost-shared. The federal government picks up half of that. When a child is in need of protection, it is the policy of this ministry

[ Page 7516 ]

to notify the band of that apprehension. It's through discussions around those individual cases that we develop a plan to support the reform initiatives of this government, which is to support the families and provide for the earliest possible return of those children.

R. Neufeld: Maybe I missed something that the minister said, but is there no actual program through which we actively go out and discuss with different native bands the government's idea of getting the children back into care on different reserves? Maybe I missed that. I'm sorry.

Hon. J. Smallwood: I discussed earlier the tables that have been set up by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and which this ministry is involved with. At both the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and the summit table, we are not only negotiating cost-sharing programs with the federal government but we are also discussing initiatives around child welfare to find the best way that we can develop policy to enhance aboriginal people's goals and aspirations. Along with that, as I'm sure the member is well aware, last December we received a panel report on aboriginal child welfare.

In the work that we have underway and in the enhancements that I talked about, the deputy superintendent of aboriginal child welfare and our enhanced transition team were using those tables to discuss proposed legislation that will enable aboriginal communities, during the transition, to receive that responsibility. On an individual basis, when there is an apprehension, it is the policy of this ministry to notify the band and band councils. So there are two different levels at which we are being proactive.

We're dealing with individual needs through the permanent ward review of aboriginal children and the notification of bands when a child is in need of protection, and then there is the overall policy review with aboriginal leaders around child welfare issues.

R. Neufeld: The Cowichan bands are now responsible for child welfare on reserve lands. This was something that came in early this year. I know its fairly soon, but does the minister have some feeling as to the success of that program? Can you perhaps explain to us a little more about what has transpired with the Cowichan bands?

Hon. J. Smallwood: If I understood the question correctly, it was on the signing of an agreement with the Cowichan. That process is just commencing. It will take a number of years before the actual transfer of authority takes place. The agreement that we have with the Cowichan sees a mutually supportive process that helps develop the skills, resources and the services on the reserve for them to be able to actually take over the delegated authority around child protection.

R. Neufeld: Are the agreements that you are reaching with the Cowichan band, and the one with the Squamish nation that just recently transpired, set up to meet each band's different needs in different areas, or is it a kind of set program that we'll just work around a little bit? Is it stringent? Or is it loose enough so that in different areas of the province -- because, of course, in the north they'll be different than in the south -- the bands will be able to work under those programs?

Hon. J. Smallwood: I think the question is altogether appropriate in recognizing that there are some 200 nations here in B.C., and each nation is a nation unto itself with specific needs, cultural practices and a specific heritage. I might note that these agreements that are being signed are three-party agreements between the federal government, the provincial government and the nations themselves. The work we have underway has the potential to reflect the individual needs, cultural heritage and appropriate desires of those nations. So they will reflect the cultural diversity of those nations within B.C.

[4:00]

R. Neufeld: Could you tell me when the memorandum of understanding that you spoke about earlier was agreed to and when it was signed by the ministry? Could you tell me the year that happened?

Hon. J. Smallwood: It dates back as far as 1976. That memorandum has been respected by the federal government in that they have been paying, for example, for half of the cost of child protection on reserve.

R. Neufeld: So we could say that the problems of native children not being in child care on reserves dates back quite a while, in that the ministry itself has been trying to deal with that issue for a long time. I think we both have to agree that this is not something that can be done tomorrow or the next day, or whatever. It is obvious that from 1976 to now there has been some headway made in different areas on reserves, and that includes child welfare. I want to bring that forward, because what I hear is that the past has been so terrible that we are going to be forever trying to straighten it out.

I'm just trying to get it on the record that issues were taken forward quite a long time ago, but the process takes a long time. I think those are all the questions I have on that.

Hon. J. Smallwood: I have given the member some incorrect information. The memorandum of understanding was '86, not '76 -- my apology. With respect to the reference to the federal responsibility for child protection, they pick up the full cost. We have the responsibility, we bill it back to them and they pay us for child protection on reserve. So it is not 50 percent cost-shared; it is full responsibility to the feds on reserve.

