[ Page 605 ]

The House met at 10:07 a.m.

Prayers.

Ministerial Statement

BRITISH COLUMBIA'S 125TH BIRTHDAY

Hon. G. Clark: I simply want to draw the House's attention to the fact that tomorrow is British Columbia's 125th birthday. Queen Elizabeth has sent a letter, which I would like to read to the House. Tomorrow I'll be in Barkerville celebrating the 125th anniversary of British Columbia and of Barkerville, and that will become part of the formal ceremonies. But I thought it appropriate today to read for the record the Queen's remarks:

"I congratulate the government and the people of British Columbia on this 125th anniversary year of British Columbia joining the Confederation of Canada.

"On May 16, 1871, at Windsor Castle, my great-great-grandmother, Queen Victoria, signed the document admitting British Columbia into the Canadian Confederation as the sixth province, with effect from July 20, 1871. Since then, British Columbia has always had a special place in the hearts and minds of my family. Prince Philip and I have on five occasions had the great pleasure of visiting British Columbia. Each time we return, we are struck by its immense beauty, its wealth of natural resources and the spirit of its people. Now at the threshold of the new millennium, British Columbia's unique geographical position looks both ways: as an important cornerstone of the rest of Canada to the east and to the burgeoning Pacific Rim to the west.

"Prince Philip and I send our warmest best wishes as you celebrate your first 125 years as part of the great country that is Canada."

G. Farrell-Collins: I appreciate the sentiments of Her Majesty, and I think all British Columbians are excited on the anniversary of our entry into this country. There wasn't always unanimous support that British Columbia join the rest of Canada, and from time to time I think that perhaps there still isn't. But there are always conflicts back and forth, and I think all British Columbians, for the most part, agree that we do live in one of the greatest countries in the world and that we're happy to be here. It's indeed a great day for the province of B.C., and indeed for Canada. I hope that perhaps this House, through the Speaker, could send our thanks to Her Majesty for her kind words.

The Speaker: I thank the member. The Chair will be delighted to do that on the members' behalf.

Hon. A. Petter: I have the honour to present the annual report of business done pursuant to the Public Service Benefit Plan Act during the fiscal year ended March 31, 1995.

I also have the honour to present the report of business done pursuant to the Legislative Assembly Allowances and Pension Act, part 2, during the fiscal year ended March 31, 1995.

I have the further honour to present a set of statements regarding borrowings and loans to government bodies for the 1995-96 fiscal year, in accordance with sections 41.5, 43(2) and 45(3) of the Financial Administration Act.

G. Robertson: I'm speaking today on the Pacific salmon and conservation. Pacific salmon has always been an important and significant part of British Columbia's heritage. The salmon have sustained aboriginal communities throughout British Columbia for generations. European settlers built communities to fish this salmon resource all over our coast. Places like Sointula, Alert Bay, Port Hardy, Campbell River all depend on the salmon; they're an integral part of their economy.

People from all over the world come to look at our salmon. They look at them going up our rivers. They come here to sport-fish, and sport fishing is also a very significant part of our economy on northern Vancouver Island. Just last week I had a gentleman call me, and he said: "Glenn, I have some great problems. I bought a business last year; I rent out boats. Our business is down in Campbell River by 50 percent this year. The fishing is absolutely great in Campbell River, but people are of the opinion that the sport fishing on the Inside Passage is in the same state as it is on the west coast." So there are some major concerns there.

People understand that a healthy fish population is necessary and that the fish stock is directly related to the conservation and stewardship of our environment, and other factors about which we are just beginning to have an understanding, such as water temperatures and predators that are eating our salmon. Today we have some concern that the survival of our salmon resource is really threatened, and I believe it is. The people of British Columbia are concerned, and for good reason. The people in communities like Sointula and Alert Bay are extremely concerned, because fishing is what these communities are all about, and they're very dependent upon it. The communities and the families and their way of life are threatened. I don't think there's any doubt about that.

