1996 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 36th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, JULY 16, 1996

Afternoon

Volume 1, Number 20

[ Page 393 ]

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

The Speaker: I would advise members that the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precincts, so would members please remain in their seats for just a moment.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

Clerk of the House:

Income Tax Amendment Act (No. 2), 1996

In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to this bill.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

The Speaker: I call the House to order.

I. Waddell: I'd like to introduce two friends of mine who are from B.C., but they're visiting because they're working out of B.C.: first, Angus McAlister, who is working for the big, bad government there in Ontario; and also one of my former executive assistants in Ottawa, Alexander Norris, who has really gone the wrong way and is now a journalist with the Montreal Gazette . Alexander and Angus, welcome.

H. Giesbrecht: Hon. Speaker, it's one of those rare occasions where somebody from my constituency comes all the way down here to visit the gallery. We have in the gallery today the Rev. Michael Hare of Knox United Church in Terrace, who, I understand, says he's here to offer me some spiritual assistance. I have absolutely no idea what he means by that, but would the House please make him welcome.

Hon. S. Hammell: In the gallery are Don and Beth Bennett. They are both teachers, and, I believe, excellent ones. They are from Surrey-Green Timbers. Would the House please make them welcome.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, I notice in the gallery today a gentleman who spent many years above you and behind you in this House, and now has left that place and has a real job. I notice Brian Kieran in the gallery and ask the House to make him welcome.

Hon. G. Clark: First of all, I want to join my colleague the member for Vancouver-Fraserview in welcoming Alex Norris to the chamber today. Alex is the principal reason, all of you Liberals across the way, that I'm here and elected today. Ten years ago, he worked for me.

Interjections.

Hon. G. Clark: He doesn't live in B.C. anymore.

It's my privilege to introduce Kent Waters, who is a disc jockey at radio station CKXM, and his wife, Trish McLarty. About three months ago, I was privileged enough to be a guest disc jockey at that new country music station in Victoria. It's an excellent station, and I ask all members to make them both welcome.

Hon. J. Cashore: I have a very good friend in the gallery today from Coquitlam. Louise Armstrong was a very important contact in the times of the Kasper report, when we were looking into manufactured homes. Because of her work, we were able to implement that report. Would the House please welcome Louise Armstrong of Coquitlam.

G. Janssen: There are a number of guests here today from Port Alberni: Christa Schiffelers, her daughter Patricia Schiffelers, Shelley Summers and Niki Reimer. Also, from Ucluelet, Mike Morton, chair of Share B.C., is with us today, along with Cara Andrews from Qualicum Beach and her friend, my son Réjean Janssen. I ask the House to make them welcome.

Hon. M. Sihota: Mr. Speaker, visiting us from India today is Mr. Bahtt, who is here looking at some opportunities in British Columbia. Yesterday he was watching the parliamentary channel and commented to me today about how civil things were in our chamber. I told him that it was remarkably civil during question period, and I'm sure all members will prove me right. Would all members welcome Mr. Bahtt.

B. Penner: I'd like the House to please join me in extending a warm welcome to Rev. Arlee Johnson, formerly a professor at Oklahoma State University and a resident of Chilliwack for the past five years. For those past five years, Mr. Johnson has been the pastor of Sardis Community Church, of which I am a member. I would ask the House to please make him welcome.

Hon. C. Evans: I notice in the gallery my friend Barbara Barrett and another gentleman from Kaslo, Al Beix, a village councillor. I used to think he was the chairperson of Share B.C., but I'm sure that can't be true since he doesn't live on the coast or in the Alberni constituency.

[2:15]

Oral Questions

USE OF FOREST RENEWAL REVENUES

G. Campbell: Yesterday we learned for the first time that the NDP intends to break yet another promise. When Forest Renewal was introduced, the Minister of Finance said that Forest Renewal was "a major departure from the past when government made a lot of promises but little in the way of action and there was no long-term commitment." My question to the Minister of Finance is: does he intend to carry on breaking his promises as he has with the budget? Or is he going to depart from his past and be true to his word, and not take one cent out of forest renewal funds and use it to put into general revenues?

Hon. A. Petter: I guess we start off today where we left off yesterday. I find it extraordinary that the Leader of the Opposition, who, along with his party, opposed Forest Renewal and voted against it in this House, would try to raise this kind of question at this time. This government introduced Forest Renewal to provide a long-term strategy for our forests. We remain committed to that strategy. At the same time we're undertaking a program review of all programs in government to ensure that they are meeting their objectives and meeting the expectations of taxpayers.

It strikes me as a little contradictory for that party over there, which voted to a person against Forest Renewal, to now stand up and question this government's commitment.

[ Page 394 ]

G. Campbell: We opposed Forest Renewal for exactly that reason. We knew that this government and this minister could not be counted on to keep their word. When asked about the government dipping into Forest Renewal funds, during the debate the Deputy Premier said: "You wouldn't dare." There won't be a politician next week, next month, next year or 20 years from now who will dare to put their hands in the pockets of Forest Renewal for this money. It's time for someone on that side of the House to stand up for the commitments they have made.

Will the Deputy Premier stand up today and dare to tell the Minister of Finance that he will not, cannot and must not dip into Forest Renewal money to make up for this Finance minister's mismanagement of the budget?

Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, I'll repeat what my colleague the Minister of Finance had to say in response to the first question. We're dealing with an opposition that fundamentally opposed the concept of forest renewal -- a concept that for the first time in the history of our province saw some protection afforded to workers and communities in the forest industry and that provides the money to renew our forests. The Minister of Finance has provided the answer to the leader's question.

G. Campbell: This side of the House is fundamentally opposed to a government that says one thing before an election and does another thing after an election. We are fundamentally opposed to a government that holds out false hopes to forest workers and forest communities across this province. We are fundamentally opposed to a government that says, on the one hand, that they will not touch Forest Renewal funding for anything except its purposes and then says that they are going to review and put that into general revenues to make up for their mistakes.

The question, once again, to the Minister of Finance is -- yes or no -- are you going to dip into Forest Renewal funds or are you going to leave them alone and let them be put into the work of workers in resource communities across this province?

Hon. A. Petter: If a program review of government, including Forest Renewal, were conducted by the opposition, I would understand why the people of British Columbia would be concerned. This is the party that voted against Forest Renewal and favoured over a billion dollars in tax cuts to large corporations. I wouldn't want them in charge of a program review. But the people of British Columbia know that this government is committed in terms of renewing our forests. That's what we brought in: Forest Renewal. We remain committed; we will continue that commitment. But we're not afraid to review our programs from time to time to ensure that they're meeting those commitments.

T. Nebbeling: The Minister of Agriculture stood up in 1994 and spoke on forest renewal, and he made the following statement: "Half the wealth that comes from Nanaimo, Port Alberni, Nelson, Creston and Prince George will go back to these communities." This was a promise made by the minister at that time -- who was a member, of course -- and this was a commitment made by the NDP government.

My question is for the Minister of Finance. Will he today reassure us of the promise made by the member in 1994 that the funding would go back to the communities -- and that this commitment will not be broken at the cost of the workers and the families living in these communities? Can I have the question answered? Will the minister today agree not to use the funding from B.C. Forest Renewal to hide his inability to deal with balances?

Hon. A. Petter: I'm delighted that at long last the members of the opposition have finally come to the realization of what a success the forest renewal program really is. Where were they when we announced that value-added centre at UBC to provide value-added production and training across the province? I can assure the member that Forest Renewal is doing a superb job delivering investments and programs around this province, and that it will continue to do so to live up to those commitments to invest back into those communities, to invest back into the resource.

That's why Forest Renewal was created, in spite of the opposition protesting its creation, and that's why we continue to be committed to the continuation of forest renewal.

T. Nebbeling: There is a difference between what is and what should have been. I think the minister hasn't got the right

interpretation.

My question is again to the Minister of Finance, who was quoted in the Abbotsford News in 1994, saying that there will be choices on how the funds are spent, but the funds will be dedicated to forest renewal and jobs by legislation. What I would like to know from the minister today is: will he reaffirm the commitment he made to the people of British Columbia, the people working in the forest industry, that forest renewal funds will be protected and will not be used to cover deficits by this government?

Hon. A. Petter: Well, I've already said that this government, which pioneered Forest Renewal, certainly remains committed to the continuation of Forest Renewal -- the continuation of those investments -- notwithstanding the opposition's opposition to Forest Renewal. It's kind of sad to see the opposition putting up a new member, who wasn't here at the time to hear all those members speak against Forest Renewal and to watch them stand up and vote it down. . . . To put up a new member to try to do their work for them is a little sad. But I want to say to that member: Forest Renewal is here to stay.

We will not let down those communities. We're determined to invest back into the resource. That's why Forest Renewal was created, and that's why Forest Renewal will continue as long as this government is in power and that opposition is not.

M. de Jong: It was April 26, 1994, when another former Forests minister, the member for Mission-Kent, had this to say when he was defending the Forest Renewal B.C. scheme: "This money will be dedicated, by law, to the forest workers and communities. That money can't go someplace else." I'd invite the member for Mission-Kent to comment, but he's already made clear that he doesn't intend to be accountable for statements he made earlier in the House. So I'll go to the Forests minister.

My question to the Forests minister is: was the member for Mission-Kent telling the truth when he said that Forest Renewal dollars were for forest workers and communities and wouldn't go anyplace else? Or is this another case of saying one thing before the election and doing the opposite after?

The Speaker: I am not sure the question is in order. However, should the minister wish to respond, I'll give him that opportunity.

Back to the member for Matsqui.

M. de Jong: Hon. Speaker, I put a question about Forest Renewal dollars to the Forests minister, and it seemed to be out of order. I don't mind saying I'm a bit confused.

[ Page 395 ]

Interjections.

M. de Jong: I hear the member for Yale. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. I must hear the question. I would ask the member to please pose a question to the minister responsible for a given area.

M. de Jong: Well, tell the Minister of Forests to get ready, because here it comes.

I heard the member for Yale-Lillooet. He has certainly done much to provide us with material on the art of the NDP flip-flop in this session, and today is no exception. Today's words from the member for Yale-Lillooet come from April 27, 1994, when he said: "The money will not go into general revenue, and no greedy ministers -- it doesn't matter what party or government they may represent -- will be able to dip their fingers into the pot."

Now this member's credibility is on the line, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Forests can salvage that credibility simply by committing today to standing with the member for Yale-Lillooet and saying that moneys from Forest Renewal B.C. will not be going to general revenue and will not be used to bail out this inept Finance minister.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Let me remind the opposition, who didn't support the forest renewal program, that this government remains committed to the communities that are based on the forest industry. Only yesterday I announced the community forest economic development program to give certainty to the future of those communities, and it's welcomed by those communities. The Leader of the Opposition was musing in Prince George about cancelling parts of the communities envelope of FRBC. I suggest that the people who are not committed to forest renewal are those people over there. Let me remind you that the objectives we have set for Forest Renewal will be met.