The point the member has made is correct. A commitment has been made to address the issues about aboriginal child welfare in support of aboriginal communities for some time and agreements were signed by your government, under a previous structure. More have been signed under the new agreement, and we are fast-tracking that commitment under this government's initiatives.

[ Page 7517 ]

V. Anderson: Following up on that discussion, the minister indicated that there were other agreements besides the memorandum of understanding of 1986. Are there other agreements between the federal and provincial governments -- particularly with regard to your ministry, in other areas relating to aboriginal people -- besides the protection of children? Are there other agreements between the federal and provincial governments in other areas of your ministry that relate to aboriginal people ?

Hon. J. Smallwood: There is a letter on the provision of income assistance dated 1977 -- the federal government's delivery of service for income assistance for clients on reserve.

V. Anderson: Could the minister indicate the scope of that letter of income assistance? Does that mean they were paying the full amount? Has there been any discussion about updating that letter? It would seem to me that it would be quite different now than in 1977.

Hon. J. Smallwood: I think I only heard half of your question. It is the same arrangement. The federal government pays the full cost on reserve, and the provincial government.... It's the on-off reserve split. The provincial government picks up services off-reserve, including income assistance.

V. Anderson: The other half of that question is whether there is an updating in place with the federal government concerns that you share jointly in serving the needs of children and families on reserve.

Hon. J. Smallwood: I am tempted to tell the member that there's going to be a test after this. This is my third time explaining. With the tables....

Interjection.

Hon. J. Smallwood: Oh, okay. There is a table with the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs around policy discussions on two issues: first, on aboriginal child welfare; second, on federal-provincial programs on off-reserve cost-shared. We will be using those tables with aboriginal leaders to build a consensus. The commitment that we bring as a government is that we will not approach the federal government on any changes with those cost-shared, either the memorandum of understanding or the letter for income assistance, without consultation and support from aboriginal leaders as to what their aspirations and goals are.

As I said to the member, we have had one very successful meeting with the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and are looking forward to the opportunity for policy work to be done with the province and first nations people in identifying the next steps with the federal government.

V. Anderson: Changing topics and going onto some of the comments from the previous year, which you also mentioned this year, a year ago you undertook to review the family maintenance program. I'm wondering if you could update us on what I presume is an ongoing process within the family maintenance program. It was more or less at its beginning? You might update us as to where it is at this current time.

Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm assuming the member is referring to the task group that we were a part of with the Attorney General ministry. The Attorney General, as you know, has the family maintenance enforcement program. The cross-ministry work that has been underway is looking at that program to ensure that it can deliver, in the most efficient and effective way possible, the government's goals in supporting single parents and their children. That review has not concluded. I am led to believe that there will be legislative changes, but they are not anticipated until next year.

V. Anderson: At this point I might as well raise a couple of the questions that come up in the area of maintenance. A year ago I discussed this from my experience, which was almost totally negative with regard to the maintenance program. This year I can comment on some positive experiences with the maintenance program and congratulate them on some of the improvements that have been made in that regard. I want to acknowledge some really positive experiences with the family maintenance program this year.

But one of the concerns that we hear from the community is the question of those who are on GAIN receipts and receive payments through the family maintenance program from their spouses on behalf of their children. How much of that are they able to keep in any given month? How is it deducted otherwise? There seems to be a misunderstanding in the community about the amount of that payment that can be deducted in any given month and the amount that can be kept.

Hon. J. Smallwood: As the member knows, our income assistance advisory council, along with a number of internal program reviews, is looking at all aspects of the income assistance program, including the family maintenance program and the benefit that it provides to our clients. The member may also be aware that ours is the only province that allows a person on income assistance to top up the amount they have by maintaining a portion of their family maintenance. The current policy stands that a family can receive an additional $100 a month of their family maintenance over and above their income assistance.