The current situation in regard to the salmon fishery.... I'll talk a little bit about last year's figures: in 1995 the harvest volumes dropped 42 percent from recent averages. The income to harvesters was down 62 percent, and that was due mainly to a decline in high-value fish such as sockeye, chinook and coho. Many harvesters and all gear groups face economic hardship and will not qualify for unemployment insurance due to a shortage of fishing weeks this year, and that's of great concern as well. Places like Sointula, Alert Bay, Quatsino and Quadra Island have lost 2,200 permanent jobs as a direct result of Mifflin's plan, and we stand to lose over 6,000 more as a result of the poor salmon runs this year, without conserving a solitary salmon.

About the only bright spot just now is in sport fishing, as I said earlier. In Campbell River, which is still the salmon capital of the world and has been for over 100 years, the fishing has been tremendous, and up to last week 137 salmon -- springs, I believe -- have been caught. If that keeps up it will be the best season ever in Campbell River. The pier charge to fish off the pier is just a dollar, so it's a good deal for people who want to do some salmon fishing.

[10:15]

One of the major problems, as I see it, in the salmon resource is a need to protect the fish habitat in British Colum-

[ Page 606 ]

bia. At the CORE table, particularly on Vancouver Island, all the people and participants were adamant that the salmon habitat would not be compromised. Anything that went on in the woods or in any other resource industry.... The salmon habitat would be the number one consideration. That received unanimous support around the table, and for good reason. The Forest Practices Code has done some outstanding work with regard to salmon habitat, and in particular with riparian management, gully management and the roadbuilding techniques that are now engaged in. That's a concern that's being addressed by the code, and it's a very positive thing. The logging practices have changed significantly in the last four years and have addressed issues like erosion and siltation. I think that's really important.

We have to have an understanding with our American neighbours in regard to a Pacific salmon treaty and where we're going, so that we can all work together to enhance this significant and important resource for all British Columbians and user groups. On the overfishing of the resource, there has to be a long-term strategy by all the user groups -- aboriginal and sport fishermen, and the commercial fishermen -- to have an understanding that there has to be some kind of balance and common sense prevailing, and to work together.

Right now, I guess Alaska is of great concern to many people because we're getting many of our fish stocks taken before they come back to our rivers. To give one example, I was talking to a gentleman the other day who was involved with Western Forest Products. He's a forestry engineer there and a forester, and he does a lot of work on salmon enhancement in the North Island. They tagged a lot of their fish in the past few years, only to find out that their fish were being intercepted by the Alaskans. Because of the problem, what they're actually doing right now is growing spring salmon in fish farms so that they can take the eggs to put back into the river. They're not getting a good return to the river because of the interception of their fish, so this is a big problem.

I also believe that we've had really horrendous treatment in regard to the east-versus-west sides of our country. In the east, they've put gross figures of around $3.2 billion into the fishery there, although it's in a pretty sad state. But with the money that's been put into our west coast fishery, I think there have been some real inequalities. It's reason for concern. The Mifflin plan, as we look at it in small communities on northern Vancouver Island, is an injustice. I'll say that up front, and I have no problem with that. There's an understanding that we don't need as many people fishing the resource, but when you take the small fishers out and give the opportunity to the big fishers with the capital, and our families and communities are at risk and at stake, that's of great concern.

The Speaker: Excuse me, member. Could I ask you to wrap up. The time allotted for the first part of your statement has now expired, so if you could very quickly wrap up, I'd appreciate it.

G. Robertson: I believe that the agreement that's been signed by Corky Evans and Fred Mifflin is a very positive step. It's a step in a long journey for joint stewardship and a joint understanding in working together on the west coast, and I'm very pleased with that.

The Speaker: Responding to the member's statement, the member for Abbotsford.

