1994 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
TUESDAY, MAY 24, 1994
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 15, Number 16
[ Page 11017 ]
The House met at 2:06 p.m.
Prayers.
Hon. M. Harcourt: I would like all members of the House to join in a tribute to the Kamloops Blazers, who have won the Memorial Cup for the second time in three years. As a matter of fact, in the last ten years they have won the western league four times and have never had a losing season. This year 11 of the players were from British Columbia, ten were from Alberta and one was from the north -- the Yukon. I want you to know that we're looking forward to hosting the Memorial Cup in Kamloops next year.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I would like to introduce to the House a friend and supporter, Dorothy Kemp, from 108 Mile in Cariboo South. She's here visiting relatives and hopes someday maybe even to retire here.
N. Lortie: It's my pleasure to introduce to the House today 75 grade 11 students from North Delta Senior Secondary, from -- you might have guessed it -- the great constituency of Delta North. They are led by two brave individuals, Mr. Baines and Mr. Nixon. Would the House please make them welcome.
Hon. B. Barlee: His Excellency Marijan Majcen, Ambassador of the Republic of Slovenia is accompanied by his wife, Marija Majcen. Both are seated on the east side of the members' gallery. Please extend them both a warm British Columbia welcome.
Hon. R. Blencoe: As all members know, we all run community constituency offices. Without the help and advice, many times, of the volunteers in those offices, we could not serve our constituents as well as we do. Today in the galleries are two who volunteer in my community office, Beth Loring and Kathleen McBride. They're accompanied by my constituency assistant, Lynn Osborne. Would the House please make them all welcome.
F. Jackson: I would like to add to what the Premier had to say about some of my favourite people. Since last September my wife and I have been in our seats in the Riverside Coliseum watching hockey performances which have proved to be second to none. Right from the beginning of the season -- Deuling, Tucker, entertainment, unbelievable Passmore; Bob Maudie put in the finishing touches on Sunday -- it has been great to watch. I would like to take this opportunity for myself, my wife and the 5,000 regular fans of Kamloops to tell Colin Day, Bob Brown, Hazer and all the Blazers: thanks very much for entertaining us; thanks for being such good ambassadors for the city of Kamloops and the province of British Columbia.
FINANCE AND CORPORATE RELATIONS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1994
Hon. E. Cull presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Finance and Corporate Relations Statutes Amendment Act, 1994.
Hon. E. Cull: Bill 44 proposes amendments to the Company Act, the Cooperative Association Act, the Financial Administration Act, the Hotel Room Tax Act, the Income Tax Act, the Motor Fuel Tax Act, the Public Sector Employers Act, the Social Service Tax Act and the Taxation (Rural Area) Act.
Some of the proposed amendments are housekeeping or administrative measures designed to clarify and modernize the legislation; others offer more substantive amendments and are proposed for the taxation statutes to maintain equity and to assist in the collection of taxes due to the Crown.
The significant amendments are to the Financial Administration Act to update and clarify the investment provisions under the act and to fulfil the government's commitment to implement the recommendations of the 1993 Seaton commission report on issues of alleged conflict of interest. Amendments to the Public Sector Employers Act will clarify the organization of employers' associations as societies under the Society Act.
Bill 44 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
PUBLIC OPINION POLLING BY GOVERNMENT
M. de Jong: The opposition has come into possession of a secret poll conducted by the Minister of Finance, presumably to try to decide financial policy. In that poll 88 percent of the people asked said that they were fed up with ongoing government waste. Another 88 percent said it's time the government brought spending under control.
This minister went on to spend over a million dollars in a public relations blitz to sell her budget. Could the minister indicate whether she was confused by the message sent to her by those people, or whether she simply decided to ignore the 88 percent of British Columbians who are pleading for an end to government waste?
Hon. E. Cull: I welcome this question from the member. On the contrary, this government isn't confused about what the people in this province want. We know that what they wanted to see was their deficit reduced by 60 percent, as it has been in the last few years. We know that what they wanted to see was the rate of growth of spending cut by three-quarters, as it has been over the last three budgets. We know that they wanted to see their taxes frozen, as they have been now for three years.
Clearly we have been listening to the public. We have increased jobs, we have cut taxes, we've frozen taxes, and the deficit is down again this year by another $400 million.
The Speaker: Supplementary question, hon. member.
M. de Jong: The minister obviously didn't review the results too closely, or she'd know that 72 percent of the people took exactly a contrary view to the issue of debt and deficit control.
One of the question does state that despite budget cuts, the provincial government was able to increase the funding for essential services like schools and hospitals.
That was the preamble to the question, hon. Speaker. My question for the minister, quite simply, is: has her government now followed the advice that this Liberal opposition has given and made education an essential service, as suggested in the question?
[ Page 11018 ]
Hon. E. Cull: No. What we certainly haven't done is follow the advice of this opposition, which has been to cut spending in all areas of essential services to people in this province. On the contrary, what we have done while reducing the growth of spending is provide some of the highest increases in spending to health and education, because that's what the people in the province told us was important. They said: "Go after the waste and go after the duplication, but don't cut health and education spending." Unfortunately, that's what these people have been asking for over the last two years.
[2:15]
The Speaker: A final supplementary, hon. member.
M. de Jong: One of the questions in that poll reads as follows: "Overall, what sort of impression do you have of the Premier, the Finance minister and the House Leader?" We had no idea the minister was so interested. We'd be happy to give her our impression free of charge. But the question is: how much taxpayers' money did the minister spend to find out how British Columbians feel about her? Does she think that finding out how people feel about her is an appropriate expenditure of public moneys?
Hon. E. Cull: This government has conducted one of the most comprehensive prebudget consultations ever, so that we could talk to people in the province about what they wanted to see in the provincial budget. They told us that they wanted to see more jobs, they wanted to see the deficit cut, and they wanted to see their taxes frozen -- and that's exactly what we have delivered.
B.C. ENERGY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
F. Gingell: My question is to the Minister of Energy. Richard Gathercole will be eligible for severance in December 1994 when the B.C. Energy Council is axed. Could the minister please tell this House what ridiculous severance package Dick Gathercole will receive for his two years' work on this golden five-year NDP contract?
Hon. A. Edwards: I'm not sure that I heard the member correctly. Did he say "what ridiculous severance package"? Is that an assumption that the member is making?
Yes, Mr. Gathercole had an appointment for five years. We have not yet discussed with him what he wants to do. When his appointment is finished....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order! Please proceed.
Hon. A. Edwards: Obviously he will have some choices as to a severance package when he has finished his task in November of this year. Between now and November, I have no doubt that we will have some discussions with Mr. Gathercole about his options and preferences.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
F. Gingell: I didn't realize that it was up to his choice and not the choice of this government, who are the custodians of the British Columbia taxpayers' pockets.
If Mr. Gathercole completes his five-year term, if he's allowed to hang around for that long, would the minister please advise us of the current value of his pension rights then?
Hon. A. Edwards: Mr. Gathercole, as the chair of the Energy Council, will have completed his task by December of this year. At that time, of course, we will be discussing with Mr. Gathercole, as we would discuss with any other employee of the government who has had an appointment, what he will do next. He has some choices.
The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.
F. Gingell: I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I'll make up the list of all the things that Mr. Gathercole could do at no cost to the British Columbia taxpayers.
Could the Minister of Energy please advise this House and the taxpayers of British Columbia what will be the total cost of the closing down of the B.C. Energy Council in the form of severance payments?
Hon. A. Edwards: I intend to discuss any severance package that might be offered to Mr. Gathercole with Mr. Gathercole before I discuss it with anyone else. Mr. Gathercole has not completed his task. We've not discussed at all what his choices would be under the limited choices that are available.
PROTECTION OF B.C. INTERESTS IN EVENT OF QUEBEC SEPARATION
J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Premier. Last week at the Western Premiers' Conference, the Premier repeated his threat to Quebec should they choose to separate. Can the Premier...?
Interjection.
J. Weisgerber: He obviously has some fans in the back corner.
Would the Premier tell us if this government has a position for British Columbia should Quebec decide to leave Confederation?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I'm sure the leader of the Reform Party would join with every member of this House in wanting to see this country stay united, and that's exactly what I want to see. This is the greatest country in the world. British Columbians want to see Canada stay together. They don't want to hear some of the separatist ideologues who have come to British Columbia and talked a pile of nonsense about what would happen in Quebec. I made it very clear that the people of Quebec understand that we're living in the greatest country in the world. We in British Columbia, like the people of Quebec, want to keep this country united.
The Speaker: A supplemental, hon. member.
J. Weisgerber: The people of Quebec must be doubly baffled. They hear the Premier threatening to be their worst enemy, after having made an unconditional surrender to them in the Charlottetown accord. He gave them everything they wanted in Charlottetown, then he comes out and threatens to be their worst enemy. Can the Premier tell us if British Columbia has a position that would protect the economic interests of British Columbia should the people of Quebec decide that they want to separate from Canada?
[ Page 11019 ]
Hon. M. Harcourt: I admit that I get confused as to what position the leader of the Reform Party -- who used to be part of the Social Credit Party -- is going to take from one day to the next. He voted for the Charlottetown accord. He voted that we should....
Interjections.
Hon. M. Harcourt: That was when he was a Socred. It may be slightly different now, as this week he is a member of the Reform Party. It's hard to keep up.
I can tell you, hon. Speaker, that one policy I am sure every member of this Legislature can agree with is that we want Quebec to stay in Confederation. We want to see this country united, prosperous and strong. That's what we're going to be working for in British Columbia.
The Speaker: Your final supplemental, hon. member.
J. Weisgerber: It's sad to see a Premier who doesn't know the difference between Meech Lake and Charlottetown. Unfortunately, I was on this side of the House when Charlottetown was being discussed. But you can stand corrected, Mr. Premier. The important thing is that we need a Premier who is willing to stand up for Canada and talk about keeping this country together, but in the event of separation, to be interested in the interests of British Columbia. What plans has the Premier put forward on behalf of the people of British Columbia in the unfortunate event of separation? What plans has the Premier made?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I think I laid it out very clearly last week -- that's to keep this country united. That's the plan of this government: for this to be the most prosperous part of Canada, with the number one economy in North America; the part of Canada that people look to with some hope, where 40,000 to 50,000 other Canadians move to every year to take advantage of the tremendous opportunities that I discussed with the other Premiers at the Western Premiers' Conference last week. We agreed that the opportunities were here, at Canada's front door onto the Asia Pacific. Making sure that British Columbia stays the most prosperous part of not just Canada but of North America is what is going to keep this country united.
Aside from the question being hypothetical and about a future situation, I'm prepared to say that the people of British Columbia know there is much, much more that can be done within Canada than breaking it up.
POLICY ON AWARDING GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
G. Farrell-Collins: My question is to the Minister of Employment and Investment. Given the comments of some of my colleagues, which show that the poll done in preparation for this year's budget said that 88 percent of the people of this province say the government should be ferreting out waste wherever possible, can the minister tell us where he got his idea of not accepting low bids anymore for government contracts and referring them only to qualified firms? Can the minister tell us what in his mind is a qualified firm? Is it a union firm? Can he tell those firms how much they have to contribute to the NDP in order to qualify?
Hon. G. Clark: I want to first deal with the preamble, because the people of British Columbia did say that they want to cut waste, they want the deficit down, they want us to maintain our credit and they want jobs up -- and jobs are up in British Columbia. Unlike the Liberal Party, who stand up in this House and vote against school construction, vote against capital spending and vote against the B.C. 21 initiative, which is laying the foundation for future growth.... That's what the poll shows: people in British Columbia support the initiatives taken by this administration, this Finance minister and this government to build the province.
The question of how we tender....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. G. Clark: What we're doing with respect to tendering is making sure that we get more value for public money. It means that when we're spending a billion dollars of public money on the construction of public assets such as schools, hospitals, court houses and justice facilities -- all of which the opposition opposed -- we want other goals accomplished at the same time. We want more apprentices working on public construction in British Columbia this year than in any time in history. And that means, when we do our tender documents, that yes, we want low bids, but we also want more apprentices, more women and more aboriginal people working on public construction than at any time before. Those are the objectives we're putting into our tender documents now.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
G. Farrell-Collins: The fact of the matter is that if this minister wanted to get more value for his money he'd get rid of his fair-wage policy and his fair-wage legislation, which that minister himself said would result in one, two or several schools not being built in this province. It's that minister who's voting against schools; it's that minister who's making poor choices on behalf of taxpayers.
Can the minister advise us today that whether or not a company is certified or is part of a trade union will not be one of the reasons this government uses to qualify bidders?
Hon. G. Clark: It makes no difference whether they're union or non-union. What we want is full value for public dollars spent. We've engaged in a consultation process with the B.C. Construction Association, the ICBA, union and non-union firms, trade unions and representatives of non-union firms. We want to make sure, when we're making these substantial investments in the future of the province, that we have more apprentices, more women and more aboriginal people working than ever before in history. I'm sorry to see the opposition stand in the House and oppose those kinds of actions that put people and young people to work in British Columbia, because that's the objective of this administration.
[2:30]
The Speaker: The bell terminates question period, hon. members.
ABORIGINAL AWARENESS WEEK
Hon. J. Cashore: It's a privilege to announce today that the week of May 23 to 27 has been proclaimed Aboriginal
[ Page 11020 ]
Awareness Week in British Columbia. This government is working hard to build new relationships with aboriginal people throughout the province. We are honouring a commitment that was made to first nations to set right longstanding injustices and to address issues of fundamental importance to aboriginal people. By moving forward the negotiation of fair and honourable treaties with first nations, we are striving to build a stronger, more just and prosperous British Columbia for all citizens. We recognize the culture of aboriginal people and acknowledge their successes and contributions to the province. I wish to emphasize the importance we attach to including all British Columbians in building new relationships with aboriginal people.
In 1993, in conjunction with the International Year for the World's Indigenous People, the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs declared May 24 to 28 Aboriginal Awareness Week. Aboriginal Awareness Week 1994 will provide an opportunity for British Columbians to become more aware of aboriginal people and to learn more about aboriginal people's heritage, languages and cultures. It is only through this awareness and knowledge that we can come closer to understanding and respecting one another.
A. Warnke: The official opposition welcomes this initiative by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs because it is both timely and essential. We need to address longstanding injustices. We need to settle outstanding grievances. We need treaties that are fair, honourable and just, especially at a time when aboriginal peoples throughout the province are seeking inclusion in Canada and Canadian society and can contribute so much to the Canadian cultural fabric. In that context it is therefore necessary for British Columbians to appreciate the diverse, rich and complex cultures that exist in the aboriginal communities throughout the province. We want to encourage all British Columbians to learn, appreciate and respect this, and this is a great opportunity to do so.
J. Weisgerber: It's a pleasure to rise and acknowledge Aboriginal Awareness Week in British Columbia. The rich diversity of language, culture and heritage that exists in British Columbia is a true treasure. It is something that has had the attention of a lot of people over the last few years, particularly aboriginal people, with a growing awareness of the importance particularly of language but also of culture to the value, benefit and well-being of the community. It really is something that deserves a great deal of attention and support from government and non-aboriginal British Columbians. But clearly, it must be led by aboriginal people, and that's the case here in this province. It is worthy of acknowledgment and I believe it is still not truly well understood in our society. I don't think enough attention is being focused in our school system on our aboriginal heritage. We spend far too much time studying European history and not enough studying our own Canadian history, and we should move in that direction. I would certainly like to join with the minister, the official opposition and the government in acknowledging Aboriginal Awareness Week in British Columbia.
G. Wilson: I seek leave to respond to the ministerial statement.
Leave granted.
G. Wilson: It is a pleasure for me to rise on behalf of the Alliance to welcome the introduction of an Aboriginal Awareness Week. Those who have heard my comments and the comments of my colleagues before will know that we believe that the question of the future of the aboriginal people in British Columbia and how they will govern themselves is a matter of critical importance to all British Columbians.
To point out an irony in the question of Aboriginal Awareness Week, we notice that not only are British Columbians generally not aware of the language, culture, and evolution of aboriginal people, they are decidedly ignorant of the process that is now underway to implement a new order of government in this province that will allow for the self-governance of the aboriginal people. It is not enough that we simply be aware in a paternalistic or colonial style of the aboriginal people of this country. It is important that all British Columbians -- not just members of this government -- be engaged in the ongoing discussions with respect to the new form of governance for aboriginal people.
We are entering a new economic paradigm in this nation and, I believe, a new social paradigm also. It is time that we recognized that equality among people must be paramount. We must no longer start to draw distinctions and divisions on the basis of language, religion or culture. What we must start to recognize is that the differences, while they can be embraced, supported and celebrated, must allow us to recognize that we can all be equal. Equality is the key in this awareness. It is time that we started to look toward equality among all British Columbians and all Canadians. It is time that this government introduced -- and I think it is timely that they would do so in this week -- discussion and ongoing dialogue of all British Columbians with respect to the process of self-governance that is now underway, how that is going to create interaction between aboriginal and non-aboriginal people in a future society in British Columbia and how that will provide equality among all people and a brighter future for all British Columbians, aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike.
Hon. J. MacPhail tabled the 1991-92 annual report of the Ministry of Social Services.
Hon. G. Clark: First let me advise all members of the House that the House will sit tomorrow. For the business today I call Committee of Supply. In Committee A, I call the Ministry of Social Services. In Committee B, I call the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, and Ministry Responsible for Human Rights and Multiculturalism.
The House in Committee of Supply B; W. Hartley in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, LANDS AND PARKS, AND
MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND MULTICULTURALISM
(continued)
On vote 31: ministry operations, $212,675,479.
W. Hurd: I have a series of questions for the minister with respect to the costs of implementing the Forests Practices Code. The minister will be aware that his ministry conducted and paid for a review of the potential benefits and costs associated with the proposed rules for forest practices. I wonder if the minister could indicate to the committee whether his ministry will continue to have the primary role in assessing the costs and benefits of the code or whether that
[ Page 11021 ]
responsibility will be shifted in any way to the Ministry of Forests.
Hon. M. Sihota: The studies that were conducted in the past were conducted jointly by Forests and Environment, if I'm not mistaken -- I'm functioning from memory here. It would seem to me that the work would be done jointly by both ministries.
W. Hurd: I refer specifically to the study that was developed by Meyer Resources, which was released by the B.C. Ministry of Environment, but if there's involvement by the Ministry of Forests we accept that.
The minister will be aware that there is a disparity in terms of the costs of implementation. This particular study came up with a figure of somewhere in the vicinity of $69 million for the costs of implementation. During a press conference last week the minister indicated that the cost could be around $200 million. Can the minister tell us exactly what will be done in the current fiscal year to pin down those costs of implementation? Does he accept the figure of $69 million in this consultant's study, or is the figure closer to $200 million or perhaps more?
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. member, at that press conference I believe the Minister of Forests said $200 million. I can't remember exactly in what context it was said. There were, as you know, a number of reports done -- three of them, I believe -- which put different cost estimates to the Forest Practices Code work. I know you know that, because you had that information. With regard to this year, yes, we will be doing more work through consultants to evaluate the costs as the code is put into place. There's about $20,000 allocated in our budget and some -- I don't know how much -- in the Ministry of Forests' budget to do that work.
W. Hurd: I'm a little surprised that at this point we don't have a more accurate assessment of the costs of the code or an indication from the minister that a fixed cost may or may not be available this fiscal year. Clearly the study that was commissioned by the Ministry of Environment came in with an exceedingly low figure of some $69 million. The minister will be aware of industry submissions in the range of a billion dollars. Can the minister at least indicate to the committee that we will have a reasonably accurate figure for the costs of implementation during the coming fiscal year so we don't have this considerable range of $69 million to $1 billion? Will we have a more accurate figure at any point in the coming fiscal year?
Hon. M. Sihota: I'm surprised that the hon. member would say that the ministry does not have something more definitive pinned down. The hon. member knows full well, being the forestry critic for his party, that the standards have not yet been released. A lot of people want to see those standards. Those standards are, of course, a necessary precondition to having a definitive number put down. But as I said earlier on, we will do that work. One of the studies the member alludes to said that it would actually be a break-even situation in, I believe, five years.
W. Hurd: I was particularly interested in the consultant's report on the number of logging roads in the province which will have to be reclaimed from their current state, and the responsibility that the Ministry of Forests will have to deal with that problem. Can the minister tell us exactly what the Ministry of Environment's involvement will be during the coming year in dealing with this huge environmental problem? The minister will well know that the ministry and the government itself are responsible for many of the abandoned logging roads that pose a serious erosion and environmental problem. I wonder if the minister could indicate what responsibility his ministry will have in identifying the most serious cases of potential erosion and soil damage from these logging roads, and exactly what role his ministry will play in dealing with that during the coming year.
Hon. M. Sihota: Actually, we've already identified through a first cut the roads that are in question. So we've already done that work. We will have done work in that regard jointly with Forests. Also, we are looking very much at the streams, and they are looking very much at the roads.
[2:45]
F. Gingell: With the Fraser River Festival and the concurrent national and international Environment Days coming up next week, can the minister give the assurance that is sought by the people of Delta that his ministry will ensure for the long term the important and diverse wildlife and agricultural values of this environmentally sensitive and important community?
Hon. M. Sihota: I'm not sure if you're talking about Delta, about certain components of Delta or about the entire Fraser Valley. Perhaps you could be a little clearer.
F. Gingell: At just this time last year, the Premier and the then Minister of Environment went to Delta and gave out some of the reports that had been completed at that time. Those reports clearly showed what all of us in Delta know: that it's an important place for wildlife, it's an important place for Burns Bog -- a unique area -- and it's an important place for agriculture.