The program changes have been very positive in some communities, where our family maintenance workers have been able to work with motivated clients in enabling them to receive the support that is due for their children. The new orders obtained in '92-93 are up from '91-92 by some 200. The average amount is also up, but only by a fraction. The potential income assistance savings on new orders obtained are also up by a fraction. So we're seeing a significant shift. As I said, the program is still under review, but there are a number of ways: enhancement of income assistance rates; the support

[ Page 7518 ]

that we're able to give clients in receiving their orders; and the review by the Attorney in conjunction with ourselves to streamline the enforcement component of that program.

L. Fox: Hon. Chair, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

L. Fox: I'm very privileged to have in the House this afternoon my nephew, Dr. Kevin Pistak, who is here from Toronto. One month ago he graduated from chiropractic college, and the next day he got married. He's in Victoria looking to see what opportunities there are for chiropractors in B.C.

V. Anderson: In looking at the question of maintenance payments against a person's income, I have three questions to put on behalf of people who have asked about them. First, if I understand correctly, a person who is partially employed may earn up to $200 per family member without it affecting their income assistance. If they can earn $200 without affecting their family assistance, why couldn't they receive $200 in maintenance payments instead of $100? Second, sometimes people are delinquent in making their payments, so rather than $100 a month coming in, they get $500 all in one month.

Instead of acknowledging that they did not receive payments for the previous months, it's all deducted at one time, which is a disincentive. Third, since these payments for maintenance are primarily for the support of children, why isn't the number of children in the family taken into account by having $100 or whatever is allowable for each child?

[4:15]

Hon. J. Smallwood: The whole discussion around the ability of families to keep additional money, whether it's through the family maintenance program or through earned income or other unearned income, is considerably more complex than at first glance. If an individual were able to keep additional money, the fact that it would be a cost to the province is certainly a consideration of Treasury Board with the pressures that we have on the system right now. That's one thing that people don't consider generally. They feel that money is free to the system, but it is not. It is a direct cost to the taxpayers.

I recall an

article that, I believe, Nicole Parton did, where she actually polled people. I think she asked whether they would pay an additional $2.40 -- I really am doing this off the top of my head -- of increased taxes to enable a single parent on income assistance to retain more family maintenance. Unfortunately, the answer was a resounding no. I raise that just to highlight the challenges that government has in meeting people's needs and trying to alleviate child poverty in this province.

One reality of our growing caseload is that while we have over 300,000 individuals on income assistance, it's not widely recognized that a full third of them are children. That speaks not only of the pressures and cost to the system but certainly of the cost to society, because children who are growing up in poverty don't have the same opportunities. If we are looking toward the future economic and social strength of this province, I think it's incumbent on all of us to look for ways of supporting those children.

The family maintenance program review that we have underway with the Attorney General will hopefully address some issues that you have been talking about, such as the regular delivery of family maintenance payments to those children. There are jurisdictions in North America where the government actually collects the money and guarantees delivery of those programs on a regular basis so that the children are not victimized by irregular payments or the inability of the court to collect payments that are due. Needed reforms in that program to ensure that payments are delivered on a regular basis are some of the things that are being discussed with the Attorney General.

I have asked the advisory council to look not only at the amount of the family maintenance that families can keep but also at a number of enhancements. The member referred to the amount of earned income that a person can keep. It is a maximum of $200 plus 25 percent. Again, that is another program that the ministry developed to support getting people back into the workplace. We've got statistical analysis that shows the longer we support people in retaining their connection with the workplace, the more success people have in the workplace and the shorter their stay on income assistance.

V. Anderson: I appreciate the $200 plus 25 percent. I would like to see that percentage extended, so that by the time people have earned enough money they are able to get themselves off income assistance completely. I come back to two parts of that question. Why couldn't the $200 plus 25 percent not apply equally to the maintenance payment as it applies to earned income? That would be the first of those questions. In responding to that, I recognize there is the argument that it costs the ministry money, but it seems there are two arguments.

One is that these are court-ordered payments that are directed to the family and therefore rightly belong to them. Secondly, a psychological argument, and a very important philosophical one, is that the children should realize that the money coming to them is from their parent, and it rightly belongs to them, rather than them having to do without it and the money being taken from them by that ogre, the government. That becomes a very personal thing for the children, with regard to their relationship with the government and being denied the personal support from that other parent.