FRASER VALLEY GROUNDWATER

CONTAMINATION STUDY

C. Clark: About three years ago the former Minister of Environment said that his ministry had identified water issues as a top priority for the government. Today we've seen the release of a study on Fraser Valley groundwater contamination. First, the current Minister of Environment refuses to comment, and then he says maybe he'll do something about it some time in the future. Can the minister identify for this House why his ministry has been so intransigent in dealing with groundwater contamination in the Fraser Valley?

Hon. P. Ramsey: What a fascinating question period! First we have the opposition that spent month after month attacking Forest Renewal B.C. now leaping to its defence. The opposition that attacked this government's regulation on environment issues and urged us to mine parks is now standing up for water quality. It's just amazing.

Groundwater is a serious issue. People deserve clean air to breathe. They deserve clean water to drink, and we're going to bring in a clean water act for the people of this province. We had an election recently. The people of the province know which side of this House is standing up for environmental issues. That's why we're here and they're there.

C. Clark: Some people in this House do care about groundwater quality. The members for Matsqui and Langley have spoken about it and pushed the government on it for years. On the weekend, residents of the Fraser Valley were told not to go outside.

Now they're being told that their water might be contaminated and that maybe they shouldn't drink water out of their taps, and the minister says: "Well, perhaps we'll do something about it; we care." I'd like to ask the minister: why, after four years of NDP dithering on this issue, after pressure from the opposition again and again in this House, should people in Cranbrook, Aldergrove or Langley believe him when he says he wants to do something about it some time in the future?

[2:30]

Hon. P. Ramsey: This government brought in the strongest AOX discharge requirements of any government in the world, and that opposition spoke against it. This government brought in a Forest Practices Code we can all be proud of, and that opposition would dismantle it.

I'm glad to hear this member has a concern about water. When we bring forth the clean water act that will protect the quality of water for all British Columbians, maybe we will see a change in the opposition. They might actually, for once, stand up in this House and support the environment.

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.

Tabling Documents

Hon. C. Evans: I have the honour to present the annual reports of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, '93-94; the Provincial Agricultural Land Commission, '94-95; the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority, '95-96; and the Columbia Basin Trust, '95-96.

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I call Committee of Supply in Committee A to hear the estimates of the Ministry of Attorney General, and in this House to hear the estimates of the Ministry of Social Services.

The House in Committee of Supply B; G. Brewin in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

SOCIAL SERVICES

On vote 51: minister's office, $398,000.

Hon. D. Streifel: Today I rise to present the 1996-97 budget estimates for the Ministry of Social Services. It's the first opportunity I've really had to rise in the House on an issue other than interim supply, and I'd like to compliment the opposition on their election victories and their rise to what we do in this House when we come forward to represent our constituents. We represent the constituents with all the best interests that we have. It's quite an occasion. I remember my first days in the House, and I know that sometimes this place seems to be a bit intimidating.

I think that even today I find it a bit overwhelming and intimidating -- that an old can-stacker like me can stand here to introduce to this House the budgetary estimates of a ministry that is so important in the daily lives of the citizens in our community.

[ Page 396 ]

With that, I'd like to recognize those folks in the field -- the ones that work in the offices on a day-by-day basis to make lives easier and better for the clients they handle and service. I'd like to give them my personal thanks for the ongoing, daily trudge, the drudgery, the few compliments and the little adulation that happens. Without them, this ministry would not function. I'd like to introduce my deputy minister, Brenda Eaton. I have Lyn Tait, Chris Haynes and Les Foster with me to back me up.

Being a new minister, I think it's going to be somewhat difficult to know all the answers, but I've always known that wherever I go in life there's someone with all the answers, so let's test this and see what happens.

As you know, my appointment to the ministry is relatively recent, and I'm expecting the opposition to take that into consideration when they throw the big bombs at me. It's just the latest in a long list of changes undertaken within Social Services during the past several years, and 1996-97 will continue to be primarily a time of implementing, managing and realizing the benefits of major changes. These changes include: the B.C.

Benefits social safety net renewal strategy; our ongoing strategies to weed out fraud and abuse in the social safety net to make sure resources are available for those truly in need; the final phase of a 15-year process of moving people with mental handicaps out of institutions and into community living; increased audits of ministry programs and contracted agencies to further strengthen public accountability; and improvements to the child protection system under the guidance of the transition commissioner.

These changes strongly reflect the wishes and priorities of British Columbians. They rightly believe that government has a leadership role in supporting the most vulnerable members of our society: children at risk, people with disabilities and people suffering financial hardship.

Equally rightly, they believe the cost of government must come down without dismantling vital human services, and that's exactly what we're doing in the Ministry of Social Services. We're increasing spending in the key areas of child protection and support for people with disabilities, and we're offsetting those increases with major cost reductions in income assistance and administration. Institutional spending will also fall significantly as we complete the final phase of the move to community living. The bottom line is a cost saving to taxpayers. Overall, the ministry's budget for '96-97 is down by $37 million.

Perhaps the most notable item in this budget is an $87 million reduction in spending on income assistance. This is a direct result of proactive measures initiated in '95-96, in partnership with several other ministries, through the B.C. Benefits initiative.

B.C. Benefits is the most comprehensive, compassionate and cost-effective social safety net renewal strategy introduced anywhere in the country. It recognizes that people want to work, that they value the independence that a job brings. It also acknowledges the social and economic realities of British Columbia in the 1990s. For example, the federal government has slashed our welfare funding, first with the cap on CAP and now with major cuts to transfer payments. Since 1990 Ottawa has withheld $1.8 billion in welfare funding from B.C. taxpayers.

During this year and next, we will lose an additional $1.2 billion in federal funds for health, social services and post-secondary education. Tighter rules for unemployment -- or employment insurance, as it is now called -- have also hit us hard. Fewer people who lose their jobs qualify for benefits now, and they qualify for shorter periods of time, increasing pressure on our income assistance systems.

At the same time, B.C., with its strong economy, continues to be a province of destination for job-seekers from across the country. In response to these pressures and as part of our commitment to strengthen public accountability, the ministry has implemented a wide range of measures to prevent and detect fraud and abuse and to generally tighten up the system to ensure resources are available for those most in need.

The list of our accomplishments in these areas is extremely long, so in the interests of time I'll offer just a few examples. Our new three-month residency requirement is on track to save taxpayers $25 million a year. We're saving $28 million a year as a result of tighter eligibility rules for hardship grants. We're saving $9 million a year with new rental security deposit procedures. And we're saving $21 million a year with our revitalized family maintenance program, which helps single parents get child support.

In addition to savings like these, we're seeing a real drop in income assistance caseloads: down 7.4 percent in June, compared to June 1995. That's a reduction of 16,000 cases. We will continue our policy of zero tolerance for fraud, waste and abuse through the current fiscal year as we implement the B.C. Benefits social safety net renewal strategy. Ultimately, B.C. Benefits will reduce income assistance costs and caseloads even further by helping and supporting people to move from welfare to the workforce.

A key component of this is making work a better deal than welfare by broadening assistance with programs such as the family bonus and Healthy Kids -- to support all lower-income families with children.

These new programs will not require additional new resources within Social Services. New initiatives are being funded through rate reductions, which, I should add, do not affect families with children, seniors or people with disabilities. In fact, as I mentioned earlier, we will actually reduce spending on income assistance in '96-97. We expect to spend about $87 million less compared to '95-96 -- the single largest reduction in the ministry's budget. Savings will be reapplied to B.C. Benefits initiatives and to the expansion of financial supports for people with disabilities.

They will also be applied to the child, family and community services division, which has as its primary mandate protecting and supporting the safety and well-being of children.

In the last few years our progress in this area has been guided largely by two events, each with profound implications for the child welfare system: the appointment of the transition commissioner to recommend, design and implement a new child protection system; and the proclamation of two comprehensive pieces of child welfare legislation -- the Child, Family and Community Service Act and the Child, Youth and Family Advocacy Act. We are strongly committed to continuing the implementation of the new acts in 1996-97.

We are also strongly committed to dealing with the issues raised in the Gove inquiry into child protection. I'd like to briefly recap our progress to date in this regard.

Since Judge Gove released his report in November 1995, the ministry has, in direct response to recommendations, established a bachelor of social work degree as the minimum qualification for all new child protection social workers; required that all new child protection social workers undergo a comprehensive 20-week training course before assuming caseloads; eliminated arbitrary rules and policies which inhibited the sharing of important case information among child welfare providers; given district offices technological aids, such as word processors with document assembly software to help in preparing for court applications; and restored the mandate of and

[ Page 397 ]

increased staffing in the audit and review division, which reviews serious incidents such as child deaths and which amended the regulations in the Guaranteed Available Income for Need, or GAIN, Act so that social workers can access information from the GAIN program when it's needed to ensure the safety and well-being of children.

We have also amended the Child, Family and Community Service Act to incorporate a number of improvements recommended by Judge Gove. As you know, the chief responsibility for designing, recommending and implementing a new child welfare system rests with the transition commissioner, Cynthia Morton. The Ministry of Social Services established a solid relationship with her office. I look forward to working with the commissioner, my colleagues and staff in other related ministries, and our many community partners to share a more effective, integrated child welfare system.

[2:45]

Our commitment to this key initiative is reflected in our budget. The single largest spending increase in the ministry this year, an increase of 9.5 percent, or $35 million, is allocated to the child, family and community services division. These funds will be applied directly to supporting the implementation of Gove report recommendations and our new legislation.

We're also targeting increased resources to the implementation of our new Adoption Act, scheduled for proclamation this November, and to the provision of additional and improved services to children in care. As our population increases and public processes such as the Gove inquiry make people more aware of their responsibility to report child protection concerns, the number of children coming into the ministry's care continues to rise. Compared to 1993-94, the number of child protection investigations conducted by the ministry in 1995-96 was up 16.5 percent.

The number of children admitted to the ministry's care increased by more than 22 percent in the same period. These figures underscore the vital importance of strengthening and improving British Columbia's child welfare system.

As I said at the outset, change is underway in all parts of the ministry. That includes our community support services division, which supports adults with mental handicaps and children with special needs. This year we will complete the 15-year process of deinstitutionalization, moving people with mental handicaps out of institutions and into community living. At this time last year, British Columbia maintained two institutions for adults with mental handicaps: Glendale in Victoria and Woodlands in New Westminster.

Glendale closed at the end of fiscal year '95-96; Woodlands is scheduled to close at the end of December 1996, making British Columbia the first province in the country to complete this historic process.

I look forward to joining people from the community and former ministers of Social Services this November in Richmond at a celebration for community living marking this achievement. I encourage members of this House to attend as well. Cost savings from closing institutions are being reinvested within the ministry. Two hundred FTEs available from the Glendale closure have been retained in the ministry's base and are being applied to implementation of our new child welfare legislation.