I was reviewing our earlier discussion in the estimates debate, and I didn't have the feeling that everything is moving along -- the commitments made in July 1993. I noted your commitment, which I thank you for, that all of the new leases for farmers on agricultural lands will no longer have those short-term cancellation clauses. What I'm looking for now is a commitment from your ministry that you recognize how unique this area is and that it is really in the forefront of your concerns.
Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, we do recognize that, and I, on a personal basis, certainly recognize the uniqueness of the area. I know that I've received many letters, as well as representations, from the citizens of Delta -- including yourself and the member for Delta North -- reminding me of the importance of the area.
You asked me whether or not it's at the forefront of my mind. To be candid with you, a lot of issues are at the forefront of my mind. I don't think I can say that at any given time one issue dominates over another. I can tell you that I am constantly kept abreast of the work we're doing in Delta. I can also tell you that on a personal basis I sometimes feel frustrated that we aren't moving a bit faster on some of the issues that relate to Delta. There are a host of issues with regard to that community, and many are competing with one another. It's working its way through the system.
On my own initiative -- if this means anything -- I have from time to time inquired of staff as to issues relating to Delta generally. I mean more than just Enviro Desorption; I mean the range of issues you referred to. I'm obviously very cognizant of the statements made by the former Minister of
[ Page 11022 ]
Environment and the Premier. I think that should give you the flavour of where we're at. They aren't being put off. I would hope that we can come forward with some significant announcements relating to Delta during the course of this fiscal year. I think it's more than a hope; if I can amplify a bit more on that, the probabilities are that we will be able to do that. That's my read of the situation as of the last briefing I had, which was probably about six weeks ago.
F. Gingell: One last point. There is a Delta wildlife trust. At the moment I can't think of the exact name for it. It was set up by the agricultural community, in cooperation with the wildlife and environmental communities. They are very hopeful that some of the environmental funds that will become available through the construction of the third runway at Vancouver International Airport might be used to acquire some important wildlife land in Delta. I wonder if your ministry is aware of this new trust. Mr. Minister, could you ask your officials if there is any way your ministry may be able to help them accomplish some of their worthwhile goals, such as the acquisition and setting-aside of more wildlife lands? That will not only enhance wildlife but will hopefully protect some farmers' lands.
Hon. M. Sihota: Thank you for your question, hon. member. I would certainly encourage them to apply for the funds available under the airport expansion work. I would also encourage them to apply to the ministry, through the habitat conservation fund, for those purposes. I appreciate that in areas adjacent to urban corridors, such as Delta, and given the need for wildlife to have the spaces that currently exist in Delta, these lands should be considered for either of those two funds.
R. Neufeld: I have a few brief questions for the minister directly relating to my constituency of Peace River North. The first one involves the Minister of Agriculture also, but it ultimately comes down to the Ministry of Environment. It's the lease program in effect in the north. There's an agricultural program in an area just out of Hudson's Hope. A constituent of mine went in there and applied for some land in 1990, completed all the things that had to be done to get title to his land, and was looking forward to getting title to two more sections so he could make it a viable agricultural operation, specifically for cattle.
In the meantime, from when he first started work on the first section of land that he applied for, something changed. The land had been monumented and surveyed and was part of this agricultural land development. It had been serviced by B.C. Hydro at a cost to government and the taxpayers, and all the surveying had been completed. This gentleman finished his work and applied for two more sections. He received notice from Lands that they had been placed in a map reserve in the name of B.C. Environment for fish and wildlife management purposes and were not available for agriculture.
I understand about fish and wildlife; I'm not saying we shouldn't be looking after these things. In the letter the constituent sent to me, he's very cognizant of that also. He does not allow hunting on his lands and does not clear them from border to border. But he's rather disturbed, and understandably so, that something happened between 1990 and now so that he cannot expand his farm. The other twist to it is that the Ministry of Lands may look favourably at letting out half-sections of this land to hobby farmers. To this gentleman, it doesn't quite make sense. I wonder if the minister could explain to me a bit about what's happened in this program and why we would get to this point with this gentleman.
Hon. M. Sihota: I wonder if the hon. member could let me know this: does he have a letter in his possession from our ministry that says that we would make it available for hobby farms? Am I correct in that understanding? I see the member shaking his head indicating no. I'm wondering if he could amplify on that part of it. I take it he has a letter from a constituent who says that he's been told that it might be available for hobby farm purposes. Am I correct in that assumption? I see the hon. member saying yes.
Well, we don't normally do that, so that doesn't quite make sense. It would seem to me that somewhere between 1990 and 1992, or whatever, the ministry obviously identified these lands as being required for fish and wildlife purposes, and hence the denial of your constituent's opportunity to expand. That seems the best generic answer I can give you at this time.
But I should also say this. If you give me the particulars of that case today, I've got staff here, and we'll be able to give you the appropriate background so that you can advise your constituent of the reasons from the ministry's point of view. Perhaps when we're finished, or whenever someone else speaks during the course of the estimates, the hon. member could give me that information, and we'll start looking into it for him.
R. Neufeld: Yes, I will provide that so we can get an answer for the gentleman.
Another issue in my constituency, of course, deals with the expansion of the oil and gas industry this past year and the difficulties that we have experienced, specifically on referrals. At one time, a proponent would take a specified form to different ministries for approval so they could go ahead with well access and get on with drilling their well. It's not just moving a rig in; it's doing the roadwork and all the things that are necessary. At one time, the referral took a few days; it went to the length of a week. With the increased activity last year, some well authorities were held up in excess of 30 days. I understand that this is required in some sensitive areas, and the industry understands that. But it seems as though, because we have a shortage of staff.... One person -- actually one habitat technician -- to look after the area from the Sikanni north and one to look after the area from the Sikanni south was not sufficient to meet the demand of what was happening.
The minister is aware that a time element is involved in the oil and gas industry, specifically in the north, where most of it has to be done in the wintertime. We have companies waiting in a 90-to-100-day window to complete all their work -- and waiting for up to 30 days or more of that to get the authority to go ahead. That holdup came directly from within the Environment ministry. The biggest issue was that there weren't enough people to do the work.
Is there not some way -- for that short period of time when we have to accommodate those industries -- that we could bring in a habitat technician from another part of British Columbia to help with those issues, so that we can proceed with those well applications and the companies can get on with their work? It's better for the industry; it's better for government; it's better for the people involved; actually, it's better for everyone involved. On top of it all, it means more revenue for the government, so the minister should look favourably at that. I appreciate that when I brought it to his attention last year, it was acted on fairly quickly.
[3:00]
[ Page 11023 ]
I would think those would be normal courses of action within the Ministry of Environment. Those people are aware. They've worked there for a long time. They know what has to happen. They should have been looking forward to this. This wasn't something that was sprung on them all of a sudden. They knew a year ahead of time that this was going to happen and that the activity was going to pick up quite a bit. Is there some plan in place now, so we don't go through the same procedure next November that we went through last November?
Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, there is a new procedure with mines. First of all, we try to expedite these matters. Second, in December we actually put three more staff in that area to deal with the problem that you allude to. Third, let me also make it clear -- because your constituents and others should know -- that this is a significant wilderness and wildlife area, and the Muskwa is certainly a concern for the ministry. Therefore we will be dealing with those issues with some sensitivity, which will inevitably result in some delay.
Having said that, we added more staff. We are working with the Mines ministry to develop a longer-term plan to make the process more expeditious. We recognize that problem as well.
R. Neufeld: I was under the impression last fall that the staff who had been added were temporary. Am I to now understand that the three people added to that department in Fort St. John last December are now permanent staff?
Hon. M. Sihota: No, those people are not permanent; they are temporary. But in the future we will be assigning more staff up there, and those staff will be permanent.
R. Neufeld: Further to that, when can we expect those people who are going to be permanent? So I know, are we talking about later on this summer or in the fall?
Hon. M. Sihota: You shouldn't push your luck, you know. You've really gotten a fair bit out of me. You know that we've got three temporary and have moved to have more put up there on a permanent basis. I would have thought that would have been enough for you to go back to your riding and give yourself all sorts of credit in your local newspaper. But if that's not enough, you can tell them you demanded that something be done by the fall, and I think you'll be within safe parameters.
I believe that one of your colleagues asked a question about Tweedsmuir. I've asked some staff to be available here in a few minutes on the Tweedsmuir issue; we can deal with that about 15 or 20 minutes from now.
R. Neufeld: I do thank the minister for those promises of some more staff. I want to remind him that his government's stated deficit last year was reduced by $169 million directly from natural gas and oil lease sales in the area of Peace River North and Peace River South. So I guess we are contributing a fair amount. It would certainly be nice to see that continue.
I have another few questions that have to do with seismic -- and it may be more of a suggestion, or some help. Presently what happens in seismic is that when they do shotholes, they're drilled about 60 feet deep. They're packed with dynamite. Then, through some system of lines, the dynamite is set off, and reverberations are recorded in a recording machine to give you the shape of the land down below. The shotholes are drilled just about anywhere -- across a farmer's field or through ditches, as the land becomes used for more purposes.
You can actually have water drainage -- surface drainage -- into those holes. At the present time, after the shot goes off we just stick all the drillings back in the hole. It doesn't seal it off. Every few hundred feet you have a 60-foot hole -- about a six-inch, four-inch or three-inch bore; it depends on the company -- where you could have a lot of runoff, especially in ditches. So if you have a truck with a load of acid on it upset, it gets into those. In the springtime, the stuff that's not cleaned up melts and runs down a few miles or something, and it goes down those bore holes.
A type of material called bentonite, a clay soil that actually expands when it gets wet, could be put down the hole. It's actually required in Alberta now, but in British Columbia we don't do it. Before they shoot it, if they put the bentonite down the hole and fill it right up, then as it gets wet it will expand and seal it off. That was actually suggested to me by a water-well drilling company in Fort St. John that's been witnessing some difficulties with wells they've drilled -- with what comes up in the water. So it would be helpful, I'm sure, to the seismic industry, and would fall under the Ministry of Environment.
I'll just ask, along with that.... The Guide-Outfitters' Association and the packers -- I don't know whether you dealt with that during estimates; I wasn't here -- of course play a big part in my constituency. I just wonder: have we reached any kind of agreement between the guide-outfitters and packers so that we are finally going to know who is responsible for what and what's going to happen? I know that this is not an easy issue to deal with. It's been on the books for a long time, and maybe the minister has some updated versions so that we can look forward to some agreements coming forward in order that these two organizations can work in some kind of harmony in our woods.
Hon. M. Sihota: Let me say that when you were talking to that individual who deals with wells and water from wells, I hope you told him that there would be no taxes on groundwater. I was just looking at the Peace River Block News for May 6, 1994, and it says right here that I've said that there will be no taxes on groundwater. It says it in a nice bold headline, so I'm sure you got the message when you read this on May 6. I hope you carry that with you everywhere you go in order to give your constituents some comfort that we're on the right side of things, and that for some reason your party and your leader came up with some press release that accused me of tap-dancing -- or some silly thing like that -- on the issue. Could you please make sure that message gets out?
With regard to the clay seal, it strikes me that that's a good idea. We will discuss that with the Ministry of Energy as we develop regulations for that area. One of the benefits of having these estimates is that those kinds of ideas that come forward from constituents can be incorporated into public policy options.
On the packer-outfitter issue, it is certainly a very divisive one within that community. I had the privilege of going to the B.C. Wildlife Federation and speaking to them on the very morning that they had debated that issue. Having missed the debate -- thankfully -- but knowing that it was difficult for them, I can tell the hon. member that we have asked them to sit back and see if they can work at some kind of resolution. We are hoping that within that network they can arrive at a conclusion, and we are optimistic that we can have something in place by this fall. If they are still miles
[ Page 11024 ]
away that might be problematic, but that's basically where we are heading. I think they are making a genuine effort to resolve this issue. This organization is remarkable. It has played a very necessary role in assisting us in developing policy, and I'm sure it will be able to stick-handle the issues appropriately and hand us the resolution by the fall.
R. Neufeld: I have asked ministers before you the same question, and we were always going to have it resolved. Right from the first estimates that I took part in we were always going to deal with it. To date we still haven't, and that's awhile ago. I'm not picking sides, but guide-outfitters have a much better organization as a lobbying group than the packers do; they tend to be more individualistic and operate on their own. I'm sure the minister is cognizant of this problem and is going to try to deal with that.
I have another issue in my constituency that was going to be dealt with a number of years ago -- shortly after your government came in -- dealing with fishing in back-country lakes. A number of people operate fishing lodges on the Alaska Highway. One in particular brings an awful lot of fishermen from all over the world to fish in British Columbia, but is having some difficulty constructing fishing camps of any kind on some of the back-country lakes. It's not because that certain individual wants to claim that lake for himself. Specifically, it would be nice to have a lodge or a fairly substantial tent camp so he can put his fishermen up in a little better style.
I've been told a number of times that we were going to deal with this issue. As I understand it, to date we still haven't dealt with the issue, unless.... The minister is nodding yes; maybe we have and I don't know about it. Maybe he can tell me when he expects that we can deal with this, so this gentleman can get on with building some fishing camps or whatever is required to build up his tourism business -- something that the province is trying its utmost to do. We see the province starting ferries from here to Seattle to encourage tourism around the Victoria area. I'm just wondering if we can see the same kind of effort in the north, so we can encourage more fishermen to come up there.
Hon. M. Sihota: I'm hoping to adjourn estimates today around 5:30.
Interjection.
Hon. M. Sihota: I want the hon. member to know that it isn't because I want to get to the hockey game. In fact, I had tickets to the hockey game tonight, but I had to give them up because I've got estimates. The remarkable sacrifices one has to make in this business -- and I'm not too sure that I did the right thing. The reason I'm telling you this story is because I hope to meet with people from the associations representing these organizations at 5:30. We had actually been scheduled to meet right now, but because of estimates and having to deal with this whole issue of the back country, I had to push that meeting back.
An Hon. Member: I'd fire the House Leader.
Hon. M. Sihota: I'd fire the House Leader too.
An Hon. Member: He probably took your tickets.
Hon. M. Sihota: I was going to find out if he took my tickets, or where they went. Knowing full well that the Canucks will be in for another round, I'll try to catch a game then, hoping that the opposition will have passed my estimates by that time.
So I'm meeting with people at 5:30. Quite honestly, we're probably down to about two remaining issues on the back-country policy. If we can clean those up today, then we're just about there in terms of arriving at an indication for the industry, one way or the other, as to where we're going as a government. I appreciate that you asked the question of my predecessor. The answer should give you an indication that things have moved quite a way, and hopefully at 5:30 today we can conclude this issue one way or the other so people know where they stand.
[3:15]
R. Neufeld: As I understand it, there are quite a few people who have questions. I don't know whether you're going to get out of here at 5:30 for the hockey game or not. I don't have a lot more, but one of the other members said they had stacks.
One thing I neglected to discuss with the minister was taxes on wells, which he mentioned before. That's where I did get into a discussion with that person. I informed him very clearly. I gave him your responses to the questions that were asked in the House concerning whether you were going to put a tax on wells or not. I said: "You make up your own mind as to whether you believe that there will be taxes or a fee on wells or not."
One last question that I'd like to deal with is about the environmental tax on tires and batteries. Can the minister tell me what that brings in in dollars each year? Is all of that money being expended on looking after the tires and batteries that are accumulating in the province? I'm sorry if the minister responded to that question earlier. I guess the Liberals were hogging all the time during your estimates. I didn't have a chance to ask you, and I didn't want to sit through all of it.
Hon. M. Sihota: Well, there are times when I don't want to sit through all of it, either. I can see that there are no hockey fans on the other side if you want to stay here past 5:30 p.m.
An Hon. Member: I'll be gone.
An Hon. Member: He'll be racing to the plane.
Hon. M. Sihota: That's right.
In any event, I did answer that question. I'm sorry; I don't have the numbers here in front of me, but they're quite impressive. I just don't have them here with me. I could put them on the record when we continue estimates. The answer to that question is actually on the record.
L. Fox: I'll certainly conclude as fast as I can, because I am a hockey fan as well and I appreciate that all members, especially right now with the excitement around the play-offs, want to watch....
Interjection.
L. Fox: Yes, if I can catch a spare seat on the plane.
Earlier in the estimates, I asked questions about the management of Tweedsmuir Park, and I know the minister is now prepared to give me those answers. The first question was with respect to the management of the bug kill in Tweedsmuir Park, because it's now moving out of the park into the working forest and creating a real problem. Could
[ Page 11025 ]
the minister tell me what kind of management there is? Is there any plan to deal with the bug kill within Tweedsmuir Park?
Hon. M. Sihota: I noted that you said you were a hockey fan, but you omitted to tell us whether you were a Canucks fan or a Leafs fan. I assume that you're a Leafs fan....
L. Fox: I'm a B.C. boy.
Hon. M. Sihota: Oh, okay; fair enough. There's still hope there.
Interjection.
Hon. M. Sihota: No. Listen, I had to give up my seat; the last thing you're going to do is get mine.
In any event, as the hon. member indicated, there are areas in Tweedsmuir Park where there are outbreaks. As the hon. member knows, this is a natural occurrence. It happens in any natural area, including, of course, the park. There is an area on the west side of St. Thomas Bay near a lake -- I think it's called Eutsuk Lake -- which the Ministry of Forests has been monitoring with B.C. Parks staff on an annual basis. The area is in a watershed, and there is a problem with beetles in the area. Ministry of Forests staff have been advised that there is not a serious problem at this point. In 1991 the Ministry of Forests and B.C. Parks conducted a controlled burn in different areas of Tweedsmuir Park to control a potential beetle outbreak and fire hazard. They are regularly monitored and reviewed with the Forest Service, and any problems are addressed with controlled burns.
L. Fox: One of the problems I have, I guess, is that we let it go to the point where we have to burn it. It seems to me that if we're really concerned about the habitat and all the other values, and we want a healthy working park, we would try to be a little more proactive, rather than reactive, in dealing with this issue. There are presently a number of places throughout the park where wildlife cannot even access the water because of the blowdown. I have seen it; I have talked to an individual who has a guide-outfitter lodge and has brought me pictures and a movie, and I'll gladly make those available to the minister.
It seems to me that we should somehow be able to manage it so we don't have to get to the point where we have to do broadcast burns. One of the fears and rumours around that region right now is that once again, we're going to do a lot of burning within the park. It's troublesome to a lot of people. The minister may or may not be aware, but these broadcast burns, or controlled burns, oftentimes are not so controlled, because the weather conditions can change so rapidly, specifically in this kind of dry wood. If we don't manage this in a healthy way, in the very near future we are going to have a situation similar to Yellowstone Park, where nature did take its course and burned it all.
Just outside of the park, last year the Ministry of Forests used a local individual who did some horse logging of bug-killed trees in order to control it. You would never know that those logs were removed from those woods. There were about 12 loads of logs taken out, and because of the value of wood today it was economical. Because it was done during the winter when the bugs are dormant, in terms of managing the bug kill the results were very effective. In situations such as Tweedsmuir, would the minister agree that there may be an opportunity to do some horse logging of bug-killed trees to keep that danger from spreading?
Hon. M. Sihota: It strikes me that it must be very expensive to engage in horse logging in isolated areas. I heard what you had to say about your constituent having done that in the area, so there is obviously some capacity in that region. On a general basis, I just wanted to put that on the record as a concern. If you are asking me whether I would be disposed to doing that in this area, given the capacity, the answer is no. We have taken the view that we will allow some natural events to take their course within a park. We will do some spraying, and we will do the appropriate monitoring with the Ministry of Forests.
I'm not the first to have said this. In fact, I was in this House when the former Minister of Parks, Mr. Huberts, a member of the Social Credit Party, said that a park is a park is a park. That highlights the philosophy that we have taken in this province with regard to parks. That's why we have not allowed logging or mining in parks, and I'm inclined to stay with that approach.
L. Fox: When we talked about logging in the statements, I can only suppose what at least one of your predecessors may have said with respect to park management. When you are trying to control a predator or something which could destroy something that is truly a very scenic and natural biological setting, I would have hoped that we would have seen some forward thinking with respect to how we might best do that and preserve the natural setting. Horse logging or helicopter logging does not destroy the park, specifically if it's removing bug-killed trees. However, I'll accept the minister's statement for what it was.
One other question that I asked at that point was about the issue of white metal and if there was any proactive program to remove white metal from the rural landfills, because that was their number one issue to try to deal with.
Along with that, let me point out one other thing to the minister, which he may or may not have heard. In many rural parts of the province today, there is no ability to dispose of a used fridge that is non-functional but still has Freon in it. The landfills won't accept it, and B.C. Hydro's Power Smart program won't accept it because it's non-functional. So the individual is left with this used fridge sitting in his or her yard, with no ability to get rid of it. Is the minister aware of that problem in rural British Columbia, and is his ministry trying to address it?
Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, I am aware of it. Yes, we are trying to address it. Yes, I think you raised it before in the House during these estimates; and yes, I had a note on it at the time -- I don't have it here with me right now. I can amplify on it a little later on. But we had moved past that stage of estimates -- it's not your fault -- and I don't think I put it on the record at the time. So I'll get an answer on that for the next stage of estimates, or I'll just forward it to the hon. member by mail.
L. Fox: Yes, I know I brought it to the floor at the same time as the Tweedsmuir issue, but I'll be more than satisfied with a direct answer on it.
I have one last question. I have a number of friends who presently happen to be selling fishing licences. The demand for photo ID is putting many of the private individuals in a position where they feel it's no longer in the best interests of their business to continue to sell them for the very small percentage they get from the sale and because of the ill will it creates.