Hon. J. Smallwood: First of all, with reference to the ability of a family to top up the $200 plus 25 percent of their earnings.... To increase that, we actually had to get a special exemption from the Canada Assistance Plan -- the system is that closely governed by the federal legislation.

[ Page 7519 ]

I acknowledge the points the member made around the family maintenance program, and I'm very sympathetic to those arguments. My only reference goes back to the complicated system we are managing. We are looking at it in a comprehensive way.

The GAIN legislation that is on the books has been ad hoc over the last ten years, where different parts of the legislation have changed over a period of time. I believe that the challenge we face as a government, not only here in British Columbia but also across Canada, is being able to make sense of the system, so that once you move one section, it doesn't buffer the rest of the sections. That's why we have this comprehensive review underway with the income assistance advisory council. We are talking to other provinces, Treasury Board and other agencies in government and looking at that comprehensive review and challenging some of those principles.

The aspect I'm particularly sympathetic to is that family maintenance, or any other income a family gets, should be the base, and we should be topping up, rather than welfare being the base and deducting from that in a top-up. That's the direction I would hope we could head in with our review. But I think we have to look at it to understand the implications. It sounds pretty simple on the face of it, but the system in and of itself is so complex. As I said, it has a very strict interface with the federal legislation. We'll have to look at those implications as well. That is part of the review we have underway.

V. Anderson: I appreciate that that's part of the GAIN legislation review you were talking about at that point -- if I understand correctly.

I want to come back to the other one and clarify it with you. I understand the requirement to coordinate with the Canada Assistance Plan in order to get the $200 plus 25 percent. I'm still not clear why that figure couldn't apply to the maintenance payment as well as to earned income through employment. Is there something under the Canada Assistance Plan that says that you can only consider the earned employment, rather than the maintenance payments, for that $200 plus 25 percent?

Hon. J. Smallwood: As far as we know, the Canada Assistance Plan does not differentiate between earned and unearned income. Again, I want to restate my comments around the direct costs to the system in doing so. It would mean additional costs over and above the amount we have in our estimates at this point in time. It begs the question as to whether or not we would pick up the family maintenance and not treat other unearned income in the same way. For that reason, we're looking at it in a comprehensive way.

It certainly begs the question around a family that has a court order and a spouse who is unable to meet that court order and may also be on income assistance. Inequities are created between families in the same circumstances. There are a number of significant issues, and we are reluctant to bring about a policy change without understanding its implications -- and very clearly without having the funding support to do it.

V. Anderson: Inequities will always be seen to be there no matter what action we take. But on behalf of the people who are expressing this concern very strongly, I would also say -- as I know the minister is aware -- that the necessity for them is here and now, not after the children have grown up and left home. The inequities are here, and it's important that at least some of them be addressed as quickly as possible rather than waiting till all of them have to be resolved at one time.

I also appreciate the minister's comment about the ad hoc nature of the changes that have taken place in the GAIN legislation over a period of time. I would take it that the review is to bring an end to ad hockery as quickly as possible and to come forward with some draft plan that people could have in mind and look forward to. Am I right that that's the direction we are moving? The minister is nodding yes, without committing herself, and I can understand partly why she's attempting to do that.

I want to go back to one other question in our aboriginal discussion for a moment. Are there some ministry staff who are particularly dedicated to working on the aboriginal concerns of the ministry at this point? I'm just asking about aboriginal staff in the ministry who might be particularly dedicated to aboriginal work, although I know everyone in the ministry has some relationship to that.

Hon. J. Smallwood: Yes, we are trying to gear up for an accelerated transition in a number of ways. I referred to the deputy superintendent for aboriginal child welfare. We have established a committee in the north to develop an approach to increase recruitment and improve service. We are using outreach recruiting to ensure aboriginal applicants know of vacancies, particularly in communities with large aboriginal populations.