There is one final area on which I would like to comment: administration and support services. As you know, across government we are working towards a leaner, more efficient service delivery system. Social Services is no exception. In addition to major efficiencies in program areas such as income assistance, we're continuing to cut overhead cost, ensuring maximum resources available to serve people.

We're reducing spending, administration and support by 8.1 percent, or $6 million, in '96-97 due to staffing reductions and efficiency savings in travel, contracts, furniture and systems costs. We're also planning increased audits of ministry programs and contracted agencies to improve accountability and to ensure the most efficient use of our resources. We're encouraging greater efficiency in our contracted resources through a new financing transaction. It provides repayable funds to community agencies for efficiency-related infrastructure projects.

In closing, I'd like to say that the ministry will continue its focus on eliminating fraud, waste, abuse and duplication, and improving efficiency of service delivery to make sure resources go only to those who are truly in need. Through this fiscal year we will also continue to manage the income assistance caseload downward as we implement social safety net renewal, strengthen our position as a North American leader in community living for people with disabilities and support the redesign of British Columbia's child welfare system.

As I said earlier, we would not be able to do this within this ministry without the staff that support us and support the clients on a day-by-day basis. I would like to reiterate my thanks to those folks out there that work on behalf of British Columbians that find themselves in need. I'm proud to say we will accomplish all this while cutting costs to taxpayers.

M. Coell: I appreciate your words, and I welcome them. I would also like to say that I welcome your staff being with you today. They have a reputation for being professional and having a great deal of integrity. I'm pleased they're here.

Mr. Minister, you mentioned that this is a new portfolio for you and your first time in the House for these estimates. I can admit to you that this is a first time for me being a critic of Social Services. I look forward to the estimates and questions and answers.

I must admit, though, coming from municipal government, that I was rather surprised when I got the estimates and the budget that there are is a very small number of pages for such a large amount of money. In the municipality, our budget for a mere $50 million is usually ten to 12 inches thick, right down to lawnmowers and pavement. I find that it would be nice -- I realize it may not be possible -- to have an in-depth budget that goes out to individual offices to debate in this chamber. I asked your staff for a line-by-line breakdown, and I appreciate receiving that.

I have shared it with members of the opposition caucus who will be assisting me in the estimates procedure. We would like to go through it with you, as your staff have presented it, line by line.

We realize that for any questions on the Gove inquiry you may wish to have further staff here, so we will not ask questions on the Gove inquiry until your staff are present, possibly at the next sitting of this House dealing with these estimates.

I would like to make a few comments on the ministry before we start with the questions on the estimates. I think over the last two decades there have been three trends that this ministry has seen. One is increased income assistance roles. That trend has been increasing not only in B.C. but all

[ Page 398 ]

across Canada for the last 20 years. Another is de-institutionalization -- we've seen Tranquille, Woodlands and Glendale. The people who lived there are now in the community. There is also an increased interest in child protection, child welfare. Those three trends are very evident in your throne speech and, indeed, in the estimates that we have before us. You're spending time on those three areas.

I'd like to give you a little history of the institutions that have been abandoned: Woodlands, Tranquille and Glendale. I had the opportunity in the early seventies of working in two of those institutions. When I look back at Woodlands and the state of that facility in the seventies, it was an atrocious building. The people in it were living in conditions far worse than many of our prisons. I can remember working at Woodlands and looking across at the B.C.

Penitentiary, knowing that those people in that particular penitentiary were living what I would consider a better quality life than some of the people in Woodlands. So I'm absolutely thrilled to see that this year marks the end of institutions for people with mental handicaps in British Columbia. I look forward to celebrating with the minister that particular event in the fall.

I think it's important for all of us to say a little something to the people who lived in those institutions and to their families. I know that many of the people who have moved out of those institutions are living much better lives now -- happier lives with a lot more influence from friends and family. That is, if anything, in the Ministry of Social Services a remarkable accomplishment over the last 20 years, not just for this government but for the previous government and the one before that which started the process. So I think you can take some pride in that, as I know the families and the people who lived in those institutions over the last almost 80 years can do.

We will want to look very closely at the increase in welfare rolls. We've seen almost a doubling of the people on income assistance in the past five years, and it's been consistent across the country. It's been consistent elsewhere in North America as well.

Child protection -- the Gove inquiry -- is another one that I think people around the province are asking about and demanding answers to their questions. I, as well as other members of the opposition, look forward to those answers.

I have a few general questions, Mr. Minister, to start off with, and then others in my caucus will have some questions as well. One thing that I would like you to comment on is the excluded managers in the ministry. In looking through the ministries, there seems to an average across ministries -- in Health, Finance -- of about 10 to 12 percent excluded managers. It appears, in looking through Social Services, that about 4 percent would be excluded, and those are people who generally look closely at the purse strings. I just wonder whether you can shed some light on why it's been designed to have a smaller percentage of excluded managers within the system.

Again, hon. Chair, we thank you for listening to our comments and questions.

Hon. D. Streifel: It is true that we have a smaller number of those excluded folks -- or managerial types. This ministry has made a conscious decision and made it a practice to focus the resources in the field on service delivery and not at that end of the management scale.

M. Coell: The financial assistance workers some time ago had changes in their job descriptions that I believe had created some problems for the union. I wonder if you could comment on that. This was in regard to the B.C. Benefits package and some changes in job descriptions.

Hon. D. Streifel: It's my understanding that the job description for FAWs wasn't changed. I would ask if the member is referring to the movement of some of the folks from Social Services to Skills, Training and Labour through that process.

M. Coell: That's correct. Could he comment on that?

Hon. D. Streifel: It's my understanding. . . . I thought I heard your question to say that there was a union difficulty here, and I'm not quite sure I'm picking up if that's an actuality. Folks did move. The job description for FAWs didn't change. In some areas folks moved from Social Services to Skills and Training to work on the program to move individuals from welfare to the workforce; that's what the program is about. There's a good cooperative working relationship. I understand there's even co-location -- offices and things that are shared and resources that are shared. I understand the process to be working quite well.

[3:00]

M. Coell: I'm pleased to hear that. I had heard that there may have been some difficulties, but if you've assured us that there aren't, that's good enough for me.

A question that we've been talking about at some length in the House is the B.C. family bonus. The bill was passed and given royal assent today, so hopefully the cheques will be in the mail. We had commented about the potential loss of up to $4 a month per child that we felt was cash out of the individual's pocket. The minister, and a number of other ministers, commented that programs were being developed that would offset that. I would just like the minister to comment on those programs and how they see the offsetting of up to $250 a year for a single person with five dependent children. How is that going to relate to the cash out of pocket that we had mentioned?

Hon. D. Streifel: I would just offer a little caution, through the Chair, that this is part of the overall B.C. Benefits initiatives that we're under. The family bonus is a Finance bill, but I will endeavour to get into an explanation without belabouring what's already been gone over by the Finance minister -- if that's acceptable to the House. I guess within the rules of order it probably would have to be acceptable whether I wanted it to be or not. In fact, I have a bit of a disturbance when I continually see the characterization of the removal of $4 a month off these cheques.

I would suggest that I would lend any member or any reporter or anybody a calculator at the end of the month to total up the two cheques and find that they are exactly the same. I would expect a number of individuals to come forward and say: "Hmmm, maybe we should have a fresh look at this. Our criticisms haven't been on point."

I think it's unfortunate that the opposition continues to characterize this program as a removal of up to $250 from these families. I think it's unfortunate, and I think it's irresponsible to continually portray this in this manner. Within this whole program there is going to be a redistribution of possibly $6 million of the child sales tax credit that comes back into the

[ Page 399 ]

system and is applied in a program-based way all through the income-assistance and low-income families, both within and without the system. It regenerates itself in the form of about $15 million in expenditures on programs such as increased child subsidies and spaces. There's about $13.7 million involved in child care activity that's broader based than it ever was before. There's a transition-to-work allowance of up to $150 to help train and sustain and move individuals who are taking training within the system and move them out of the system. There's Healthy Kids dental and optical care.

There are provisions for two-parent families to get coverage here where they never had before. Of course, there are the new job search and training programs.

This is all increased expenditures that come back into the system to support the working poor for the very first time in British Columbia -- and the very first time in Canada, as a matter of fact -- as well as to support families on income assistance, to help their lives, to help them in transition from welfare to the workforce. If we have to commit ourselves in this province and as a society once and for all to make work a better deal than welfare -- and that is what this program is about -- it's unfortunate that one aspect of a broadly based program is continually focused on in a negative manner, when it will not happen in the manner that has been portrayed by the opposition.

M. Coell: I appreciate those words. It's a shame that the minister didn't speak, rather than the Minister of Finance. The minister has outlined it much clearer than the Minister of Finance did. I appreciate that.

The minister mentioned in his opening remarks that the caseload is significantly down from last year. I wonder whether the minister could comment on that caseload. Have there been any shifts to other ministries of people who are still in care or requiring assistance? Do they have any projections for that caseload to go up or down during the year?

The Chair: The hon. minister.

Hon. D. Streifel: Thank you, hon. Chair. I remember my days of sitting there. I hope that the examination of these estimates will not bore and distract you, because I honestly think it's a very important endeavour we're going about today, a very serious business.

To address the question from the member about the drop in cases, it has been dropping every month. The cases have been down; it's not just a one-month glitch in the system. In fact, the focus of our whole Social Services program has accomplished finally, once and for all in British Columbia, what we didn't think was accomplishable.

M. Coell: I guess the welfare scenario you've outlined is a probable conclusion. But what we're interested in is that income assistance or welfare is very much demand-driven. If we have a slowdown in the economy or changes in employment patterns during the year, those targets possibly won't be met. What contingency plans do you have in your ministry for a slowdown in the economy and, if that's the case, an increase in the caseload -- which isn't in the estimates? I wonder if you could comment on that, please.

Hon. D. Streifel: To back up to the first question by the member a few moments ago, I left out part of the answer. I apologize to the member. It's my intention to give as complete and accurate information as is possible through these estimates.

There is no shift, from this ministry to other ministries, to pick up those individuals. In fact, there's a legitimate drop. Maybe to supply some further numbers or figures. . . . I could do it here or supply the information to the member. A nod would say here. Okay.

Income assistance caseloads are expected to come down from an average of 218,000 per month in '95-96 to 191,000 in '96-97. Figures for June 1996 already show caseloads dropping to 205,800, and they are expected to continue declining. This is ahead of the projections.

Caseload and cost reductions will be achieved through continued savings from caseload management initiatives; continued and new savings from prevention, compliance and enforcement initiatives; development of job-training opportunities, particularly for young people; transfers of clients to student financial assistance; the impact of the family bonus and Healthy Kids programs; and generally providing a climate that makes work a better deal than welfare.

I hope that helps. Of course, we have anticipated employment growth in the forestry, environmental technologies and tourism industries, which are all expected to further reduce welfare caseloads -- as we do have increasing employment in forestry. I remember that, hon. Chair. Probably the ears of the hon. member for Matsqui would be interested in that one.