To put it into perspective, I have one individual whose wife works in the same store. If she wishes to buy a fishing
[ Page 11026 ]
licence, even though she works in the store and is the wife of the owner of the store, if she doesn't have her purse with her, she literally has to go home, get her driver's licence, come back and physically show it to the store owner, who is her husband, before she can receive her fishing licence. Or if her husband's father, who happens to live in Lillooet, decides to come up for the weekend and go fishing, even though his son is selling him the licence, in order to comply with the regulation he must also prove to his own son by photo ID that he in fact is a B.C. resident.
[3:30]
I guess my question is: is it really legitimate that individuals have to be that literal with the policy? Is the policy so finite and so tight that people have to be that literal? Or in cases where the store owner has been in a community for 25 or 30 years and has sold fishing licences to people in that small community for probably the last 15 years, knowing very well that they're B.C. residents, couldn't he determine that without demanding that they show photo ID?
Hon. M. Sihota: Let me make a couple of points. First of all, we require some proof that you're from British Columbia. That's where the photo ID notion comes in, because there are benefits that accrue to British Columbians who acquire these licences. That's the reason behind the policy. I suspect that in the case of husband and wife, perhaps if one could prove that relationship one could show some flexibility if someone had forgotten their ID. But that's the exception to the rule, and I would only consider it to be an exception that.... In other words, I think you're right in terms of saying that it has been interpreted literally, and I don't have a real problem with that.
However, having said all of that, let's just put that behind us for a moment. The other day in the House, I think it was the member for Okanagan East who was asking this question. I indicated that we are going to be moving soon -- and when I say soon I mean within a year or two; that's what we're looking at -- to a new system which will eliminate the need for ongoing photographic ID. We'll be moving to a credit card kind of system with a magnetic strip at the back, which then works for fishing, hunting and all the different licences that you have to get, and we just run that through. To get it in the first place, you'll have to show photo ID, but thereafter it's your card for life. So you can just move on with it without having to worry about whether or not you left your purse at home, as long as that purse doesn't contain the card.
L. Fox: Given the history of this government, that almost prompts a question on how much this card is going to cost the taxpayer. But I'm still concerned. Does the minister not feel that the ill will this demand is creating in terms of those store owners is going to cause them to lose agencies for the sale of fishing licences?
Hon. M. Sihota: There are 1,300 people who issue these licences, and we do get some complaints -- maybe a couple of dozen a year -- on the upper end. Because people have commented on it and because, quite frankly, staff in the Ministry of Environment have said that you could fill out up to 16 different pieces of paper with regard to a wildlife licence and up to a dozen pieces of paper with regard to an angling licence, there has to be a more expeditious way of doing it. That's why we're moving towards this system.
If we do get there -- I'm sure we will -- then, of course, there will be a million-dollar advertising campaign to promote it. [Laughter.] I mean, surely you wouldn't expect anything but that, with those nice B.C. 21 logos and the Minister of Employment and Investment leading the charge. I won't be that far behind.
In all seriousness, we're looking at it. One of the opportunities that's always available for us, of course, is to take a look at corporate sponsorship. I'm not making that commitment; I'm just saying that's one thing that has some attractiveness to a lot of people.
But in any event, yes, there is obviously concern that people may not do the work anymore, and inasmuch as we're receiving few complaints, they're enough to justify a look at this. There has been some great ingenuity shown on the part of staff to try to get ahead of this problem, and that's why we're looking at moving to this system.
L. Fox: I have one final follow-up question. Can the minister tell me if there have been more complaints since the demand for photo ID was instituted into policy than there were previously? Has there been an increase in complaints from the retail sellers of fishing licences?
Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, they have gone up, but you should also know, as the member for Okanagan East mentioned the other day, that there is a larger concern around commissions that are paid for the work that is done.
G. Wilson: Just for the information of the minister, my questions today are going to be directed primarily toward the land aspect of the ministry. In particular, I would like some detailed information with respect to the operations of the surveyor general and the mapping systems that are in place. I would then like to talk about land acquisition and sale, and from there talk about the policy within the ministry that specifically has to do with coastal lands, foreshore lease holdings and foreign ownership.
In my remarks at the commencement of these estimates I said that the minister is in a unique situation, because I believe this to be the most important chair in cabinet. It is unique in the sense that this minister has both Environment and Lands together, which, of course, is an appropriate and sensible way to put land acquisitions together. But the information that this minister has at his disposal is only as good as the inventory of land that we have.
I would like to start my questions today regarding the gathering of information and putting together an integrated system that provides us with an accurate inventory of land, by talking about how that mapping system is tied into ministerial policy. I would specifically like to know how Environment and Lands might coordinate mapping with respect to the physical nature of the map, if we're dealing with geophysical maps. I would like to know if we might also be looking at mapping that has to do with ungulates, vegetation, water, soil types and those kinds of things, and how that might be integrated with the Ministry of Forests, which clearly has a different set of concerns with respect to its base maps, but nevertheless is going to want to have some integrated system. I would like to know about integration with Parks, which must have an accurate set of base data if they are to make sensible decisions to provide long-term stability in his ministry.
Perhaps we could start off talking about the surveyor general with respect to the mapping systems that are put in place. Perhaps the minister could tell us how the development and implementation of the cadastral system is working -- whether that is starting to provide an integrated system for this government based on some kind of uniform computerized mapping system or whether we are still in the
[ Page 11027 ]
situation we were in a year ago, where ministries were using different systems and there was a lack of compatibility in terms of trying to coordinate and integrate those systems.
Hon. M. Sihota: Your question focused on the systems. Our approach is that it's not the system that matters as much as it is the data that's collected and how that data can be shared with ministries. We have a corporate methodology -- "corporate" meaning across government -- with regard to the collection of that data, and through an appropriate networking system it can be accessed by all the different ministries. There's a central methodology that we're developing, whereby people can collect the data in a way that should help various ministries, be it ours, Agriculture, Forests or any other ministry involved in this type of work.
G. Wilson: Has the government invested in one computerized mapping system? Or are we all on GIS or some other system? Is every ministry developing maps to the same scale, for example, so that they're compatible on base maps? I'm just talking about base maps. I know that in the estimates a year ago for the former Minister of Environment and Lands that had not yet happened, although there was some discussion as to what system would be most compatible and most cost-effective. It is a question that also came up with respect to the auditor general's report in Public Accounts last year. I wonder if the minister can tell us what progress the government has made.
Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, we now have a standard strategic plan with regard to the mapping of data, which contains common scales, common standards and an integrated management system for the data that's collected.
G. Wilson: I congratulate the minister if that's been accomplished or if we're accomplishing that, because that clearly is going to make the information more accurate and more relevant.
The reason I ask is that a number of very significant projects are going on at the moment that will impact the ministry. Those projects are CORE and the CORE process; the Island Highway, a very major project that is under B.C. 21 -- there's going to be environmental impact and review with respect to streams and management of systems through sensitive land areas where construction of that highway is going to take place; the aboriginal land strategy, which again all of the reports coming out of this ministry repeatedly indicate this ministry is actively involved in, in the preparation of data and in the analysis of historical materials referenced; and lastly, of course, the whole question of looking at the islands in the Georgia Strait region and also some of the islands in the northern end of my riding -- in the areas around Queen Charlotte Sound -- and how we are actually putting together an accurate inventory of those marine resources and the islands on which they impact. Those are the four areas I'd like to concentrate on.
With respect to CORE, does CORE have access through this ministry to an integrated set of maps that might be provided for them to start to make a determination -- and I'm very specific in my questions here -- firstly, not only of the timber resource but also of the demographics, i.e., the existing and projected population; secondly, of the impact on water systems -- primarily municipal water systems or water systems where logging activity may have an impact on domestic demand; and thirdly, with respect to alternative land uses that have economic impact -- i.e., upland grazing areas or land set aside for recreational uses that are not parks or park-designated?
Hon. M. Sihota: Well, I don't think there's anything that CORE doesn't have access to within government, including any data they need and including the data you refer to. They are able to access it as any ministry would for the purposes of the work they do.
[3:45]
Secondly, as you know, not all the data collection is complete or perfect. Where there are imperfections, obviously there is more work to be done. But, generally, the answer to your question is yes.
G. Wilson: Could the minister then tell us how much money is being set aside for the corporate land information strategic plan? How much is being set aside with respect to cadastral data management, which is critically important, and the geo-referencing procedure currently underway within the ministry? Is that investment being made with a view to a comprehensive inventory, a base of inventory, that is going to be interministerial in nature? Or is it specifically designed with respect to the more traditional definition and cataloguing of Crown lands?
When I say traditional, Crown lands have traditionally been used through leaseholdings or some kind of licensed occupation for resource use or other economic activity. It looks like we're now moving more toward Crown land being put up for private sale, where there has been recreational use in the past -- and there seems to have been a policy to move toward that, and I'd like to get to some questions on that in a minute. Also, there's the aboriginal land strategy and, of course, the overall management of forests, with a view to the 12 percent set-aside. If the minister could talk a bit about those three programs, we could see exactly how much investment is going into this inventory.
Hon. M. Sihota: For cadastral, it's about $4 million a year; for TRIM, it's about $5 million a year; and we have a corporate resource inventory which I believe runs at about $11 million a year. Across government, the expenditures on the data are about $40 million to $50 million a year.
G. Wilson: Clearly, then, if we look at the overall levels of ministry operations, that money has to be picked up and shared by others. With respect to the background documentation for these estimates provided by the minister's staff regarding land-management-related information, there is an opportunity to sell services to a variety of different user groups. I wonder if the recoveries received through the sale of those services offsets that $40 million to $50 million or whether that is specifically a line expenditure within this ministry. If so, where is it? I don't see it actually showing up in the figures, unless I've misread them.
Hon. M. Sihota: The expenditures within the ministry are about $13 million a year on cadastral and TRIM, and the recoveries are about $8.8 million.
G. Wilson: How much of those recoveries would be from other ministries -- i.e., simply a question of government buying from government -- and how much would actually come from private organizations, other local governments or first nations? I don't know if the minister has the breakdown. I don't want to drag these questions out any more than they have to be. What I'm leading up to is: how much information is actually prepared on behalf of first nations with respect to that? I notice that it also suggests that foreign governments
[ Page 11028 ]
are buying this information. I wonder how much we get from selling that information to foreign governments.
Hon. M. Sihota: Of the total recoveries, $5.9 million are from within government, and $2.84 million are from outside government. That includes the federal government, which, of course, would do some acquisitions for aboriginal groups, and it includes local governments. Very little of that -- probably in the range of $100,000 -- would be from the private sector.
G. Wilson: So it would be minuscule as to how much we're selling to foreign governments, presumably. We're not doing a lot of work for our neighbours to the south, for example, who might have an eye to something like the Thompson diversion. I would assume it's minuscule, given the figures that the minister's given. He might correct that if it's not so.
It's interesting that the minister is suggesting that a lot of that base data is available to CORE. One of the criticisms that we've had in the past with CORE is the fact that they don't seem to have at their disposal a consistent base inventory of resources or accurate demographic information with respect to projected land use. Without knowing what the demographic trends are....
If I might, by way of a bit of a diversion -- but it's related -- I'd like to speak also about the Georgia basin initiative. My single greatest criticism of the Georgia basin initiative is that absolutely no accurate demographics are being reviewed and certainly no projections are being made with any degree of accuracy. I wonder if the minister can tell us if there is any commitment by the ministry to look at demographic trends with respect to future demand, especially outside the lower mainland, so some projections can be made with respect to the diminishment of the working forest lands in relation to the increased demand that presumably is going to be placed upon those forests if we stay tied to a primary extractive sector economy.
Hon. M. Sihota: With regard to demographic information, all three levels of government are involved in the collection and compilation of that information. We try to use that which is most exact. Given your background, hon. member, you know full well that that information is highly variable and does change significantly. CORE has access to the best information we have -- similarly for the Georgia basin strategy.
G. Wilson: If I could offer a recommendation -- albeit I'm sure I'll be accused at some point of asking the government to spend more money; at some appropriate time this minister will berate me for doing that -- I think it's essential that we start to channel additional funds, over what we're seeing here, to expand our mapping systems and to start looking at accurate population projections with respect to the demand on various kinds of land. It's one thing to take a look at a cadastral data management system or set up any kind of land-based maps, but it's something else to look specifically at population densities with relation to arable land, livable flat land, land with water availability and soil types that are suitable for settlement and may not be under some other kind of hazard, and so on. The government doesn't have accurate data with respect to that at its disposal.
The reason I'm asking for this is that it strikes me that an initiative this government might want to undertake is to try to set up some system of coordinating the land mapping systems that are being done at the local level. Local governments are actively involved in it by virtue of their need to do land management through zoning and community planning. Coordinate that with what the provincial government is doing with respect to its land initiatives, like CORE. It's one thing to have all of these maps out there; it's something else to do a lot of counting of people. But if nobody's bringing that information together and making some sense of it as to where we are today and where we're likely to be 10, 15, 20 or 60 years down the road, then the land use strategies that we put in place are not going to be very effective.
I offer that just by way of a suggestion. If it's possible, look into next year's budget, which I understand is going to be close to a balanced budget; 1996 is the target date. We might want to channel more money into those land-based mapping systems; we would be better off. With respect to that, I wonder if the minister can tell us what the current policy is on disposition of Crown land. There has been some real growing concern among us -- I have a lot of concern and other members of the Alliance have concerns -- that the policies of the former government, which were to dispose of Crown land and essentially try to gain revenue through disposition of Crown land, are continuing under this government. The concern is not so much with respect to disposition of Crown lands that may be in blocks that were used in the past for various kinds of industrial or commercial activity; the concern is specifically with respect to waterfront property.
One of the legacies that we can hopefully leave to future generations of British Columbians is public access to the water systems and water courses of British Columbia. In my judgment, there can be no better cause of a government than to look after future generations, knowing that we have essentially deemed certain water systems available to the public and to limit -- I don't say remove entirely -- the opportunity for alienation of waterfront by private acquisition. Historically, this government largely gave away much of the waterfront properties in the major cities and settlement areas of this country to the major railway companies, which are now reneging on their responsibility around something like the Vancouver Island line. I wonder what the government's position is on that and whether this minister has an opinion -- and whether or not we are still building revenues into our budgets from the increased sale of Crown lands, especially of waterfront properties that the vast majority will ultimately be alienated from through a very small percentage of British Columbians having ownership.
Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member is right when he says that revenue is secured through the disposition of Crown land. But there is another side of the equation which he ignores. Perhaps better than me simply standing up in the House and telling him that I'm not an advocate of, nor does this ministry engage in, subdivision of lakefront lands -- apart from allowing those who have existing leases to acquire their leasehold interest, which has continued but in that limited sense only -- is the fact that apart from revenue simply being generated from the disposition of land, it is being applied by this government to acquire significant pieces of land adjacent to water courses for the use and enjoyment of the public. It's not simply the words, hon. member; it's backed up by very firm action by this government.
I need not point any further than the greater Victoria area in terms of what we've done as a government. For example, as you know or should know, under the Commonwealth
[ Page 11029 ]
Nature Legacy program that we've announced, we have acquired land in the Gowlland Range-Tod Inlet region of Finlayson Arm to protect it for future generations. In terms of my opportunity and privilege to serve in this portfolio, I cannot think of an announcement or decision made by government in which I've taken as much pride as that one. I believe that this government expenditure in the neighbourhood of $9 million is an indication of our desire to protect that area. Nor is that a one-off decision. Again using this area as an example, we just acquired a remarkable piece of land in the Glencoe Cove area in the Oak Bay region of greater Victoria. It's a significant acquisition of property. It's not simply stating the policy that we want to preserve this as well; we've actually utilized the funds we have to go out and acquire pieces of land that do that.
Nor has this been something that has occurred during my tenure; we have done this elsewhere. I see in the House the member for Parksville-Qualicum, who played an instrumental and leading role in making sure that the Englishman River area was protected. I know that his work in that regard was appreciated both by my predecessor and by his constituents; he did a marvellous job of lobbying on behalf of his constituents. I believe that my predecessor also was instrumental in playing a role in protecting about 45 kilometres of lakeshore frontage in the Shuswap Lake area. That's occurred as well under the mandate of this administration. And there will be more.
[4:00]
It will happen because our future generations need to have access to these areas. When opportunities arise we look at further acquisitions. I hope also that in the weeks ahead you will note that we are continuing along this line or trend we've set as a government with regard to the acquisition of these lands.
G. Wilson: By way of a diversion, I think I'm going to have to come in to the private members' day to make a statement on the correct pronunciation of kilometre. That's a pet issue I'll get to later. It's kilometre, millimetre and centimetre, as opposed to barometer and tachometer. Anyway, I don't want to get into that. It's just that it drives me crazy.
I understand that there is a set-aside policy and a parks acquisition policy, and I'm not taking issue with that. I think this government has moved forward to try and set aside some parks, and has taken criticism on some and been applauded on others. I'm talking more about the whole question of protection of foreshore or alienation of the foreshore through private upland ownership that allows for the leaseholding of foreshore leases on lakefront as well as salt water.
The difficulty we have in a riding such as mine, which has a large tract of coastland and a number of very popular lakes, is that it is used not only for recreation but also for commercial activity. The problem we have is that frequently there is conflict between the commercial users and the demands the commercial users may have, for example, for protected bays or estuaries to waterways for booming logs, for longline, for shellfish culture, for finfish culture and so on.
If the upland is privatized and therefore the riparian right to the upland is given to that private owner, there is an opportunity for alienation of the foreshore. That's my concern. I believe that the state of Oregon and possibly Washington now have taken some very strong action with respect to protection of the riparian right to foreshore and leaving it in the public domain. That's what I'm talking about.
I point out that in some of the negotiations going on with first nations, the first nations are being advised -- and wisely so -- that the lease lands or leaseholdings they have within their particular area have strips set aside that still are designated under the particular first nation. I'll give you an example. The Sliammon Indian band has kept a strip of land along the foreshore outside of the land that is leased to leaseholders. As a result, the Sliammon Indian band now have riparian right to the foreshore, which protects their interest with respect to shellfish harvesting and so on. That's not an unwise thing to do. It has created a problem with the Assessment Authority, because those leaseholders are still being assessed as though they have waterfront property -- which indeed they do not have. There's going to be a bit of a legal challenge to that coming up. I would think this minister would be on the side of those who argue that it is not waterfront, because that land is set aside.
So I'm really particularly curious, then, about what acquisition the government is looking at with respect to picking up that foreshore area and some adjacent upland to keep them in the public domain and prohibit the alienation of that foreshore through private leaseholding. Otherwise, this ministry has to review on an application-by-application basis whether there should be foreshore uses of that water. The difficulty we have with that is that oftentimes there will be a foreshore licence granted to a logging company, for example, that is involved in a logging show that needs a licence of occupation to put logs in the water so they can boom them and take them out. It is a longstanding licence; the activity is over within three to five years. After that the licence still exists, residential development takes place around it, and the next thing you know is that the timber is ready for harvesting again. That company comes in and says: "We have a licence of occupation here. We wish to engage in an activity that we did 30, 40 or 60 years ago." Of course, you now have a residential uproar because the rest of that foreshore is alienated for recreational use.
If that land was set aside so that the riparian right to the upland remained with the Crown, then presumably there could be a more community-based use or a more -- I hate the word because it might be misinterpreted here in terms of my political affiliations -- communal use of the foreshore rather than necessarily moving toward private leaseholding. If the minister doesn't appreciate this as a problem, he should. If it isn't a problem in some areas of British Columbia, it is going to become a problem, because as members of his staff well know -- and I know they know, because we've had many a discussion about it -- when you have an area such as Pender Harbour, for example, which has all kinds of alienation of the foreshore -- some legal, much not legal -- it's going to be very difficult for the ministry responsible for Crown lands to send their people in to enforce a rigid policy that may be introduced after the fact.
This is not a spurious question. This is a serious one, and I think future generations of British Columbians might like to know that there was some forethought given to protecting the public interest with respect to foreshore use.
Hon. M. Sihota: I thank the hon. member for the question. I'm sorry if I said kilometre or whatever it was that I said in the way that I said it. If I said it wrong, I appreciate that it may have driven you crazy, but that's what I'm supposed to do during estimates, so I'm achieving my purpose.
I agree with the comments you make. We as a ministry try to deal with that in a flexible way through a variety of instruments. We have, for example, protected upstream
[ Page 11030 ]
riparian rights under the Pacific Spirit Park agreement that we came up with. So that's an example. But in other cases, we recognize that there is a need for land on water to be set aside for logging operations. We as a ministry have come to the conclusion that a generic policy per se, a blanket policy, doesn't work, and that flexibility is a more valuable way of dealing with these issues.
[F. Garden in the chair.]
G. Wilson: I know it is the job of this minister to drive me crazy. It just irritates me that he does it with such ease, that's all.
If I could make a case, then, for acquisition.... Again, I know this is going to come home to haunt me at some point, because this minister will again claim that I want to spend more money. Can the minister tell us what the current policy within the government is for the acquisition or maintenance of much of the island areas in the Broughton Archipelago within Crown land inventory? The reason I ask is that it seems there is an inordinate amount of foreign ownership in the Broughton Archipelago area and in the areas around Kingcome Inlet, Knight Inlet and Simoom Sound. Much of the islands is now being picked up by offshore buyers who have an interest in coming in and using them primarily for commercial charter operations and offshore recreation. The minister will know that that is an extremely fragile ecosystem. It's an ecosystem in which the predominant orca population of British Columbia exists. It's also an area that is abundant with a whole variety of sea mammals as well as sea birds. Would the minister tell us whether there's any serious consideration being given to setting aside the Broughton region as a marine park?
