2006 Legislative Session: Second Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MARCH 23, 2006

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 8, Number 2

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of

Bills

Small Business and Revenue Statutes

Amendment Act, 2006 (Bill 14)

Hon. R. Thorpe

Income Trust Liability Act (Bill 13)

Hon. C. Taylor

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act,

2006 (Bill 15)

Hon. M. de

Jong

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Hartley Bay

N. Simons

Surrey business awards for cultural

diversity

D. Hayer

Kamloops BusinessCARE program

M. Karagianis

Life-saving awards

R. Lee

Paralympic athletes

C. Puchmayr

Val Anderson

D. Jarvis

Oral Questions

Safety of northern ferries

C. Trevena

Hon. K. Falcon

B. Ralston

M. Farnworth

Access to B.C. Ferries information

M. Farnworth

Hon. K. Falcon

Forest worker safety

C. Puchmayr

Hon. M. de

Jong

Health and safety impacts of

deregulation

M. Karagianis

Hon. M. de

Jong

TransLink governance review panel

D. Chudnovsky

Hon. K. Falcon

Community film commission funding

R. Fleming

Hon. O. Ilich

HarbourLynx tax exemption

J. Horgan

Hon. R. Thorpe

Tabling Documents

Aberfeldie

redevelopment, capital project plan report

Coquitlam dam seismic improvement

project, capital project plan report

Petitions

J. Rustad

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Employment and

Income Assistance

Hon. C.

Richmond

C. Trevena

Proceedings

in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Children

and Family Development (continued)

A. Dix

Hon. S. Hagen

S. Fraser

[ Page 3231 ]

THURSDAY, MARCH 23, 2006

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

Introductions by Members

S. Fraser: It gives me great pleasure to welcome a friend from my constituency, chief councillor Keith Atleo, all the way in from Ahousaht today. Would you please join me in welcoming him.

R. Hawes: Every year, each of us suffers — yes, we do suffer — an anniversary that some of us choose to forget. That's our birthday. Today is the birthday of our deputy Whip, and I would like to wish him…. He tells us he is 40-ish, and as a politician, I know he always tells the truth. So happy birthday to the deputy Whip.

Hon. R. Neufeld: It is a great pleasure for me to actually introduce a constituent from Peace River North, Stephanie Neraasen. She has lived in Fort St. John for seven years, works at the Oil and Gas Commission, and is a senior executive assistant in the executive office of the Oil and Gas Commission in Fort St. John. Along with her is Kate La Vertu, who also works for the OGC, but in the Victoria office.

Would the House make them welcome, please.

D. Hayer: I'm pleased to introduce today some very special guests: my constituents Dan and Frieda Reimer and their five great-granddaughters: Ariel Reimer, 16; Meaghan Nickelson, 13; Rebecca Nickelson, ten; and Sarah Nickelson, six, and Jennifer Nickelson, six, are twins.

All these great-grandchildren come from the riding of my colleague from Prince George North, the Minister of Agriculture and Lands. They are here to visit our Parliament Buildings and learn about how the government works, as well as Victoria. Would the House please make them very welcome.

[1405]

Hon. B. Penner: It's an honour for me to introduce two members of a longstanding conservation organization in British Columbia. Joining us today in the gallery are Tony Toth and Shaun Hollingsworth of the B.C. Wildlife Federation. Tony, as many members know, is the executive director of the B.C. Wildlife Federation, and Shaun Hollingsworth is the vice-president and treasurer. I ask that the House please make them welcome.

R. Fleming: It's my great pleasure to introduce a friend of mine who is with us in the gallery today, Adrienne Mercer, who also accompanied by a young woman named Indigo Smart. Indigo is a seven-year-old. She lives in James Bay. She's in grade two in French immersion at Sir James Douglas School in Fairfield. This young woman has a lot of questions about the provincial government. This is her first trip to the Legislature. Will the House please make them both feel welcome.

M. Farnworth: It's my pleasure to rise in the House and introduce Ms. Lynn Robinson and Mr. Laurence Hall and the students of Irvine Elementary School in my riding. Could the House please join me in welcoming them.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

SMALL BUSINESS AND REVENUE

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2006

Hon. R. Thorpe presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Small Business and Revenue Statutes Amendment Act, 2006.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I move Bill 14 be introduced and read for the first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Thorpe: This bill proposes a number of amendments to the taxation and revenue statutes administered by the Ministry of Small Business and Revenue. These amendments are made to ensure streamlining and simplification of how business is done in British Columbia, ensure fairness and equity for taxpayers, and enforce the laws of British Columbia.

The bill proposes amendments to the Assessment Act, the Income Tax Act, the International Financial Activity Act, the Property Transfer Tax Act, the Taxation (Rural Area) Act and the Tobacco Tax Act. I will elaborate on the nature of these amendments during second reading of this bill.

I move that Bill 14 be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 14, Small Business and Revenue Statutes Amendment Act, 2006, 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.

INCOME TRUST LIABILITY ACT

Hon. C. Taylor presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Income Trust Liability Act.

Hon. C. Taylor: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Taylor: I'm pleased to introduce the Income Trust Liability Act. This new legislation will ensure that investors in publicly traded income trusts are protected from being required to use their personal assets to indemnify trustees for their actions or defaults and will limit the scope of potential loss to an investor

[ Page 3232 ]

to the amount invested, a concept familiar to shareholders of a corporation. This new legislation will apply only to publicly traded income trusts and will not affect any other trust relationships or liability.

I move the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 13, Income Trust Liability Act, 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.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2006

Hon. M. de Jong presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2006.

[1410]

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: Bill 15 amends various statutes to, in some cases, clarify provisions; in a couple of cases, alter the provisions; and in a number of cases, make some genuinely minor housekeeping amendments.

Specifically, Bill 15 amends the following statutes: the Employee Investment Act, the Environmental Management Act, the Financial Information Act, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Act, the Human Resource Facility Act, the Innovation and Science Council Act, the Integrated Pest Management Act, the Motor Vehicle Act, the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act, the Small Business Venture Capital Act, the Transportation Act and the University Act.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 15, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2006, 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.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) HARTLEY BAY

N. Simons: Just over 36 hours have passed since the Queen of the North sank off Gil Island, in the unforgiving waters of the Inside Passage. I'm sure that all members of the House join me in hoping that the two missing passengers will be found. Our thoughts are with their families.

Our thoughts are also with the captain and his crew. Few of us can likely imagine the tremendous emotional stress this incident has caused. We must acknowledge their professionalism and training and thank them for doing their jobs well. We must also acknowledge the men and women of the Coast Guard, who we sometimes take for granted but who provide such a valuable service.

As is often the case in the midst of a tragedy, we learn something new about each other. Recognizing that two people are still missing and knowing that environmental damage of an unknown scale is taking place, we also learned, in this case, about the little community of Hartley Bay — home of the Gitga'at Nation, the little village with the big heart. Members of the Tsimshian cultural group, this community lies about 145 kilometres southeast of Prince Rupert.

In the rain and wind of early yesterday morning, their help was needed. With their VHF radios by their beds or on their kitchen tables, they heard the distress call. They have been taught by the older generation and from commercial fishers that the sea must always be respected and that it is active 24 hours a day. Everyone knows of its beauty and riches but also of its dangers.

Without question or hesitation they launched their boats, they gathered blankets, and food was prepared in the hope that survivors would be brought to the shore and would need their care. Within a few hours the community centre was filling up with passengers needing warmth and sustenance. The big-hearted little village provided the frightened passengers with what they needed before the Coast Guard vessel Sir Wilfrid Laurier took them to Prince Rupert.

This is primarily a sad story — for the two missing passengers, for the loss of a beautiful ship, for the fear that's etched in the minds of those who were on board and for the poisons that have spilled into our waters. But it's also a story about the strength of the little village and the strength of character that emerges in a time of difficulty — a story of the band members; the residents of Hartley Bay; the Tsimshian Nation, our first nations brothers and sisters; commercial fishers; and the coastal communities in general.

SURREY BUSINESS AWARDS

FOR CULTURAL DIVERSITY

D. Hayer: I want to take this opportunity to talk about some very successful businesses in my community and to congratulate those who, last night, were the winners of the Surrey Delta Immigrant Services Society's 11th Annual Culture and Diversity Awards for Business. I attended these events last night in the riding of Surrey-Tynehead with two of my colleagues.

I was tremendously impressed with the quality and the success of the finalists who were up for the awards. This annual acknowledgment of Surrey businesses which have succeeded in cultural diversity is something that all British Columbians can be very proud of. The success of these businesses is based on the owner-

[ Page 3233 ]

ship, the management and the employees who, by all working together, contribute to this excellent work.

Eleven years ago when I was the president of Surrey Chamber of Commerce, I helped on the committee that started these awards. I am very proud to have attended each of these award nights.

[1415]

Today I want to congratulate all the finalists and recognize those who won last night. Winning the award for businesses with one to 25 employees was my constituent from Surrey-Tynehead Catherine Levan, president of Kickstart Communications; for youth entrepreneur, Ms. Sendip Gill and her business SRS Packaging Services; for the corporate category, Tony Singh, president of Fruiticana.

For a business with 26 employees, owner Anand Kishore and Canada Washworld; in the not-for-profit category, Jim King, executive director of the Surrey Crime Prevention Society; and in the public institutions category, Surrey Public Library. I ask the House to join me in congratulating all those outstanding award winners.

KAMLOOPS BUSINESSCARE PROGRAM

M. Karagianis: In Kamloops last week a number of us here in the opposition caucus heard about a marvellous business assistance initiative that's being run by Venture Kamloops, a very successful program called BusinessCARE. BusinessCARE provides coaching services to new business ventures or businesses that want to expand. The goal of the program is to establish relationships between community businesses and economic developers, and to strengthen existing companies, establish early warning systems to flag at-risk businesses that might require assistance and, further, to ensure that programs meet local business needs.

BusinessCARE provides two options for coaching. The basic model provides a feasibility assessment for new startups and business in the early stage of the operations. A coach works with the new business on where to start or how to move forward. The first hour of coaching is free, and the fees beyond that are very modest. The service is confidential, one-to-one, and can last as long as the client needs it.

The advance model is for existing business that is growing and expanding their operations or may need more in-depth coaching in order to progress. In that situation, a team of specialized business coaches work with the business, covering topics that include marketing, financial management, human resources, personnel development, and health and safety. There are no eligibility criteria for participants other than a desire to access coaching as a tool to move their business forward.

BusinessCARE has a terrific track record. Eighty-eight percent of the new businesses that have opened are still operating after a three-year period, 131 clients have been retained from previous years, and 155 new coaching clients came on board in 2004. Those were the most recent statistics they had.

It is a great model for other communities to emulate. I would like to say congratulations to Venture Kamloops for really coming up with a successful and innovative program, and I would hope that is the kind of program other communities can benefit from.