M. Coell: Thank you for your opening comments. I have completed the general questions that we had as a caucus. We now request a return to the document prepared by your staff, and other members of the opposition have questions for you.

V. Anderson: Following up, if I might, with the minister on the drop in caseloads, if I understand the figures that I heard correctly, there was a 13,000 drop, from 218,000 to 205,000. If I'm right in that arithmetic, I was wondering if the minister might say how many of the 13,000 were refugees who were not able to access the service, how many were single and had moved into the province, and how many were youth who were 19 to 25 and would not make it into the program. What I'm trying to understand is: of the 13,000, what were the categories of persons, and how was this 13,000 made up?

Hon. D. Streifel: Before I get into the answer for the hon. member, I'd like to introduce one more member of my staff. An individual that's responsible in a large way for the community living initiatives, Theresa Kerin, is here. I think I neglected to introduce her in my opening remarks, and I'd like that recognition for Theresa.

I have some figures and numbers here. I could endeavour to supply a list that would cover off the member's question: the numbers, the points, the people. Generally, refugees can access our system. The major drop in cases is in the single-men and single-women categories. There's quite a large drop there; I think it's minus 7.6 percent and minus 6.5 percent. There are other minor drops -- couples and others. If the member would like, I could supply that information too in a little more detailed fashion than is possible through an oral response.

I get an indication from the member that he's interested in harder details on paper.

V. Anderson: There was a period of time that refugees were not eligible, and I understand refugees are now eligible. What was the reason for the shift? Why on the one hand were they not eligible and, on the other hand, they are eligible? I commend the fact that they are now eligible,

[ Page 400 ]

but there was a period, if I understand correctly, when that was not the case. I know we had many people in my own area very concerned about that.

Hon. D. Streifel: I guess, simply put, it was a reconsideration. In fact, the refugees have no other place to go, no other alternative, and that was the driving force behind changing the policy.

V. Anderson: It's always encouraging when people reconsider and change their minds. It sometimes makes it easier for the community to keep lobbying and to try to feed back to the ministry their concerns in any area.

Could the minister tell us the situation with regard to the three months' residency and the discussion with the federal government, and their withholding of $45 million a month, I think it was, and where that stands at this point? How much have we lost in the process, and what is being done to rectify that?

Hon. D. Streifel: I'm pleased the member would raise this. In fact, I'm going to have to be a little cautious in some of my responses, being new at this. I don't want to get too deep into an alligator pit, as the situation is still before the courts. I'm sure the member would agree, and I would hope that the whole Liberal opposition would agree, that this is a very serious national issue.

Now, we have differences across the country in levels of support and how we support. We should be striving for the re-establishment of the lost national standard. With continual cuts and offloads to the provincial government and to the taxpayers in British Columbia. . . . That's what this issue is about: levelling the playing field, having a national standard -- not a British Columbia standard, and everyone else can come behind. I think that's not fair to the taxpayers of British Columbia and to those of us who support the system. We will continue to do our work with the federal government and the other provinces to re-establish a properly level national standard.

[3:15]

V. Anderson: I agree with the minister -- it's a serious issue. I think it's a serious issue when we make an agreement and then unilaterally try to break that agreement and disobey the law when we're trying to convince our communities and our young people that the law should be obeyed until such time as we can change it. Discussing getting national standards is one thing, but disobeying the law and setting that kind of pattern is another.

Also, the minister has not indicated -- and perhaps he could -- how much money in total to date has been withheld by the federal government from the provincial government and how much would we project per month as this continues.

Hon. D. Streifel: I think the amount that's been withheld to date is $47 million.

I would like to ask the hon. member which laws have been broken. Has the hon. member predetermined the outcome of a court case? I think that's a little bit irresponsible at this time. On behalf of British Columbia and the taxpayers, I wouldn't expect that that's how the opposition would characterize a representation of the community. I would ask which deal the hon. member is referring to and which deal was broken when we agreed to something.

Is this the Canada Assistance Plan deal with the taxpayers and the citizens of British Columbia, which was broken, and the destruction of that Canada Assistance Plan by the current federal Liberal government? I would like some clarification on that, please.

V. Anderson: Hon. Chair, if the minister was to explain under what plan they have taken the government to court, then perhaps he would answer his own question. He could explain to us why they have taken the government to court, under what plan and for what reason.

Hon. D. Streifel: The $47 million owed to British Columbians is for social assistance costs for the month of November 1995. The province was in full compliance with the Canada Assistance Plan during that month, and Ottawa is not entitled to withhold that payment. B.C. has launched a court challenge to have the $47 million reinstated. We are confident that our case is strong.

While the issue of the $47 million is of course important, the real issue here is the $508 million the federal government withheld from British Columbia in 1995-96 because of the cap on CAP. Ergo my reference: "Which deal with the citizens of British Columbia was broken?" I think the federal government has abandoned their responsibility and abandoned the idea of fair play to this province. They have withheld $1.8 billion from B.C. taxpayers since 1990 for welfare funding. I would ask the hon. member to comment on the unfair treatment that British Columbia receives at the hand of Ottawa when it comes to supporting those in need in British Columbia.

V. Anderson: I don't have the figures here, but it's my understanding that in actual fact the transfers and the tax credits -- putting together the actual money that came from the federal government to the provincial government in the last year -- were, in total, more than they received in the previous year. I don't have the figures here, I can't quote them, but that's my understanding.

If we move on to the report from the ministry, it talks about income support to youth under the age of 19 living independently in the child's home or the home of a relative. Approximately how many young people are covered by that category at the present time? And when we are talking about youth under 19, what is the lower age that you are using for that category?

Hon. D. Streifel: Independent living, youth under the age of 19 -- there are 2,215 across the province.

V. Anderson: Has that been increasing or decreasing? What's the scope? What's the projection, because of the history that's underway at the moment?

Hon. D. Streifel: It's been steadily decreasing. It's down 26.6 percent year over year.

V. Anderson: That's a significant decrease. Is there a shift from independent living to more young people living in homes of relatives? What I'm referring to here is that the Child, Family and Community Service Act has brought in a different philosophy to try and encourage young people to live in their family and to get support in families rather than living independently. What is the focus of the ministry in working with these young people, in trying to establish them in relationships with relatives if their own family has broken down?

[ Page 401 ]

Hon. D. Streifel: I am wondering if the member is referring to the child-in-the-home-of-a-relative category. We have 4,191 across the province. That's an increase of 2.9 percent year over year. Does that help the hon. member?

The Chair: I recognize now the hon. member for Matsqui.

M. de Jong: Hon. Chair, I'll just try to ask some of these questions. Butt in as they come up, so we're not retracing. With respect to the case pertaining to the $47 million from November 1995 -- and I do understand that it is before the courts -- what is the status of the case? Perhaps the minister could summarize for the House what the province's arguments were with respect to claiming the payment of those moneys. What were the province's submissions to the court in support of its position?

The Chair: Hon. minister -- recognizing that this is indeed before the courts.

Hon. D. Streifel: Absolutely, hon. Chair. Thank you for the caution. I wouldn't expect that the hon. member for Matsqui would require that caution, given what his chosen vocation is.

The status of the action is that it is before the courts. In simple terms, our presentation is that we're right and they're wrong. They owe it to us. Otherwise, the documents are exchanged, and I will not and indeed cannot supply details.

M. de Jong: I appreciate what the minister has said. There have certainly been extensive comments made as to what the province's position is in argument. I was in no way asking the minister to anticipate what the outcome might be. There is obviously a position that the province has that extends beyond "we're right and they're wrong." I think it relates to an

interpretation of the governing statute that we've heard from other members of the government. I think he should be prepared -- I'm asking him, through you, hon. Chair -- to summarize what that position is.

The Chair: I think we all -- and particularly the hon. members on their feet -- know the issues and that we are there in the courts. But I think the arguments just provoke other arguments, and I think it's not appropriate, then, that that argument actually be defined here. I think the issue is clear and the facts of the matter are clear.

Hon. D. Streifel: I would deliver to the hon. member for Matsqui an answer to the same question as earlier, which I think is within the information realm that I can safely deliver without getting into the argument in the court case itself and the full presentation. It would be that the $47 million owed to British Columbians is for social assistance costs for the month of November 1995. British Columbia was in full compliance with CAP during that month.

M. de Jong: Can the minister indicate when argument will be heard or whether he's aware of when a decision is pending on the case?

Hon. D. Streifel: No, I can't. I won't; I'll resist. I don't know. The date hasn't been set yet.

M. de Jong: I take it, then, that argument hasn't been heard to this point. The minister can confirm that.

If we can move on, the other philosophical issue that I think arose during the course of that whole debate -- that whole issue -- was the notion of imposing a residency requirement on individuals who seek to collect social assistance from any province. The provincial government made a decision. . . . I guess that when you try to square that with the notion of universality that we have tended to have in this country, you have some difficulty. I would appreciate hearing from the minister his thoughts on where that road may lead if other jurisdictions purport to adopt a similar approach.

I understand that in British Columbia we are confronted by the reality that we have an influx of people, many of whom -- or some of whom -- avail themselves of our social safety net, which is financed by the taxpayers of this province. Nonetheless, when we begin to differentiate in the way that we seem to be doing now with respect to a residency requirement -- in our case, it's three months; I suppose another province might say it should be six months or a year -- we can all see the potential difficulties for a breakdown in what we thought was a universal network or a universal social safety net in the country.

I would like to hear what the minister's thoughts on that are.

Hon. D. Streifel: I think it's very important that we discuss, explore and accept the position, the premise, the focus, of a national standard for Canada for social programs, for health care -- universality. I wouldn't describe universality in Canada, particularly the way it stands today, where we get funded for 33-cent dollars to support our income assistance individuals and our programs, and other provinces get 50-cent dollars. . . . I think that's where the breakdown has come, where the federal government has abandoned the premise of universality in the base treatment of province over province over province.

We have met with other provinces -- with the ministers from other provinces -- to discuss the application of a national standard as opposed to a federally imposed standard. Those discussions will continue in September of this year when the Minister of Social Services of British Columbia hosts a meeting with the other ministers of social services from across Canada, or the departments -- however they're umbrellaed. We will be discussing further the application of a national standard for the social safety net in this country.

I think it's vitally important that as our economies across the country change and as British Columbia, with its very hot provincial economy. . . . As destination of choice for in-migration, we have to be cautious that we don't pick up the destruction from other provinces in this manner. We have to provide base coverage for those individuals that choose to spend their permanent lives here and support the taxpayers of British Columbia, as we continually focus on the establishment of a national standard for our social safety net, not an imposed, federal, Ottawa standard that discriminates against British Columbia taxpayers.