We ensure aboriginal participation on competition panels when knowledge of aboriginal culture is a requirement for positions, and we staff a position of tribal liaison for aboriginal communities. In addition to that, we are enhancing our policy ability through family and children services, where we have two very qualified, highly respected people in the province helping us with the legislative review that is underway. This also gives me an opportunity to recognize the aboriginal services unit in Vancouver, which does very good work for the province.

R. Neufeld: I want to go back a little bit to the family maintenance enforcement program. Is it a requirement to enrol in that program before you can receive income assistance or social assistance of any kind?

[4:30]

Hon. J. Smallwood: There's an expectation, indeed a requirement, that individuals on income assistance seek income from all possible sources. I think the member is referring to the policy change around subrogation. Prior to this government's responsibility, people on income assistance had to subrogate their rights; they had to give over their rights to the state to collect family maintenance. At that time there was a

[ Page 7520 ]

Charter challenge before the courts, arguing the point that people on income assistance were being treated differently than other citizens. In a recognition that single parents have the responsibility for supporting their children, and the expectation that they will seek all sources of income, this government removed that subrogation clause. Removing that subrogation clause at the same time enhanced our ability to work with single parents in accessing those orders, where possible, in support of them looking for other ways of enforcing those orders.

The reference of the government critic is working extraordinarily well, as acknowledged in some communities where very motivated clients are working with our family maintenance workers in the best of our collective ability in ensuring that those orders are enforced and that those children benefit from those orders.

R. Neufeld: I appreciate what the minister says, and I am certainly not one to try and infringe on people's rights too much. I think we all have rights, and we are all infringed on in different areas, whether you're doing your job, I'm doing my job, or someone is on social assistance of some kind.

Whether or not the minister agrees with or believes in the program, I believe that it was fairly successful in getting some money paid back to the government from what they classify as fathers who have relinquished all responsibility for their families, fathers who take off and do whatever. Unfortunately, in most cases -- not in all cases, but I would say in a high percentage of cases -- the mother is left looking after the child. Unfortunately, in today's world she cannot do it without help. I appreciate that.

Did the program help force some of these people who had abrogated their responsibility to their family unit to pay something back, instead of just being able to run away and absolve themselves of that responsibility? I know it could sound like an infringement on one's rights; I'm not trying to dispute that part. What I am saying is that I think it did bring in a fair amount of money to the province. Since the change in government, we have seen a drop in the number of cases. Is that correct?

Hon. J. Smallwood: There has actually been in increase in the value of orders filed in the family maintenance enforcement program. During 1992-93 it was $10.67 million, and during 1991-92 it was $10.29 million. So this program continues to be effective in ensuring that family maintenance orders are enforced and that the children who are dependent on them receive that money. Where there has been a reduction in the number of actual open cases, that is not to say that those single parents are not pursuing family maintenance through other channels rather than taking advantage of this program.

Through the program we are able to focus the attention and the resources of the ministry on people who are very motivated, ensuring that we have the best recovery of court orders possible. In fact, the new orders that have been obtained have also increased. We have an additional 200 this year: from 2,013 last year to 2,207 this year. The program has been streamlined. Through the resources that we have brought to bear through the enforcement program of the Attorney General and the support that we are able to actively provide for single parents in our ministry, we have been able to actually increase the number of orders obtained, as well as increase the value of those orders.

R. Neufeld: In the numbers that you quoted earlier, did you say $10 million or did you say $1 million? Maybe you could explain it a little more. I have some information from the ministry that states that the number of cases in the process of being enrolled has gone from 1,430 cases as of March 31, 1991, down to 477 cases.

Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm not sure where the member obtained that information. If he would like to share that, I'd be happy to give him some background. Let me give you the statistics of the open cases. Between October '92 -- when the policy change was brought about -- and March '93, the open cases went from 21,784 to 17,819. That is a decrease of 18 percent. The member should be aware, however, that that is a reflection of a decrease in the number of cases on the waiting list. They are not people who are being served. I think the numbers that I shared with you, as far as the actual new orders that were obtained....