LIFE-SAVING AWARDS

R. Lee: Last Saturday I had the honour to meet some great British Columbians who had courageously rescued others under very dangerous situations. They are medal recipients of the Lifesaving Society. At the 94th annual Commonwealth honour and rescue awards ceremony, eight volunteers earned certificates of thanks or service medals.

Nicole Liddell received a service cross for her efforts in establishing supports to water incident research and life-saving sport competitors.

Silver medals were presented to Curtis Besse, Dean Rochon, Lyle Armour, Clinton Coutts, Eloise Drake, Ron Moyen, Lucia Gauvin, Kelly Sherman, Jim Sutherland and Kylie Walsh for meritorious services in saving lives.

Silver medals for bravery, which acknowledge rescue involving significant acts of bravery, were awarded to Hal Fraser Bringeland, Darwyn Hermann, Brad Reber, Garnet Smith and Clayton Hickey.

Clayton Hickey was also presented with a governor's gold medal for the most heroic rescue of the year. He rescued a three-year-old boy trapped under an overturned and sunken boat near the Nanaimo harbour last summer. By acting quickly, diving into the dark water, reaching around and clutching the small leg, he managed to bring the boy to the surface, saving his life.

The boy's father said: "I don't think just anyone could have done that. Some people act, and some people think. But he acted, and I think he is a hero, whether he admits it or not."

Bravery is a precious virtue. I would like the House to join me in honouring these brave British Columbians.

[1420]

PARALYMPIC ATHLETES

C. Puchmayr: Last Sunday, March 19, the 2006 Paralympic Games wrapped up in Torino, Italy. The games take place three weeks after the closing of the first Olympic Games in the same host city using the same facilities. The Paralympics are open to athletes with physical and sensory disabilities, including amputees and athletes with cerebral palsy, mobility disabilities and visual disabilities.

The name Paralympics derives from the Greek word para , which means alongside, in reference to the competition being held in parallel to the Olympic Games. The first Paralympic Games were held in Rome in 1960, and the first Paralympic Winter Games were held in Sweden in 1976.

Canada sent 34 athletes, of whom eight were from British Columbia. Alpine skiing — Matthew Hallat of Coquitlam, Brad Lennea of Whistler, Scott Patterson

[ Page 3234 ]

of Vancouver, Bobby Taylor of West Vancouver and Lauren Wolstencroft of Victoria. In wheelchair curling, the gold medal was won by Gerald Austgarden of Westbank, Gary Cormack of Surrey and Sonja Gaudet of Vernon.

Daniel Wesley is a member of my community, and he is a longtime Paralympian. He won three medals in Salt Lake City: one gold, one silver and one bronze. He also blazed the trail for generations of elite athletes with disabilities.

Lauren Wolstencroft is known as the Winter Paralympic golden girl — an incredible athlete who has been skiing since she was four years old.

Paralympians surmount many barriers and choose to compete for the thrill of sport. The Paralympics embody the true Olympic spirit. Let's please acknowledge all the athletes in Canada, including the athletes in British Columbia, who represented us so proudly in the Paralympic Games.

VAL ANDERSON

D. Jarvis: I'd like to talk about a friend of mine, Val Anderson, who is also an old friend of this Legislature after having served almost 14 years here. Val has just had recent surgery, and it was not successful, unfortunately. He is moving to palliative care soon.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, Val is a very kind and gentle man. On research of Hansard, it shows that in his 14 years he spoke on 3,316 specific subjects.

I want to put on record a letter that Val has written to the MLAs of this province, and I hope you will bear with me. An open letter to all British Columbia MLAs.

Greetings, and thanks for your many letters and messages of personal support. They mean a lot.

I have had much time to reflect, and so I

would like to share what I believe are two of the most important principles of government that are often taken for granted and overlooked.

The first principle is the need for

governments to encompass an appreciation of family relationships. Every person, whether or not they consider themselves currently part of a family union, has or has had the experience of a family relationship. So to care for a person, one must always take into account the nature of that family and its relationship. To do otherwise is to contribute to the problem and to make it unsolvable. This awareness does not seem often to be present in the workings of government agencies.

A second principle is that the legislation

must not only be legal, but more importantly, it must be fair. It may indeed be that a number of the legislative acts are unjust to an individual or group of individuals. Many

interpretations of legal language create and/or prevent justice in the name of right action. Laws should be made to protect those in need rather than creating more inequities. Concern and compassion must overrule bureaucratic and political persuasions. To do anything less continues to create an unjust society for many.

Laws need to be re-examined continually to

see if they protect the individual or groups in our society. Unless we care and are very vigilant, many will suffer every day for being who they are, often because of circumstances beyond their control. Not to treat them with respect and support them in opportunities is to fail in our duties as MLAs. After all, our aim is to affirm them in their recoveries, especially by having faith in them.

Thank you for your patience in reading this

letter and perhaps talking to each other about these principles as you work together to do the right thing. After all, our aim is to support those in their recovery by believing that will help and that they can renew their lives.

Sincerely yours,

Val Anderson, MLA

[1425]

Mr. Speaker: Val, I understand you are watching, and I just want to say, on behalf of all of us, our prayers are with you.

[Applause.]

Oral Questions

SAFETY OF NORTHERN FERRIES

C. Trevena: I think the whole House is anxious about the fate of the two people missing after the sinking of the Queen of the North . Our thoughts must go to their families.

But we have also got to continue to ask questions about the safety of the northern fleet. We are getting conflicting views from the Premier, who says that the fleet is safe, and the Transportation Minister, who won't commit and says it's up to the Transportation Safety Board.

This is our marine highway, and these are our ferries. We pay $127 million a year, and the Minister of Finance is the sole shareholder. So I would like to ask the Minister of Transportation whether he can assure my constituents and all B.C.'ers that the northern ferry fleet is safe.

Hon. K. Falcon: Yes, I can assure the member that the vessels that ply the waters of British Columbia are safe. In fact, I can assure the member that B.C. Ferries has one of the best safety records in the world.

Now, having said that, that member knows and certainly members of the opposition that were in government during the 1990s know that there have been incidents, including during the 1990s, where there have been some horrific accidents that have taken place. Indeed, there have even been some fatalities. Every member of this House knows that our thoughts and prayers go out to all those that suffer injuries or indeed even fatalities in some of these incidents that have taken place.

But I want that member to know that every single vessel is certified by Transport Canada and has to receive an annual inspection certificate. In fact, the Queen of the North received hers a number of weeks ago — on March 2, I believe was the date. That is a top-to-bottom survey to ensure that that vessel is capable of plying the waters in a safe manner.

[ Page 3235 ]

As a final point, that vessel has been plying the waters of the Inside Passage for over 25 years without incident. I think that goes to the safety issue.

Mr. Speaker: The member for North Island has a supplemental.

C. Trevena: Yes, the Queen of the North may have been working for 25 years and have an annual inspection certificate, but I know that the minister and the government had some further information about the fleet and about this particular vessel — information that the public no longer has because B.C. Ferries isn't accountable to this House or to the public.

At a meeting of the North and Mid-Coast Ferry Advisory Committee in November 2001, the CEO at the time, Bob Lingwood, presented the following information about the Queen of the North . In 2001 he said: "The damage stability regulation means that the vessel will be used only in calmer periods of the year."

Surely, March on the north coast is not one of the most calm periods of the year. I would like to ask the minister whether he can explain why nothing appears to have been done with this information and why the Queen of the North was still operating.

Hon. K. Falcon: I think it's worth pointing out for the benefit of the member that since 2001, there has been over $16 million in expenditure made on that vessel to improve the safety of that vessel, to overhaul the engines, to do some deck work. That has been extensive. But the member should also know — and one of the things I mentioned yesterday in the House that I'll reinforce today — that we do have an obligation to be a little bit careful in not making assumptions about what may or may not have caused this very serious incident.

One thing that might give the member comfort is to know that the Transportation Safety Board, which is an organization that…. I know of no one…. No independent person has ever criticized their ability or integrity to get to the bottom of these problems.

[1430]

The member should know that the investigations they undertake include reviewing all records, interviewing all the crews, interviewing all the passengers and, of course, doing computer simulations. They will do whatever it takes to try and get to the bottom of what caused this very unfortunate incident.

Mr. Speaker: The member for North Island has a further supplemental.

C. Trevena: I'm not making assumptions, nor am I questioning the thoroughness of the Transportation Safety Board's investigation, but this government does have a certain amount of responsibility for the safety of the vessels. This is information that was presented by the then CEO of B.C. Ferries in November 2001 when this government was in power and the minister was at that cabinet table.

If I can tell the minister what Mr. Lingwood had to say at the same time about the Queen of Prince Rupert. This is the vessel the Queen of the North is replacing, and the vessel that's about to return to service. The CEO said in November 2001: "The damage stability regulation and the level-two survey work on the Queen of Prince Rupert means that the vessel is no longer serviceable beyond 2004. Therefore, an appropriate used vessel must be located on the market or a new ship constructed."

I would like to ask the Minister of Transportation why no action was taken by his government to meet these concerns.

Hon. K. Falcon: I do think that question gives rise to a larger issue — an issue that was very important to our government. In 2001 we inherited a B.C. Ferry Corp. that was, frankly, in chaos. There was a complete lack of leadership, there was very damaged morale, and there was a history of some just absolutely appalling capital investment decisions that starved the fleet of the ability to have some commonsense investments made.

As a result of that, we followed the recommendations of three independent reports, including the Auditor General, that had one common suggestion. That suggestion was that you needed to set up an independent authority, independent of political and bureaucratic interference, so that they could move forward, as they are now today, on an investment program that is the largest in the history of the B.C. Ferries Corp. over 46 years.

They are investing hundreds of millions of dollars in new vessels. They have retrofitted 28 of the 35 vessels in the fleet, and they continue to acquire and build new vessels to make sure they can have a fleet that is operating as safely as possible for all British Columbians.

B. Ralston: Indeed, the government did make choices after 2001. But the government also knew in November 2001 that the ships of the northern fleet were not in compliance with Transport Canada regulations. Mr. Lingwood, the CEO of B.C. Ferries, said of the Queen of Chilliwack , also part of the northern fleet: "The damage stability regulation means that ships will not be serviceable after the 2003 summer service

schedule and must be retired." That was information provided to the government in November 2001. Why does it appear that the government ignored this information and only began to act on this information close to some five years later?

Hon. K. Falcon: I think the member perhaps inadvertently is ignoring the information that I'm sharing with the members of the tens of millions of dollars that were invested in those vessels. I think the member also conveniently overlooks an important fact, and that is that Transport Canada will not certify any vessel to operate in the waters of British Columbia unless they meet their annual inspection certificate. That is a very rigorous top-to-bottom review of these vessels.

[ Page 3236 ]

In fact, I have spoken in the past to a former inspector who worked with Transport Canada, and I spoke specifically about the issue of ferry safety following a meeting I had with the president of the union. One of the things that always stood out in my mind is that he was very clear about the fact that no vessel will operate in the waters of British Columbia unless that vessel is safe to operate. That remained so then, and that remains so today.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Surrey-Whalley has a supplemental.