Hon. M. Sihota: Nice to see you in the chair, hon. Chair. It's nice to see someone who speaks a different language in the chair.
With regard to the Broughton Archipelago, I agree with you, it is a sensitive area. First of all, I don't know whether you're asking me to engage in acquisitions of land in that area to prevent foreign ownership. If that's what you're asking, I've got some problems with that. It seems to me that if we're going to be buying land, surely we ought not to be buying it to prevent foreign ownership; there must be reasons to acquire it that go beyond that in terms of the environmental sensitivity of the region.
I believe it was around September 1992 that we announced a park in the Broughton Archipelago. So that was done at that time. I see the hon. member shaking his head. Perhaps he can amplify on the question he was trying to ask.
G. Wilson: I wasn't suggesting that we try to buy land that is foreign-owned. I was suggesting that if the area were set aside in terms of its allowable uses, it would discourage what seems to be an inordinate amount of foreign interest in that land. I don't believe it's in British Columbia's best interest to have that land held outside of this province. Frankly, I don't think it's in our interest to have too great a proportion of that land in private hands -- which is not a position that I take lightly, because I believe in the private ownership of land.
But with respect to the proposed park, I would say that the lines were drawn.... It was originally anticipated that the park would prohibit the expansion of fish farms in that area, with recognition of the need to set aside the Broughton area as a marine.... It wasn't given a classic marine park designation, because that has a different implication. But there was certainly going to be a type of ecosystem reserve classification. That simply didn't happen, outside of lines on a map.
It's in my riding, and I have an opportunity to visit it on a reasonably frequent basis. I can tell you that there is still proposed logging activity in some very ecologically sensitive areas with respect to salmon streams, and there is still a reasonable proliferation of fish farms. I have on occasion asked this minister about it, and my colleague from Okanagan East is going to elaborate on those areas very shortly.
So I'm suggesting that the ministry needs to recognize this is a unique marine ecosystem and that the islands within this system are very much ecologically integrated with respect to the wildlife that frequent the area. The economics of that area is clearly based on fishing and logging. I'm not suggesting those activities could not continue, but the scale at which logging can continue on some of those islands has to be looked at seriously. Obviously, when the CORE process starts to look at that, there's going to have to be a very substantive amount of discussion on the type of activity that would be permitted.
But having said that, I think the ministry needs to set up an administrative jurisdiction within that area that will be much more vigilant in protecting the region. Setting it aside as a marine park is one possibility. Another might be an exploration of Islands Trust expansion, looking at the Islands Trust coming in. I think there are some problems with that, but it may be one way that could be looked at. Simply putting a designation on a map clearly hasn't worked, because very few people in the area know where the lines are, and I don't think anybody is respecting them.
Hon. M. Sihota: I hesitated for a minute, in part because you didn't ask a question, and I was trying in my own mind to figure out what you're trying to get at here.
[4:15]
I recognize that this area is unique and sensitive, and I realize also that the area is a treasure for British Columbia. Yes, I've had occasion to be in that area and to meet the people from the area. Having said all that, let me also say that there are a number of things we're doing. First, we've created a class A park in that area. There is no logging or shellfish harvesting within that park; that's my understanding. Second, I'm sure that there is some activity outside the park, but we're not in a position to control that. As I've indicated publicly in this House to a question you asked in question period some time ago, we are not granting any new fish-farm licences in that area, in part because of a recognition of its sensitivity.
G. Wilson: I'll just bring my questions full circle and then yield to another member. It strikes me that if there were ever an area that needed to have a comprehensive mapping system with an appropriate and proper inventory.... I'm not convinced that there is no logging within that red line; I think there is, but I'll check on that because I'm not certain. There is certainly one proposed licence that I believe is right in the middle of the park, and there is an opportunity for that licence to be acted on next year. But I'll check and get back to the minister with respect to that.
It would seem clearly that the line has been drawn to accommodate fish farms, and that's a concern. So my question, then -- because the minister would perhaps like a question to respond to -- would be this: would the Broughton Archipelago be included in the information that is being pulled together through the mapping systems and the database that's being developed? Is there going to be a
[ Page 11031 ]
comprehensive, integrated land management system available to British Columbians so that we have an opportunity to review inventory?
I would say that what's needed there on a macro scale is much of what was successfully accomplished on a micro scale in the Sechelt Inlet area. When the Sechelt Inlet strategy was completed, we actually had area designations that defined what kind of activities would be permitted and what wouldn't. I wonder if the minister can tell us whether or not there is an opportunity to have that work done. If we don't act swiftly to ensure that the so-called class A park is in fact.... If the boundaries are accurately drawn -- and I don't believe they are -- are the activities that are prohibited within them actually not happening? I'm not sure that's the case, either. If we don't act swiftly to deal with that, we are going to lose that region, and it would be a real tragedy.
Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, I will consider that. I agree with you that it is an area that needs attention within the province, so I will grant you that.
M. Farnworth: I have a few questions for the minister on an issue of importance to a number of constituents in my constituency concerning the Swan-e-set golf and country club and resort which has been developed across the river in Pitt Meadows.
I am asking these questions because of the problems of the discharge of effluent into the Pitt River from the golf course and the subsequent resort development. It has a minimal discharge from any other activity into it at the current time, and it is unique in that it is a tidal river which flows into North America's only tidal lake. The residents in the area -- Burke Mountain Naturalists and other naturalist groups, the northeast Coquitlam ratepayers and the district of Coquitlam -- are quite concerned about what effect this increase in effluent discharge is going to have on the river itself. In fact, it is recognized as one of the cleanest rivers in the lower mainland.
I need some answers to questions. A number of constituents such as Chris Laustrup and Mike Griffin have written to me, and they have a number of questions which need to be answered. I would like to know if the minister is aware of some of the problems associated with the Swan-e-set golf program and the issue of discharge into the Pitt River?
Hon. M. Sihota: Thanks to your lobbying efforts I have become well aware of the problem. I guess that's a comment on your persistence on behalf of your constituents.
M. Farnworth: I'd like to follow that up. What precautions are being taken to cope with the high tides and the likelihood of effluent backing up into the Pitt River? A major concern is the fact that effluent won't flow into the Fraser but will instead back up into the Pitt River and there will be an increasing concentration of effluent over time.
Hon. M. Sihota: I understand that there is some treatment of the effluent, but I also understand that your constituents don't consider that to be an answer by itself. I understand there is a fair bit of concern in the community, and I believe that some of your constituents have requested an information meeting. If that is what they request and if you think it wise, I would be happy to oblige and to provide staff at that meeting so that people have a better idea of where the ministry is coming from, and so that the ministry could be apprised of their concerns in order to take them into account.
M. Farnworth: That was going to be my next question, because I think that's what is required. There is a lot of concern about what's going on there, and I'm familiar with the treatment that is being proposed. The golf course is looking at the ozone treatment of effluent. At the same time there is a great deal of interest in ozone treatment at the regional district level in this chloramine/chlorine debate. Is it possible for the public to examine records for discharge effluent into the river or to other areas throughout the province?
Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, that information is generally available under freedom of information, at least through that system. If the hon. member wants any particular information, if he corresponds with me I will make sure that staff provide him with the appropriate information.
M. Farnworth: One of the issues of concern if we do arrive at a solution is that people want to have some comfort that they have access to the records. A lot of non-governmental organizations want access, such as the Burke Mountain Naturalists, as I said before. I think that is extremely important. I'd be very pleased if we could arrange that.
Finally, I'd just like to take the opportunity to extend an invitation to the minister to come out and visit our constituency, because the minister is undertaking a great deal of work in our constituency, such as Burke Mountain Park, Colony Farm land use and this particular issue. I hope you take me up on that offer.
Hon. M. Sihota: Actually, just this very morning I was talking to staff about the idea of going into the Pinecone-Burke Mountain area in July. That's a probability right now, so I may well have the occasion to visit your constituency
J. Tyabji: As the minister knows, I want to talk at some length about aquaculture and the fish farms -- particularly in the Broughton Archipelago -- in terms of the policy in general. I have one specific question that may need some research, so I'm going to bring that up first and then go into some general ones.
There was a fish-farm application in front of the Ministry of Environment last year during the estimates, No. 1407531. Could the minister please let me know where that application is and whether or not it was approved?
Further to that, I'm sure the minister has reviewed the file with regard to fish farming in the Broughton Archipelago and understands the diseases in that area, furunculosis and catalyst-causing furunculosis, which may have wiped out a great deal of the wild salmon stock in addition to possibly the prawns and the oolichans and the benthic environments up to one kilometre downstream from the fish farm sites. This is the issue I'd like to canvass with the minister.
The minister has said that under his direction, there are no more licences being granted for fish farms through the ministry. However, I have evidence here that some sites will be constructed prior to licensing. That has been done in the past. Could the minister please let me know what the situation is with regard to licensing? What is the current practice? How has this minister changed the ministry's policy with regard to fish farms? That's an important starting point, because last year and the year before we spent quite a bit of time on this issue with the former Minister of Environment. If I can find out where the new minister is coming from -- he is new to this issue -- that would be very helpful.
[ Page 11032 ]
Hon. M. Sihota: We have not issued any new licences in the Broughton Archipelago. I have asked that there be a stop on the issuance of new licences. We are studying the whole issue provincewide with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, because that ministry has a role to play in this. We are reviewing our policy options with the industry and others in order to assess a conclusive position on the matter, but since I have been minister we have not issued new licences. It also causes me some concern that you would suggest that there are areas where people are constructing farms without approval. If that is occurring, I would sure like to know the details. I'd be happy to take that information from you if you have it, either privately or in this House.
Finally, was the application you mentioned in the Broughton Archipelago? Fine. We'll try to get an answer to you.
J. Tyabji: I am just trying to see if I have the specific reference to that one application. I have so much material here. This application -- 1407531 -- was for the mouth of Kingcome Inlet in the Broughton Archipelago.
Last year I received a letter from Ms. Alexandra Morton. Copies were sent to the minister's office. The letter cited a number of people: biologists, lodge owners and people who have lived in the Broughton Archipelago for many years and have monitored the marine environment. One of the points she raised in the letter is that she is trying very hard to get one farm-free access for the wild stock through the Broughton Archipelago so that even if there are diseases in the farm fish, they won't be subject to every single wild run in order to get to the rivers.
In this letter she says that she was quite surprised to see that sites that were still in the application process were already installed. The letter is dated May 28, 1993, and it should be in the minister's file from his predecessor:
"Sites still in the application process were already installed. They were being advertised in our local paper for the purpose of allowing the public to oppose the sites, and yet the farms were already in. When questioned, Crown Lands senior land officer Richard Brunning said that advertising was merely a formality."
Obviously, that's something that is in a letter; I haven't heard it from that person. It is being said that it was stated by that person, and the minister has said he would like to follow up. That person obviously needs an opportunity to address that comment being attributed to him, but certainly Ms. Morton is a very credible marine biologist, and for her to have tracked this and perceived that to be the attitude is, I think, s a serious concern.
[4:30]
The minister has said that he is looking into fish farms in conjunction with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Foods. I'm not sure how much time the minister has spent on some of the diseases occurring in the fish farms and the fact that diseased fish are being put in. If the minister has been reviewing the files, the fact that a number of farms.... In fact, there are dense populations of the farms now in some of the red zones of the wild runs. Has the minister looked into that? When he talks about policy options, is there a possible option of removing existing farms?
Hon. M. Sihota: I had occasion to meet with the author of that letter after it was written -- around November 1993, I believe, if memory serves me right -- and she certainly made a case that we had to consider. I think she had an impact on the decisions that we as a ministry subsequently made. I don't recall seeing any subsequent correspondence from her, although we get a blizzard of it, so I may have missed some. But I think she would be satisfied with what we as a ministry have done to date.
Second, with regard to issues that you raised about diseases, I'm well aware of them. That is, obviously, one of the concerns that spurred us to take the action that we took. Third, with regard to the red zones, there are some farms within red zones that pre-existed the establishment of our applications system or the identification of the zone, but since then, as I understand it, there has been no issuance of new licences. There might have been one -- I'm functioning from memory here -- but apart from that, there haven't been any new ones.
J. Tyabji: Before I go on to further questions, the minister hasn't answered one question. Many farms were licensed for red zones after the red zones were designated. Would one of the policy options be for the minister to revoke the licences of farms found to be harmful to the marine environment?
Hon. M. Sihota: We canvassed that issue at our meeting, in terms of how many were issued. I remember very explicitly saying that I would research that. I remember very explicitly coming to the conclusion that the problem wasn't such that lots of these were issued once the zone had been established. But I don't think that's either here or there. We're trying to look prospectively instead of retroactively. On a prospective basis, I'll assess the policy options when they're before me. I'm not prepared to give you a commitment one way or the other right now.
J. Tyabji: The minister referred to his meeting last November. It is true that Ms. Morton, with whom he met -- and we've had subsequent meetings with her -- was very happy with the minister's attitude and approach to this issue. The minister said that he's not sure if he has received other correspondence. I can assure him that he has received quite a bit. The issue has become more serious. There are two separate issues: the transmission of diseases from farm fish and the lack of salmon return this year. There has been virtually no salmon found. There has also been a dramatic decline in prawns and oolichans and there has been no spring salmon.
I'd like to share parts of a letter dated April 15, 1994. In addition to the minister receiving this letter, he has also received a copy of a letter sent to the federal minister about the diseased fish and the fact that tens of thousands of fish diseased with furunculosis are being put into the marine environment in the Broughton Archipelago as we speak, through fish farms licensed by the provincial government.
[W. Hartley in the chair.]
If the minister will not commit to revoking the licences of farms operating in red zones, which are identified by his ministry as being so environmentally sensitive that they should not be interfered with.... If there will not be a consideration that those licences should be revoked in recognition of the environmental sensitivity of that area, perhaps the minister would like to make a commitment about farms that habitually put tens of thousands of diseased fish into farm pens. Those pens are, of course, open, in terms of transmission through the water, to that disease travelling downstream, and to the loads of antibiotics that are fed to the diseased fish falling below the pens for consumption by other organisms in the marine environment and then passing through the food chain. Perhaps one of the policy options the
[ Page 11033 ]
minister is pursuing is revoking the licences of farms that habitually put diseased fish into their farms.
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. member, I said that I wouldn't commit one way or the other; I didn't say that things were out of consideration. You were careful in nine-tenths of what you said to use the word "commitment," and at the end, you used the word "consideration." Nothing is out of the realm of consideration. I'm just not going to commit myself to one course of action over another, nor show my hand in terms of where I'm going until the work of the group we have established to do the study is concluded. When that is concluded, we will make decisions. I appreciate that there might be some impact on the environment. We do have cancellation provisions with regard to existing licence holders.
J. Tyabji: I understand the minister doesn't want to show his hand prior to the report coming out. Before going back to my line of questioning, I'd like to share some of the details of the April 1994 letter in which Ms. Morton says that the Stolt Sea Farm is applying for the Crown lands in Watson Cove for the purpose of putting in land-based crew quarters for the nearby fish farm. As the minister knows, in many cases the fish farms have float houses, so they don't need land-based crew.
Watson Cove is designated as a red zone. The minister has said there have been no new licences or fish farms in red zones in the Broughton Archipelago. Yet on April 4, 1994, the farm, which is in the red zone in front of Watson Cove, was towed back. This one is on top of a salmon migration route and schooling area, and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food had also stated that there were not going to be any farms placed on migration routes. This farm has had a history of fish diseased with furunculosis, and it has only recently been put into a new migration route and in a red zone. Obviously, it is part of the problems that I hope will be considered by the people doing the study for the minister's review, prior to him making a decision about what action he'll be taking.
The minister should be aware, as well, that 1991 was the first year in which the wild coho stock returning to the area nearby the enhancement hatchery were heavily infected with furunculosis, which first appeared in the fish farms in 1989. So we have diseased fish being put into the pens with open sores and then being treated with antibiotics and having that transmitted to the wild stock. Even though the Broughton Archipelago has historically been a very rich area and one of the world's greatest natural fish farms in terms of the wild stock's ability to regenerate, I believe that, because of the diseases that have been put in by the fish farms, the wild stock has virtually been wiped out. In terms of people's ability to find any of them, three salmon have been caught in the Broughton Archipelago since the season opened, and one was an Atlantic salmon which had escaped from the fish farms.
That's something I think the minister should put.... I suppose the minister doesn't want to interfere with the review that's going on by his ministry, but perhaps for the purpose of these estimates -- because we won't be able to canvass this again until next year, and I do worry that this is a very time-sensitive issue -- could the minister outline the parameters of the study and to what extent his ministry is cooperating with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food?
Hon. M. Sihota: We've agreed as a ministry to the action plan which allows us to address a number of concerns: to evaluate aboriginal, public and agency concerns; to secure a definition of industry ambitions in British Columbia, and to achieve what may be attainable, given government priorities and actions; to create a status report on the industry; to review all existing legislation, guidelines and standards governing salmon farming with regard to their adequacy and recommend changes where they are appropriate; to define environmental research issues that need to be worked on; and to develop operational guidelines and regulations for salmon farming. That's the answer to that question.
With regard to the other point that the hon. member made, remember one thing: there have been two instances of people trespassing on Crown lands with regard to fish farms, and in both cases people have been given cease-and-desist orders. So let's not be mistaken about our ability to deal with issues that don't meet with our satisfaction.
J. Tyabji: I hope that when the minister has the opportunity, diseased fish in fish farms licensed by the provincial government will not meet with his satisfaction, and he will take very strong action at that time.
The minister received a copy of a letter in April, and I would like to read some of it into the record, because we're talking about very recent events. There's a company called Scanmar, which is one of the largest fish farm companies. This letter says:
"Last year Scanmar placed a new strain of furunculosis into Sutlej Channel, which I pleaded with you to keep clear. They placed two farms close together in another of your red zones, and the pathogens immediately began to spread. The B.C. Packers farm in Greenway Sound quickly caught the disease. The poor coho returning last year had a remarkably similar disease that even DFO can't tell us is definitely not the same strain. And now the chinook that usually over-winter have vanished and the steelhead in Wakeman Sound appear to be gone as well.
"DFO knows that placing diseased fish in the water for enhancement purposes is very dangerous to wild stocks and it is not allowed. Thousands of publicly owned enhancement fish have been destroyed in hatcheries, to protect wild stocks. Why, then, are the fish farmers allowed to put diseased fish in the water and grow them out on migration routes of weakened stocks that DFO is trying to enhance?"
And the letter goes on; it's quite long.
It strikes me that this is the third year in a row that I've brought this issue forward in estimates. Of course, this is the first year that the minister has had this in front of him. But in previous estimates we were only talking about potential problems in terms of the wild salmon stocks. This year we're talking about the realities -- they have declined. When I first saw the information brought to me, over two years ago, I didn't know anything about it and did some research into it. I found that, unfortunately, Ms. Morton has been right in her predictions. She's the first one to say that she wishes she were wrong in terms of the effect of putting in this level of disease and this level of antibiotics.
The number of antibiotics being put into the farmed fish is, I think, an issue for the Minister of Health. Somewhere somebody should be tracking that antibiotic through the human biological system. The antibiotics sediment out below the pens. Steelhead are one of the fish that go under them, but you get prawns and other marine animals eating food with antibiotics in it and then being consumed by humans. In addition, the farmed fish are consuming food full of antibiotics. If we want to be extremely selfish about how we perceive this and look only at our own interests, I'm not sure how that is impacting us as human organisms. Even if
[ Page 11034 ]
all the wild stocks would disappear and we would say that doesn't matter because we've got farmed fish, I'm not sure that's the kind of option we want in terms of our fish consumption needs.
[4:45]
I want to hear from the minister some indication of where he would like to go with the marine environment and whether or not we're going to have something in place. He says there are cancellation provisions for licences. But recognizing that once these estimates are over we can't revisit this until next year, and having seen this myself last year and the year before.... Of course, this is six months after the minister's meeting with Ms. Morton, and we're still in the process of analyzing the information in front of us. Is there anything encouraging in terms of the level of monitoring and the action that will be taken by the government in licensing the fish farms with regard to preserving some of the wild stocks in the marine environment?
Hon. M. Sihota: I'd be lying if I said I didn't share your concern; I do. I worry about this problem; there's no two ways about that. But it's a problem that requires work with major industry, major environmental groups and significant environmental concerns, and it is work that requires activity within three different ministries. That doesn't make it expeditious when you have that many parties involved.
I have these concerns, and I would be less than forthright if I said a solution is imminent; it's not. Some work has to occur between my ministry and others. One of the frustrations that ministers have is that something that you think should take about two weeks to resolve tends to take about two months or longer. Having experienced that, I cannot give you a conclusive answer that would give you the appropriate comfort to know that an answer will be ready by the fall, for example. It may be; it may not be. But I'm not prepared to pin myself down to that. I know that a lot of work needs to be done through staff on an issue that requires some scientific information and analysis, better environmental information, some response from the industry and response from some other ministries. That takes a while.
J. Tyabji: I appreciate that an issue of this magnitude requires a lot of caution. In that respect I agree with the minister, if his intentions are as he has stated, that we should get action at some point that would be in the best interests of people who would like to safeguard the environment. I will leave that aspect of it and know that now that it's in his domain -- and he has had it since November -- he has expressed an intention to deal with it. If it is not dealt with -- and this minister obviously recognizes his direct responsibility on this issue in terms of safeguarding the wild stocks -- I would hope that he understands the magnitude of importance and that this cannot be taken lightly. Once the reviews are in, there should be very strong justification for any action taken or not taken. At that point he will be directly accountable for it.