The actual value of orders are far more reflective of the success of that program than the number of people who are waiting to be served.

R. Neufeld: In the famous project to monitor administrative error and fraud, a certain frustration came from people on the front line that some of the changes in policy were some of the reasons -- and you can classify it as whatever you want: fraud, administrative error or whatever it is -- for the increase in spending in your ministry, which has, you must agree, gone up quite dramatically compared to any other ministry in the last two years.

I have talked to a number of people in your offices around the province who work in the field. They feel some frustration and feel that that is part of the reason costs have gone up so dramatically and that society in general is now paying a lot more for people who have abrogated their responsibilities to family; specifically fathers, who are free to do whatever they want now. That is not the only area. There doesn't seem to be any way to get those people to live up to their responsibilities. If it infringes on their rights, it infringes on their rights.

They should have thought about that before they had their families, because now we have a lot of children who are in care and who need the care and help that we have to supply.

Hon. J. Smallwood: I just want to clarify for the member that when we were talking about the infringement of rights, that was about the subrogation clause. Fathers have responsibilities to support their children. We are enhancing our ability as a ministry to work with those mothers to ensure that those fathers live up to that responsibility. I think the numbers speak

[ Page 7521 ]

for themselves. The numbers that I was able to share with you regarding the increased numbers of new orders obtained and the value of those orders speak to the fact that we are able to target government's resources to efficiently and effectively support those children, and to having those fathers live up to their responsibilities in paying that maintenance. That's one point that I want to make.

Secondly, the point around staff morale. This ministry is probably one of the most difficult ministries in all of government to not only work in and provide service but also to meet the challenges of the growing need that exists in this province. Yes, we saw considerable growth in our caseloads and therefore in the cost to this ministry. But I want to remind the member that we are not alone in this province; we don't live on an island unto ourselves. All provinces are suffering from the same pressures.

Our very conservative province directly to the east, Alberta, saw an increase in its caseload of 21 percent in this past year, so it's very difficult to make the argument that the policies of this government are driving the caseload or the cost to this ministry when the province right next door, our very closest neighbour, is seeing an increase of 21 percent.

Quite the contrary. It shows that our proactive reform around employment and training have, at the very best, managed the pressures that have been brought to bear at a time where we're seeing significant economic restructuring impacting countries on a global scale. We are not alone; we are not an island unto ourselves. Indeed, we are managing very well given the pressures that this system is under with a federal government -- to make the point -- changing UIC policies. We are seeing direct impact.

People who could have counted on unemployment insurance that they had paid into for years and years are no longer able to rely on that system and find themselves having to come to welfare as the ministry of last resort.

It's important for us to recognize the facts and for the member to look at the numbers around the enforcement program, its success, its streamlining and the review that is underway, and indeed to understand that when we're talking about rights, we're talking about the rights of the mother in support of her children and the responsibilities of the father, the partner in that family, to support those children.

R. Neufeld: I agree. Maybe the minister misunderstood me. I also am saying that those fathers should be responsible and support those mothers and children. I have no problem with that -- none whatsoever. That's why I'm talking a little about infringement of rights and those things. I have no problem at all saying that. Can you just explain to me, Madam Minister, now that you've changed that policy, what specifically you do to help mothers collect money from those fathers? What program is it? You talked a little about a program.

Maybe I don't understand it, or I haven't heard about it; but just tell me what steps you take now with those mothers to make those fathers who are not living up to their responsibility pay.

Hon. J. Smallwood: The member may well be aware that there are two parts to the program. The family enforcement program, which is under the Attorney General, actually enforces the court orders. The family maintenance workers, who are in our ministry work, one-on-one with single parents to ensure that the paperwork is done so that they can access the Attorney General's program to ensure that there is an order filed and that the order is then enforced by the AG's family enforcement program.

[F. Garden in the chair.]

It's a matter of supporting and providing information for single parents on welfare, and ensuring that they are connected with the Attorney General's program. The only change that exists now is that the single parents, the mothers, do not have to automatically turn over their rights as citizens to the state. We still work with and support those single parents in filing the orders with the Attorney's program and ensuring that those orders are enforced.