B. Ralston: Can the minister, then, advise the House whether the damage stability regulation came into force in 2003 and whether or not the government sought exemption from that particular regulation in order to remain in compliance?

[1435]

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm not familiar with the regulation the member is referring to, but if the member could be good enough to share that with me, I would be happy to look into that for him.

M. Farnworth: In 2003 B.C. Ferries estimated the useful life of these ships at between 20 and 40 years in their service plan. One year later the estimated life was listed at 40 years. Can the minister tell why B.C. Ferries removed the lower estimate of 20 years?

Hon. K. Falcon: I can't comment directly on that, but what I can tell the member is that when the Coastal Ferry Act was put into place on April 1, 2003, there was specific direction given to B.C. Ferries that those three vessels were to be replaced within a ten-year period. As the member opposite may know, by 2012 Transport Canada would be bringing in new regulations which would mean these vessels could not continue to operate on the Inside Passage. Those directions were put in place so we could get the ball rolling on replacing these vessels.

In 2004, as the member knows, B.C. Ferries went through a community consultation to make sure that communities, as these members opposite often remind us, should be consulted on these issues. So they had an opportunity to talk about what kind of vessels they would like, what kind of amenities they want to see in those vessels.

Following us receiving that report in the end of November of 2004, in March 2005 government gave the Ministry of Transportation a financial mandate — a mandate to negotiate with B.C. Ferries and engage in an agreement so that they could move forward and acquire three new vessels. We completed those negotiations at the end of December of last year, and we just recently finalized the financial details so the ferries can indeed move forward in replacing those three vessels.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain has a supplemental.

ACCESS TO B.C. FERRIES INFORMATION

M. Farnworth: The minister is giving a fair amount of information in terms of his answers, but a lot of the questions that are being asked are arising out of decisions that were taken or not taken during the past five years. These are questions that could have been asked by the public or by outside agencies or by outside consultants and experts in the marine industry if, for example, B.C. Ferries was covered under the Freedom of Information Act. One of the problems we have today is that it's not.

In terms of the actions that the government can take — and Transport Canada will be doing its own investigations, but in terms of the actions that the government can take — will the minister make a step today in terms of assuring British Columbians about what's taking place at B.C. Ferries in terms of the refits, the overhauls, the planning, those sorts of things that are taking place? Will the minister take that step and put B.C. Ferries back under the Freedom of Information Act?

Hon. K. Falcon: You know, the members opposite talk about accountability. I can only assume they harken back to the nirvana that apparently was the accountability when they were responsible for the B.C. Ferry Corp. We know what happened in the total lack of accountability and the hundreds of millions of dollars that were wasted in capital decisions that made not a lot of sense.

I've said in this House before that when it comes to accountability, there is an independent ferries commissioner — independent of government and independent of the board — that acts in the interests of the public. There is an independent board of directors with representation from labour and representation from communities. There are coastal ferry advisory committees that provide information to the Ferry Corp. There are annual audited financial statements.

There is an annual general meeting where all members of the public have the opportunity to come forward and personally question the senior management of the B.C. Ferry Corp. There is more accountability today with B.C. Ferries than there ever was under the opposition, when they managed that corporation.

[1440]

FOREST WORKER SAFETY

C. Puchmayr: There have been three accidents involving logging trucks this week — three in the past 48 hours. At least two of these accidents have created fatalities. There is an alarming link between this government's deregulation of this sector — in some cases, the engineered standards of logging roads — and the number of accidents in the workplace. I am not prejudging these accidents, but merely trying to prevent further deaths.

To the Labour Minister: will the minister agree that there is a direct correlation between cuts to regulations and accidents in the forest sector?

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for the question.

[ Page 3237 ]

Of course, again, for those families who are now experiencing that worst of all possible feelings and tragedies, our thoughts and condolences.

I won't offer the confirmation that the member is seeking, because I cannot. As difficult as it is to look at numbers around fatalities — and we all in this House agree that one is too many…. But there is this notion about going back to the good old days. Well, in 1996, 40 people in forestry died. That ain't such a good old day. In 1997, 41 people died. In 2004, 16 people died.

Now, I am not prepared to say the opposite of what the member says — that there is a correlation to what took place — because I don't think the numbers support that either. But they certainly don't support the proposition that the member…. There's a combination of factors here that we want to work on, that we are working on, and we are going to do everything humanly possible to make forestry a safer industry to work in.

Mr. Speaker: Member for New Westminster has a supplemental.

C. Puchmayr: On December 5, 2005, in Vancouver the United Steelworkers held a B.C. Forest Fatality Summit. I was in attendance, and so was the Labour Minister. I want to quote something that the Labour Minister said at that summit. The Labour Minister said: "The observations that I have heard from a number of you — that the industry has changed and our regulatory regime has not caught up — is a proposition that I would agree with." These are the comments of the Labour Minister then.

As a result of the government's deep cuts to regulations, WorkSafe B.C. has a reduced ability to enforce standards that protect workers. Will the Minister of Labour commit today to conduct an independent inquiry involving all stakeholders, including WorkSafe B.C., specifically to address deregulation and the impact that it is having on workers today?

Hon. M. de Jong: I didn't just make those comments there. I've made them in this House.

The industry has changed, and we need to be prepared to change with it. It's why the Forestry Safety Council was established in the first place. It's why, when suggestions have been made to engage in dialogue, reviews…. It's why, in the immediate aftermath of that meeting, I wrote to the head of WorkSafe B.C. and asked and directed them to engage in a full review of all the policies. It's why, when the suggestion was made by the Steelworkers that a specific coroner be established to review fatalities in forestry, we said: "That's a good idea." It's unfortunate that it's required, but it's a good idea. Yesterday it happened, and that individual was hired.

HEALTH AND SAFETY IMPACTS

OF DEREGULATION

M. Karagianis: Just several days ago in estimates, I repeatedly asked the minister responsible for deregulation if the cuts in regulations had resulted in any gaps, risks or liabilities. The minister said: "We have said, and we have held true to our word, that we would not compromise regulatory reduction and put safety at jeopardy, put people's health at jeopardy or put the environment at jeopardy. Those are principles that we have clearly lived by."

My question is to the Minister of Small Business. Will you now admit that people's health and safety have been jeopardized by regulatory cuts?

[1445]

Hon. M. de Jong: I know it may be politically attractive to try and construct some kind of boogeyman out there. The numbers that I have just related again to the House are appalling, but they transcend any of the matters or changes that the member has referred to. I could say to the member in reply: you know, in 2004 we had the…. It's hard to call it the best, but we had the fewest fatalities in living memory, and maybe that was attributable to the changes that were made.

I think it's far more complicated than that, and I think it's unfortunate that the member would try and limit the discussion to any single matter when it's pretty clear that there has been a longstanding culture of risk in forestry operations in this province that needs to change. We are doing everything possible to make that change happen.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Esquimalt-Metchosin has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: Well, a 30-percent cut to regulations in WCB, 154,000 regulations cut across government. The Minister of Small Business was very explicit about the fact that 40.2 percent of regulations were cut in government.

I repeatedly asked whether this dramatic reduction and elimination in regulations resulted in any gaps, risks or liabilities, and I was assured that safety had not been compromised in any way.

Again, my question is to the minister responsible for deregulation: will you admit that in fact there have been gaps, risks and liabilities and that personal safety has been put in jeopardy?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm not sure that the member and I are going to have a meeting of the minds on this, but her proposition, again, seems to be: take us back to the good old days. They weren't good. If the member's proposition to this House is to re-create that regulatory regime that was in place ten years ago, then I say no, because the results were appalling.

The results last year in forestry were also appalling. That's why we've hired more enforcement officials. That's why I applaud the Forest Safety Council for having an ombudsman put in place. That's why we've applied additional resources, and that's why there's a dedicated coroner now to try and get to the heart of some of these issues. That's how we're going to deal with this — not by trying to find political boogeymen

[ Page 3238 ]

out there. It is to go to the heart of the matter and change a culture of risk that has existed for too long in forestry.

TRANSLINK GOVERNANCE REVIEW PANEL

D. Chudnovsky: Earlier this month the Minister of Transportation announced what he called an independent panel to review the governance structure of TransLink. That review committee includes one individual whose firm has donated over $32,000 to the B.C. Liberal Party since 2001 and another individual who sits on the board of Partnerships B.C. and served as a special adviser to the Premier.

My question to the Minister of Transportation: given that he called the review "independent," does he agree that to ensure public confidence in the process (1) the report of the committee, (2) all preliminary reports submitted to the minister and (3) any other material provided to the minister by the committee should be made public?

Hon. K. Falcon: I thank the member for the question.

These are, in fact, three eminent British Columbians that are serving on this board. The individual that you refer to, I must confess, I did not know personally at all. I don't believe I've ever met him prior to appointing him to the board. I am pleased to find out that he apparently is a supporter of good, free enterprise government.

What I can say is that all three of these individuals bring extraordinary decades of public service and private sector involvement and experience in understanding how to operate and run large organizations, and I look forward to receiving their report. I wouldn't have any problem whatsoever with making that report public once I'm finished dealing with it.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Vancouver-Kensington has a supplemental.

[1450]

D. Chudnovsky: Thanks to the minister for what I think is a partial response to my question. I just want to get down to the details. What I asked for was three things. I think that those three things be made public. I think that it's fair to the public to ask for this level of transparency on such an important investigation.

Those three things are, first, the final report of the committee to the minister…. This hand-picked committee reports directly to the minister, so first the final report of the committee should be made public. It seems to me the minister has made that commitment in this House, and we thank him for it. But there are two other things we believe should be made public. The second one is any preliminary reports that go to the minister from the committee. The third one — any other information that is forwarded by the committee to the minister. I ask him today whether he will commit to making those public as well.

Hon. K. Falcon: As much as I try to appease the opposition critic, I'm afraid today I'm going to have to tell him no on two of those three questions. But I can assure the member that once that final report is put in place and once I have had an opportunity as minister to review that final report, I will have no hesitation in sharing it with the members opposite.

COMMUNITY FILM COMMISSION FUNDING

R. Fleming: My question is for the Minister of Tourism, Sport and the Arts. The Greater Victoria Film Commission announced today that because of municipal support, they won't have to close their doors by the end of the year. The commission had sought stable, increased funding from the provincial government. Why did this government fail to step up and ensure this film commission was properly resourced when threatened with closure?

Hon. O. Ilich: In fact, we are providing stable funding to the whole film industry. We do provide, in the form of tax credits…. In Victoria there are additional tax credits that are provided, and there is also regional money that goes to the film commission.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Victoria-Hillside has a supplemental.

R. Fleming: It is with reluctance that I point out that tax credits don't flow to the film commissions.

My supplementary question is…. The Liberal government promised a review of film commission funding for all the regional commissions in the province over a year ago, but to date no action has been taken. Now the Union of B.C. Municipalities has stepped into this debate. They're requesting that this be done.

My question to the minister: when will the government commit to undertake the review and ensure that community film commissions can plan long term to continue the valuable work they do in regional economies?