M. de Jong: I wonder: is that the justification for what was done here? Is it purely a function of the fact that we are a destination, that we are attracting more people than other provinces? Does the minister agree that the three-month residency requirement -- which was unilaterally decided upon and imposed -- represents a fundamental departure from the notion of universality? There may be reasons for that, and it may be possible to justify it, but is that the justification? Is it purely a function of the fact that we can't afford people coming to the province and immediately availing themselves of our welfare rolls, or is there a broader issue at play here?

[ Page 402 ]

I don't think that question has ever been properly answered. Is it just finances, or is the government trying to send another message to, for example, the federal government?

[3:30]

Hon. D. Streifel: What we're dealing with is the destruction and the loss of a national standard of funding for the social safety net -- for health, social services and post-secondary education -- in Canada. That's the real issue. If the hon. member for Matsqui would stand up and say with us, "Ottawa, restore our funding," I don't think we'd be having this discussion.

The Chair: Hon. members, I should let you know that I am monitoring this conversation very closely. I am worried it's getting close to course and policy and getting away from estimates. Be alert that we're paying attention.

M. de Jong: Hon. Chair, I must confess I thought this was precisely the forum for this sort of discussion, so if I'm treading. . . . I'm sure you'll let me know.

I guess I have to say to the minister. . . . I recognize the tension that exists between the province and the federal government, and the desire of the provincial government to redress what is seen to be a fundamental imbalance. Yet I have to emphasize that my question comes to him from the perspective of the individual who would formerly have been in a position to relocate to the province of British Columbia and have a social safety net immediately available to him or her, and that no longer exists.

If the minister, the government and the governments across the country are unsuccessful -- and to this point there is no guarantee that they will be successful in achieving the national standard the minister speaks of -- the possibility of a fundamental breakdown exists, and there will then be impediments to the movement of people across this country. In some cases that may be legitimate, but I think the minister is approaching this purely from the basis of: what can we do to drive home the point to Ottawa?

There's another perspective here, which is that of the individual that is being caught in the shuffle. I'm wondering what the minister would say to that individual who says to the government: "Six months ago I would have qualified. I would have been covered by a social safety net here in British Columbia, and because you're embroiled in a dispute, that principle of universality has been sacrificed."

Hon. D. Streifel: Hon. Chair, with your caution of a few moments ago in mind, I would suggest to the hon. member that there is nothing stopping anybody, from any part of the country, from moving to British Columbia. We're asking that some individuals keep a little planning exercise in mind when they come here. I will also ask the hon. member for a suggestion: what would he do?

I look forward to support from the Liberal opposition on a number of these issues that are very, very serious and very important to British Columbians. I would ask the hon. member for Matsqui to put the Liberal caucus on record on this issue.

M. de Jong: As the minister knows, we're all on record in this House. What I would ask of the minister is a realization that this policy, this dispute, affects people in very real ways.

Now, the minister makes a very accurate point when he says that people can still come to British Columbia. I have to tell him quite candidly that I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who may have been on social assistance in another province and just as a result of the fact that the weather might be a bit better in British Columbia decide to move out here and make a switch. But there are some times when it is legitimately done -- a relocation takes place because of improved job prospects, when there is a real desire to better oneself in another part of this country.

I have to say to the minister that I still like to think of Canada as one country, and when I see impediments to the movement of individuals, albeit low-income people, I get concerned.

The minister asked for suggestions. Well, we've made a suggestion. I haven't heard a response from the government. We've suggested that when people come to this province and they find themselves in financial difficulty, for a period of time the social assistance that they would qualify for would be at the rate of their host province or the province of British Columbia, whichever is less. These are some of the things we can do to eliminate what the minister might describe as an incentive to come to British Columbia and acquire higher welfare payments. There's a suggestion.

I don't know if that's an issue that the minister is taking up with his colleagues across the provinces, if that's within the realm of the national standard that he contemplates. I'd be interested to know.

Hon. D. Streifel: The member keeps treading closer to the question that was asked earlier about positioning, within and outside of the challenge on the residency. The hon. member did offer a solution and a suggestion -- actually, what they brought forward in the election campaign. They were going to -- it's true -- restrict income assistance for welfare individuals to the level of support of their home province. But they had a caveat. Whether it was the B.C. rate or from any other province, it was time-limited to one year. I thought that was a bit mean-spirited, and I said so at the time.

M. de Jong: But the minister hasn't addressed the point. In terms of establishing a national standard, will there continue to be differences from province to province, and how does he intend to account for those differences? He hasn't addressed those points.

The Chair: Further discussion?

Interjection.

The Chair: So it would seem.

The hon. member continues -- another line of questioning perhaps.

M. de Jong: Yes, hon. Chair.

Part and parcel of the program that was introduced by the government -- and I have to say to the minister's predecessor, who is in the House, and the staff. . . . We were all granted -- at least I was in my riding -- a very good, fairly detailed briefing by the regional staff on how they saw that program being implemented. One of the questions that arose in October-November, when those briefings were announced. . . .

The point was made quite categorically that if people arrived in this province -- particularly single individuals, but it wasn't restricted to them; even families -- and found themselves in a position where they were applying for social assistance within the three-month window, they would be told that wasn't available. Some effort would be made to find alternatives, but in fairly short order they would be escorted out of the province.

[ Page 403 ]

My reaction at that point was: "I understand that policy; that's very simple. We're coming up to Christmas and I wonder to what extent this will be followed through on." At the time I was assured by the regional staff that statistics would be available shortly thereafter to track just how often that took place: how many times bus tickets were provided to people to return them from whence they came, to their home province. I'm wondering if the minister can indicate now to what extent that took place. What statistics are available?

Hon. D. Streifel: I don't have an exact number for the member, on bus tickets. We can get that for him. Bus tickets were offered; they weren't mandatory. In fact, I think the member was a bit off the mark when he spoke of families with children. We do accept families with children in British Columbia.

M. de Jong: If I wasn't clear, I apologize. The briefing I received indicated that the requirement to leave the province within the three-month period was not restricted simply to single people. If I'm mistaken, maybe the minister could point that out. I guess the specific question, then, is: if you arrived with a family and you qualified for social assistance within the three months. . . . But I think the minister gets my question.

Hon. D. Streifel: Yes. Families with children are accepted, and as a matter of fact there is no requirement to leave the province within that three months. It's an option.

V. Anderson: I'd like to get some clarification in regard to a couple of things the minister has said about national standards. Initially, I thought he was talking about national standards of service that would be provided equally in each province so that no matter where a person lived they would get the same kind of service. That's what I initially thought he meant by a national standard. But when he made his comment about the 50-cent and the 33-cent dollars, it seemed to me that he wasn't talking about the service, he was really talking about the cost of the service.

He made a further comment that if we continued to receive the same amount of money, then all would be well. So it seemed to me that the minister was talking about a national standard of the amount of money we received from Ottawa rather than a national standard of the service that was being provided. Could he tell me what kind of standard he was talking about, because I'm confused at this point?

Hon. D. Streifel: I would suggest to the hon. member that he goes back to an answer that we came up with a little earlier. I am meeting with other ministers from across the country in the fall to discuss this very issue. It gets toward future policy as we're trying to envision in this House, through the examination of these estimates, what a national standard is and a definition of it. That's what we'll be doing in the future with the other ministers and with the federal government involved. I would hope that we would respect the rules of the House and stay away from future policy in the examination of the estimates of the Ministry of Social Services.

The Chair: Thank you, hon. minister, for that advice to all of us.

V. Anderson: In all humility, I think the citizens of the province are quite concerned about the standards or the philosophy upon which this set of estimates is based. So it's not future policy; it's policy about what we're doing right at the present moment and policy that affected the income they've received over the last number of months since December 1. We're not talking about future policy; we're talking about present actions.

I'm surprised also that the government here, which presently maintains that it's quite appropriate to take more money from the rich in order to give needed money to the poor, is suggesting that the wealthiest province in Canada, according to all of their statements and estimates, should not be sharing any of that wealth with others. That's why I'm trying to get at the national standard. Is the minister saying that we're expecting that each province will always pay the same?

Or are we changing the rules from what they have been in our negotiations -- which are present negotiations; they're not future -- on how we share in the Canadian federation? That's basic to the families and the people who come and move across the province and will need to know the policy upon which our government is welcoming or not welcoming them.

Hon. D. Streifel: I'm going to try something and not step out of my own caution, because I realize that I'm up here as a minister. In fact, I will caution the hon. member and suggest to him that I cannot -- will not even attempt to -- speak about what is in the thoughts and minds of other provinces and other ministers. In order to get into a debate on that line of questioning, I think I'd have to do that. I can't predetermine what we're going to talk about in September when they're out here.

There will be an agenda published for the meeting amongst the ministers, but I have no idea what their conclusions and their thoughts and presentations are. I don't have a crystal ball in front of me to determine this.

But, in fact, to emphasize to the hon. member for Vancouver-Langara some of the difficulties faced by British Columbians and British Columbia taxpayers and all of us within this House who are charged with the responsibility of stewarding our financial resources -- situations where the federal cutbacks since 1990 to what has now been renamed the employment insurance program have increased B.C.'s income assistance expenditures by a cumulative total of $123 million. . . .

The additional employment insurance -- it used to be called unemployment insurance, because when you're not working you're not working -- announced in December 1995 will further increase our income assistance caseloads and expenditures. I would like some help from the Liberal opposition in this House to fight those kinds of off-loads, cutbacks and degradation to those in this country that need help most and are being abandoned systematically by Ottawa. Our British Columbia taxpayers are being asked to pick up an unfair burden.

[3:45]

M. de Jong: Does the province presently have a position on what it sees as an appropriate national standard within the context to which the minister has been referring?

Hon. D. Streifel: No.

M. de Jong: Do portions of the estimates we are debating today relate to resources that will be devoted to developing that position?

Hon. D. Streifel: Not to be flippant, hon. member -- through the Chair -- but I would suppose so, as staff from the ministry will be working in conjunction with me to explore some avenues to prepare for this meeting. So I suppose the answer is certainly. I don't know if I could find a budget line

[ Page 404 ]

other than that the folks right here will be participating in that formulation and that discussion, because I think we all understand how these things happen. You sit around; you talk a little; you formulate some stuff and maybe identify some goals and some visions. That process will be underway prior to the meeting, and if folks here are going to participate in that, then some of the ministry money is spent on it.

M. de Jong: Has a committee been struck within the ministry to develop the position which the minister has been referring to during these debates?

Hon. D. Streifel: The answer is no.

M. de Jong: Does the minister contemplate the striking of such a committee?

The Chair: the member for Matsqui continues.

M. de Jong: Hon. Chair, I purposely asked the minister whether resources from his budget would be devoted to this process. He has answered that they would be. I'm asking now about the manner in which that is going to take place, and I seek a ruling from you as to whether that's an appropriate question or not. The minister may not want to answer it, but is it an appropriate question?