J. van Dongen: I'm pleased to respond to the statement by the member for North Island. I want to compliment him on his choice of the word "stewardship." Stewardship, for me, not only means the concept of conserving the resource but also includes a sense of using it productively, enhancing its value, or multiplying the benefit it provides over the long term to all our citizens. If the objective was strictly conservation, then it would be a simple matter to tell all the fishermen to stay home, including all our commercial fishermen, all our aboriginal fishermen and the whole of the sport and recreational fishery, which the member referred to. We would also shut down all the salmon farms and other types of aquaculture. But I think we're trying to do more than just conserve, and I don't think shutting everything down would be acceptable to the majority of British Columbians.

With all due respect to the people within the environmental movement and to people who, I think, have legitimate concerns about habitat, I have to say that I very often get the sense that they won't be happy unless we leave nature completely untouched. There is this idea, I think, that nature left totally untouched is the ideal state, and I don't subscribe to this view. I believe it's completely appropriate for man to use his intelligence and experience to use the resources that God gave him, subject to the condition that those resources are managed in a sustainable and long-term manner.

I believe human intervention in the fishery is totally appropriate. So then the question is: how much intervention is appropriate? My personal belief is: quite a lot. I don't think we want for technical knowledge that can be applied to the stewardship of the west coast fishery. I think where we are most seriously lacking, however, is in the management structures by which we govern ourselves, particularly those by which we govern the management of the fishery resource -- and including those of us like the member opposite who have a direct interest in that resource.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and myself discussed this matter briefly last night. We acknowledge that there are a lot of people dependent for their livelihoods on the west coast fishery, but there is no doubt that the structures created by governments, both provincial and federal, to manage the stewardship of the fishery are not working. I have to say that the minister was more optimistic than I am in that regard. My view is that we need a revolution in thinking and in leadership to make the necessary changes. We need a lot less government involvement and a more direct role by the fishermen themselves. I would go as far as to say that I would rather see a specific group of private individuals manage a resource to their own benefit than consideration of the fuzzy notion that it is a common-property resource and that we can all share in just a little bit of it.

If we are serious about saving the fish for anybody, we should grab the bull by the horns and get moving. This is not an issue which will resolve itself. More studies, more committees and more agencies are only going to prolong the current difficulties. My view is that we should actually be working to take over the management of the fishery when we deal with the federal government and DFO; we shouldn't be looking at creating another agency. I will reserve judgment on whether the current initiatives by both the federal and provincial governments will in fact contribute to better stewardship of the west coast fishery.

G. Robertson: I don't know if I'd agree totally with the member for Abbotsford in regard to taking over the west coast fishery, but I think the idea of working together with the federal government and the province of British Columbia to have a better fishery is certainly a significant and positive first step.

[ Page 607 ]

I believe also that the most obvious implication to the cynics and separatists in Quebec is that you do not need constitutional accord to get change in this country. I think this memorandum of understanding is an example of that. Things are a lot more hopeful now than they were a few weeks ago, and the only people that are not onside are the federal Reform Party, who don't think Ottawa should be talking to the provincial government at all. It is not too late for them to get behind this initiative, and I hope they do.

I think there are a lot of positive things here, and some thanks are due to the Premier and our Minister of Fisheries for the special effort they made in coming to Sointula on the North Island and for presenting this case forcefully to the federal government, and to the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast and the official opposition for their support of the government's efforts. I am sure it makes a big difference when we all work together like this, and I look at it very positively. Thanks are also due to the Prime Minister and his team for responding to the concerns that have been raised. But the real heroes here are the folks who put their time and energy into this -- too many to list them all, but Dennis Brown of the United Fisherman and Allied Workers Union, Greg Wadhams in Alert Bay, Dan Edwards of Ucluelet, the West Coast Sustainability Association and the Coastal Communities Network come to mind immediately, as well as Bruce Burrows in Sointula. The prize for British Columbians and Canada is an environmentally sustainable and economically viable industry that supports the small communities up and down our coast.

As a new MLA, I have to tell you that it feels really good to stand in this House today and reflect on the real progress in attaining this prize of joint stewardship and moving forward, and to know that the goal is shared by all the members here, the communities and British Columbia as a whole.