Hon. O. Ilich: I would just like to note that film production this year is up about 50 percent over last year. In addition, the Victoria take on that has been up about $28 million.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

HARBOURLYNX TAX EXEMPTION

J. Horgan: Hon. Speaker, on March 9 the Premier and the Minister of Small Business and Revenue signed order-in-council 135, providing tax forgiveness of over $365,000 to the HarbourLynx ferry service. The following week, on March 15, the Minister of Labour signed an order rescinding that and in public said it was a clerical error.

[ Page 3239 ]

My question is to the Minister of Labour. Could he explain the clerical error that led the Premier of British Columbia to sign an order, along with the Minister of Revenue, forgiving tax of over $365,000?

[1455]

Hon. R. Thorpe: I can't discuss the specific discussions which take place at cabinet. I can and I will tell you, however, that cabinet gave this matter very, very serious consideration, and a decision was reached not to grant the remission.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca has a supplemental.

J. Horgan: The member, if he has his calendar available, will know that March 9 was a Thursday, and cabinet meets on a Wednesday. So that would have made this a corridor order. Now, I have some familiarity with these issues, and I do know that legislative counsel gives green flags and red flags to these orders. I'm curious.

Again, to the Minister of Labour: could he explain to me why it was okay on a Thursday for the Premier and the Minister of Revenue to give a break to a company and the following week it was not?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker : Members.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I will not discuss the administrative details of cabinet. However, I can….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker : Members. The minister has the floor.

Hon. R. Thorpe: However, I can confirm that there was an administrative error in the processing of this order-in-council. It was acknowledged and rectified immediately through a rescinding order, OIC 140, on March 15.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. R. Neufeld: I have the honour to present two capital project plan reports pursuant to the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, one for Aberfeldie redevelopment and the second one for the Coquitlam dam seismic improvement project.

Petitions

J. Rustad: I'd like to table a petition on behalf of 309 students from the College of New Caledonia in Prince George regarding tuition fees.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call Committee of Supply in both committee rooms. In this chamber it will be the estimates of the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance and in

Section A, the Douglas Fir Committee Room, continuing estimates for the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

[1500]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EMPLOYMENT

AND INCOME ASSISTANCE

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); S. Hammell in the chair.

The committee met at 3:02 p.m.

On Vote 25: ministry operations, $1,369,415,000.

Hon. C. Richmond: Good afternoon, everyone. I'm here today to discuss the estimates for the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance. Before I begin my formal remarks, I'd like to take a moment to introduce some members of my ministry's executive who are here with me today. Cairine MacDonald is the deputy minister. Andrew Wharton is the assistant deputy minister of integrated social development service delivery. Sharon Moysey is the assistant deputy minister of management services division and executive financial officer, and David Curtis is executive director of the corporate planning and operations division.

These members of my executive, along with all staff at the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance, have truly shown me their dedication to public service and commitment to excellence. Their role in supporting me as minister is most valuable, and I thank them.

I would like to begin by noting that the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance budget for the current year is almost $1.4 billion, making it the fifth-largest ministry in the provincial government. Through our delivery of income assistance, disability assistance and employment programs, we directly contribute to the well-being of almost 140,000 British Columbians in need.

Our client base is as diverse as the communities we live in.

They include employable clients in need of short-term assistance; persons with significant and multiple barriers to employment, including those with mental health and addiction challenges; persons with disabilities experiencing significant restrictions in their ability to perform daily living activities; children living in the home of a relative when their own parents are unable to care for them; seniors aged 65 years or older; and low- and moderate-income families who are not direct clients of the ministry but who are eligible for health and dental assistance.

We provide services to these clients through the commitment of almost 2,000 professional staff who work out of 104 ministry offices,

[ Page 3240 ]

19 government agents branches and three service centres.

Through our partnership with external service providers, we deliver flexible and responsive employment programs to clients in all regions of the province. Over and above this substantial commitment of resources, the ministry has invested more than $16 million in new funding to provide $3 million to expand availability of a community volunteer supplement; $3 million to increase earning exemptions for persons with disabilities and persons with persistent multiple barriers; $1.4 million to double the school startup supplement; and $10 million to restore the seniors supplement.

Before I get into details about these initiatives, I'd like to talk about the evolving nature of our work and the accomplishments we've made in helping British Columbians most in need.

[1505]

One of the most difficult things we've had to do is make a fundamental shift in the perception of income assistance, from a culture of entitlement and dependency to one of employment and self-reliance. We remember every day the impact of the culture of entitlement and the effects it had in the mid-1990s on income assistance, when one out of every ten British Columbians was on income assistance — six out of ten single mothers in the province and one out of every seven British Columbia children. What a horrible waste of human potential. We never want to see those days again.

In 2001 this government knew that it could do better, so we got to work. In April 2002 we enacted new legislation guided by a goal that is twofold: helping people who are able to work to find and keep jobs, while providing the best system of supports for those who need it most.

I am pleased to say that we've had great success on both fronts. To date we've placed more than 46,000 of our clients directly into jobs — good jobs like painters, security officers, and hotel desk clerks. We've encouraged thousands more to find jobs on their own. This means there are over 112,000 British Columbians who no longer rely on income assistance, including 48,000 children who now have greater opportunities and more promising futures.

While we are thrilled at our success in helping people who can work to get into good jobs and keep them, we certainly know that not everybody is able to work. In fact, our caseload has changed dramatically over the last five years. As we have seen the number of employable people on income assistance decline, we've also seen a steady rise in our caseload of clients with disabilities and serious barriers to employment. In June 2001 the caseload for persons with disabilities was 43,000, and today it is 58,500 — an increase of 36 percent. Altogether, persons with disabilities and those with serious barriers to employment now make up more than two-thirds of our caseload. This is how it should be.

It has always been the cornerstone of my ministry's work to provide the best system of support for our most vulnerable clients, persons with disabilities. That's precisely why we are ensuring that the right supports are in place to achieve this goal. Last year, because of the excellent fiscal management of this government, we were able to follow through on this commitment in a big way. We invested an extra $55 million a year to increase disability assistance by $70 to $856 each month, benefiting more than 70,000 British Columbians.

This was the largest increase in the history of the province, making disability rates the highest income assistance available in B.C. and the third-highest in Canada.

As well, we continue to provide persons with disabilities with low-cost annual bus passes and enhanced medical coverage, including Medical Services Plan, no-deductible Pharmacare, dental and optical coverage, medical equipment and supplies, orthotics and medical transportation.

Along with caring for their financial and health needs, we are making it a priority to increase opportunities for people with disabilities to participate more in their communities. That's why we've invested $92 million in specialized disability employment programs since 2001 to assist them to work or volunteer as they are able.

We've created the Minister's Council on Employment for Persons with Disabilities, ensuring the ongoing provision and research of disability and employment supports. To date two significant projects have come out of this council: (1) the WorkAble Solutions marketing team to encourage and support B.C. employers to hire people with disabilities and (2) the Disability Supports for Employment Fund, providing $1 million each year to non-profit organizations that help those with disabilities in the workplace.

So far, my council has approved 45 grants from this fund, totalling more than $2 million and supporting projects run by the Neil Squire Foundation, Adaptive Technologies, the B.C. Paraplegic Association, the Canadian Mental Health Association and many other agencies throughout B.C.

To encourage more people with disabilities to enter the workforce, we've just raised the earnings exemption to $500 a month — the third increase made by this government since 2001. This means persons that with disabilities now have the opportunity to have an income of $1,356 each month when combined with their full support and shelter allowance.

[1510]

People with disabilities have told us that the earnings exemption has gone a long way in helping them pursue their employment goals and achieve greater personal and financial independence. That's our intention. We want persons with disabilities to enjoy opportunities in the workforce, confident in the knowledge that our programs and services will continue to support them.

I know these supports are making a real difference. Just recently I had the good fortune of presiding at a ceremony out in Saanich put on by Triumph, one of our service providers. It was an inspiring event hon-

[ Page 3241 ]

ouring the determination and courage of one particular British Columbian with disabilities who refused to give up on his dream of employment, despite serious head injuries and numerous personal tragedies that threatened to hold him back. To put it in his words: "I was on the scrap heap of life until somebody saw that there was something good in me somewhere and gave me that hand up and that assistance to get back into the workforce." This man now happily works at a local business making $12.50 an hour, using his skills as a craftsman in both metal and wood — a job he describes as great.

Stories like these are why we are investing in these employment programs, because his story is not the only one. His success represented the 1,000th success story of Triumph in serving people with disabilities. I am pleased to say this is just the beginning. Later this year we will be refining our disability employment programs so that they are the most effective they can be, ensuring the best service to clients and the best value to taxpayers.

Thanks to another surplus budget, we're expanding our community volunteer program by investing an additional $9 million over the next three years. This investment will give 2,500 more people with disabilities up to $100 each month to help them with the expenses of volunteering in their communities. As well, over the next three years my ministry will take a leadership role in developing an integrated and cooperative approach to delivering cross-ministry supports throughout the province. We are leading this strategy because people with disabilities are a high priority for my ministry. We're not just making our society accessible to them; we're including them.

There is another group of individuals on our caseload that is also a high priority. I'm talking about British Columbians with complex and unique challenges — people facing homelessness, mental illness and addiction. We recognize there are no simple answers for assisting these individuals and that our best solution lies in working together with other levels of government, municipalities and community organizations.

That's why two years ago this government created the Premier's Task Force on Homelessness, Mental Illness and Addictions. This task force of municipal and provincial leaders provides a multilevel, coordinated approach to developing long-term solutions to the complex issues of homelessness. As part of our contribution to the task force, we've begun a number of outreach initiatives throughout the province using creative partnership approaches to connect individuals with supports and services they need to integrate back into our community.

One of these projects is our homeless outreach in Vancouver's west end, south and downtown east side, where we've partnered with city social workers who literally go into the streets and alleys in the early morning hours to reach out to homeless and barriered individuals. We bring these individuals directly into our offices and fast-track their application for income assistance. At the same time, we help them find permanent housing and connect them with the medical services they need.

So far, over 95 percent of people we have brought into our offices have begun receiving income assistance and had a place to live within the same working day.

Another project sees us working alongside social workers from the health authority and the city of Vancouver as part of an urgent response team. We're taking ministry services directly to individuals in hospitals and detox centres so that they are supported with ongoing community and health services, both while they are in crisis and later as they re-establish themselves in the community.

[1515]

We are supporting similar workshops in Kamloops, expanding our outreach activities to assist all individuals with mental health, drug and alcohol abuse issues. Through an investment of $150,000, we are helping these folks back into the community, giving them access to housing, financial resources, transition and referral support services. So far we have had tremendous progress, helping close to 300 people begin a better life.

I believe this Kamloops integration project is a success because of the effective partnerships with local partners. These include the city of Kamloops, the Kamloops AIDS Society, B.C. Housing, the New Life Mission and the Forensic Psychiatric Services Commission.