The Chair: It's up to the minister to respond. I don't think it's an inappropriate question. If the minister chooses not to respond, then that's up to the minister. Do you wish to continue?

M. de Jong: Yes I do, hon. Chair.

If the minister is unprepared to disclose the process by which this all-important position and policy is to be developed and reached, will he provide some indication to this committee as to when during the course of this fiscal year we can expect that position to have been reached and that policy to have been established?

Hon. D. Streifel: In an attempt to respond to the member's question without trying to predetermine the outcome of some meeting that hasn't exactly happened yet, I would say that B.C.'s first responsibility is to provide assistance to British Columbians in need. The preservation of our social safety net is a major priority for the British Columbia government.

It reflects our commitment to see adequate support provided to those in genuine need, but the lack of federal support and our commitment to protect essential services for British Columbians left us with no other option but to introduce a residence requirement for welfare applicants. The situation is made even worse in light of the fact that British Columbia is a province of destination for Canadians, averaging over 2,200 new welfare starts per month from other provinces last year.

To preserve the province's safety net, the British Columbia government had no choice but to introduce some of the requirements. In fact, what we're doing now as a government -- if you've noticed over the past few days and since last November -- is outline the B.C. Benefits program. We are leading the way in Canada. We will deliver the B.C. Benefits program that will once and for all change the social safety net structure in British Columbia. I think that would be an admirable beginning to the establishment of a national standard. That's just about as close as I can go to try to determine where we're at and what we've done. All that work on B.C. Benefits has already been done, in formulation.

M. de Jong: I have been careful not to ask the minister to presume to speak on behalf of other provinces, because he's not in a position to do that, as he correctly points out. He has told this House, this committee, that he will be engaging in meetings and putting forth a position for the province of British Columbia. He has said that resources from within his ministry will be devoted to establishing that position. He has not been able to state the procedure that will be followed during the next fiscal year. I've asked him when he will have that position.

He has indicated that he is going to meetings and that he intends to take the position with him, presumably. When will we know what that position is? When will we know what the province of British Columbia intends by a national standard?

Hon. D. Streifel: With all respect to the hon. member for Matsqui, I have outlined already some of what we will be bringing to the table for discussion. I cannot outline in any way, shape or form a conclusion to those discussions. But let it be very, very clear: British Columbia is leading the way in Canada with the B.C. Benefits program that we exposed last November. We will be exposing that for the rest of the country to consider. I think it is important that we do that on behalf of British Columbians. It's been in front of us since last November in the exposed form, and in fact we have pieces of that before the House in the form of legislation.

We will be presenting, in other terms, our position to the other provinces, or our concern, I suppose -- I am not sure if it would be a position, because there is some court case going on -- that in fact British Columbia is funded differently than the rest of the country and we don't believe it's fair. We will be bringing that forward, and there again, I cannot determine the outcome or the conclusion or the acceptance of this by the other ministers or by Canada as a whole. We will be discussing with them that we think it was punitive to British Columbia to lose that $47 million. Those are the issues.

We have discussed this here close to an hour already. We've gone over and over and over the same ground, and I think we've covered all we can on this issue.

M. de Jong: I have to say, with the greatest respect, that when a minister of the Crown says that he intends to take a British Columbia position to a meeting that is imminent, that his staff and his ministry will be working on developing that position, it's not unreasonable for members of the opposition and the public at large to ask what that position is. Now, the minister can say: "We don't have it yet. We're working on it." That's fine. I've asked him when he thinks it will be available.

I will put these questions in rapid succession so perhaps we can draw this to a close. When does the minister believe the British Columbia position on a national standard for social assistance will be available, will have been determined by his ministry? That's the first question. Will he be prepared to share that policy and that position with members of the House as soon as it has been determined? That's the second question. Thirdly, does he believe that there is a role for the all-party standing committee that we have in this House to participate in that process of establishing British Columbia's position with respect to that national standard?

Hon. D. Streifel: In fact, I do welcome the input from the opposition about their views on what we are trying to accomplish here. Much of this has been in the public domain; much of this has been addressed already by the Premier and the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations. This is how some of these positions and things are developed, and I can't say at

[ Page 405 ]

this time what my exact words are going to be in that meeting. We're approaching that. I would suggest to the hon. member and to the Liberal opposition that I am open to their suggestions and consideration in preparation for that meeting.

M. de Jong: I didn't hear an answer to any one of those three questions. I'll concentrate on the third one. The minister points to the clock and laments the hour we've spent on this topic. In each and every one of his responses, very nearly, we have heard an invitation from him to participate in this process. I have suggested an avenue by which that could occur -- through the standing committee system we have. Is the minister saying that that is an inappropriate forum to involve all members of this House and that he has no intention of availing himself of that forum?

Hon. D. Streifel: Examination of the minister's estimates. . . . I'm not sure I know there is a line in the examination of the estimates for my budget that says "all-party committees." I don't think it's under my jurisdiction.

M. de Jong: The minister has confirmed that resources within his ministry will be devoted to dealing with this question. Those are his words, not mine. Each and every time he stands up, he is critical of the opposition for not providing, as he puts it, appropriate input. He raises those issues, not I. I have offered a mechanism by which this could take place, by which resources, mental and otherwise, in this House could be made available to the ministry who, as we know from the minister, are going to be working on this in any event.

I'm asking him whether, as part of this process that money from these estimates will be devoted toward, he's prepared to refer a matter of this sort to the standing committee. It's a yes-or-no answer. If he doesn't want to do it, maybe he can say so.

Hon. D. Streifel: The hon. member for Matsqui is not an apprentice in this House any longer. The hon. member is a journeyman. He should pick up the ticket and learn the job.

It is beyond my jurisdiction to refer this, but what I will do for the hon. member is bring it forward to my cabinet colleagues for discussion and decision. As you know, we have included the very valuable input from the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast on these issues of intergovernmental and national affairs as we relate to other provinces under the federal government, and I welcome input from all hon. members.

[4:00]

V. Anderson: The minister indicated that there were 2,200 people a month, people who came into the province, being added to our welfare rolls. How many are going off our welfare rolls by going out of the province? Could he give me the opposite figure to that, please?

Hon. D. Streifel: I don't think we know. I don't think we have an exit count -- leaving the province. I'll caution the hon. member that if the information is available, I'll have it supplied, but we don't currently have an exit count. If that helps, then. . . .

V. Anderson: I think it's important, if we're negotiating or trying to understand. . . . I've always known that there are two sides to a balance sheet. There's the plus and the minus. Unless we have some indication of the minus side, I don't think that we can say. . . . It may well be that there's a net increase of only 500 a month coming onto our. . . . There may even be a decrease. Unless we have that figure. . . . Giving a gross input without the other is not a fair presentation, and so I would ask the minister and the ministry to look into this and would appreciate hearing from them as a result.

A concern was raised as I listened to you, and that was a scenario about the family bonus plan that I hadn't thought of, I must admit, until this discussion. The minister was concerned that single persons from outside the province were coming onto our welfare rolls before they had lived here three months. Is this a principle that might apply to the family bonus if, because of this new family bonus, we get an influx of people coming to work in British Columbia because they will have more security with their work?

Has the minister indicated the principle that if there is an influx of people to work here because it's beneficial with the security of the family bonus, a three-month residency will also be required for them?

Hon. D. Streifel: If the question refers to the application of the B.C. family bonus as was introduced by the Finance minister, I would ask the member to put questions that come under the jurisdiction of the Finance minister to the Finance minister during examination of those estimates. It's not within the realm and the structure of my estimates.

L. Stephens: I'd like to talk about services to youth, a little different topic, and specifically about page 2 of the document that the ministry very kindly sent over to us, the one that talks about income support for youth under age 19 living independently. I would like to ask the minister if there is an age limit on the youth who would receive assistance. I would also like to ask: under what conditions is this income support granted? Perhaps I'll settle for those two at the moment.

Hon. D. Streifel: Sorry, hon. member for Langley. I probably missed most of the question, in an endeavour to get the answer early so I could have the correct answer and correct information for the hon. member. As a matter of fact, as I understood it, the first part of the question was: is there an age limit? Of course, by description, youth in this program are under 19. Does that answer the question for the hon. member?

Interjection.

Hon. D. Streifel: Then, with all due respect, I will sit very attentively if the hon. member for Langley would restate the question.

L. Stephens: I would be pleased to restate the question and perhaps give a bit of background as well. From time to time -- and I'm sure this happens in other MLAs' offices around the province -- parents come to our office because their child has gone to Social Services and received income support to live independently. They give various reasons for wanting this income support. The parents have virtually no power to bring the children home. They don't even have the ability to go to the police to do that.

I know of a couple of instances where the children were 14, and I consider those 14-year-olds to be not capable of living independently. So I ask the minister the age, if there is a floor, for children whom the ministry would support to live independently.

The second question was: with a child coming to the ministry for income support to live independently, what are the conditions that would be granted?

[ Page 406 ]

Hon. D. Streifel: The process for 17-to-19-year-olds is that normally under these circumstances we would check with the parents. If there's a good home -- a good home environment -- we would try reconciliation. But if a child is at risk, funds are issued to the 17-to-19-year-old, maybe for an independent-living circumstance.

I'm told that for children under 17, like 14-year-olds, it just wouldn't happen. If the member has the evidence or the cases, perhaps we -- the staff or the process in the ministries -- should examine that to determine what the situation is. I think it's a very serious issue that the member brings forward. We should endeavour to find a solution to that.

L. Stephens: Hon. minister, this happens quite regularly, I'm told. One of the reasons is that all the high school students in school know what they can and cannot get from Social Services, and they know the reasons that they can put forward in order to get independent living. In many areas of the province it's quite common that if they can't get along with their parents or they don't like the rules at home, they can simply go to Social Services and say anything in order to receive this independent living allowance.

If the minister isn't aware of what is happening, I will endeavour to get some of the information to him that I have in my office so that he can pursue this a little more thoroughly.

I'd like to ask a second question about the goals and objectives of this income support for youth under age 19 and what the ministry does to try to get these individuals off income support: whether there is counselling available; whether there is some kind of intervention program; whether there is some kind of family support program that would help these youths either return to their families, if indeed that's appropriate, or find an alternative solution, so they can be living in a safe and secure environment.

[R. Kasper in the chair.]

Hon. D. Streifel: As I understand it, the question from the member was around what services are in place for youth under the system. I think that I'm missing part of the presentation here, and I don't know if I'm confused -- which is not unlikely -- but if we're talking about independent living or someone approaching an income assistance office and acquiring some funds, if in fact there are some services available, income support for youth under age 19 living independently, and the child in a home of a relative. . . .

We have Reconnect programs, mediation services, services to young people who are in continuing care, youth-in-care organizations and support groups, consultation with youth, and the Vancouver action plan, a shared program with the Ministry of Social Services. If that's the reference the member is looking for, these programs and initiatives are in place for youth.