[4:45]

R. Neufeld: I'm not asking you to answer questions for the Attorney General's ministry, but does the money that's paid stay as revenue to that ministry, or does it -- or part of it -- come as revenue to your ministry?

Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm unable to answer for the Attorney; I'm not sure how their program works. From our perspective, as in the previous discussion, families are able to keep a certain portion, and anything over and above $100 is deducted from their income assistance cheques. There is a ceiling to the amount that they can earn with family maintenance.

R. Neufeld: What happens to it after that? Obviously, more is collected than is paid out. Where does it go? Is it a revenue to your ministry, or is it a revenue to the Attorney General's ministry?

Hon. J. Smallwood: The family maintenance amount that goes to individuals shows as a cost avoidance to welfare, so we actually do not pay out the full amount of the welfare cheque; it is deducted. That's where the savings to the ministry are incurred. In our earlier discussion with the member around allowing families to keep more of the money, we would not then have that cost avoidance to income assistance. It would be more expensive to the system; we would pay out more money. Family maintenance is a savings to the system overall if the maintenance order is above $100.

V. Anderson: I just want to comment that the spouses who are not paying are not always men, although the majority of the time it is men. Sometimes the wife is the one who is making payments -- not in a lot of cases, I agree, but there are some where that's the case. In coming years we will find that it's becoming more often the case in the other direction. I was talking to a fellow on the weekend who receives money from

[ Page 7522 ]

the wife, whose income is higher than his. So it works both ways and depends on the income of the people involved in the particular court order.

As the minister is aware, I did some checking with people in the community on concerns they might have about the ministry, and we got a number of pluses as well as minuses -- not so much minuses as questions or concerns -- that highlight some of the issues people are asking about. I'd like to share some of these as a basis for asking questions.

On the positive side, the first one I pick up here says thank you to the ministry for addressing mismanagement within the ministry and improving the system. The minister will probably be glad to know that people heard that part of the message.

Interjection.

V. Anderson: Yes, I know you would like to see that in headlines, but at least I'll put in Hansard that this is part of the response we're getting. They also appreciate and thank you for the advocacy groups that you're supporting throughout the province. They also say that even with its mistakes -- if there are any -- the tribunal training program is one of the best in Canada, affirming the longstanding tribunal system in the province.

On the other hand, there was a concern from this particular respondent about crisis grants and food vouchers. I've heard from many people that on occasion these seem to be very difficult to get in crisis situations,

whereas on other occasions they seem to get them very readily and easily. There is confusion regarding the qualifications for crisis grants and food vouchers and a lack of clarity as to how people can access them. Perhaps the minister would like to speak about those.

Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm unable to speak specifically to the points you made about the difference in practice. We're working to bring about as much consistency as we can, recognizing that there needs to be a judgment call made by our financial assistance workers, who are trained to make those, to meet people's needs and identify when a person is in need of a short-term crisis response from our ministry. It's worth putting on the record that in doing that, crisis grants can be provided when there's a failure to obtain an item in need that would result in imminent danger to the physical health of the individual or in an apprehension of a child under the Family and Child Service Act.

The criteria for issuing a crisis grant are spelled out specifically. If a person meets those criteria, the crisis grant is provided for that individual or family. The denial of a crisis grant is appealable. The member referenced the fact that our tribunal system for appeals is widely recognized in the community and elsewhere as a fair and just process for dealing with any potential inequities in the system and any questions around the judgment call that has been made.

V. Anderson: With regard to crisis grants and food vouchers.... One of the difficulties with the appeal system at the moment is that it's good for long-range things but not for things like putting food on the table tonight or tomorrow. Some people are facing that immediate problem and are not finding an easy way to.... I think the system breaks down at one point. Once a person has come for their grant, they're generally in a personal crisis situation, and once the system has rebuffed them, it's difficult for them to approach the system again, not having a handy neutral body to work through.