Providing these individuals with income assistance, housing and community supports is the critical first step, but there's another step we are taking that is also very important. It's no use giving our most vulnerable citizens resources just to have them preyed upon every last Wednesday of the month. That's why, to safeguard their money, we are promoting direct deposit for our clients. We're doing this because direct deposit, often a cheaper alternative to the commercial money-cashing centres, ensures that our clients have a secure, safe and reliable system of handling their money.

Promoting direct deposit is just one measure we are taking to protect our clients. We simply will not tolerate the illegal activities of those who steal from our most vulnerable citizens or from taxpayers. That's why my ministry has also taken action to prevent fraud where it most commonly occurs.

Following a police sting operation in Vancouver's downtown east side, which uncovered unscrupulous landlords taking advantage of our clients, we established the housing integrated task team. This team is working to stop fraud in the area. This is not as easy as it sounds. We often discover that the same landlord owns several properties under different names, making it a challenge to identify them all at once. But through the work of the team, we are determined to do just that.

One preventive measure is doing regular checks, making sure clients are living in the rooms they are paying for. The team is also personally delivering assistance cheques to landlords for clients residing in seven downtown east side residences and withholding those cheques if clients are not living there.

Another type of fraud we are working to stop is identity theft or falsification of documents. Here we are

[ Page 3242 ]

partnering with the Burnaby police in their current investigation into identity creation rings, making sure no one is successful in their attempt to scam income assistance. To date, these prevention activities have saved hundreds of thousands of income assistance dollars from falling into the wrong hands.

So far I've talked about our outreach services and prevention services making a real difference in people's lives, but we would prefer that we get to a point where these services are no longer needed. That's why a priority of this government is to serve British Columbians early so that families facing the greatest difficulties have the supports to prevent challenges from turning into crisis.

This concern is shared by all of government and took the greatest priority in our last budget. That's why this government is investing an additional $421 million over four years to help ensure the well-being of vulnerable children.

This includes $72 million to add more social workers and other front-line staff, $100 million to enhance the child protection system, $34 million to increase funding for the child and youth with mental health disorders, $36 million to reduce wait-lists for services to children and youth with special needs, $31 million in additional support to implement five regional aboriginal child and family development service authorities, $2 million for the crystal meth secretariat to integrate and coordinate efforts to combat the production and use of crystal methamphetamine and $112 million in additional funding for K-to-12 education.

Beyond that, we are also investing $3 million over the next three years to extend the BladeRunners construction training and apprenticeship program for disadvantaged and multi-barriered youth; $76 million to expand universal hearing, sight and dental testing for every child in B.C. under the age of six; and nearly $200 million in social housing — the most ever spent in British Columbia.

These are significant investments, and to add to this, I think we can all agree the best way of helping children is to make sure their parents have a good job — in other words, helping families break free from the cycle of poverty, allowing our youngest citizens to build futures they can be proud of. We know that children in working families are better off than those supported by income assistance. They do better in school, and they do better later on as adults in the job market.

[1520]

That's why my ministry is spending more than $70 million this year in improved employment programs. This includes a new community assistance program, a new British Columbia employment program and specialized programs like our bridging employment program, which helps women who have faced abuse move toward independence. Together these programs will provide a full continuum of employment supports to help our clients find and keep jobs and succeed in today's labour market.

To help working families succeed, this government has greatly increased the income threshold for receiving child care subsidy from $21,000 to $38,000 per year, benefiting 6,500 more children and about 6,000 families who will receive an increase in their existing subsidy.

To ensure more money stays with working families, we've also reduced or eliminated provincial income taxes for about 730,000 British Columbians.

Besides a job, another fundamental need for B.C. families is good health, and to help our low-income families stay healthy, we're continuing to provide extra health supports and services. Last year we raised prescription eyeglasses coverage by $35 through the Healthy Kids program to ensure kids who need new glasses can have them each year.

We also increased payment for dental services to 80 percent of the dentist's fee guide, up from 63 percent, so low-income families have a better access to services they need. And we raised the monthly natal supplement from $35 to $45 to provide better pre- and post-natal nutrition and support for healthier mothers and babies.

Now with a ministry budget of almost $1.4 billion, an increase of more than 6½ percent over last year, we are able to provide even more. To assist families on income assistance, we're investing $4 million over three years to double the school startup allowance, providing $84 for each child under 12 and $116 for each child 12 or older. This is the first increase since 1993. This increase will benefit 29,000 children, giving them the tools and supports they need to succeed in the classroom.

These supports, giving B.C.'s children a solid start in life, are made possible because of this government's sound fiscal management and the excellent strength of our province's economy.

To bring this all together and ensure those who need our supports receive them, I give credit to the ongoing hard work of my regional ministry staff. On a daily basis they work personally with our clients to make sure their immediate needs are met and to help individuals going through a difficult time to once again be self-sufficient. They're doing an incredible job serving British Columbians with the highest standards of respect and sensitivity, ensuring fair and consistent service to all our clients throughout the province.

Since fair and consistent service is a priority for all of us, my ministry is developing a service code, a project that all ministry employees are involved in. This way we can continue to maintain the best level of service for our clients — service that all ministry staff can relate to, believe in and be proud of.

In all of our projects, the success my ministry has had in working together reaffirms for me that our government's priorities are on the right track and that the value of our investment reaches far beyond the dollar.

I now look forward to discussing the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance budget in greater detail and welcome comments from all hon. members present.

C. Trevena: I'd like to thank the minister, to welcome his staff — thank you for coming to help us out — and also to recognize the hard-working staff across

[ Page 3243 ]

the province. I know that they are dealing at times with very difficult issues in very trying circumstances, and I know that they're working extraordinarily hard.

The budget that we had come down in February has been described as a children's budget, and I know the minister has been describing issues affecting what the ministry is doing to assist children. I note that the minister started by describing how it was in the 1990s, when one out of every seven children was living in a family on income assistance. I think that we have a challenging problem, because now we have one in four children in poverty, so it seems that the situation is getting worse rather than better.

[1525]

We're seeing increased usage of food banks. I know that in the minister's own hometown of Kamloops, one in four of the users of the food bank there are children, which, sadly, neatly reflects the level of child poverty in our province. I think it is a disgraceful level. I think that we should all, all of us, be ashamed of it — that we can have a society where one in four children is in poverty, where 24,000 children provincewide are using food banks, where pregnant women have to rely on hampers at food banks and have to have donations of diapers and where people can't afford basic nutrition. I think we all have to question what this means for us as a society.

My colleague, the member for Vancouver-Kingsway…

D. Chudnovsky: The other guy.

C. Trevena: …the other guy, was in the estimates process talking to the Minister of Children and Family Development, and he asked the minister about child poverty. I think we're all very concerned about this and want to put it on the agenda and want to make sure that the issues are addressed while we have the opportunity to question ministers and do have this chance. He asked the Minister of Children and Family Development about child poverty, and that minister responded that this responsibility lies with the Minister of Employment and Income Assistance, so I would, first off, like to ask the minister whether he does take responsibility for child poverty?

Hon. C. Richmond: Just let me begin by saying the statistic that the member repeats very often of one in four children in poverty is not correct. It's at least three years old, and an awful lot has happened in British Columbia in the last three years.

I'm going to give you — since statistics seem to be important here — the statistics put out by HungerCount , which are only four months old. This is a report released in November of last year, just four months ago, by the Canadian Association of Food Banks. They're not our figures; they're theirs. It shows that the number of people in British Columbia using food banks is down 10½ percent, and the number of children using food banks is down 9.1 percent.

Although 45 percent of food banks have reported an increase in food bank use, food bank usage has decreased for the province as a whole. Eight thousand fewer people in the province visited a food bank this year compared to last. It shows that B.C.'s strong economy is helping more people find good jobs and build brighter futures for themselves and their families. It also shows that the largest users of food banks are single people.

I'm glad that the member had a chance to visit the food bank in Kamloops run by Marg Spina. I've been there many times myself. In fact, I was there just about a week or ten days ago taking a few things over to her. She's a very innovative person. When these young people, who are the biggest users of food banks, come in for food, she also has what she calls the store, I believe it is, where they have clothing, computers, all sorts of things — shoes, used skis, used everything that people donate.

When young people want these items, she puts them to work in the food bank doing whatever is required. They even have a community garden. I believe the member mentioned that the other day in a talk she was giving. It shows the innovation of Marg. I've known her for many, many years. She's been a good friend and supporter for a long time. She doesn't just hand them these things out of the store. They work for them, and they get points for working. So she is also instilling in them a work ethic. When you want something that you see in the store, whether it's a computer or a coat or whatever it is, you work in her food bank and earn points, and then you acquire these things.

[1530]

She's also receiving an award next week, I believe it is, from the Premier for outstanding citizen, because she truly is. But that's the way, to me, that a food bank should work. My colleague from Kamloops–North Thompson mentioned it in a speech he made the other day, simply because when you go there you can't help but come away with a feeling that this is the way a food bank should be run.

Another interesting statistic is…. Even if your statistic of one in four children was correct, you could imagine what it would be if the stats were still the same as they were in the mid-'90s, when one in seven children were in families on income assistance. Now that figure is down to one in 30. If it were still the same, can you imagine what would be happening at food banks today?

In December of 2001 there were 85,000 children, or about 6 percent of the child population, in families on income assistance. In 2005 there were 35,000 children, down to 3 percent of the child population, or only one in 30. I think that is tremendous progress, and once again I question your statistic of one in four.

C. Trevena: I take it that that means no, you aren't taking responsibility for child poverty, although the levels of poverty have quite clearly risen in the last five years. I think you just have to go to Kamloops — to the food bank, where kids play in the food bank. Go to the area where everybody can see the poverty, where it is the focus for poverty in our province — the downtown

[ Page 3244 ]

east side. Go, I think, to any community to see the increase in poverty.

I'm not going to quibble on figures. The HungerCount figures — yes, they're the ones that we're using. They're the ones that you are also using. They are the most recent figures we have, and while there may be fewer children now living in families on income assistance, I suspect that's largely because fewer families have access to income assistance. I think that none of us can really avoid the fact that one in four kids — 2003 figures, one in four kids — are living in poverty. In 2003 this government was in power.

We have food banks. We talk about the good food bank in Kamloops, and I agree. It is a very vibrant food bank, and Marg does a fantastic job in making this happen. But we have kids playing at food banks, and we have food banks as part of our society. In Kelowna I was talking to workers there, and we have kids going to school hungry, kids who stop by the food bank on the way to school because they haven't had breakfast because their parents can't afford to give them breakfast. We have kids who go to an after-school program who go straight for the snacks because they haven't eaten all day.

As one worker said to me: "We're starving our children." I'd like to ask the minister whether he'll take responsibility for that.

Hon. C. Richmond: For the member to assert that we don't care about child poverty or don't take responsibility for it is just nonsense. What we are doing in this government is working across ministries. Children are not just the responsibility of this ministry, but of Health, of Education, of the Ministry of Children and Families and others.