Could I get clarification on the focus of the question around kids in school that go down to the income assistance office and get something? I'm not quite sure what that's referring to.

If the member would bear with me, I've just received a broader response. We'll see if this helps. The new Child, Family and Community Service Act, which this government brought into effect in January '96, authorizes many programs for children and youth which support youth in becoming independent, and encourages participation of youth in making decisions that affect them. Many communities have developed plans to address issues such as drug abuse, violence, family breakdown and youth prostitution in their communities. The Ministry of Social Services is involved in the planning and provision of services.

In addition, the Ministry of Social Services funds 33 Reconnect programs to reach out to street youth across the province. The ministry also provides a range of residential and support services for youth -- including safe-house accommodation -- and is working with parents, families and communities to ensure the safety of youth at risk. The B.C. Benefits initiative Youth Works will provide opportunities for youth to move into the workforce through an entitlement to job search and work preparation. B.C.

Benefits also involves improved services for older children, specifically minors who have left home and cannot be reconciled with their families. These children will no longer be eligible for welfare; instead they will be able to enter into agreements with the director under the Child, Family and Community Service Act.

Does that help? If not, we'll try to expand further. If need be, I can arrange for some presentation by my staff for the member to get fuller answers, recognizing that I'm pretty new at this and most of my information comes from an outside source. It may come directly to the member, if the member chooses.

L. Stephens: It does help, Mr. Minister -- the information that you've provided.

My initial question is really focused around children under the age of 17 who have consistently received income support from the Ministry of Social Services for a variety of reasons. I would suggest to you that the checking and the phone calls to parents and so on, that the minister has referred to, don't happen on all occasions. I know that there are many children around the province under the age of 17 that are living independently with the support of the Social Services ministry.

[4:15]

There is a variety of services available to youth in general, as the minister has just noted. I'd like to know if the ministry has a program evaluation process to evaluate these programs for youth to determine whether or not they are in fact effective and if the intended outcomes of these programs are in fact being met.

Hon. D. Streifel: The answer is yes; there is an evaluation process. In fact, upon request we can supply some of that information to the member. We don't have line-by-line dots and dashes. That information can come forward to the member.

I'm particularly concerned with the presentation that the member has brought on youth under 17. I would say again that if there are some specifics that the staff or the ministry can help with, I would encourage the member to bring those forward so we can address this very, very serious issue. We have staff within the region, within your home community. Or if my staff here in Victoria could be of assistance to the member, on behalf of those young folk I would offer that and encourage it.

L. Stephens: In one of my earlier responses I did commit to the minister that I would in fact make that information available to him -- the instances that I'm aware of in my constituency.

[ Page 407 ]

I would like to ask a couple of questions about teen moms. Do you have the percentage of teen moms who are receiving income support who are under the age of 19 and living independently?

Hon. D. Streifel: We don't have the percentage number here that has been requested, but certainly we can make that available and we will.

L. Stephens: I notice in the preventive and support services for families that there are three initiatives here around teen moms. One is day care support, one is support to young parents and pregnant women, and the third is residential living for pregnant and young mothers. It has the '95-96 budget numbers, but there are no '96-97 budget numbers. Could the minister indicate whether in fact these programs are going to be funded primarily as they have been in the past or whether there is an increase or a decrease in the '96-97 budget projections?

Hon. D. Streifel: The programs will be supported. They're within an envelope of $72 million. They're not factored out, as I understand it, within the documents. They're in that $72 million envelope. The programs will continue.

L. Stephens: Could the minister elaborate on what day care support to teen parents is?

Hon. D. Streifel: The day care for teen parents assists young parents to resume education by providing qualified day care services to their children. I understand there are counselling services available in this as well. We refer the member back to some of the overall strategies on child care the government brought forward after the '91 election, where we include day care spaces and child care facilities in schools and colleges and things like that. I know I've participated across the province the last few years now in the opening of these facilities. That's all part of the program and the strategy.

L. Stephens: The Ministry of Women's Equality also has responsibility for day cares -- and also in the schools, as well. I'd like the minister to try and help me sort through what portion of day care support to teen parents falls under his jurisdiction. What is it exactly that this ministry does? How much money. . .? I see it was $1.14 million last year. Is there a supplement to teen parents? Does this ministry fund some of these child spaces in the schools? Exactly what does the ministry do to provide day care support to teen parents? Or is it simply counselling?

Hon. D. Streifel: The Ministry of Social Services provides counselling, homemaker support and parent training. Child care spaces, I understand, are funded through the Ministry of Women's Equality.

L. Stephens: Could the minister tell us about the program called residential living arrangements for pregnant and young mothers? How much of his budget allocation goes to that particular program? How widespread is this residential living arrangement? Could the minister just elaborate on what that particular program encompasses?

Hon. D. Streifel: Again, this is included in the $72 million envelope. What this program does is provide for temporary residential prenatal care and training in life skills and parenting for young mothers and expectant young mothers. I've asked my staff to see if we could get a breakdown of that, on where it's located around the province and how it fits. I will have that supplied to the member.

L. Stephens: Thank you very much, minister. I look forward to receiving that information.

I'd like to ask a few questions about the child-in-care services. If I remember correctly, the minister did say that children in care have increased by 22 percent. I would like to ask the minister why this is happening. What are some of the reasons that the numbers of children in care have increased?

Hon. D. Streifel: I guess, in general terms, demographics have changed. There are more children. In fact, the ministry, and I guess communities in general, have been much more diligent in bringing forward concerns. The ministry has acted on those concerns. I would think that a lot of that would account for the increase.

L. Stephens: I'd like the minister to elaborate on the policy of the Ministry of Social Services on child apprehensions. Have there been some changes around that policy?

Hon. D. Streifel: After the Gove report and the ministry response to circumstances, with the interests and safety of the child paramount. . . . I guess that would be the answer to the question. The concern and care for the child's safety is paramount in all actions that the ministry takes.

L. Stephens: As I'm sure the minister knows, there was some difficulty around parents not being informed of their rights when there were apprehensions being made. This was a year or so ago. There was a lot of discussion around what is appropriate in the policy of apprehending children. The minister talks about the Gove recommendations, but I would like to know whether there is monitoring of the quality of care. Is there some monitoring of the workers and some kind of control at the local ministry offices around child apprehension? What kind of comprehensive focus at the local Social Services offices. . .?

What kind of instruction have they been given around the policy on apprehension? A much more detailed and little fuller answer than the minister gave before, please.

Hon. D. Streifel: The policy is very clear. The new legislation requires that parents be informed. I would be prepared to supply the hon. member with a copy of the policy. It's very, very clear. To answer the question on monitoring the care: yes, it is an ongoing process. It does happen and will continue to do so, keeping in mind that the paramount interest of the ministry is the safety of the child in all of these circumstances.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

L. Stephens: The children-in-care homes that the ministry has a number of. . . . Could the minister tell us whether or not there is -- I'm sure there must be -- monitoring of the quality of care and of the safety of children? I would presume there would be a criminal records check of individuals or couples or families that come forward to volunteer their home as a care home for children in care. Could the minister please elaborate on the policy around the foster homes that children in care are placed in?

Hon. D. Streifel: As a matter of fact, there is a very thorough home study conducted on the foster homes as

[ Page 408 ]

referred to by the member, and there is a criminal records check conducted. This is reviewed on an annual basis -- the home and the function within the home.

L. Stephens: I'm pleased to hear that there is a review done annually. Could the minister elaborate a little bit on what that would entail? Would it entail a fairly comprehensive review of the home, or would it just require a phone call or a one-time visit by the local social worker? Could the minister elaborate on what an annual review would encompass?

[4:30]

Hon. D. Streifel: I compliment the hon. member for Langley on the focus of her questions and on her obvious concern for the children in our communities. I would hope that some of the answers will give her a level of comfort that we are responding and reacting in the best interests of the children in our society. The form the review would take, on an annual basis, is a discussion with the children that are there living in the foster home, and a discussion with the foster parents and with the social workers. It would be a thorough review in that manner, again keeping in mind that our interest is always and continually the safety of the children.

L. Stephens: I have one further question. Also included in the package that the ministry kindly presented to us and on the same page as residential services -- at the bottom there -- it talks about recoveries. It talks about federal special allowances for children in care, and it appears that this amount is up about $1.5 million. Would I be correct in assuming, minister, that the '95-96 budget allocation from the federal government to the provincial government for allowances for children in care has increased by $1.5 million for the '96-97 budget preliminary statements?

Hon. D. Streifel: Yes, as I understand it in reading the documents, the number has increased, but it's directly proportional to the number of children coming into care. It's not an extra bonus from the federal government to the province of British Columbia. It, in fact, reflects the increase in the number of children in care.

L. Stephens: So, in fact, the amount of money that the province is receiving from the federal government has increased and certainly is increasing this year coming. So the minister's remarks earlier that the federal government is decreasing funding is, in fact, not the case in this particular case, and I'm correct in that assumption.

Hon. D. Streifel: For information to the member for Langley, this figure reflects the family allowance that comes to the ministry, so in fact if there were more children there would be more money. It still does not reflect the overall circumstance that British Columbia is in, where our social dollars that come from Ottawa are 33-cent dollars and other provinces get 50-cent dollars. Because the number elevates -- it's driven by the number of individuals, the number of children, in that part of the system or in the system overall -- that gets back to the answer to the question from the member for Vancouver-Langara.

We are still getting 33-cent dollars from Ottawa, and that's where the unlevelling, the unbalancing, the different treatment that British Columbia receives from Ottawa than the treatment other provinces receive. . . . So I hope that helps the hon. member, that in fact these are family allowance dollars that come to B.C. We have more children, we get more money. It doesn't mean they are 50-cent dollars; they are still 33-cent dollars.

L. Stephens: The fact of the matter is that this particular program is still up $1.5 million. I would agree with the minister that because British Columbia is a have province, the transfer payments that have come to British Columbia aren't as great as the money that we have sent to Ottawa. I think a number of British Columbians have a great concern about that.

I would encourage the minister to put forward valid arguments to the federal government when he goes to talk about national standards and when he goes to talk, hopefully, about a national child care strategy, and hope that he will, in fact, press the federal government for a more equitable distribution of tax dollars that flow to Ottawa from this province. So I just want to put on the record that, in fact, this Liberal opposition does support services to families and to children, and that this minister fight for whatever dollars are available for our province from the federal government in Ottawa.

Hon. D. Streifel: I very much appreciate the support that has been demonstrated and spoken by the member for Langley on this very important issue. Yes, I will be pressing Ottawa very strenuously in my dealings, and I will be pressing for fair treatment for British Columbia. I would like to see British Columbia funded at 50-cent dollars like the rest of the country. I will be pushing Ottawa to examine the strategies that we brought forward for child care in British Columbia. It's very complimentary to this government that the member says that our child care strategies are pretty good.