Part of the difficulty is approaching the system when it has already said no to you, and you're in an emotional crisis.

Another concern was brought forward. This is a question of whether or not this is policy. The question is written this way: "Why is a single mom told to use her GST credit to pay for a portion of the cost of runners or other clothing for a child when the ministry has previously paid the entire amount?" The question is why GST credit is directed in this direction. Another question is: why FAWs would say that the child tax credit must be used to pay for food rather than being kept to buy clothing with. They're trying to express feeling that that was something that should really go for clothing.

So it has to do with these credits coming back to them. Are they part of the income, or do they have some discretionary use of these credits to do the extras, particularly clothing?

Hon. J. Smallwood: The member is referring to the fact that the GST or the child tax credits are exempted from income assistance payments. In other words, we do not deduct them; the family gets that full amount. The expectation, however, is that families use all sources of income to meet their immediate needs. If the family has a source of income, the ministry will not duplicate that source of income.

The member is highlighting some of the pressures on the system and the balance that government is always trying to bring to the system in providing support for those most in need. Individuals and families have a responsibility to seek out other sources of income or additional moneys to meet those needs and to work towards their independence to the best of their ability. So while we value the social safety net and the role the ministry is able to play in supporting people, we also encourage people to access income to meet their needs wherever they are able.

In particular, when there are increased cost pressures on the system, it's important for us to recognize that each family must take on that responsibility in trying to meet those needs.

For single parents, in particular, we've enhanced our employment and training programs for a longer period and enhanced opportunities to bring them back into the workplace in order to ensure that they can meet their goals of self-sufficiency and independence. We recognize that that is the only way for single parents or anyone to be able to support themselves with dignity in the long term and to meet the needs of their children.

So while I readily acknowledge the fact that it is very difficult to live on income assistance, and in particular to raise children on income assistance, this government has chosen to try, to the best of our ability, to meet that

[ Page 7523 ]

challenge by providing bridging back to self-sufficiency and independence. We have consciously chosen to enhance those programs over and above adding to the overall cost of the system. Regrettably, we have held increases to the actual rate for income assistance to 2 percent over our term, recognizing that in some of the big cities that is not even meeting the cost of living.

[5:00]

So the options for people on income assistance are very clear: they are to get off income assistance as quickly as possible. We hope that through that change of direction in the system, we will be able to recognize and support those people who cannot take advantage of those programs. We hope to do that in two ways: by a longer training period for single parents, recognizing that they need a life plan or career plan in place; and for those people who are unemployable and unable to take advantage of this opportunity, hopefully we'll be able to acknowledge their needs at some point in time. We are unable to meet them at present.

V. Anderson: Just to follow up on your last point, which perhaps indicated a sense of direction rather than what is really possible at the moment, I know many people would like to see an adequate standard of support established for people relatively close to the poverty level, and then see some kind of cost-of-living indexing system, so that increases would be relative and they would not fall behind once again -- as they have done over the last ten or 15 years. Compared to what we received for the same services a few years ago, we're certainly behind the cost of living.

Is the minister prepared to comment on the level of income that might be achievable in due course? How might it be automatically adjusted relative to the cost of living?

Hon. J. Smallwood: First of all, I'd like to acknowledge the debate that's happening at the federal level, where the Tory government is looking at ways of redefining poverty as the answer to meeting people's needs. It's a bit of a comedy to have a government spending so much time and energy debating what poverty is in this country, when those people we're serving are trying to feed, house and provide a safe environment for their children.

The low-income cutoff line -- which is a line that Statistics Canada refers to -- is when 60 percent of an income is spent on basic needs. It indicates that we are some 57 percent below that in this province. I think it's fair to say that with income assistance rates we are not meeting basic needs. We have a ways to go, if we are to use the low-income cutoff with StatsCan. Using that number, we are looking at a 40 percent increase in income assistance rates. I point out to the member that when we're talking about a budget of $1.8 billion, a 40 percent increase is completely out of the reach of this government. We are unable to make that leap or that commitment.

In addition to that, I think we need to recognize that a number of people cons