I want to move to a related issue that does not have to do with diseased fish, but has to do with the issue of the seal scarers. The minister has some familiarity with the seal scarers used to deter the seals in the area from tearing at the nets, which has a double-barrelled effect. Obviously there is a cost to the industry when the seals attack the nets and the fish get out. In addition to the fish getting out, when these are diseased fish it allows for easier transmission of the disease and larger problems in terms of the environment. What is the minister's position on the seal scarers? Is that also the subject of the review? If so, what are the guidelines of the review for the seal scarers, and is that taking into account related research on the impact of this level of sound carrying in a marine environment?
Hon. M. Sihota: I know that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is carrying on a study with regard to seal scarers on an international basis, and they don't intend to allow for seal scarers until that work is done.
J. Tyabji: Could the minister clarify that? Is he saying that they won't allow for seal scarers? Seal scarers are currently in use in the Broughton Archipelago.
Hon. M. Sihota: That's a good point. I should have been a little clearer. They're not allowing for wide use of the seal scarers until that work is completed. It's not as if they banned them; they're just not allowing for wide use of them.
J. Tyabji: I'm not sure what wide use would refer to, but they are in fairly common use in the Broughton Archipelago. They have an 80-kilometre range. The decibel level of a seal scarer is higher than the one that is currently being used in the United States for global warming experiments. That has been controversial because of the impact that that decibel level has on marine animals and the marine environment. We have a higher decibel reading for the seal scarers, and they are in use in the Broughton Archipelago. There is evidence that the seals are losing their hearing, so it's not deterring them from attacking the cages. There have been no sightings of humpback whales or minke whales since they started to use them, and that's a serious concern. There were quite a high number of resident whales, and it's having a large impact on the whales in the area. That in itself is obviously disrupting the ecosystem, in addition to it not doing what it was set out to do in the first place.
Hon. M. Sihota: I appreciate the hon. member raising the issue, but the management of seals and other marine mammals is in the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. It's a federal jurisdiction issue, with the province having no jurisdiction over the use of seal scarers. The federal government advises us that they have authorized the use of only a few seal scarers on the condition that they be used in a judicious manner when a farm is under attack by seals or when seals are in the immediate area. DFO advises us -- and I guess that's all I can give to you -- that users are required to file weekly reports with regard to their use and effect. The data is necessary for the study that I referred to a few minutes ago, which determines the effect of the scarers on other marine animals. DFO advises us that they have determined that the seal scarers have no effect on killer whales.
J. Tyabji: Consider that one source for the complaint is Alexandra Morton, who has studied killer whales and orcas over nine years. She is saying that they have an enormous impact on killer whales and have completely run humpback whales out of that area. I'm sure the minister recognizes that even if it is a federal jurisdiction, and even if we just want to look at it from the bottom line, the provincial government's Ministry of Tourism should be quite concerned. Whales are a very large tourist draw on the west coast, and when we have the leading biologist of killer whales on the west coast saying that they've been impacted and that humpback whales and minke whales have disappeared, I think we should be more concerned than putting it onto federal jurisdiction.
I hope the minister has an opinion, first of all, and that this minister will express that opinion, as he is known to do,
[ Page 11035 ]
to the federal government so his colleague the Minister of Tourism is not going to have some difficulty with regard to the disappearance of whales. There are three separate sites for dense fish farms in B.C., one of them being Tofino, another one being one of the sounds on the coast. All three of those are also destinations points for whale watching. If the whales are being impacted by this, whether it's federal jurisdiction or not, this is going to affect the B.C. government.
Hon. M. Sihota: I was telling the press the other day that I've never met a microphone I didn't like, and there's never been an issue that I didn't have an opinion on. On this one, I'm not too sure what my opinion is until such time as I have an opportunity to get some information from staff.
I know that your colleague, the leader of your party, asked some questions in this House about that. As a result of that request -- and I think it was on April 25, actually -- I asked for some briefing material from staff. Effectively, I have read into the record the material that I have received.
I understand why you're asking the question; I understand the issue. At this point I'm going to proceed with some caution. There are some issues that the federal government has under its jurisdiction. But I will guarantee you this: in my next meeting with the federal Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, I will discuss the issue with him -- I have discussions with him frequently -- and with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans when I have the occasion to meet with him. I do not meet as frequently with him as I do with the parliamentary secretary. I will follow up on that issue to make sure that they're moving, so that this thing doesn't get studied to death and then nothing happens. That's a real concern that I have. I sense it's one that you have as well, and I'll make that commitment to you.
J. Tyabji: I appreciate that commitment from the minister. When the minister develops an informed opinion on this issue, I will look forward to receiving a copy of his letter to the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans with that opinion in it, and a recommendation of the federal minister. I'd be happy to share his opinion with other people who have an interest in this.
The last question I have with regard to fish farms -- or any kind of farms; we have prawn farms and other farms being placed in the oceans -- is about their closure. If a company closes down, how closely is this ministry monitoring the removal of apparatus from the oceans and the moving out of the associated apparatus of those farms? There have been a number of incidents where fish farms have been abandoned, then have floated free and caused untold havoc in the oceans afterwards, and there has been no process to get the apparatus out of the water -- it's a mess.
Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member may know that there is a blanket performance bond agreement between B.C. Lands and the B.C. Salmon Farmers' Association to provide performance bond coverage for all members of the association. The bond is up to about $25,000 and must be maintained at that level at all times. It could be applied to the cleanup of any site. Similar performance bond agreements exist with the B.C. Shellfish Growers' Association, as well. The blanket performance bond provides a simple means to ensure cleanup bonding for some of the farms. So that does exist.
However, there are situations -- particularly in the Sunshine Coast, where other people were not members of the association and hence did not pay into the bond scheme -- where we have encountered problems with debris at the bottom that catches on to shellfish and other organisms in the water. The ministry is aware of and acting on those.
J. Tyabji: When the minister says that the ministry is acting on those, I'm assuming that the ministry is going in to clean up and remove the apparatus. Can the minister clarify that? On occasions where bonds have been posted, is a branch of the ministry making sure that that is being used for the purpose of removing closed fish farms?
Hon. M. Sihota: Yes. I don't have the number of how many we have cleaned up, so I can't tell you that, but we have actually gone in there with the industry and others to clean them up. By our estimate, there are about 17 that still require cleaning up.
[5:00]
J. Tyabji: I have a number of questions, and I know there are other members of the House who would like nothing better than to have this minister in front of the cameras for another day or so. I understood that there was some kind of hockey thing going on tonight. If that's happening, is the agreement that 5 o'clock would be the adjournment time?
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: The minister is saying it's 5:30, so we can have half an hour more of estimates. In that case, I want to move back to a subject we canvassed a few days ago with regard to the new methods for licensing hunting and fishing.
After the extended discussion we had with the minister, in which the minister was very forthcoming about some of the ministry's plans with regard to hunting and fishing licences, I had the opportunity to send copies of Hansard to some of the retail outlets in my riding. One had contacted me at the beginning, expressing some serious concerns about the new arrangements, and has since ceased to offer that service to customers and is no longer selling them. The result was that some of the other outlets have to make up for that and take on more of this. At this point this is almost a volunteer position that they're in.
The question that came up from one of the retailers in particular was: why was it necessary to move to the interim system if the minister is planning to bring in a new system in a year or so? Is there any way that -- and I had actually brought this up to some extent -- some sort of grace period can be extended until the new system comes in? What is the minister going to do if the retail outlets opt out of selling hunting and fishing licences? What would the ministry then have to do?
Hon. M. Sihota: First of all, let me deal with this hockey thing you refer to. I thought you understood, because I thought it was very clever to see the program on Sunday end at 5 p.m., I think it was -- everyone knew there was a hockey game. So I thought you knew about that. Anyway, there's something called the Stanley Cup and....
J. Tyabji: It's a male bonding issue.
Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, it's a male hockey ritual. And for those of us who grew up collecting cards, using Eaton's catalogues as shin guards and dreaming of the day when we might grow up to be hockey players instead of ending up in front of these cameras, it's something we look forward to each year. I'd be happy to invite the hon. member.... In fact,
[ Page 11036 ]
I'm sure the press gallery would be happy to invite the hon. member out for a cold one and then watch the Leafs and the Canucks at 6 p.m. As a courtesy to that, I'll adjourn at 5:30.
There are 1,300 licensees, and if one leaves, we have the capacity to make that up with the number of licensees that exist. But that's not to trivialize the concern expressed by your constituent. I think I got a letter from you today actually.... Yes, I believe it was from a person on Pandosy Street or Harvey Avenue or something like that in Kelowna -- at least it was in my mail today. So I don't want to trivialize their concern. The true answer to your question is that when the interim policy was developed, I don't think people anticipated that we would be as far along on the card system as we now are. That's one area where we made a lot of progress.
I can't crystal-ball it in terms of when we'll have that system in place. I think that at the outside it will be two seasons from now and more likely next season. So people will have to bear with what they've got right now. I'm sorry to see that one of our issuers has decided to leave the system, but we haven't had anything indicate to us that it's a harbinger of things to come. A number of people around the province have commented on our exchange in the House -- at least to me -- on the licence issue, and they have all indicated to me that they're relieved to see that we're moving toward a more efficient system that really makes a lot of sense. I hope people will see their way through the turbulence that exists right now to allow us to implement a system that makes more sense.
J. Tyabji: I can't resist going back to the hockey conversation. The minister is saying that the program on Sunday allowed for us to adjourn at about 5 or 6 o'clock. This explains a lot to me, because I'm now married to someone who used to be a goalie, and I couldn't understand why he was in such a rush to have things over by 5 o'clock. If the minister is saying that he himself used to have aspirations of putting on a pair of skates and floating around, that could explain a lot about his history in politics and some of the ways that he approaches things -- with such incredible drive. But hockey aside.... Actually, I'm joking; I have been watching some of the games. How could you not with the Vancouver Canucks in it?
I know the members for West Vancouver-Garibaldi and Powell River-Sunshine Coast both have a number of questions and are probably in the other estimates right now, so I'll just keep this going.
The corporate resource inventory initiative was brought in by this government two years ago, and the budget for the CRII has increased each year. When we canvassed it two years ago its mandate was to try to analyze the current resources of the province, which would include everything from ungulates to forestry resources to water resources. There has never been an adequate reporting-out of the achievements of the several millions of dollars that have been put into this. I believe it was $10 million the first year, $4 million in the second and $11-something million this year -- that's off the top of my head, but we're looking at several millions of dollars. Could the minister please let us know why this has continued? As I understood it the first year, this was going to be a one-year study, and last year was a continuation of the first year's efforts. What is its mandate under this minister, what has been accomplished under his predecessor, and what is the final objective?
Hon. M. Sihota: Thank you for the question. I'm not sure if I understood one of the assumptions of your question. You assumed that it was just a one-year program. I'm not sure that was the case. If it was the case, it's obviously going to be more than a one-year program. From my way of thinking it should be more than a one-year program, because we need the information for the purposes of securing centralized information with regard to resource management. Your colleague was making the case for a CRII kind of system in the comments he made earlier on in the House. So the $11 million that's being expended for the inventory under that initiative is required, and it will undoubtedly continue. Each year it has to go through its justification, both in terms of Treasury Board and myself before it goes to Treasury Board. I saw no reason this year to terminate its activity. I thought it was much needed, and I know Treasury Board felt the same way, because there was some discussion with regard to it at that level.
J. Tyabji: The minister shouldn't be so defensive. I was asking the question for a point of information. In reviewing Hansard, the minister will find that the first year CRII was brought in.... Actually, it's very much needed and is something that is long overdue. We haven't heard what has been accomplished. There has been a lot of money expended, the mandate was very clear and laudable, and now there's more money coming out. Certainly the understanding at first was that it was going to be a one-time deal. There was going to be an inventory, and a computer system was going to be put into place -- I believe the GIS mapping was under that budget. Last year, as I understood it, was going to wrap it up in terms of the capital expenditures necessary to put a proper inventory system in place. If that hasn't happened, that's fine. Certainly, if we need to invest more money in it, it needs to be done. What's being done? What's been accomplished, and where are we going with it?
Hon. M. Sihota: It has provided us with vital information to make the kind of decisions that we need to make and will make in a number of areas -- CORE being an example of that. That information is vital for the process in the Kootenays and the Cariboo and also vital for government with regard to its assessment of the Vancouver Island CORE recommendations. It's vital in that sense, and that would explain why it's gone beyond a year. On the aboriginal side, all the aboriginal land use issues that come before this ministry and before this government have to be attended to in the context of this expenditure. So if you want to know what it has achieved, it has allowed us to deal with the kinds of results that we've gotten out of the CORE table, for example, and to do much of the work that we need to do with regard to the aboriginal issues -- and that is budgeted for this year.
G. Wilson: That leads very nicely into a series of questions that I'd like to ask specifically with respect to the Ministry of Lands' involvement in the Treaty Commission process and in preparation of the government's case as opposed to the preparation of the aboriginal case, given that we know there are contracted services. Could the minister tell us approximately what proportion of the work that's being done by CRII, or other agencies like that, is actually going to assist first nations in the development of their case for aboriginal land claims?
Hon. M. Sihota: Could you repeat the question?
G. Wilson: What I'm anxious to find out is approximately what percentage of the moneys currently expended within the
[ Page 11037 ]
ministry with respect to land inventory work is being expended to assist first nations with preparation of their land claims case.
Hon. M. Sihota: Within this ministry, about half of the funds that are allocated to CRII this year are being utilized by the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs for its case. We were not contracting out to, say, a particular band to be able to access that information. As I understand it, there is some assistance being provided by Aboriginal Affairs -- and I stand to be corrected on this -- to two bands to assist them in the Treaty Commission process. Part of that may be the sharing of some information so that, indirectly, it may flow over there -- or, indirectly, the band may pay for some of the information Aboriginal Affairs has. I'm not too sure how that relationship works. It's obviously not my ministry but, within the context of our ministry and those numbers, about half of the $11 million is sort of aimed toward aboriginal issues.
G. Wilson: I did have an opportunity to canvass that question fairly thoroughly with the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. There are no independent contracted services, but services may be indirectly provided -- I understand that. In the event that a land transfer is made, with respect to the role the federal government has on jurisdiction over band lands.... In the event that that impacts lands that ordinarily would have come under this ministry's jurisdiction.... I refer by way of example -- and perhaps the minister can expand on this and tell us what it's all about -- to order-in-council 674 on May 18, 1994, where administration, control and benefit of the described lands in the Cassiar district were transferred to Canada for the use and benefit of the Dease River Indian band out of this ministry. Is there compensation returned to this government from the federal government, or is the compensation paid by the Dease River Indian band? Is it done government to government? How does that work, and to what extent is this ministry involved in those land transfers?
Hon. M. Sihota: To date, the lands that have been transferred have been transferred to the federal government at fair market value, usually for the expansion of reserves.
[5:15]
G. Wilson: In effect, that would be very similar -- if I'm understanding the minister correctly -- to somebody making an application for Crown land that would ordinarily undergo some kind of public sale. Are these lands advertised? Is there opportunity -- if there is indeed an economic opportunity on said lands...? Are they advertised provincewide? Is there an open bidding process as there is with respect to the disposal of other Crown lands at fair market value?
Hon. M. Sihota: No, it's not advertised generally. We circulate it within the ministry, but we do fair market assessments; we know the values of those lands.
G. Wilson: I'm just wondering how those applications and how those decisions are made. In a number of the bands within my own riding -- given that there are a large number because of the coastal area covered -- there would be some desire or, in fact, a lot of desire to try and expand the boundaries of the existing band lands, in order to acquire administration and control over certain portions of the coastline that would afford some forestry activity and some shellfish harvesting. Those two are predominant, although one could also argue about control over -- to a degree, anyway -- riparian rights to upland uses along the river estuaries; although the Department of Fisheries and Oceans clearly has some control over the fish migration in those areas. How are those decisions made? I ask this not trying to be mischievous in any way. I'm concerned because we have a treaty negotiation process and a land inventory process underway in British Columbia. There is Canada Land Inventory work that's being done on an ongoing basis with respect to trying to determine some historic right to use. And now we're witnessing -- as we did in this order-in-council in May -- the possibility of applications being made for the extension of band land. Presumably that is going to have an impact on surrounding areas, because of what was traditionally Crown land being alienated under the jurisdiction of one band. How are those applications made, and what is the referral process that is used with other ministries? For example, are people in and around the Cassiar regional district notified? Is there an opportunity to comment?
Hon. M. Sihota: The process is that, first, the federal government notifies us; that's how we become involved. Second, we then notify all the other ministries and local and regional governments. If they have opinions, concerns, issues or requirements, we know what they are before a decision is made with regard to the disposition of those lands. Third, as I said, the land is disposed of on the basis of fair market value. Fourth, it should be understood that we're not talking about a lot of land here. It's not as if the province is providing huge quantums of land for natives. Generally, the land is made available to native people for residential purposes. If the reserve lands are too small for residential growth requirements, then lands are provided for residential purposes.
There are, however, commercial or industrial opportunities which, as bands point out, they would like to take advantage of. When that occurs, they are treated exactly like any other commercial or industrial organization, and the process that they go through is also identical. The process that the commercial or industrial application by the band goes through is similar to the processing of a request for commercial or industrial use of Crown lands by a non-native company.
G. Wilson: The jurisdiction, then, simply transfers to Canada, as opposed to being under some kind of provincial lease. In effect, we are not creating fee simple title to property in these transfers, I would assume. I don't know if the minister is familiar with this particular order-in-council, but if we can use that as an example -- and just for reference, it was very recently under this minister's signature on May 18 with respect to the Cassiar district -- how does one determine what is fair market value for land that presumably remains under the title of the Crown, albeit the federal government as opposed to the provincial? Notwithstanding that it may now have IR designation, that IR designation still doesn't afford fee simple title.
Hon. M. Sihota: We will appraise the land much as we would any piece of land. Those who do the appraising work -- often people from the outside -- obviously have to meet the challenges that they would for anybody else. Sometimes someone wants land appraised that is literally nowhere, and sometimes it's adjacent to a metropolitan region. That's why we have people in that industry who do that work for us.
[ Page 11038 ]
G. Wilson: I have one last question on this; then I will move to one or two other very quick ones, if I've got time.
When it talks about control and benefit of described lands, presumably we could also argue that if any kind of economic or resource benefits are assigned to that land, that would also run with the transfer. Am I correct? In other words, if economic opportunities were made available with respect to that land, those economic opportunities -- be they mineral rights, rights to forest lands or whatever -- would run with the land under an IR designation.
Hon. M. Sihota: The federal Crown will take access to the land, with subsurface rights as well. But the amount of land we're talking about is very small, because the purpose is usually residential. When we do the evaluations, we do an evaluation of timber on those lands as part of assessing market value. I really want to emphasize that we're not talking about a lot of land here. If a band comes forward with a commercial operation, then they will take it over without the subsurface rights, because that's the way we deal with everybody else -- subject, of course, to the provisions of the Land Act which would give the Crown title to those subsurface rights.
G. Wilson: In this particular case -- and I don't want to press the minister on it; he might want to come and give me information -- when you talk about it being for residential use, is it for residential use by band members, or is it to open economic opportunities on lease properties for aboriginals and non-aboriginals alike?
Hon. M. Sihota: Residential use by band members.
With that, I move the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
The Speaker: Before I ask the minister to adjourn, I'd just like to respond to a matter which was raised on Wednesday, May 18. The member for Okanagan West sought to move adjournment of the House to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance pursuant to standing order 35. The member indicated to the House that the subject matter of his application concerned the provision of public funds by the government of Canada to the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Commons while he was on a visit to Paris.
There are a number of grounds on which the member's application would fail, but in particular I am of the view that standing order 35 would not apply to a matter coming within the exclusive jurisdiction of the government of Canada and clearly not involving the administrative responsibility of any ministry of the province of British Columbia. Members may wish to review the Speaker's opinions found on pages 32 and 48 of the Journals of the Legislative Assembly of 1984, both of which dealt with matters under the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government. Accordingly, the matter must fail.
Hon. M. Sihota: I believe the House will be sitting tomorrow at 2 o'clock. With that said, I move adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:29 p.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; G. Brewin in the chair.
The committee met at 2:45 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF SOCIAL SERVICES
(continued)
On vote 53: minister's office, $392,165 (continued).
V. Anderson: I wish to thank the Minister of Social Services for the introduction of the estimates the other day, and for the indication that today we will be following up on that discussion.
Since poverty is a fundamental cause of the needs of many in the province, it is a major concern that we both raised. Before we get into specifics, I wonder if the minister has a comment on what the government might be doing in this area. Poverty causes increasing needs of so many; it is the most important need of the people that she deals with in the Ministry of Social Services. If we begin with that issue of poverty, we will have a basis for the programs that are brought forth to resolve that need.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm sure we could devote many days and weeks towards resolution of this excellent question. There is no question that I concur that the inexorable entrenchment of poverty is at the root of many of our social and economic problems. However, let me try and focus my comments to deal with the specifics of what we have done and what is achievable in the near future, which does not in any way preclude long-term measures.
It is my view that the best thing we can do for people who are now entrenched in poverty and who are able to work is to get them a job. Poor kids have poor moms and sometimes poor dads, too, but in so many cases the dads aren't around. People who are able to work should be able to get a job that sustains not only themselves but their families. To that end, we have announced our Skills Now initiative, much of which will be devoted to getting people who now rely on income assistance into the workforce with real skills and a real job. The overall Skills Now initiative has $200 million over the next two years. A substantial portion of that is for people who are on social assistance: almost $80 million over two years. That, of course, is contingent upon not only giving them the skills, but also ensuring that they have a sustaining job at the end of their training. Our government is committed to working in partnership with communities and the private sector in order to create those jobs; that is part of the Skills Now initiative, as well.