I think that's what the tone of the conversation was, or the tone of the positioning. In fact, I agree. I like to think that the rest of the country would envy and try to emulate what we've been able to do in British Columbia with a continually shrinking dollar amount from the federal government.

I'd like to caution the hon. member not to get caught in the trap that the dollar amount might be larger. We have more people in the system, more people being taken care of within the system. That does not mean we're getting more money from Ottawa. We're still getting 33-cent dollars. We're absorbing. . . . During this next year B.C. will lose an additional $1.2 billion in transfer payments from Ottawa that support our programs of health and social services, and post-secondary funding. We can't any longer accept that as the status quo for British Columbia's relationship with Ottawa.

We need all the help we can get, and I very much appreciate the support that the member for Langley has delivered to us this day on behalf of the Liberal caucus -- that they will be diligent, they will be supportive of British Columbia and particularly this ministry when we go forward to achieve what we view as a fair share for all British Columbians.

M. Coell: The minister in his opening remarks talked about the government's desire to cut down on fraud in the welfare system. I just wonder if he could outline for us how many people have been identified as fraudulent cases, how many have been charged, and how many have been taken off the income assistance rolls.

Hon. D. Streifel: I thank the member for the question. As a matter of fact, I think it's one of the initiatives that is working for us in British Columbia and working on behalf of this ministry, and my compliments to those folks in the field who are making this a successful endeavour. We will continue to be diligent at zero tolerance for fraud in the social services system and welfare. The prevention, compliance and enforcement program established in 1994 focuses on combatting fraud and abuse, and increasing public confidence in the system.

The ministry policy requires that all detected cases of fraud be referred for investigation. In 1995-96, 12,746 cases

[ Page 409 ]

were referred. As a result of investigating these referrals, welfare benefits were stopped in 1,133 cases, 4,986 repayment agreements were undertaken, and 177 court compensation orders resulted from court convictions. In addition, 233 new charges were laid, an additional 169 cases sworn in 1994-95 are still before the courts, and there were 141 convictions. The number of charges laid has increased by 110 percent since the establishment of the PCE division -- a 56 percent increase in 1995-96. Some investigations result in an inability to locate clients or insufficient or unfounded evidence.

I would like to add that this is the first time in the history of British Columbia that the Social Services ministry and this government in particular have taken seriously the issue of fraud and abuse. Other jurisdictions in the past have paid mere lip service to the problems that arise when somebody takes something out of the system they're not entitled to, thereby denying that support to the very needy in our province.

I for one am offended by that, and the taxpayers are offended. Those folks that need our help want us to do all we can to ensure that they get maximum help and that those individuals who are abusing and defrauding the system cease and desist -- that we do whatever we can to ensure that this happens. That is why the ministry has established zero tolerance of fraud and abuse. Again, my compliments to those folks in the field that are supporting us in this endeavour.

V. Anderson: I'm having difficulty hearing the reply because of other conversations that are going on in the House.

The Chair: Thank you for that reminder to everyone to keep your conversations low or not at all.

M. Coell: I wonder if the minister could outline for the House how the cases are referred to the PCE and what method investigations take?

Hon. D. Streifel: PCE is prevention, compliance and enforcement. We receive information from a number of sources. It could be from the public; it could be from the hon. member, as a matter of fact. It could be from workers in the field, it could be from staff workers. When each complaint or referral comes forward, it goes on a referral form. They are computerized, tracked and there has to be a conclusion.

I imagine the investigation process is very much like any form of investigation process, where you answer questions such as who, what, where, when and why. There has to be an outcome, there has to be a conclusion to each referral, and before it's signed off. . . . The supervisor would sign this off and bring conclusion to the case. As a result of this type of enforcement -- and my previous answer is on the record of how successful it has been. . . .

I will repeat that this is the first time in the history of British Columbia that a provincial government and a Ministry of Social Services have taken seriously the fraud and abuses in the system and are doing something about it. It never happened under any other government jurisdiction. We began that process when we were elected in 1991, and we carry it out today.

M. Coell: Has the government completed any studies that would look at the potential of fraud throughout the whole system of income assistance? If so, are those studies available to the opposition or to the public?

[4:45]

Hon. D. Streifel: I guess the ongoing diligence in fraud and prevention in the system is relatively reactionary. The information comes forward, we act on it, and the evidence is there that we are making that move. In fact, I think it would be somewhat difficult to try to predict the level, the size, the area and the avenue. I guess that whatever systems we build that are supported by government and funded by taxpayers' dollars have some abuses in the system.

I was reading in the Vancouver Sun this morning of the report that was done about the construction industry in British Columbia and the fair-wage policy. The individuals who did the review used very, very strong words in their report. They used stuff like, "We believe very strongly that a failure to comply with this legislation" -- that's the fair-wage legislation -- "is tantamount to fraud," and they talked in terms of stealing from the public and stolen tax dollars.

That's the same diligence, the same avenue and the same language that the ministry approaches when evidence -- complaints, as a matter of fact -- of fraud and abuse in the system are brought forward and we go through the investigation process. We will continue to be diligent on fraud and abuse in the system.

M. Coell: I don't think the minister fully answered my question. Has the ministry undertaken any studies that would predict or give any advice to the House on the percentage of fraud expected or estimated in the system?

Hon. D. Streifel: To try and answer the question, there's nothing that I have seen on these kinds of projections -- nothing that's been brought to me since I've been the minister.

M. Coell: I wonder if he would research that question with his staff. If there have been any studies, the next time we're dealing with these estimates could he let us know what studies have been done?

Hon. D. Streifel: The ministry has zero tolerance when it comes to fraud and abuse in the system, and that's what I'm interested in. As a matter of fact, I will take the presentation from the member under advisement. Thank you for the presentation.

M. Coell: With that answer, I must presume that there are some studies done in the ministry, and I look forward to further questions on that item. If there are estimates of fraud, I think this House would like to know, as would the citizens of B.C.

I'd like to turn now to a number of other questions. The ministry and support services budget is down by 8.1 percent, and the ministry is actually hiring 242 people this year. I wonder if the minister could elaborate on where those bodies will be placed and what positions they will take in the ministry.

Hon. D. Streifel: Primarily, the positions will be in fraud and in services to children. I can supply the specifics to the member, if he so desires. As I understand it, those are the areas covered by this -- fraud, and services to children.

M. Coell: I wonder if the minister could comment on the amount of money spent on the PCE -- the fraud group -- and the money that was actually saved in the ministry -- or the cost of the PCE as related to the cost savings to the ministry.

Hon. D. Streifel: I'll endeavour to supply specifics. I understand that for every dollar we spend in PCE, we save or retain $5. I think it's a very good return. There may be some

[ Page 410 ]

investment folks over in your part of the House who would be interested in that kind of return. In fact, I think it's money well spent. It's money that supports the policy of zero tolerance, and it's money that supports the policy of this government to ensure that those individuals in the system who need help and support will get the maximum help and support they can get. Those who are defrauding the system will fall under the zero-tolerance policy of the ministry, and we will pursue them.

M. Coell: I wonder if the minister could elaborate on how many of the 242 new employees will be in PCE. He mentioned that some will be in child support services, and I wonder just what numbers are in each.

Hon. D. Streifel: It's sometimes difficult for a new minister to break down the numbers and actually find them.

We have within one

section here that 140 FTEs were provided to carry on and expand the caseload management initiatives in income assistance that were started partway through last year. These initiatives were one of the reasons we were able to reduce the caseload from 16,000 from June '95. The PCE folks, as I understand it, are within that 140. I'm attempting to break that out to get the exact number for the hon. member.

I have a number here in front of me; I guess this is the answer. The 158 FTEs for PCE includes headquarters and fields, so the broad number is 158. I'm going to have to ask how that reconciles with how 158 fits under 140, but I expected you to ask that question, anyway.

M. Coell: I assure the minister that we have patience. We're not in any hurry.

In the minister's initial remarks, he also commented that there were a number of institutions that would be destaffed this year. Are any people being laid off because of the closure of Glendale, or are those people being absorbed into the system in other positions?

Hon. D. Streifel: Like most situations where we have a change or a downsizing, we would like to see that there has been a strategy put in place to take care of the workers. In my former life I've been involved in those labour adjustment strategies and how they're applied, and the purposes and the goals that they achieve. In this case, the FTE number will be absorbed in other parts of the ministry. In fact, there are some folks here who may move out of the system, who may retire and take other options, but all others will be placed within the ministry.

M. de Jong: I wonder, in dealing with the issue of fraudulent recoveries within the ministry, if I can ask the minister how the members of what I call the fraud squad are being recruited and what their training is. What is the profile for those individuals -- where they're coming from?

Hon. D. Streifel: I would be pleased to supply for the member the job description and the criteria. I think that's available and that I can get that done. In fact, one of the criteria that I've been made aware of is that each one of these individuals would have to have an investigative background. Many of them are former police. I understand a number of them are former RCMP. They would all go through an interview process and, in fact, have to qualify within that interview process to come into the ministry to protect those who are most in need in applying the zero tolerance policy that the ministry has in fraud and abuse.

M. de Jong: Within the realm of that job description, is there a minimal standard? The minister has mentioned some of the types of people who have been applying. Are significant numbers of those people coming from elsewhere in the ministry? Are they coming from outside of government? Is there a minimum qualification level that they must meet, and if there is, is the minister saying that he'll release that to us?

Hon. D. Streifel: Yes, there is a minimal qualification level. I've offered already to lay out that criteria and send it to the questioner from the Liberal opposition. As soon as it can be done, it will be done.

M. de Jong: With respect to the new people being brought on line, my question was: are they being recruited from outside of government or are the majority of them coming from elsewhere in government or elsewhere within the ministry?

Hon. D. Streifel: As I understand it, it's a posting process. There's a call out for applications to these positions. Some come from within, some come from without, but individuals have to meet the criteria of the job, as I understand it. I hope that satisfies the hon. member.

M. de Jong: I appreciate if the minister doesn't know that that kind of answer doesn't really provide us with any additional information. Are the majority of the new people being recruited from within government, or are they coming from outside of government? If he doesn't know, that's fine. Maybe we can get the information.

Hon. D. Streifel: It's not an attempt to skirt the issue. I don't have the breakdown of the numbers. I will have that supplied if that helps the hon. member. I think it's a valid question and a valid position; it helps support the ministry's position of zero tolerance in cases of fraud and abuse. I will supply whatever information. . . . When the information comes, if it doesn't exactly answer the question, I would offer the services of my staff to fully complete the information as it comes forward.

M. de Jong: I recall that in the last estimates debate, which took place with the minister's predecessor, we spent some time dealing with the issue of recovery of the objectives that had been set and the incidents that resulted in the laying of charges. I wonder if the minister could obtain some information. There really are two components to this: the ministry's desire to recover funds that have been fraudulently obtained by recipients, and the question of whether criminal sanction has been brought to bear. I know they are two very different issues, and I wonder if the minister could provide some information about the number of cases that ultimately result in