We are working very hard in this government to break down the old mentality of silos, which has been prevalent in government — not only this government, but governments everywhere — for far too long. This is why the Premier developed the Caucus Committee on Social Development, where all of these ministries get together, usually on a weekly basis, and try to knock down the silos and work across ministries.

That's when I say we're spending $421 million over the next four years out of this budget. It's not all being spent in one ministry. It's being spent across government, and it's being spent on children — $421 million — because children are the most vulnerable in our society, and we take it very seriously.

[1535]

In my opening remarks I outlined where all this $421 million was going, and it's coming from across government. They were the focal point of this year's budget.

A couple of other statistics that we have to quote and we have to rely on. We have reviewed the possibility of including poverty measures in our service plan and determined that it would not be appropriate for the following reasons: reporting on low income–cut off rates across the province is already included as a performance indicator in the B.C. Progress Board series of benchmark reports. The issue of poverty does not fit within a single ministry — as I have just said. No single organization owns or has the solution to poverty.

That's why we're working diligently across government to knock down the silos. We're working with other agencies; with municipalities; with service providers; with advocacy groups; and, of course, with everyone who is interested in children, as we all are. I'll leave it at that for the moment.

C. Trevena: I agree that we do need to have cross-governmental cooperation, because it's the only way that we're going to work, if we all do talk to each other. But we do still have the problem of massive poverty in our province.

In the service plan the ministry says, as you say, that it's part of a larger network of assistance. It states that "clients receiving our assistance and supports may also receive additional benefits, including the Canada Pension Plan, National Child Benefit or child care subsidy — thereby substantially increasing their available income financial independence." The money provided by the federal government, however, is deducted from assistance rates, so the issue of federal-provincial transfers is always one of contention. I would like to know how much of the federal child benefit is kept by the ministry.

Hon. C. Richmond: The National Child Benefit all goes to the client.

C. Trevena: This would mean, then, that the basic benefit rate a single person gets is completely topped up by the National Child Benefit and there is no clawback at all — is that what the minister is saying?

[1540]

Hon. C. Richmond: Sorry for the delay. We were just trying to find you a complete answer to this.

B.C. has never discriminated against families on welfare by clawing back increases in the National Child Benefit supplement from income assistance rates. The fully integrated B.C. family bonus and NCB supplement is received by low-income families in B.C., whether they are on income assistance or not. In fact, the ministry tops up families who do not receive or receive less than the maximum amount of National Child Benefit supplement family bonus per child each month up to $123.50 per child.

C. Trevena: It's interesting how we can play with figures. The National Council of Welfare has looked at this and has some statistics on how much families are getting on income assistance across the country. It compares them across the country. So a parent on income assistance…. Let's say a two-parent family on income assistance actually now has a lower income than they did in 1989 when the minister was the minister for the same responsibility in the Socred government.

If we use a fixed dollar amount, a 2004 dollar, in 1989 a single parent with one child would receive $15,366 and now they receive $13,778. The federal por-

[ Page 3245 ]

tion of this has actually increased from $1,669 to $3,467. So the federal amount has gone up, but people are actually losing money. Welfare has gone down. I would like to ask the minister how he can explain this, if the ministry isn't clawing back the benefit.

[1545]

Hon. C. Richmond: The amount paid for single parents with one or two children since June of 2001 has gone up across the board, except in one case. For people with disabilities, it's up substantially and has not gone down, as suggested by the member. In fact, it's up considerably all across the board.

C. Trevena: Could the minister give me those figures?

Hon. C. Richmond: Sure. These figures are public knowledge. The figures I have quoted are total income including tax credits. If you would like, we will send you a copy of these.

C. Trevena: As I say, I find this very interesting because when…. Every time the federal subsidy has gone up, the welfare level has frozen and people have effectively lost money. So I'll be very interested to see the figures and how the minister can justify that. Hopefully, we will be able to discuss this as the estimate proceedings continue over the next few days.

When we're talking about clawbacks…. It's quite a nasty phrase. I just wanted to ask you about one that I hope isn't going to be a clawback. The new Conservative government in Ottawa has obviously announced the child care agreement, where they're going to be paying every family who has a child under the age of seven $1,200. They're not going to have a child care plan, but they will give every family $1,200 for this. I would like to know whether the minister will commit that this money, this $120 a month, will be in addition to temporary assistance, to PWD, to PPMB — that it will be on top of the assistance rates. I would like this assurance.

Hon. C. Richmond: The question pertains to future federal government policy, but we can only assume that it's going to happen. It's a bit hypothetical, but the ministry is currently reviewing the federal government's position and the choice in child care allowances and is committed to ensuring these funds are applied in a way that maximizes the potential benefit to children. We have no intention of clawing anything back.

C. Trevena: You have no intention of clawing anything back, so I can take it that you are — as the Liberal Premier of Ontario did — making a commitment that this $120 a month, $1,200 a year, will go directly to every family with a child under seven that is on assistance under your ministry?

Hon. C. Richmond: I understand that is the federal program as it has been proposed. It's not law yet, but we assume it's going to be, and the program says every child under the age of either six or seven will receive $100 a month, or $1,200 a year. We have no intention of touching that $100 or clawing anything else back.

C. Trevena: I'm very pleased that that is going to be the case. I would also like the commitment that there will be no reduction in any other of the assistance rates, subsidies or anything else which is going to families who have children under the age of six — whatever age it is that the federal government sets for this child care program — to ensure that they get, on top of their benefits that they're already receiving, the extra moneys coming from the federal government directly to them.

[1550]

Hon. C. Richmond: We will not be changing any other of our supports just because the federal government is giving $100 a month to each child. We have no intention whatever to claw anything back or to reduce any other rates.

I do want to read a few things into the record to explain what this ministry is doing to improve the lives of children living in poverty.

The Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance is committed to building the best support system in Canada to support children at risk as outlined in the ministry's goals. In the short term the ministry provides basic support and shelter for the family unit along with many other services that are directed towards children, such as the Healthy Kids program. Crisis supplements may be issued to family units, particularly those with children who face unexpected emergency needs to prevent imminent danger to their physical health.

Health supplements for dependant children of all BCEA clients and children in the home of a relative include: premium-free Medical Services Plan coverage; no-deductible Pharmacare coverage; infant formula; optical supplements; dental services; diet supplements; short-term nutritional products; medical equipment and supplies; orthotics and bracing; medical transportation; and physiotherapy, massage therapy, podiatry and chiropractic services.

A shelter top-up supplement for families who are working on the return of their children from the care of the Ministry of Children and Family Development ensures the family does not have to move to alternate accommodation when a child is removed from the family. A shared parenting supplement provides a shelter top-up to parents with joint custody and child in the home of a relative.

One more item we could add on there is the increase to the school startup program.

Quite contrary to the supposition that we may be lowering other rates and clawing something back, we are doing everything in our power and within our budget to provide additional services for children.

C. Trevena: Is this money that we're all expecting to come from the federal government — this $1,200 a year — regarded as income by the ministry?

[ Page 3246 ]

Hon. C. Richmond: No, it will be treated as exempt.

C. Trevena: That's very encouraging, minister. I know that colleagues have been talking to people in the Ministry of Children and Family Development, and I think that ministry would be very interested to know that this is how it is going to be treated — that it will be exempt and will be in addition to all other benefits.

Your government has made a number of changes in access to assistance over the years. One of the areas is that a single parent can only claim temporary assistance until their child is three, without having to look for work at the same time. Often that parent is a woman. If the woman is divorced, she is sometimes — we often hope more often than not — getting maintenance from her spouse. The family maintenance exemption was in place since 1976, and that allowed a single parent who is receiving child support payments to keep $100 a month. But this is one of the areas that has been eliminated.

This exemption was used primarily by single parents. I wondered why the ministry made this move.

[1555]

Hon. C. Richmond: Long and complicated. The family maintenance enforcement program, FMEP, is mandated to seek maintenance payments for income assistance recipients who are entitled to receive them. The goals are to ensure that family breakdown does not impoverish dependant family members, places no excessive burden on public funds and promotes financial independence and economic security of clients by ensuring they receive enforceable maintenance orders.

Previously, women on family maintenance were allowed to keep $100 per month to serve as an incentive to pursue maintenance and to cover legal expenses in doing so. The assignment of family maintenance is a condition of eligibility for B.C. employment assistance. All costs in obtaining and enforcing orders are covered by the ministry and the family maintenance enforcement program. Thus, an exemption no longer serves as an incentive.

[1600]

Every province in Canada other than Quebec deducts maintenance income dollar for dollar. But I think the key in there is that the province now pays all the legal costs of the family maintenance enforcement program.

C. Trevena: Thank you for explaining the procedure, minister. I just wanted to know why women, largely women, don't get that extra $100 a month?

Hon. C. Richmond: I thought I explained that. One of the reasons was to prevent them from having to foot the financial bills to go after the errant — usually, father — spouse who is not paying maintenance for his children. But now they don't have to do that. The province absorbs all the financial costs.

Harking back, as the member did earlier to when I had this ministry before, we brought in the family maintenance enforcement program for the very reason that there was quite a percentage of fathers who would not pay child support. Of course, that put a tremendous burden on the Crown. We decided that we would enforce the family maintenance program by getting court orders and forcing them to pay and to live up to their responsibilities, even up to and including garnisheeing wages. So we absorb all the financial cost of that program now. Hence, we do not allow an exemption of $100. Also, it is considered unearned income.

C. Trevena: Absorbing the legal costs is clearly for going after deadbeat dads, going after the people who are not going to pay their maintenance. But this is only a proportion of the fathers or mothers who are liable for support payments. So effectively, you're penalizing others for the problems of some.

Again, I would like to know why you are doing this — why some people are bearing the cost, by not allowing this exemption, of having to pay for the legal bills for others?

Hon. C. Richmond: I think I've got the member's question straight, but I'll try this. Income assistance is the payer of last resort. Whether a woman is on income assistance or working, maybe in a low-paying job, we come to the assistance of people for the purposes of food and shelter and other sustenance as the payer of last resort.

So the errant spouse, usually a father, is expected to pay child support. When he or she doesn't, then the single parent can go to the courts and get a court order to force that person to pay up. If they don't, then the taxpayer has to pay that. Like I say, if they are on income assistance, it is a form of income and is intended for the purposes of providing sustenance for their family.

[1605]

I don't know how we could discriminate from one person to the other as to who should get the $100 exemption and who shouldn't. The law is very specific across the board, and it is considered income. Therefore, it is unearned income, but it is also income that is owed by the other spouse.

In fairness to the taxpayer, the taxpayer should not be making up any difference. Maybe that's not the right way to put it. The taxpayer shouldn't be expected — I don't know, exactly, if I'm putting it the right way — to come up with the money for child maintenance when there's a spouse out there who is perfectly capable of doing it.

C. Trevena: People who are on assistance…. It is the last resort. People on disability are on very low levels of income. It's also a last resort for many of them. They are living, usually, in levels of high poverty. When the spouse is not errant, when the spouse is paying his or her ex money for maintenance, why is this person, usually a woman, not allowed to keep that? Why is it clawed back dollar for dollar?