[ Page 11039 ]
Along with the job creation specifically targeted toward the eradication of poverty, we have the B.C. 21 initiative, which has a huge equity hiring program attached to it. Ten million dollars is specifically dedicated to the hiring and training of income assistance recipients.
Underlying the issue of poverty is how we look after our kids and make sure that they are not only secure and safe, but fed and clothed in as great a fashion as possible. We have, of course, expanded the school lunch program. For many of the children in my riding, that is their main sustenance. I know that schools have been very creative with government funding in making sure that that food sustains kids not just for the lunch period but over the full course of the day.
We have also tried to assist parents who have child care responsibilities -- the single parent. We're working with the Ministry of Women's Equality to strengthen the child care system and to ensure that its goals of quality, availability and affordability are met. To that end, our ministry processes an average of 16,000 day care subsidy claims a month.
We are, again, one of two national sites for the self-sufficiency project of the federal government, which is an innovative research demonstration project that aims to find out to what extent single parents can find and keep jobs when provided with income assistance.
We work regularly with community and advocacy groups to obtain their advice and recommendations on ways to address poverty. My Advisory Council on Income Assistance released a report earlier this year, and I am taking its advice seriously. Some advice has already being acted upon and will form part of my discussions with cabinet colleagues.
We are also working with the federal government right now in a national reform of the income security safety net. I hope I'm correct in saying "working" with the federal government and not "working at odds" with the federal government. I want to be honest with my colleagues, though, and share some of my concerns about that review. In February, at a meeting with the minister responsible for income security, the Hon. Lloyd Axworthy, our government raised many concerns about the income security review. We said we wanted to renew and enhance the social safety net, and that in renewal we did not want to participate in a unilateral off-loading of federal programs to the provinces. Any renewal exercise had to be done in cooperation with the provinces, territories and the federal government. We have not had assurances that those two qualifications can be met.
In the meantime, we are proceeding with our own income security review and renewal. Many of the programs were designed for the 1940s and 1950s, when we were young parents or children ourselves. Society has changed a lot since then; the nature of the family has changed. The inequity of distribution of income has become exacerbated: the wealthy are wealthier and the poor are poorer, at least when it comes to children. That was why the Premier announced in his throne speech the Premier's Forum on New Opportunities for Working and Living, which is an initiative to seek advice and to propose changes to income security -- the social safety net. That Premier's forum will be up and running shortly, and we welcome the participation of all members during that program.
In the interim, we find ways of trying to sustain the health of children and our families even in their straits of very low income. That's why we brought in changes to the Medical Services Plan. As of March this year, 462,000 British Columbians do not have to pay any premiums. Of those, 270,000 are clients of the Ministry of Social Services.
Also, we have enhanced dental care for children and for clients of the Ministry of Social Services. That enhanced dental care is targeted toward young children, seniors and people with mental handicaps.
These are a few of the initiatives in terms of ensuring that our children and families are getting as much nutritional benefit as they can with a limited income. The Ministry of Health works with us through their nutrition branch to provide our clients with access to appropriate and quality food and nutrition information. Indeed, we provide extra resources for at-risk populations.
We also work with the pregnancy outreach program, which provides education and support to high-risk pregnant women who do not typically access prenatal health services. The program focuses on alcohol and drug use, smoking and nutrition in order to improve the health of mothers and newborns, many of whom are clients of our ministry.
K. Jones: I'd like to talk about rather a sad situation that occurs when people who are disabled are forced to go to Social Services when the WCB delays payment. Could the minister tell us how many cases there were last year of persons who, due to not getting appropriate benefits from WCB on their claims, had to revert to Social Services?
Hon. J. MacPhail: We do not keep specific statistics on people who are eligible for workers' compensation payments and who come to us for hardship grant assistance. We don't have those statistics at hand.
K. Jones: Since this amounts to an off-loading of responsibilities onto your budget from the WCB, which would normally be responsible for this, wouldn't it be logical for you to want to keep track of these and try to rectify the problem?
Hon. J. MacPhail: We are in negotiations to share data with the Workers' Compensation Board. That is one of the reasons we want to ensure that; we also want to ensure the integrity of the system.
K. Jones: When will you be on-line with that data transfer from WCB files to Social Services? How much of the information is going to be passed along?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Over the course of the last year, we have entered into numerous data-sharing agreements with various jurisdictions. We have entered into agreements with Alberta and Saskatchewan, for instance, and we are in discussions with Manitoba. We have reached agreement with the corrections branch of the Ministry of Attorney General, and we are in discussions right now with Revenue Canada and WCB as well. We don't have a firm time frame. I can't give you an exact date for its implementation, but discussions are well underway. I want to assure you that all these agreements must meet the rigorous tests of the freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy legislation. We must also give notification to our clients as part of the eligibility test so that they understand that this kind of information-sharing may occur. They are well notified, and it's also well within the rules ensuring protection of privacy.
K. Jones: Does the minister mean that when a person applies for social services, they will now be informed that these other agencies will be passed information about them from that initial application they fill out? Will they provide a
[ Page 11040 ]
disclaimer or a signed authorization for transfer of information about the persons?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, the application for eligibility to receive income assistance gives that information to the potential client, and the potential disclosure of information is discussed with the client. When the client signs, he or she is authorizing the release of such information. All of these agreements and all that is contained on the application have been shared with the FOI and PP commissioner. We are also notifying current recipients that the ministry will now be sharing this information.
[3:00]
K. Jones: Could the minister read the actual wording of the disclosure statement that people will be signing?
Hon. J. MacPhail: We don't have an application here, but I'll make sure that we get an application and I will read it to you over the course of the next day or two.
K. Jones: You'll be submitting a copy of that application form to us.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Sure.
K. Jones: Okay, thank you. With regard to persons who are on a Canada disability pension as a result of an injury, and at the same time they are applying to the WCB but are forced to go to Social Services for funds to live on because it's taking the WCB so long to process, could you tell us the disposition of the funds that these people receive from a Canada disability pension?
Hon. J. MacPhail: You're asking how we handle CPP disability money if someone is injured and claiming the disability portion of the Canada Pension Plan but is also making a WCB claim that hasn't been processed so they come into our office for hardship assistance. Is that the question? The money received from a CPP disability pension is taken into consideration as income when we calculate how much income assistance, if any, the person is eligible for; in other words, it is calculated as income available to them for expenditure.
K. Jones: So, actually, Social Services claws back the small disability pension from the federal government at a very difficult time in these people's lives, when they have a lot of expenses. It's not like they were only out of work and on social assistance; it's a situation where they're disabled, they have a lot of health care and physical requirements and difficulties relating to their home life. You're saying the ministry is going to claw back that little extra they have over Social Services payments, is that correct?
Hon. J. MacPhail: In fact, it's not. I understand how the hon. member is trying to portray this, but it's not a matter of clawing back. The income assistance system is a payer of last resort, and the Canada Assistance Plan and the GAIN Act require that resources available to a person be taken into consideration in determining eligibility. Our government did increase the flat rate earnings exemption from $50 to $100 for single persons and from $100 to $200 for handicapped people or people with dependants. However, the money received from Canada Pension Plan disability payments is calculated in determining what resources a person has available on which to sustain himself or herself.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us how she expects a person who has been receiving a Canada Pension Plan disability pension for a period of time, has no income and is now being ordered by Social Services to pay back, I understand, approximately $26,000 or $27,000 can do that? The person is being forced to add this to the trauma they're experiencing through their disability. Is this the kind of ministry that you operate? It doesn't seem like it's a caring ministry that is going to take into consideration the fact that people who are trying to get a WCB claim are being taken advantage of at the worst time of their lives.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I can't, of course, comment on the specifics of any case that you bring before me. However, on matters where a person is required to make a repayment or has come forward with the offer of a repayment, it is our ministry's view that we take into consideration all of the circumstances under which that person finds herself or himself. Repayment agreements are done in the most effective way possible, balancing both the needs of the client and of the taxpayers, who require that the system be accountable.
K. Jones: Does the minister differentiate in the amount of social assistance between a person who is disabled and a person who is able-bodied and ready to work?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I take it that the member is asking whether, when determining the kind of repayment agreement we make with the person, we take into consideration the differences in the amount of income assistance they're eligible for. Is that the question?
K. Jones: I was asking whether a person who is totally or partially disabled gets the same amount of assistance as a person who's ready and able to work?
Hon. J. MacPhail: A person who is eligible for GAIN for Handicapped gets more assistance than a person who is declared employable and able to work. Would you like to know the exact rates? I've got them right here. We just increased them. Let me share with you a couple of examples of income assistance rates. These are temporary assistance rates, not hardship rates. A person who is able to work, declared employable and has no dependents gets $546 per month. A single person who is eligible for GAIN for Handicapped receives $771 per month. I can give you that information based on people with dependents as well.
K. Jones: Does the minister have any idea of what the standard Canada Pension Plan disability payment is for a person who's receiving $771 a month?
Hon. J. MacPhail: No, I'm sorry. I don't have any information on the Canada Pension Plan disability rates.
K. Jones: Would the minister be willing to consider that a person who is going through the processes of WCB should not be asked to make restitution payments or take the clawback of a Canada disability pension until they have completed the process with WCB and are then able to have some income? When they're caught in between, it doesn't seem fair for them to be expected to pay back something they're barely subsisting on.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Under the current laws, we are not able to do anything other than calculate Canada Pension Plan
[ Page 11041 ]
disability payments as part of the resources available to a person on which to sustain themselves. The short answer to your question is no, we can't do that.
But let me give you a couple of what I hope may be reassurances for the people in your constituency, whom I'm sure you are speaking on behalf of. First, whatever we recapture takes into account the person's ability to pay back. There is no question about that. Second, we are currently, as part of the income security review, insisting that all these matters be looked at at the federal level, and we are looking at them at the provincial level as well. The amount of resources we have available through our various pensions and income support payments.... We look at a way that the payments make sense from the point of view of meeting the needs of families who may have disabilities, etc. So we are looking at how all of these mesh.
K. Jones: Does that mean that you will direct your staff and people at the local levels to change the procedure they're currently practising?
Hon. J. MacPhail: With the information the member is giving me, no, it doesn't mean that.
K. Jones: Based on what the minister has just said -- that that's the direction of the ministry -- I think that should be directed to the front-line people, because they don't seem to be operating on that basis. Could the minister put out a directive to inform the staff that that is how these should be administered in order to get the onus off these people and allow them to live a decent life without the threat of a major removal or almost elimination of any funding they receive?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The policy is as I've described it. We must take into account the pension payment from Canada Pension Plan. However, if you have a particular complaint about the way a client is being dealt with, please feel free to bring the circumstances forward, and we'll investigate it immediately.
K. Jones: I realize this may sound like a specific situation, but it's also a very broad situation. Many similar situations have been brought to my attention, and that's why I feel it's important that we address it on a broad basis, not just a specific basis. This issue has already been brought to you by the member for Surrey-Green Timbers as a specific issue; the person is being asked to pay back around $27,000. That's impossible to do when you don't have any other income. This is just an indication of many other cases that need to be addressed. What you have said is that the policy seems to be a reasonable one, and I think it's a fair and honest approach. I would hope that that message would get out to the people on the front line.
Hon. J. MacPhail: That is the way our financial assistance workers and our staff, who are responsible for recapturing the funds that shouldn't have been paid out, operate. Again, as I said, that is our policy directive; that's what we do. Any specifics that.... You say the member for Surrey-Green Timbers is already dealing with it. If any resolution is reached on behalf of her constituent, I'm sure you can ask her to share that with you. Bring specifics to us and we'll deal with them.
[3:15]
K. Jones: I think we have a much clearer identification of that concern, and you appear to be attempting to address that.
I'd like to ask you another question. Could the minister give us a listing of all audit reports done by the ministry in the past three years?
Hon. J. MacPhail: That is not part of the discussions around estimates. You can have that, but we are talking about the budget for 1994-95. Certainly there are methods by which you can seek specific information; you can't go on a fishing expedition. There are ways you can seek out specific information, but that's not related to the 1994-95 estimates.
K. Jones: The audit reports done on any ministry -- any Crown organization, any part of government -- are very essential to the current year's budget. In most cases, they indicate an area of concern. The reports detail what would have been initiated to first of all bring accountability and deal with an area of concern. Therefore, I ask once again if the minister could give us an indication of how many audit reports have been done in the last three years, and could she give us a listing of each of those audits?
Hon. J. MacPhail: As I said, a listing of the audits is not part of the preparation for the '94-95 estimates; however, you know that you can get that information through freedom of information. We have a very large FOI and PP department in our ministry; it has one of the best records around. I urge you to make a request in that fashion. Let me just tell you that we have an audit services division that reports directly to the deputy minister's office. There are 131/4 staff organized into three different areas: compliance audits, contract services audits and systems audits. The audit assignments are scheduled on regular cycles: compliance audits are done every three and a half years, contract audits are done every five years and systems audits are done every five years. The internal audit division also does special investigations as circumstances demand. In 1991-92 we did 43 audits; in 1992-93, 77 audits; and in 1993-94, 52 audits.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us if any of those were external audits, or were these just internal audits? Could she tell us how many external audits there were if these were not included in those figures?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. member, those were internal audits, which my ministry is directly responsible and accountable for. External audits are done by the office of the comptroller general and, in some circumstances, the auditor general.
K. Jones: I'm fully aware that that's how they're done. I'm asking you how many have been done and which ones they were.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm sure you could seek that information from the office of the comptroller general when his department is up for estimates, as well as the auditor general in Public Accounts.
K. Jones: Does this indicate that the minister is not aware of any of the audits that are done and therefore doesn't know what needs to be done or what the recommendations of those audits are with regard to her ministry?
Hon. J. MacPhail: No, that's not what it means at all. I assume that you're looking for some sort of expert information around the full range of external audits, and that is best sought from the office of the comptroller general. I
[ Page 11042 ]
certainly don't mind doing that research and getting that information for you over the next couple of days.
K. Jones: Could the minister arrange to have the audit information available prior to the end of these estimates so we can have an opportunity to debate the items in the recommendations? I take it that the minister has not read the audit recommendations and therefore is not familiar with the changes to improve the ministry that are included in those recommendations. Is that correct?
Hon. J. MacPhail: No, it is not correct. I am fully cognizant of both the auditor general's investigations into our ministry and the discussions that have occurred around public accounts. I think you are very well aware that I was part of those. But we'll try to meet your needs, and we'll discuss it at the beginning of the day tomorrow, after I've had a chance to look into it.
K. Jones: Could the minister relate the specific audits that were done by the comptroller general on social assistance in her ministry?
Hon. J. MacPhail: If the hon. member will bear with me, I've said that we'll discuss that at the beginning of tomorrow. I'll certainly take your questions in that area on notice.
K. Jones: I thought the minister might be familiar with one if I were to give her an indication of what it was, and maybe she could tell us what had been done.
The Chair: Hon. member, I think you've canvassed the topic. You've been promised information by the minister. Perhaps it's appropriate to move on to a different topic.
K. Jones: Thank you, hon. Chair; I'll take your guidance.
Could the minister give me an indication of how many long-distance bills are paid by the Ministry of Social Services where the amount of the bill is over $1,000?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Are you talking about people who are receiving income assistance or our ministry?
K. Jones: I am speaking about people who are receiving income assistance and who are running up long-distance bills greater than $1,000 a month.
Hon. J. MacPhail: The hon. member is clearly in receipt of some information he wishes to share with us. Is it a situation where he suspects that an overpayment is being made erroneously? The Ministry of Social Services income assistance does not pay for telephone bills. Clients are expected to manage the payment of bills out of the allowance they receive. A single employable individual, for instance, receives $546 per month to pay all his or her expenses. There are some exceptions. In some particular circumstances, clients may be eligible for crisis grants, but those would be the only circumstances he may be hinting at.
K. Jones: Yes. I believe there are people who are having their long-distance telephone bills paid by Social Services, by whatever means. I'm not quite sure how they're doing it, but I understand it is being done, and I would like the minister tell us how many instances there are. I understand the amount the ministry is paying could be as high as $4,000 or $5,000 in some cases. It would be appropriate that the minister would surely know how many are over $1,000 a month, because most people don't usually have telephone bills that high, and the minister would be really concerned if that were happening. She would therefore know exactly which ones and how many were occurring throughout the year.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Is this information you received through sources that you would wish to share with me? I would be absolutely delighted to receive the same information that you have and to identify the source of your information.
We do not generally pay telephone bills of people on income assistance. They are required to manage their resources out of the amount of money we give. In cases of crisis grants, there is no specific category for telephone payments. If you have some information on where you think there has been an abuse of public funds, however, I would be more than happy to investigate them on your behalf.
K. Jones: I am not indicating that I'm aware of any abuse of public funds. I understand that this is normal practice for the ministry to make these payments, and therefore I presume it is authorized. It would not be a matter of abuse of public funds unless it were done fraudulently. Surely you're not saying your staff is making fraudulent payments without authorization. I think this is probably an appropriate payment, but I am surprised that it's so large and that so far the minister has indicated that she has no knowledge of a single case of payment over $1,000 for long-distance bills.
Hon. J. MacPhail: You know, it's interesting that you would start off on this foot, hon. member. You're clearly looking to use the estimates as an opportunity to make some sort of headline around some inappropriate payment by the income assistance system. I want to be frank with you at the very beginning, since you start off on this basis. The Premier and I have both made a clear commitment that we will end any abuse that exists in the current income assistance system. I would also hope that you would agree with me that our system is absolutely needed. This is the basis on which we started off our discussions in these estimates: people who are in need deserve sustaining support.
It is not in any way defensible that our ministry is paying a telephone bill such as the one you indicate, in the amount of, I don't know.... You said you've given out ranges, which many of your colleagues have done, between $1,000 and $4,000 for telephone payments. Such a payment is not defensible. It would be extraordinary circumstances under which those kinds of situations would occur. The only way it would be paid is under a crisis grant. Out of 236,000 crisis grants in the year '93-94, 5 percent went toward utilities payments, which could include a wide range of payments. However, let me reassure you that the ministry is currently conducting a review of discretionary grants to ensure that they're consistent and fair across the province. I've announced that before.
[3:30]
There will be recommendations for policy and regulation changes from that review. They're expected early this fall, in what is a very complex system, so it's absolutely the appropriate time for you to share that kind of information with me.
K. Jones: What does the 5 percent that's gone to utility payments actually amount to in crisis dollars?
[ Page 11043 ]
Hon. J. MacPhail: We can certainly get a calculator for you. It's 5 percent of the crisis grants for last year under utilities, which was $893,429.
K. Jones: Eight hundred and ninety-three thousand...?
The Chair: Excuse me, hon. member: through the Chair, please. The purpose of the Chair is to help you get the information.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I will just continue to tell you the definition of a crisis grant. They're assessed on the basis of individual need and provided when failure to obtain the item of need will result in imminent danger to the physical health of an individual or the apprehension of a child under the Family and Child Service Act.
K. Jones: Five percent of that would be about $40,000....
Hon. J. MacPhail: No, that's the entire....
K. Jones: Five percent would be how many cases, then? Let's see. Half of that....
The Chair: Would the member like to take his seat and work out his question before he stands up?
K. Jones: Five percent of 236,000, is that correct? You're saying that that would be the number of cases. Was that throughout the whole year? If that's for the whole year, then that would mean that these cases would be over $2,000 each by the figures you've given to us. Is that correct?
The Chair: Does the hon. member wish to pursue another question?
K. Jones: I was just trying to get a clarification. Is my math wrong? Is the minister disputing the figures?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, your math is wrong. It's an average of $75.
K. Jones: Since you have these figures, could you calculate from the information available the number that are over a $1000? Perhaps you could indicate to us tomorrow how many of these cases would be over $1000.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I don't have any problem assisting this member on his fishing expedition on this matter and will indeed do so. But I will also be bringing back the cost to taxpayers that it will require in order to do this.
V. Anderson: This year a number of items were taken out of the Social Services budget and transferred to other areas. They are listed on page 245 of the budget booklet. Would the minister indicate the reasons for transferring these? A number were moved to the Ministry Responsible for Seniors; Housing, Recreation and Consumer Services; Skills, Labour and Training; the Ministry of Women's Equality; and to other appropriations, like the public service and public sector. These have been taken out of what was normally considered to be the Ministry of Social Services. It would be helpful if we understood the rationale for those being moved out of the ministry at this point.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll start with the Ministry of Women's Equality and the transfer of day care. It is our government's intention to consolidate its commitment to the child day care system under the leadership of the Ministry of Women's Equality. All aspects of the government's funding to day care are being reviewed to ensure that they support our goals of quality, availability and affordability. The Ministry of Social Services conducted a survey in July 1993 to examine parent and caregiver experiences with our ministry day care program. That will certainly assist us as we undertake to consolidate the child day care programs and improve program efficiencies. From my own personal experience with parents who require day care services, there have been requests that we consolidate all day care programs as people move from income assistance into the workforce. I hope that we will also be able to get rid of regional disparities in the area of day care delivery.
Let me move on to the skills training initiative. Our employment programs and employment preparedness programs went from our ministry to the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour. First, let me assure you that there were guiding principles for the transfer. One was that the level of service and commitment to income assistance recipients be maintained or enhanced. The Skills Now initiative will certainly enhance the dollar commitment to people on income assistance for the next two years. Another guiding principle was that the transfer of programs and services be implemented in a way that ensures minimal disruption to income assistance recipients. When I monitor it, the effect of the transfer should be seamless to the client. The third guiding principle was that income assistance recipients continue to receive employment and training services in their home communities.
When we announced the Skills Now initiative, there were many new ways to approach the serious economic dilemmas that face us from an employment point of view. As I'm sure you are aware, people stay on income assistance an average of four to six months before they go back into the workforce. Those people may also be in receipt of unemployment insurance. There are certainly cyclical disparities around employment and unemployment. We want to make sure that our systems, both in training for available jobs and in providing support during that training, meet a community's needs regardless of where their source of income originates. There is no question -- and our government fully recognizes this -- that people on income assistance need different types of employment training programs and, in some circumstances, need different supports in the area of day care, etc. We are cognizant of that, and we'll strive to meet the need for extra supports.
I should also address the issue of transition houses and then the Ministry of Housing. In terms of the transfer of transition houses from our ministry into the Ministry of Women's Equality, I'll refresh your memory. The Ministry of Women's Equality was named the lead ministry for our government's initiative on stopping violence. Consolidating these programs in the Ministry of Women's Equality was seen as an effective way to focus our resources on this serious problem. The Ministry of Women's Equality had responsibility for public education and the non-housing aspects of the program, and it made sense to incorporate transition houses under their leadership as well.
We also transferred certain responsibilities to the Ministry of Health. Clients who were in our institutions at Glendale and Woodlands and are now going into the community will receive their health services from the Ministry of Health. The transfer of our community development project has gone over to the Ministry of Housing, Recreation and Consumer Services.
[ Page 11044 ]
V. Anderson: A major funding transfer to the Ministry of Health and Ministry Responsible for Seniors was the $1.3 million for sexual abuse counselling. Could you comment on that particular transfer?
Hon. J. MacPhail: When instituted, that program was shared between the Ministry of Health and our ministry. The services, however, were provided by the Ministry of Health. In order to ensure the continuation of the program, it made sense this year to consolidate all the funding now under the auspices of the Ministry of Health, since this ministry delivered the program from its inception.
V. Anderson: In transferring these programs over, are they still entitled to these services through social services, or are they now required to go to different offices for the particular program needed -- health, skills or whatever it might be?
[3:45]
Hon. J. MacPhail: In terms of the continuation of services, I assume the hon. member is referring to the Ministry of Health program on sexual abuse, which was always delivered through the Ministry of Health, not through our offices. The program continues as established, and clients should continue to access it as they did previously. Only the available funding has been transferred.
V. Anderson: Concerning the employment initiatives program for day care and for transition houses, if clients need assistance in either of these areas, are they able to get advice or consultation, or are they sent from the social services office to the employment office, to the day care office or to the transition office? I'm trying to figure out how these services connect. If clients come to the social services office to have their needs identified, how do they connect with these particular programs?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Access to the services of a transition house will remain the same, and referrals will not change. Since the Ministry of Women's Equality doesn't yet have the infrastructure of our ministry to deliver the day care program, it is still being delivered by us. We will continue our participation to the point where a client can access the program as easily through the Ministry of Women's Equality as they can through our offices. Again, since access to the services of a transition house should be seamless, it is done through the Ministry of Social Services.
You raise a good point on the skills initiative. We are cognizant of the fact that there may be an intimidation factor for a client who goes to college and is on income assistance. Programs and initiatives by previous governments have failed, because they have not taken into account the special needs of income assistance recipients who are being introduced to employment and training programs. Our goal is to ensure that programs are community-based, so that a client isn't put at a disadvantage because that person may live in Williams Lake as opposed to Vancouver, where greater resources are available. We are going to ensure that clients have greater access to all opportunities than at present. In order to assuage your concerns, and mine as well, a client services partnership committee has been established to review all service delivery issues not only for our ministry but also for the receiving ministry, which is Skills, Training and Labour.
V. Anderson: The minister has jumped ahead and answered the question I was going to ask, which was about the connection between the Social Services ministry and these other ministries. What kind of ongoing relationship is there to make sure the ministries continue to work in cooperation in these particular programs?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I offer you daily concern and monitoring to ensure that the program takes place in the most meaningful way possible.
Let me outline for you the specifics of that daily concern. We have an executive steering committee with representatives from both ministries to oversee the transfer. I've just outlined to you the client services partnership committee. We have a joint transition committee with representatives from both ministries -- I'm dealing with the Skills Now initiative, hon. member -- so the workers participate in this transition committee. The front-line deliverers of the service participate in it. Both the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour and our Ministry of Social Services were directed by the Premier to implement these changes in program responsibilities in as orderly and consultative a manner as possible so that minimal, if any, disruption of service to income assistance recipients occurs. The actual functional responsibilities of the front-line deliverers will change only after thorough consultation with the staff affected by that change. The actual supports needed for the change in the way the front-line staff deliver are in place before the change occurs -- things like system changes, etc.
V. Anderson: On a specific one, the joint federal-provincial program was put in place as an experimental program. Could you outline for us how that program has developed and where it is at this stage? Approximately how many people are on it? I would like to know whether it looks like it is moving in the direction of proving or disproving the philosophy on which it was based to begin with.
Hon. J. MacPhail: That project was initiated and funded by the federal government, and it's called the self-sufficiency project. It's a voluntary research project that was started in January '93, and it's a federal initiative that we have cooperated in. As you point out, it is designed to test the effectiveness of an earnings supplement for single parents on income assistance who then take jobs and agree to leave income assistance. There are approximately 800 single parents in British Columbia who will benefit financially from this program.
The government has set some clear objectives: relieving child poverty and helping families; supporting labour market re-entry; reducing abuse and improving efficiency; and reducing stigma and treating people equitably. It is offered for a three-year period to each eligible person, and only individuals who work full-time are eligible to receive the earnings supplement. The intent of the project is to determine to what extent recipients find and keep jobs when incentives are modified to make work pay more than social assistance. The first report by the federal government is not expected to be published until the spring of 1995; as soon as that's available, I'll share it with the hon. member. The second report will follow in 1997, and the final report will be issued in the year 2000.
V. Anderson: Is that a work-study program or simply a work-involvement program? Is there an upgrading of educational skills related to the job, or is it simply work experience with no upgrading of skills or academic requirements?
[ Page 11045 ]
Hon. J. MacPhail: It's a federal initiative, and it's my understanding that there is no extra training component outside of the workplace. It really is an earnings supplement program.
V. Anderson: I understand, but I question the basis of that without the opportunity to upgrade. Experience is one thing, but it would seem to me that the program misses the particularly important facet of the advancement of employees who have not had the opportunity for computer training or training in other skills.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, I think that's a legitimate point, which we'll be looking at carefully. The federal government designed the program and has been responsible for how it is implemented. You rightly raise a concern about whether that design will work or not. I might point out, though, that in our Skills Now initiative, we have not copied that design from the federal government. Any workplace program that we may initiate with private or public sector employers will have a major training component attached to it.
V. Anderson: As we transfer each of these programs over, I am concerned that presumably they were done previously through the social services office network, as the minister has indicated. Does this mean that there will be new health network offices and new employment network offices? We're going to be creating separate new network offices throughout the province in order to bring these closer to home. I begin to have a concern about the extra facilities, staff and communication that will be required for this. Are we really solving the problem or are we compounding it by moving in this direction?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I want to discuss these questions with you, but I also hope that you'll bring them up under the estimates of the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour so that they understand the general concerns around these issues as well. It's an important message for all of us to hear.
I want to point out a couple of things, though. In the transferring of programs, our government's goal is to make things much more efficient for and accessible by British Columbians, not the reverse. In fact, it's my belief that the efficiencies of delivery of service will actually reduce.... Well, I shouldn't say reduce the bureaucracy, but they will certainly not enhance it in any way. In the area of transition houses, health care and sexual abuse services, there is no change in how a client accesses those programs from when it was our responsibility for funding to now when those funding responsibilities have been transferred.
Around the Skills Now initiative, though, I'm hopeful that there will be advantages for people who are on income assistance. In some communities, we may actually have one-stop community offices available.
[4:00]
Let me just give you one example. In the past, clients of the Ministry of Social Services would not have had ready access to apprenticeship programs; now they will have access. There was also, perhaps, an invisible barrier -- but nevertheless a barrier -- to community college programs, as well as to all the employment and training programs that we offered before. There will be co-location of services, some of which may even include employment programs from the federal government. What is important is that those who have expertise in the delivery of skills, training and employment programs continue to deliver those services to people who require special support because of being on income assistance. Again, nothing will be done until our staff are fully consulted and fully involved. Our experts in that area -- our rehabilitation officers -- will go with the programs. That expertise will not be lost to the client.
Lastly, I want to assure you that all our clients will continue to be served in their home communities; that will not change.
V. Anderson: That raises the question of staff training, expertise and responsibility on the front line. The financial assistance workers, who deal with people at the moment, are basically dealing with finances in large part. They're not dealing, presumably, with the whole person. That's the kind of feeling that we hear from people. But if they have problems or concerns or opportunities, then they get referred to the social worker. The social worker is dealing with one aspect of the person, the financial assistance worker is dealing with another aspect of the person and then that's referred to various other people. Nobody seems to be dealing with the person as a person with a name, address, phone number, certain skills and opportunities, whom they can consult with over where they are going and the kind of future that's available for them.
There seems to be a breakdown in the kind of service that's provided at the front line. Is that being examined not only in relationship to the programs that are being moved out, but in relationship to the programs that are still being maintained within the ministry?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Let me share with the hon. member how our system works with our financial assistance workers now. I would not take issue with you, but I don't think I would leap up to agree that our financial assistance workers don't treat clients as whole beings. When a client comes into our income assistance office, our financial assistance worker interviews him or her. First of all, this is for people who have been determined as being able to work. They discuss, and our financial assistance worker assesses, what barriers to employment there are for that individual. Then the FAW assesses what supports the client needs in order to remove those barriers. For instance, is alcohol or drug counselling needed, are there mental health issues involved, is a job action program or skills training initiative required, is day care support required? And then the FAW acts as an expert guide to the services available and follows up to ensure that the client has been able to access the services and, if not, assists in ensuring that access.
We have put extra resources into our income assistance program so that financial assistance workers are better able to deal with clients as whole individuals who have dependents, etc., and we are in the process of restructuring how income assistance offices work. We have team leaders in these offices to deal with the special concerns of clients who may be more in need of services than others.
I will agree that there is a distinction between our family and child protection services and our income assistance offices. That's not to say that in many communities there isn't a lot of discussion between the two offices -- of course, abiding by the rules of confidentiality. But as we are all aware, there is an expertise and intensity to delivering both sides of the ministry's responsibilities, and both types of work call upon different skills.
V. Anderson: To understand the nature of what's being transferred out before we leave that, could you indicate the increase in the number of day care spaces this year and the approximate number of spaces available at this point? Also, is the number of persons under counselling for abuse
[ Page 11046 ]
increasing or decreasing, and what are the approximate numbers in that area?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll start giving you information while we search for exact numbers, but let me remind the member that we'd have to get information regarding the provision of day care spaces from the Ministry of Women's Equality; I certainly don't mind doing that. We provide subsidies to the individuals, and we're getting the information for you, first of all, on how much we spent and how many individuals we provided the subsidy to.
As for the other question, is it about people who access the residential historical abuse program or counselling for sexual abuse that was transferred to the Ministry of Health? I just need information on that.
V. Anderson: Actually I'd be interested in both of those.
Hon. J. MacPhail: We provide 16,000 day care subsidies per month. I'm getting the other information. Under the residential historical abuse program, there have been 354 applicants for counselling services approved to date. As the program becomes more widely known, more people are applying; however, it would be difficult for me to determine that. Certainly more people are applying and using the program, but I can't tell you whether that's just from receiving information. As the program becomes more widely known, I couldn't attribute why that increase is occurring, but certainly we have budgeted for those continuing levels of access; there's no question about that.
As for the take-up on the sexual abuse counselling from the Ministry of Health, I think we'd have to get that from the Ministry of Health. We don't actually deliver the program; we just funded it in the past. That kind of information on the usage of it would be available from the Ministry of Health.
V. Anderson: I appreciate that on the historical abuse program and the counselling involved there. That raises the other issue we discussed in another context: persons who have been abused -- sexually and otherwise -- while they're in the care of the ministry. Besides counselling, are there opportunities for compensation or support of their attempt to get their lives back on track as adults who have gone through and become part of that sexual abuse counselling? Is that separate, or does the counselling lead to the opportunity for that support?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I appreciate the hon. member raising this issue because it is a very important issue. I share the concerns not only for abuse that occurs today, but also abuse that has occurred in the past to children in care. Just as preamble, with our new legislation that we introduced last week, I'm hoping that we can put an end from this day forward -- as much as possible in the system -- to abuse occurring and to children being harmed by it. With protection of the rights of children in care and the advocate, etc., we hope to prevent, as much as one government can possibly do on its own, abuse from happening. The allegation of historical abuse is a serious issue. I know that the residential historical abuse program has been well received, and there was certainly a clear indication that it was much needed.
At the end of the day, though, I know there is currently no other way of providing compensation short of having a determination of legal liability. Where there is dispute among parties about that liability, the court is the final arbiter of that dispute. Our ministry is certainly engaged in the determination of that legal liability within the courts on several tragic cases.
Let me try to give you some comfort other than what is currently available to us, which is the court system. We have an interministry committee developing a policy framework for dealing with historical abuse allegations. Many others would not seek great comfort in an interministry committee, but actually I do. I know there is a commitment by all ministries to finding a solution to this important issue. The committee will examine cost-effective means of resolving potential claims and avoiding litigation. They will be examining a timely response to the counselling needs, a coordinated approach to treating multiple survivors associated with a particular program or resource, and also a method of providing an opportunity for survivors to have their stories heard and be treated with sensitivity and compassion. I have great hope for that interministerial committee and actually, stepping way over the line, ask you to join me in presenting to it one day, if you so desire. Of course, there is also the availability to former children-in-care to make application to the Criminal Injury Compensation Board.
V. Anderson: To follow up on this issue for a moment, one of the realities is that those persons who feel that they have been abused and that their lives have been put in great emotional and physical jeopardy are in many cases without the personal resources necessary to move ahead and find a new future. The idea of going to court without any resources or background is not encouraging to them. So they just throw up their hands and say: "Well, they're just keeping me from the opportunity of moving ahead." Is there some kind of system developing where these people will be supported in having the court make the decisions for them? In many other areas -- aboriginal affairs and environmental affairs, for instance -- there are intervener funds available to enable persons to test out their particular concern. Can support systems be made available to people in order that they may have the opportunity and the privilege to test out whether there is an opportunity for them, with some financial or emotional support that they do not have either personally or from family or friends?
It's that kind of direction and support system that seems to be important at this point. If we cannot deal with past abuse and enable these people to re-establish their lives, there's not going to be a lot of confidence that we'll be able to deal with future abuse and enable those people to re-establish their lives. What they see done to others they will expect to have happen to them as well. So there is both a past and a future concern. How can people learn the ways of the systems that are available? How would they approach it?
[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]
Hon. J. MacPhail: We do not have intervener funding, which is the comparison that the hon. member makes to other ministries. Again, I hope that our interministry committee will come up with solutions that are available prior to going to court around these circumstances. In the interim, what we offer is a range of community agencies available for counselling. There is legal counselling, as well as advocacy groups and victim assistance offices that are, in many circumstances, funded by our government in terms of perhaps pursuing court action. I'm not of the firm belief that one always needs a lawyer to pursue court action. Many of our MLAs' offices -- and you're at the forefront of this -- assist people. Then, of course, we have the assistance of the
[ Page 11047 ]
office of the ombudsman. There is no intervener funding, but I hope that solutions that don't require court action would become available to us.
V. Anderson: Following up on that one more time, is it possible that these people might be able to go to legal aid and work through them to carry their case forward? Is that kind of opportunity available to them through the Social Services ministry?
Hon. J. MacPhail: We don't provide funding to legal aid for this kind of action, but I can certainly check for the hon. member about eligibility of clients pursuing this through legal aid.
V. Anderson: I indicated the other day that in trying to look at the ministry from the point of view of the public, one of the things I did was go to the government directory of services. I thought we might take a few moments to go through the directory and get a public explanation of what happens. We'll touch on some of the ministry's programs as we do this.
When the public begins to look and to ask where to go for a service, they turn to Social Services in the government telephone directory. We see a whole host of offices -- not just the regional offices -- where we might contact almost any service in our local community. But if we're turning to the government in Victoria or Vancouver, we look at the different offices that are in there. There's the minister's office, and we assume that no matter what it is, we can turn there. So we'll just ignore that one for the moment or come back to it later.
Perhaps we could turn to the deputy minister's office and get an indication of the focus of the responsibilities of that particular office.
Hon. J. MacPhail: The deputy minister's office, which has four FTEs in it for this budget, is responsible for the management of the internal operation of the ministry on behalf of the minister; for providing the minister and the government with policy advice to meet the objectives of government; and for participation in the collective administrative responsibilities of government. It is the primary liaison between the minister's office and the ministry.
[4:15]
Also, part of the deputy minister's office is the correspondence unit of the ministry. I'll describe that to you now. The correspondence unit provides liaison between the minister's office and the ministry. It is responsible for receiving and responding to a wide variety of public inquiries. It's responsible for the correspondence relating to the ministry's legislation, policy and service delivery practices. It coordinates the responses and produces approximately 4,000 letters a year for the minister's signature. It researches and prepares briefing materials for the minister, the deputy minister and the executive on a variety of issues. It liaises with the field and program divisions to identify and address issues, critical incidents and complaints. Finally, it deals with calls from many individual clients who require advice or assistance regarding other government services that are available.
V. Anderson: On behalf of my own constituency office, I would like to say that I appreciate the response and the support we've got when phoning this office on many occasions. I would like to reflect that back and appreciate it.
As I mentioned before, when I first became an MLA I found it interesting that when an MLA phoned, there was some hesitancy in a number of offices about the power play that might be operating there. Initially, at least, they were very hesitant and unsure about what to do. But when the constituency assistant phoned, there was none of that at all; they were doing a job for the constituents, so they got total cooperation, total openness and total frankness. So I largely stopped phoning and let the constituency assistant do it, because they got a much better response.
I can appreciate the difference, and on her behalf I want to thank you very emphatically for the service we got, realizing that besides ourselves, there were 75 offices around the province and a lot of other people who were probably doing the same thing. I want to express that thanks and hope you might pass it on to them.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.
V. Anderson: And thank you for the correspondence. There's been some discussion with my colleague here about the audit services division. Perhaps you might like to comment a little more about it and how it functions, in light of his interest in that area. That will be helpful as well.
Hon. J. MacPhail: As I think I said earlier, the audit services division reports directly to the deputy minister, who ensures that audit findings and recommendations will be considered and followed up at the highest management level. Reporting directly to the deputy minister allows the degree of independence needed to achieve audit objectives.
The audit services division is responsible for monitoring ministry operations and systems in order to evaluate the adequacy and effectiveness of internal control systems. It determines whether policy is correctly and uniformly administered throughout the ministry. It is responsible for planning, coordinating and executing the audits on a cyclical basis to help achieve our ministry's operational goals. The audit services are also a useful tool for identifying problems with our ministry's policies and practices. It is truly an important accountability mechanism, and that's definitely how we view it. Every office is audited once every three to five years. We also audit agencies that deliver services under contract. As I said earlier, each year about 70 audits are conducted.
V. Anderson: To most people, "audit" refers primarily to financial audits; but you use the term "evaluation," so I gather you're talking mainly about performance audits rather than financial audits. I agree that this is critical, but when we have so much concern from people about the Ministry of Social Services as a unit not operating effectively, about the type of services people are receiving, about the lack of respect they feel is being expressed, and about the manner in which offices are organized -- although you say that's going to be restructured, and we'll be delighted to have that happen -- it seems to me that the question then becomes: who is auditing the audit group itself? Either it's missing out on what is happening or is not responding to what the evaluations are telling them.
I find it hard to believe that the evaluation can be that much different internally from what we are consistently hearing externally from the staff and everyone else who uses the system. As was found out in the recent Matthew Vaudreuil case, a whole series of things went wrong. We assume that's not happening in just that one particular case among all the others. It seems to me that something is awry somewhere in the audit and evaluation process. I'm asking if we can have some discussion about that.
[ Page 11048 ]
Hon. J. MacPhail: I think the point the hon. member is making is about quality, continuity and effectiveness of service. Our internal audit services division is financially based. I'm sure we all agree that all the financial commitments and tests can be met, but very often at the end of the day there is still a gap in the way we deliver our services. Quality of service is very different from financial accountability, and I would concur with you.
There are a couple of areas to reassure you about, not dismissing the criticisms of our ministry either. Fairness and effectiveness in quality of service is one area that my advisory council on income assistance reported on. They made some excellent recommendations to me in that area; we are considering how we can best meet those recommendations.
We have a joint management committee made up of our front-line staff and our executive staff, who are responsible for decisions on service delivery issues. They meet regularly to determine a more effective way of delivering services. We do client surveys by phone and address service quality issues. We also have focus groups with clients that are done on a regional basis. It's not just "let's get together in Victoria and see what the problems are." Each region initiates these kinds of surveys. We also send written surveys to our clients to deal specifically with service delivery issues.