[ Page 3247 ]

Hon. C. Richmond: I guess the best way I can answer the member's question is to say that if the family maintenance provided by the other spouse is not enough for the person's daily living, to pay shelter and food, etc., then we top that up to the maximum allowable under the category that they fall under. So if the maintenance is below what is required in their category to come up to the maximum allowable, we top it up. But it is income. The family maintenance is income and is to be used for food and shelter, etc., primarily for the children. It's child support in most cases.

I guess that's the best way I can answer your question. It is income, and therefore, it's deductible from their income assistance.

C. Trevena: It's not only mothers and fathers — people bringing up children — who are separated and getting support who are facing these sorts of clawbacks. Seniors are also having income taken back from them. Seniors who are on the Canada Pension Plan, who have worked their whole lives and now are in need of assistance and on CPP, have the CPP directly deducted from their income assistance. Again, I would like to ask the minister: why?

[1610]

Hon. C. Richmond: First of all, there are very few seniors on income assistance. Most seniors get the old age pension supplement — whatever you want to call it — plus CPP, which provides them more than income assistance. There are only in the entire province about 600 seniors who are on income assistance, not on old age pension, and that's because they have been in the country for less than ten years. There are very, very few that are affected by the takeback of Canada Pension.

C. Trevena: You didn't answer my question. Why? Why is the money taken back? Whether it's $600 or $6,000, why are you taking the money back?

Hon. C. Richmond: First of all, with the 600 people that we talked about, it would be unlikely that they were getting any CPP or any federal benefits, and they would be receiving all of their income from this ministry. Again, this ministry is the payer of last resort.

Applicants are required to present all other sources of income, but we do make an exception and have earnings exemptions for persons with multiple barriers or persons with disabilities. Likely, when these people who do not receive any income from the federal government…. Once they've been in the country for the required amount of time, which is ten years, or become Canadian citizens, then they would start to receive payments from the federal government.

In cases where CPP benefits to a senior are less than the B.C. employment assistance rate, this ministry will top up the CPP income to our rate.

C. Trevena: So basically, you will make up the level to the basic very low levels that we're talking about on assistance, minister.

This seniors supplement is only available for seniors who receive old age security and guaranteed income supplement. New immigrants are excluded from this. I'm still troubled by this disparity, and I wondered if you could explain it to me.

[1615]

Hon. C. Richmond: The seniors supplement is a monthly top-up payment to B.C. recipients of the federal guaranteed income supplement. There is no application process. The supplement is paid automatically to GIS recipients who qualify, but one of the requirements is they must be a GIS recipient to qualify. GIS is an income-tested supplement to the federal old age security and federal allowance, formerly spouse's allowance. It increases quarterly based on indexing to the cost of living.

If the income through federal payments is below what we would pay should they be one of our clients, we will top up their income at the persons-with-disabilities rate.

C. Trevena: If I can ask the minister another question about seniors. This is the children's budget. The last one was the seniors budget, and I know I'm going back a bit. But seniors on income assistance aren't eligible for the SAFER grants, and I wondered why.

Hon. C. Richmond: The reason is because we give seniors the full amount of their shelter cost. Their shelter allowance is the full amount of their shelter cost, so that's why SAFER doesn't apply.

C. Trevena: I'd like a clarification from the minister on this. So a single senior, no matter what their rent is, would get the full cost? Or are you saying that the senior would get the single person's rental allowance of $325?

Hon. C. Richmond: Just to clarify, they get the full $325 without receipts. They automatically get that. I should have clarified that.

C. Trevena: As we've had this discussion before, $325 isn't a great amount to be finding accommodation for a single person. I ask the minister again, if I'm interpreting this right: without having the SAFER grant, a single senior would get $325 — and that's it — and a couple would get $520 — and that's it — and they would have to try and find suitable, clean, safe living accommodation for their old age at that level?

Hon. C. Richmond: We're talking here again about those very few people who do not qualify for any federal moneys at all. Like I say, the number is very low.

[1620]

They would receive a total payment per month of $856, and a couple would be considerably more — I

[ Page 3248 ]

don't know if I have the numbers — at $1,469 a month per couple. So $856.42 for singles and $1,469.06 for a couple.

C. Trevena: I know you're saying it's only a very few people, but I think that this is B.C., and everybody does matter. These figures are total income, including rental allowances that you're talking about.

Hon. C. Richmond: Yes, that is correct. The amounts that I quoted are correct. But on top of that, we are continuing to provide services to them for dental; optical; basic eyewear and repairs; medical equipment; medical supplies; extended therapies — massage, physiotherapy, chiropractic and podiatry services — and medical transportation on top of that. We've also protected the seniors bus pass program so that low-income seniors have affordable transportation options.

C. Trevena: Talking about the shelter rates. I know that you are very well aware of them. The basic shelter rate is $325 for anyone on temporary assistance — $325 up to $695 if there are seven people in a family. I'd like to ask the minister how this rate is determined.

Hon. C. Richmond: Shelter rates haven't been increased since the early '90s, and one of the reasons is that simply increasing the shelter rates is a simple answer to a complex problem that doesn't benefit the clients. For example, any increase to the shelter rate, as we know from experience, is just passed through to the client's landlord, so whatever we set it at, that becomes the rent. The rents are immediately adjusted upward proportional to the increased funding. Clients will not find new or better accommodation, and they will not be better off.

Instead, the ministry is focused on providing clients with additional resources that will stay in their pockets, and that is the support allowance. We have increased rates for persons with disabilities, increased earnings exemptions and have continued to provide all our eligible clients with a range of supplementary assistance supports.

One of the things, also, that I can tell you we are looking at — and we have done for quite some time, but it's more complex and difficult to do than we imagined; that doesn't mean we're not continuing to look at it — is getting to a point where we don't separate out the shelter allowance from the support allowance, where we just pay one sum to the person, to our client, to try to get away from the landlords who immediately put the rent to where the shelter allowance goes. If we make it one amount — which, like I say, we're working towards….

[1625]

Then the next thing we're doing — and I know we've canvassed this before in question period and in other places — is trying to get these people to go onto an electronic transfer of funds so we keep the money, as much as possible, out of the hands of the people who prey on them the last Wednesday in every month. If we can get more of these people, especially the more vulnerable ones, to open an account in a financial institution and get them out of this handing over of their cheque to some of these unscrupulous landlords, we will be much better off.

At the moment we have about 70 percent of our client base on electronic transfer of funds. We're working very diligently to try to get that last 30 percent. We probably will never get 100 percent of them, but we want to get most of them away from the clutches of unscrupulous landlords, drug dealers, etc., who prey on them when they get their income assistance cheque.

I think you saw when we and the Vancouver police department were working together on this team. When they visited some of the downtown east side hotels, they found that some clients were going in and handing over the shelter allowance portion of their cheque, $325, and getting $100 worth of drugs for it, and then they didn't have a place to sleep. That's what we're trying to get away from when we go to the electronic transfer of funds.

We're working very hard on it. Some of the financial institutions are working with us, and we're working with other agencies, especially in the downtown east side. But every community has this problem to a lesser degree.

C. Trevena: These rates, as you say, have been set for some time. Again, in light of the cost of rental in every community, I ask how you determine that those rates, when you look at the figures — ahead of going to Treasury Board, ahead of the budget — are fair rates for housing in this province.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

Hon. C. Richmond: The support rates for expected-to-work recipients are primarily based on provincial historical precedent. Support rates were reduced in 1996 for the various family size categories by 20 to 24 percent. They were then raised 5 to 6 percent in 2000. That is the rate base from which we are currently operating. Secondarily, other jurisdictions' rates are examined to assess B.C.'s overall standing. B.C. is above or close to the average of the other nine provinces in three out of the four expected-to-work family type categories.

Income assistance rates for employable individuals are set at a level that provides basic supports while they seek suitable employment but below what employment at minimum wage would provide. This helps to prevent recipients from becoming dependent on income assistance and reduces any incentive for others to become reliant on it.

[1630]

Income assistance, including shelter allowances, is intended to be temporary until clients find employment. It is not intended to provide a long-term standard of living. Most reports that we see include only legally zoned rental apartment buildings. Many of our

[ Page 3249 ]

clients live in shared accommodations, secondary suites, subsidized housing and rooming houses, or with family members. These types of shelters are not included. Therefore, the cost appears higher.

In fact, government's investment of nearly $200 million this year, the most ever spent in B.C., supports more than 43,200 housing units across the province. The accommodation rates for income assistance recipients are set below the ministry's shelter rates.

Many of our clients receive additional assistance in response to their unique circumstances. Let's use the Vancouver downtown east side as an example. You may not be aware that 70 percent of the 6,020 cases in the downtown east side receive a higher shelter rate — in other words, a rate more than $325 for shelter — because many of them are persons with disabilities. In fact, the average monthly amount paid to singles, representing 5,774 cases in the downtown east side, is $701, not $510, because a very large percentage of them are persons with disabilities.

C. Trevena: I'm going to go on to the issue of the levels of the assistance rates in a moment, but I would like to stay at shelter allowances for the time being.

Again, you quote the downtown east side as an example. Let me quote Kelowna, where it costs maybe $500 to get a bachelor apartment, or my own community, Campbell River, where it costs maybe $500 to get a bachelor and where people are getting $325 for their shelter allowance. While it may be temporary for some people, for others…. People with disabilities, who you cite that you are really very concerned about, are also dealing with rentals of this level.

I will go into income assistance rates in a moment, but I'm intrigued by how you're setting these rates when having a level of shelter allowance so low is often forcing people into very dangerous situations. It's forcing women who are escaping abusive relationships back into abusive relationships because they can't find safe accommodation. I've heard many cases of this. It's forcing disabled people to share, who are then possibly cut off from benefits because they're sharing, and it's seen by the workers as a spousal arrangement. It is prone to problems.

I would ask the minister once again to explain to me why there has been no move to increase the shelter rates.

Hon. C. Richmond: First of all, though, the member says $325 a month is not a lot of money and then talks about persons with disabilities who receive more than $325 a month. We are putting our emphasis on people with disabilities and people with multiple barriers to work. We are not putting as much emphasis at the moment on people who are expected to work, because it is designed to be a temporary help to people.

[1635]

Income assistance is designed as a safety net to carry people across a very difficult patch in their life, to help them get rehabilitated. If they're expected to work, we don't expect them to stay on income assistance for a long period of time. We will put them into programs. Like I said in my opening remarks, we spend over $70 million a year to put people into programs to get them into gainful employment. If they're expected to work, that's where they should be — in one of our programs to get them back into the workforce. These programs have been very successful, and we've placed some 46,000 people back into the workforce.

People with multiple barriers or people with disabilities are treated differently. These people are not expected to work. Many of them want to work, especially the PWD people. They want to get back into the workforce or get into the workforce. They feel very keen about that, volunteering as a start and then getting into employment, even if it's part-time. That's why we have an earnings exemption for these people: to encourage them to go out and work, even if it's part-time. For those expected to work, even a low-paying job is much better than being on income assistance.

In the last two budgets…. Let me put it this way. We are not able to do everything for everybody in every budget. The last budget concentrated on seniors, and we put a lot of money into assisting low-income seniors. This budget is the budget of children. We put an awful lot of money into two things: children and training programs. In fact, across government I think the amount into training and apprenticeship programs is over $400 million, plus the $70-plus million that we put into programs to get people back into the workforce.

C. Trevena: Again, you've raised a few points that I'm going to be picking up on as this debate progresses — the job programs and so on.

The assistance rates. It is temporary assistance. It is, as you yourself have said, a safety net. The assistance rate for a single person is $520. A single person has to get rent, has to buy food, needs transport, needs clothes, needs the basic things like cleaning supplies for their home, needs shampoos and toiletries and obviously doesn't need child care, because they've got no kids.

It's estimated that a single person, by the end of the month, is $216 short of what they need. Now, if you're talking about a single parent with a couple of children, that rises to over $700 short, because they're having to pay for child care. I would like to ask the minister to explain to me how he gets to his assistance levels when it's so clear that the amount of money is too low for people to live on.

[1640]

Hon. C. Richmond: First of all, persons with disabilities get a higher rate — I just want to clarify this — not a higher shelter allowance, except for families of three or more. So we do give persons with disabilities a higher income assistance rate, not a higher shelter rate.

An interesting statistic: 27 percent of employable starting cases are gone in two months. So it is a safety net, not a driftnet that catches people and holds onto them. It's to help them across a difficult time; 50 percent are gone in four months. This is the desired effect,

[ Page 3250 ]

I guess. For people who are expected to work, it is just that: we expect them to get back into employment as quickly as possible. We will help them in many different ways to get back into the workforce.

Secondly, we review existing rates for expected-to-work clients, as the budget allows. Public policy requires a balance between competing priorities, including spending on public sector wages, for children, for health, for education, for skills and training and for other public services. Reducing the resources available for these services in order to increase rates for employable clients at this time is not appropriate. We wouldn't reduce the rates for others in any case, and that's just not appropriate or necessary.

Simply put, our reform of the welfare system, emphasizing independence and personal responsibility among employable clients, is working. Our caseload for employable clients has decreased by 71 percent since 2001. Clients leaving our caseload through our employment programs receive an average starting wage of just under $11 an hour. Perhaps most importantly, 50 percent of our expected-to-work clients return to employment within four months.

C. Trevena: To the minister: I wanted to know, really, how you look at the costs of living, the costs of buying food and your transport ticket, the cost of getting a new pair of shoes every few months and the cost of rents. How do you look at these things and assess the assistance rates?

Hon. C. Richmond: I guess I can only repeat what I've said. Our focus is on getting people back to work, and our programs are working. We recognize that it's a challenge for people to live on income assistance, particularly single, expected-to-work clients; $510 a month is not a lot of money. The fact is, though, that only a small portion of our total client caseload is receiving this amount. Some 75 percent of singles — people with disabilities and severe barriers to employment, those most in need — receive our highest rates of $856 and $608 per month.

Let me repeat and make it very clear that for people who are able to work, income assistance isn't meant to be a lifestyle or an entitlement. It's meant to be a temporary means of financial support. We've been successful in moving these people from unemployment and dependence to employment and self-reliance.

Like I said, we've moved over 46,000 of them back into the workforce. It's costing the taxpayers of this province over $70 million a year to do that — to get them into our employment programs — but in the long run, it's far more effective, far more valuable to us to get these people back into the workforce than to give them an excuse to stay on income assistance.

[1645]

C. Trevena: I think we disagree on one fundamental point here. I would say that income assistance, the safety net that you describe — there is a safety net — is an entitlement in a civilized society.

Seeing as you haven't answered my question about how you are setting the rates, because you're talking about getting people off the list — which, as I say, I want to come back to in a little while — I'd like to come back to something we were talking about right at the beginning: the issue of food banks. Income assistance rates at the moment, no matter how long somebody is on income assistance, cover basically 41 percent of the costs for a single adult, which really doesn't make you wonder why people rely on food banks. It's because they're not getting enough on income assistance.

In your own hometown, minister, one-third of the people who are using the very good, very active food bank are people on income assistance who are not getting enough through the assistance, through the safety net, through the temporary help. For however short a term they need it, they are not getting enough money to feed themselves. If people don't have enough money to feed themselves, how do you expect them to go and find work? I'd like to ask the minister: what are you going to do about this?

Hon. C. Richmond: I guess I can only repeat: we review income assistance rates regularly. We assess where they are and where we feel that the emphasis should be put. This year we have put the emphasis on persons with disabilities. They are the most vulnerable in our society, and we felt that they should receive some increases. We gave them increases in the form of a $70-a-month increase in their allowance and an increase by moving the income exemption up to $500 per month, $100 a month if they volunteer, and other items. We're also assisting them in every way possible to get them into the workforce, because they literally want to work.

I guess, too, when you come back to food banks, they are a phenomenon now that is a commonplace feature in the western world. There are food banks everywhere, and I assume now that they will always be with us. They are there to assist a lot of families, not just those on income assistance. A lot of low-income families use food banks, and a lot of single people use other charitable organizations and have done so for many, many years. It would be a nice thing, I suppose, to see food banks disappear. I would like to see that, but I doubt very much that it is going to happen.

Right now we are in an ideal situation in this province, because of an economy as robust as it is, for anyone who is seeking work to find employment. Expected-to-work people who do not have multiple barriers or are not persons with disabilities will find it easier right now to find work than they probably have in the last 30 years.

Unemployment figures are lower now than they have been since records have been kept. In fact, in my area the unemployment rate is 4 percent or a little bit less, which is considered by today's standards as full employment. Contrast it to five years ago. In April of 2001 the unemployment rate in Kamloops was 14.1 percent — a lot more difficult to find a job.

We have people in the hospitality industry in Kamloops who cannot find people to work in their hotels

[ Page 3251 ]

and motels at $14 an hour. To me, if a person is employable, expected to work and doesn't have barriers to employment, we could put him or her to work very easily. We find that if we're going to put an emphasis in the budget and use the taxpayers' money — which we do — we are going to put it more towards those with multiple barriers to employment and persons with disabilities, rather than to those expected to work.

[1650]

C. Trevena: There are a lot of areas you've touched upon, and I think that throughout our debate, as the days go on, we will cover most of them.

At the moment I'm looking at assistance rates, and I wanted to get a few more details on those before we move on to the areas such as the people on disability benefit 2. I have to admit that I have a large file of people who are very unhappy on disability benefit, who do not feel that it's enough — as do people on assistance rates, however temporary the assistance rate is.

This is, as you said yourself at the beginning of the debate, a surplus budget, and we choose where we put our money. I find it quite frightening that in Kamloops — in your hometown, where you have 4 percent unemployment — four people out of every hundred are not working. A quarter of the people who do use the food bank have no income at all. I do wonder how people are existing on that, but I'm not going to belabour the point of food banks, because again, we have a fundamental disagreement.

I don't believe that food banks will always be with us. I think we can work as a society to see that we don't have a need for them because people have enough income that they don't have to worry about where their next meal is coming from, where the next hamper for their baby is coming from or where the next nutritional supplement is coming from.

Assistance rates, minister, are low. They are, as you say, seen as

temporary. Some people are on them for some time. Last year, minister, the

non-political Dietitians of Canada published a report, and I'm sure you knew that I was going to be quoting from it, because I believe that the dietitians have also been talking with you. And I hope they have, because they did commend this government on its commitment to healthy lifestyles. I think we can all commend it. One of the great goals is having a healthy lifestyle.

It condemned the government for allowing the low wage and income assistance levels to effectively starve people. I can quote some of the figures that the Dietitians of Canada — who are not, as I say, a political organization — cite when they are working out the cost of living.

A family of four on income assistance. Income assistance is temporary. They get $991 income and child and family benefits of $504, giving them a disposable income of $1,495. Rent is approximately $875, hydro is $59, and the actual cost of food is $654. What's left after shelter, health care, food and all other daily living costs is $561. It basically leaves a deficit for them of $93.

A young pregnant woman on income assistance — and there are young pregnant women on income assistance…. They are not all, as the minister sometimes perceives or sometimes describes, homeless. Not everyone on income assistance is an addict. Not everyone on income assistance is facing severe problems. They are facing financial problems. For whatever reason, they're on assistance. A young pregnant woman on income assistance, according to the Dietitians of Canada, would at the end of the month be $269 short because they are trying to feed themselves.

People on income assistance, people on benefits, people on disability benefits, people on PPMB — no matter that they get extra money, if they can get the extra money, for supplements — are not buying the nutritious food because they can't afford it. They are buying the canned goods. They're not buying bulk, because they can't store it. They are generally buying cheap food, and they are supplementing it by food banks. I would like to ask the minister: how are people supposed to have this healthy diet? How are people supposed to match the great goal of healthy living, one of the golden goals of the great decade? How are they going to get this if they can't afford to eat, minister?

[1655]

Hon. C. Richmond: First of all, let me just go back to the last subject for a second. I had it here. Now it's gone.

I want to make it clear about food banks. I mentioned some statistics when we started the debate this afternoon, and I want to make it clear that the ministry policy and regulations do not promote the use of food banks as an alternative to income assistance. Individuals without food are considered to have an emergency need. They are not required to complete the three-week work search and are given an expedited application.

To date time limits have affected very few former recipients, so any impact on food bank use is minimal. There are also many exemptions to the two-year independence test — for example, persons with dependent children, applicants under the age of 19, pregnant applicants and those with medical conditions or multiple barriers to employment.

I also want to go along and re-quote some of the statistics released by the Canadian Association of Food Banks — not our statistics, theirs. It shows that the number of people in British Columbia using food banks is down 10.5 percent. These statistics are four months old. They came out in November last year. The number of children using food banks is down 9.1 percent. Although 45 percent of food banks have reported an increase in food bank use, food bank usage has decreased for the province as a whole, and 8,000 fewer people in the province visited a food bank this year compared to last year.

This shows that B.C.'s strong economy is helping more people find good jobs and build brighter futures for themselves and their families. While we recognize that food banks play an important role, we're pleased to see the trend towards fewer children and fewer families using food banks — not more people.

I did have a meeting — in fact, several of us had a meeting — with the dietitians a couple of weeks ago.

[ Page 3252 ]

We disagree with some of their methodology, of how they come up with their figures. Their charge is based on an analysis of the total basic needs of families and the total income available to families on income assistance. This analysis, in our view, overestimates the cost of shelter, clothing and other personal needs required by temporary assistance recipients on employment assistance and underestimates the income available to them.

For example, the calculations of shelter costs do not include subsidized housing, shared accommodations, secondary suites, sublet condos or rooming houses. This non-conventional stock of housing comprises 50 percent of the rental stock in Vancouver and one-third of the stock in Victoria. Excluding this type of accommodation makes average shelter costs appear much higher than they are.

[1700]

The support allowances provided by employment