[4:30]
It's a burgeoning system and an overburdened system. There are occasions when, I freely admit, respect and dignity for the client sometimes take a back seat to the horrendous pressures of that day and the physical demands on our workers. So we recognize our problems. We've got some systems in place to address our problems. I'm hopeful that it is improving, but we need to constantly monitor the gains we make in those areas and also to ensure against slipping back. I meet personally with advocacy groups to get my own reading on how our improvements take place. Advocacy groups now have input into and participate in our staff training; I think that demonstrates improvement in service delivery as well.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us what process is in place to audit societies that are funded by the ministry?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The auditing of external agencies is the regular business of our audit services division. We have a separate program that specifically audits external agencies.
K. Jones: Does that mean that the ministry is fully aware of the value for money obtained through the expenditures of each of these NGO societies?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Let me approach two aspects of the question. One is the audit services division, where we have contract services audits. Those are part of a regular cycle, every five years. There is also another assurance -- making sure that taxpayers and the clients are getting value for their money.
Contracts are initiated and negotiated at the regional level. Each regional director, and in some cases the area manager, is responsible for ensuring that there is value for money. They do this by several methods. One is touching base with clients in receipt of the services in order to get feedback from them. Second, visitations help ensure contract compliance. Contracts also have to be renewed and renegotiated on a regular basis, and value for money is determined in the contract renegotiations. There have been occasions when determinations have been made at the regional level that there isn't value for the money, and contracts have been terminated.
K. Jones: Could the minister give us some indication as to how thorough this process is in measuring the value for money? Has the auditor general done a value-for-money audit or a review of this segment of your operations?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The auditor general hasn't done a review of this section of the ministry in terms of auditing.
I have outlined to you how we determine value for money; let me give you another couple of pieces of information that are important. One is that our regional directors each year demand and receive an audited statement and a financial review of the contracted agencies. There is a whole policy guide to contract management that includes procedures for choosing contractors and awarding contracts. We also have an interministry project going on right now with other ministries that contract out services, and it is looking at reforming how we contract with various agencies and coordinating the practices among various ministries. The ministries sharing the initiative with us are the Ministry of Attorney General, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour and the Ministry of Women's Equality. The project is looking at the existing contract policies and procedures in place right now and is recommending an appropriate framework for reforming and coordinating the contracting practices. A feasibility study will be undertaken on the development of a contract management information system to centralize those ministries responsible for delivering contracted social services.
Finally, we also work out a cost per unit of services and make comparisons around the province. Even though they're regionally contracted and regionally administered, we want to ensure that our services are cost-effective, fair and consistent across the province.
K. Jones: Let's say a person you have contracted to provides a training program. Through your reviews, are you able to determine whether that person is able to evaluate their success rate, or is it the ministry's responsibility to determine the success rate of that training program? Let's say people are given computer training. Do you measure how many of those people are employed in that field six months or a year later?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm kind of reluctant to stand up and offer this. I want it myself. I think the hon. member is well aware from today's discussions that the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour will be doing this kind of compliance. The employment programs have gone over to that ministry, but we will certainly give them advice on how we have determined the effectiveness of various programs. We always determine the number served by any particular contracted agency, the number who went back to work as a result of that training and the number who go on to some other program. These are in addition to the other contract compliance initiatives that I've outlined. It's the responsibility of our policy and planning division, which is a research division in our ministry, to do in-depth studies on the trends and effectiveness of programs. I'm going to offer this to the member for Vancouver-Langara, but I want it back. No, I'm just kidding, you can have it; I'll get my own. "Roots to Independence" is published by our ministry, and it's on the effectiveness of employment and training programs for income assistance recipients in British
[ Page 11049 ]
Columbia. Our assistant deputy minister knew you were interested and wishes you to have it. You can share it with your other members.
K. Jones: Since I haven't had the chance to read that book, I would like to say that I have indications that some of the programs being funded have a success rate of 20 percent, or what you might call an 80 percent failure rate for not providing any employment within a year. That would concern me. Is the minister able to determine from her staff what that level of failure is? I believe audit reviews have indicated those figures.
Hon. J. MacPhail: To ensure that the transfer of our employment and training programs to the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour was as seamless as possible for clients, we reviewed all contracts. As you know there is constant renewing, or in some cases non-renewing, of various programs. I certainly get letters weekly protesting decisions we've made one way or the other. No contract is forever, and contracts have to comply along the lines I've already indicated. We must also make sure that the tests we're applying for success are legitimate tests for application. Some of the programs we have, which we discussed earlier -- I'm not sure whether the hon. member was in the room.... We talked about having a greater need to give different supports to people on income assistance. Some of the programs are not actually to get people back to work, but require a step even before that: a program on how to look for work and basic tools for job search and life skills readiness for that. Indicators of success in those areas certainly wouldn't be how many people are back in the workforce and off income assistance, because that's not what the program was designed for.
[4:45]
K. Jones: I agree that there are people who need that other step to prepare them to get into the workforce. That's commendable that it's being presented for them.
I'd like to go into another area at the moment. What programs are in place to reduce the number of people on social assistance?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll take a crack at this and see whether it meets the member's needs. As I discussed earlier, the Skills Now initiative is targeted at assisting people on income assistance back into the workforce in a way that actually makes it a meaningful transition to a real job with real wages. We have also taken many initiatives around ensuring that people not eligible for income assistance.... Where there is abuse or fraud occurring, we are protecting the system against that so we can target our funds to those truly in need and truly eligible for income assistance. I'm happy to discuss those at length with you.
We also have our family maintenance program in place to ensure that when a family separation occurs and dependents are affected, the parent who is responsible for supporting those dependents pays that support and assists the parent -- almost all of whom are women -- with enough funds to support their family.
K. Jones: I was wondering if the minister could elaborate a little further with regard to what she is doing to try to put her ministry out of business. What approaches have been taken? Has there been any brainstorming that would allow the government to get out of the social services business altogether, or at least work toward that goal?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I actually hesitate to reveal any brainstorming session we had, because the last one appeared on U.TV. I'm not going to admit to any of that.
K. Jones: I don't see any U.TV cameras here today.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, of course, we've given it a great deal of thought. Let me put the question in a different fashion. Our government, and particularly our ministry, struggles daily with the very serious and urgent issues that face us. We are struggling to eradicate poverty; that's what we're talking about here. When you say "put our ministry out of business," I would say that our ministry will not be out of business until there is no more poverty.
K. Jones: Hurray.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes. It's a subject that we take very seriously, and I don't think it's one that a single government, particularly a single ministry, can address. The eradication of poverty requires a commitment from all decision-makers to ensure that people who are unable to sustain themselves have a decent income. It requires a commitment that we work in partnership not only with the taxpayers -- because that's who we're talking about -- but with other decision-makers in society. It requires one from those who operate the business side of our economy and from those who spend the tax dollars that are raised. It requires their commitment in partnership toward that goal. It also requires a commitment from the community that the allocation of resources will be done in such a fashion that poverty will eventually be brought to an end. I don't anticipate our ministry being put out of business until all of us join together and work toward the elimination of poverty.
Let me phrase the question in a way that is perhaps meaningful for our discussion. What is our ministry doing to ensure that all the resources that are allocated to us go to those who are truly in need, and that our allocation of resources in terms of our family and child services and programs for the mentally handicapped is being spent in the most effective fashion? I have already indicated to you that we are committed to eliminating fraud and abuse within the system, and that we have zero tolerance for fraud and abuse. If required, I will again go through the initiatives that our government has brought in over the last two years.
We have examined every report available that makes recommendations on how to make the system more efficient, fair and free of fraud and abuse. Many of those recommendations have been acted upon. I have also indicated to the hon. members that we are reviewing our entire income support system to bring it into the nineties and to ensure that the system is renewed in a fashion that addresses those most in need.
I have recently announced that we are strengthening the regional investigative structure for fraud in income assistance. We have announced a director of prevention, compliance and enforcement; nine regional supervisors of enforcement; 18 ministry investigative assistants who work with our current 34 ministry investigators; and nine eligibility officers who monitor projects implemented in the regions and assist FAWs in the more complex cases of alleged fraud and abuse.
As I've already indicated publicly, we are reviewing our appeal process and discretionary grants. These reviews are well on their way, and we'll be making recommendations shortly. We are taking a broad look at what disincentives
[ Page 11050 ]
exist in our system that act as barriers to people returning to the workforce.
At the end of the day, it will, of course, be up to every contributor to our economy to create jobs on which people can support their families. We, as a government, can't do that alone, although we're well on our way to creating thousands of jobs through initiatives such as B.C. 21, Forest Renewal B.C. and Skills Now.
K. Jones: I see the minister is focused on the status quo -- basically making sure that the resources that are given are getting to those in need. Those are commendable goals, but ones that are probably not going to resolve the never-ending, deepening spiral of cost, cost, cost, which the ministry is heading into with no chance of getting out of. You're just hiring more people and creating more government jobs without recognizing that government doesn't make employment; government just continues to distribute taxes which other people who are working have to generate.
I was hoping to hear from the minister on the actual sections of her ministry that are trying to identify a particular circumstance that causes people to depend on her ministry and are trying to rectify that, thereby working toward what she said was a good goal -- the elimination of poverty and the dependency of people on government. That should be a role of every minister in this government; they should be working toward putting themselves out of business. Then we would have a much better society and much better recognition of a positive, successful, economic community.
Continuing the spiralling-downward trend by adding more and more tax money to a deeper pot seems to be going nowhere in the way of resolving the problem. Employing people to generate more and more bureaucracy, I think, is going to the ultimate end of a government. I hope you have some programs underway, and perhaps you could tell us what those might be right now.
Hon. J. MacPhail: That's what we've been doing for the last two hours. We've been discussing exactly those kinds of programs to return people to independence. I would be more than willing to go through all those programs once again in terms of getting people back into the workforce.
Let me bring a couple of points to the hon. member's attention about what is really a stereotypical view of people who require income assistance. Let me try to break up some of those stereotypes. The average length of time that a person claims income assistance is about four months; two-thirds of our clients actually stay on income assistance for four months. Often people will return to the workforce. One in four people in British Columbia over the last five years has had to access our social services system. That means that your neighbours, who are taxpayers this month, may need to access the system next month. That means that your daughter, your son, your aunt or your uncle may have to.
We are not talking about freeloaders on the system. This is a safety net that people need to have in place so that they are not brought to their knees while they are suffering some economic hardship. We are doing everything we can to shorten that period during which people require income assistance. I've gone through those initiatives with you over the last couple of hours.
We are also looking at ways of ensuring that people lead respectful lives based on a dignified way of life for those who will not be able to work -- people who have disabilities -- and to ensure that they can be independent and live within their community. We have an excellent record of allowing people with disabilities to live in their community among their own family and friends. That's good news for us all.
But saying that with a snap of our fingers and maybe firing a few bureaucrats we could level off the problem just doesn't understand what the real problem is with the world economy of today. Our ministry has been razor-sharp in its approach to levelling off our administration costs and putting all our resources onto the front line. Previous governments have not invested in systems and put all the money onto the front line.
We can't do it alone. We have to work in partnership with the federal government in this area. Eight hundred and eighty million dollars of federal tax transfers come to British Columbia through the Canada Assistance Plan. That program is under threat now. There is no question that the previous federal government and the current one are threatening three provinces with reducing the transfer of funds. The other two provinces are Alberta and Ontario. The federal government is saying: "We are going to cap the amount of money we send to you regardless of what your needs are."
We are also suffering the ironic effect of a booming economy. That means that those who are under economic stress in other parts of the country are coming to British Columbia in search of work. They're not coming here because of the myths that this is Lotusland, or that it's an easy ride in British Columbia. People are coming here looking for jobs; people want to work. When they arrive, the transition to working takes longer than expected, and people are accessing the income assistance system. That's their right as Canadians, and it is a requirement under law that they be able to do that. Twenty-odd percent of our caseload is new applicants for income assistance coming from other provinces.
[5:00]
Let me give you some statistics on our out-of-province caseload. That's the jargon for people who come from other parts of Canada and have arrived in British Columbia within the last 12 months. In February 1994, there were 16,475 out-of-province cases receiving benefits. This increase in caseload has grown much more than other people in British Columbia. Over the last 12 months, this number has grown at an annual rate of 17 percent.
I'm sure the hon. member remembers, as do I -- when we were both active in ensuring that people had jobs -- that the flow was in the opposite direction in the early eighties. British Columbians were going to other provinces to look for work and had to rely on income assistance in other provinces. That's what Canada is all about. That has an impact on our income assistance load. Rest assured, we're creating new jobs at a much faster rate than any other jurisdiction and, in the end, it makes sense for people to come to British Columbia because they have a greater hope of getting a job.
K. Jones: That's a very interesting description of the ministry's attempts to resolve itself, in that the minister seems to think there's a reduction of the operation and that they're not hiring more people. I see in the latest edition of the job postings for the government that there are nine new hirings in her ministry of which only three are social workers; the others are administrators. In one of them almost $56,000 is being paid out for an employment equity officer, management level 3. I wonder how many people on social assistance could get by with the pay that's being spent on that. I'm sure that doesn't require an employment equity officer; I'm sure the people within your staff must know how
[ Page 11051 ]
to hire people on an equitable basis, considering how many times it's been said that there's a need to recognize the disabled, aboriginals, women and visible minorities. An officer is hardly needed there to be doing that. It's just a matter of misplaced priorities, hon. minister. Perhaps you may want to review some of your hiring practices more closely, get back to serving the people's needs and look seriously at resolving the problems that you claimed you described here. I didn't see any indications in the presentation this afternoon that you were addressing how to get people out of poverty. It was interesting that you say that the average length of time on income assistance is three months. The last time I heard, it was 60 days. Is that too short a time? That means there are a lot of people who are on for a very short time.
There are evidently people who are on social assistance from generation to generation. How is the ministry able to take these generational situations off the books? Is there some time after which they get cut off? Employers lay off a person for a day so that they are able to classify them as 30-day wonders and make the books look good. Is there really not very much of a problem of systemic poverty out there? I have seen with my own eyes some serious problems of systemic poverty throughout our province. I'd be very surprised if you were actually addressing those areas at the present time. Could you tell us whether my figures are wrong or whether you have a method of addressing this serious generational poverty?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Let me try to put your range of questions in perspective. I'm getting mixed messages from you. At one point you say that perhaps we need to address the intergenerational issues of poverty, almost all of which are based on the systemic poverty of women. Yet you object to an employment equity officer. I know it's important to score political points in here, but be consistent in the political points you're scoring.
I don't have a clue where you got your 60-day statistic on the length of time people stay on income assistance. I said to you that on average two-thirds of people who are able to work stay on the caseload between four and six months. However, we also have many handicapped people not able to work as you and I would be able to work, who are eligible for GAIN and require both sustained support and independent living. We have people between the ages of 60 and 64 who require support; we also have over 110,000 children on income assistance because they have poor parents. So we are doing everything we can to assist by shoring up resources available to people who need them. Part of that has been, as I've outlined to you today, ensuring that fraud and abuse in the system is eliminated so that the scarce resources of taxpayer dollars go to those most in need.
I have described to you the initiative under the Premier's Forum on New Opportunities for Working and Living, and you can anticipate that we will review the entire income security net. I have described for you the discussions we're having at the federal level concerning renewal of the social safety net, not just its reform.
Let me address your concern that we are perhaps hiring people or doing our business in a much less efficient way. You will know from the blue book that, even though the caseload is going up on all three sides because of population increases and people moving to this province, our ministry will be operating this year with 83 fewer full-time-equivalents. That's more bodies but 83 full-time-equivalents fewer than what we had last year. I'd say that's a pretty strong commitment to efficiency.
It's easy to pull out one ad and say: "Employment equity. What's that? Trendy political correctness?" The point of the matter is that there are systemic barriers to hiring and employment, and many of these systemic barriers lead to specific groups being entrenched in poverty -- not only the adults but the children as well. Our employment equity officer is there specifically to assist in ensuring that we promote people who are perhaps facing systemic barriers. We provide training internally, and we ensure as a ministry that we're doing the best we possibly can to equalize our hiring and assist those who have had a disadvantage because of historical discrimination.
K. Jones: Is the minister saying there is a lack of control in the ministry administration over hiring and promotional practices? Can the minister or deputy minister not direct that there shall be an employment equity process? Is it necessary to spend $56,000 a year to hire somebody to tell somebody else what they should know from the time they were hired for the job as manager -- that their job entails treating people on an equitable basis and that there be fairness and no discrimination in any aspect of this government? I thought that was the standard policy of all hiring throughout the ministry. I understand that PSERC has policies and guidelines already laid out. Why does every ministry need to hire another person to go around and say, "Yes, I agree, that's exactly what we're supposed to be doing," and act as a police person? Is it because there's nobody following the rules or paying attention to senior management?
Why aren't you firing these people who aren't following the procedures, rather than hiring another person and adding more expense to the ministry? We really cannot afford to continue to hire people for the specific role of proving something that you've set down in policy. An awful lot of people seem to be doing that. Isn't there any follow-through, responsibility or accountability from one ministry level to the next to do what is set down as policy?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I just want to pause for a second, because I know the hon. member is being deliberately provocative. I know his background is in the labour movement. In another life he would be horrified at the statements he is making right now: that we fire people for the historical, systemic discrimination that has gone on; and that we hold people accountable for every minute of the day. We actually take our guidance from the private sector on these issues. The private sector is much more at the forefront of dealing with employment equity issues than public service agencies have been in the past. The reason private sector employers have been at the forefront of this is that they understand that when systemic barriers to employment and opportunities are removed, you have a more productive, more highly qualified workforce.
You can't do that when you have a workforce, such as our ministry does, of 4,500 employees and have to hold yourself accountable for $2.7 billion of taxpayers' money. I don't think any private sector employer would say: "You live with it or you're fired tomorrow." A private sector employer would do as we are doing, giving them support in the form of training and education to understand how to implement that program all the way down to the shop floor in a way that is supportive and recognizes that training is needed, while at the same time ensures greater representation from those groups that have traditionally faced greater systemic barriers: aboriginal workers, women, people with disabilities and visible minorities. There is no question that we are training for a diverse workplace. We are ensuring that
[ Page 11052 ]
our hiring procedures are reviewed and implemented to ensure equity in hiring. This is not only good news for our employees and potential employees but for the stakeholders of this province as well.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us about the status of the Cloverdale social services office?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Other than the geographical location of the office, perhaps the hon. member could be a little clearer about the kind of status report he requires.
[5:15]
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us the status of the projected move of the Cloverdale social assistance office, if that's what you want in the way of further clarification?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Are you referring to the issue that we dealt with before, in terms of the Langley office?
K. Jones: No. I'm not even familiar with the Langley office. I understand that the lease of the Cloverdale social assistance office was up some time this year and that there was going to be a relocation. I think there was some work toward putting part of that office in Fleetwood or in some other location. What's happening in this regard? I believe you were also going to find some location to maintain part of that office within the Cloverdale area.
Hon. J. MacPhail: We have 300 projects on the go in terms of office location and relocation. I'd be happy to take that question on notice and get back to the hon. member tomorrow.
K. Jones: I won't ask the minister about the other 299; I'm just talking about the Cloverdale one.
I'd just like to remind the minister that she was well aware that there were extensive meetings with regard to the attempt to move the office to the site adjoining Fleetwood Elementary School; that aspect is all-encompassing. Is the minister not aware of how this is transpiring at the present time?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I am; you and I talked about it. I got a status report from the hon. member very recently, so I have the information that he provided me with. I'll be happy to continue to investigate in order to determine the conclusion of the one outstanding piece that we discussed previously.
K. Jones: I don't think there was one outstanding piece. I want to clarify for the minister. The situation is the establishment of a smaller office in the Cloverdale downtown area, as well as another major office along the Fraser Highway towards the 158th or 156th Street area. That's what we're looking at.
My information to you concerned what had happened about that site. I have no further knowledge of the plan to re-establish that office in these two locations. I understand that soon.... Maybe you could tell us when the lease on the building is going to end so we have an idea of when the move will take place. What plans have been put in place to make the move? Is it in your budget this year?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Unless we conclude estimates in the next five minutes.... I'll make sure that we get back to the hon. member on that tomorrow.
V. Anderson: One of the problems we often seem to have is communication, and as we move along in our directory, communication is the next area we come to. Focusing on the communication that this division is responsible for might be helpful to us at this time. I am conscious that we probably have another ten minutes for this evening. Another five? Okay.
Hon. J. MacPhail: The communications division is headed by a director. The division is responsible for providing ministerial support services, such as speeches, press conferences, press releases and communications advice. It provides communications issue management for the ministry and does strategic communications planning and evaluation. It is also responsible for day-to-day media relations, communications material approval -- both standards and policy -- publications, displays, audio and videotapes, and visual ID. It provides contract administration, statutory requirements coordination, coordination of special events and internal ministry communications.
V. Anderson: I appreciate getting that overview of the internal things that operate in the community, at the front line and in the office. There seems to be a complaint, generally, that people have not received the information they needed on the front line: materials, brochures and information about their rights and their ability to access. Is that the responsibility of this division? If so, could you explain a little about that?
Hon. J. MacPhail: This communications department is responsible for the production of the printed words that appear in our offices. Of course, the content of those printed words is a collaboration by those in our ministry with the greatest expertise. There's no question that it's a task that we take increasingly seriously: updating that information and ensuring that it is accessible by a very diverse multicultural community and also by those who may be illiterate -- or functionally illiterate. So we're looking at different ways of communicating through posters and other methods, and also beyond English, so to speak. This division is responsible for that.
The other method of communication we have internally among our offices is by computer, and many of our internal communications to the front-line staff occur on our computer system now. Every office is linked.
Hon. Chair, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 5:24 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]