G. Abbott: I appreciate this opportunity to speak on the subject of Eurasian milfoil and its control. Eurasian milfoil is a non-native aquatic weed which is of particular concern in the southern interior, but it is rapidly spreading to other parts of the province as well.

Eurasian milfoil control is jointly funded on a fifty-fifty basis by the province, through the aquatic plant management branch of the Ministry of Environment, and by local government, through regional districts and water and park boards. Provincial expenditure on this function is very small in relation to other programs of government, but it does constitute a very significant expense for local government. More importantly, the milfoil control function has a significant effect on environmental and recreational values in those parts of the province which are affected by the problem. Milfoil control can also have a significant economic impact on affected areas, as tourism is very much undermined by its presence.

I'd like to provide a very brief history of our experience with Eurasian milfoil in this province. I would also like to outline characteristics of milfoil and the consequences of its presence. Finally, I'll be advancing the thesis that this province continues to have an important role to play in milfoil control and that the province ought to meet its obligations to local government in that regard.

Eurasian milfoil is native to eastern Europe and was first introduced to eastern North America in the early 1940s. It was first found in B.C. in 1970 in the Vernon arm of Okanagan Lake and was likely introduced by recreational boating equipment. Subsequently, milfoil spread very rapidly through Okanagan Lake; then into Skaha, Vaseuz and Osoyoos lakes, and the Columbia River in the U.S.A. The plant also spread north into Kalamalka and Wood lakes and, in about 1980, into the Shuswap Lake system. More recently, milfoil has been discovered in Christina and Champion lakes in the Kootenays, in Nicola Lake, in Cultus Lake and on Vancouver Island near Nanaimo. The most common mode of spreading milfoil between waterways is the transport of plant fragments on boats and boat trailers. Within waterways, milfoil is spread by boating activity and natural stem fragmentation.

The results of milfoil infestation are quickly evident. Dense mats of surfacing milfoil adversely affect recreational activities such as swimming, boating, water-skiing and fishing. Because it fouls beaches and diminishes recreational values, milfoil reduces the economic benefits of tourism. It can also affect flood control, drainage, irrigation and water conservation facilities. On the environmental front, milfoil invades and frequently supplants native plant communities. It can also reduce the viability of fish-spawning areas. For example, it may -- and hopefully this won't happen, but it may in the longer term -- affect the viability of critical spawning areas like the Adams River.

[10:30]

Clearly, milfoil is a problem of provincial scope which deserves the continued attention of the provincial Ministry of Environment. Over time, provincial and local governments have jointly used a variety of measures to control the spread of milfoil. These range from intensive treatments, like the installation of bottom barriers, to cosmetic controls like harvesting. One of the most effective control technologies is the aquatic rototiller, but these machines are expensive to purchase and maintain. Intensive treatments have provided control in some locations, but overall milfoil continues to spread rapidly to previously uninfested areas.

From the early 1970s to the early 1990s, programs were conducted on the basis of 75 percent provincial and 25 percent local funding. In 1994, in response to budgetary concerns from the province, local governments agreed to a fifty-fifty arrangement for control of large, established milfoil populations. As one of the participants in these negotiations on the part of local government, I can assure you that local government agreed to this formula change with great reluctance. Local government had little choice, however, as the alternative was no provincial funding.

In entering into this new five-year agreement in 1994, the expectation of local government was that stable and secure funding of $450,000 per year would be provided by the province through at least 1999. Regrettably, only two years into this agreement the Ministry of Environment has reduced its allocation for this program from $450,000 to $340,000. As one might expect, this dramatic, unilateral reduction on the part of the province has caused much distress to the Okanagan Basin water board, the Columbia-Shuswap regional district and others.

For example, it has resulted in the Columbia-Shuswap regional district being cut in its allocation from $165,000, which was requested, to $110,000. This has necessitated the elimination of $40,000 from the equipment reserve fund and a reduction of $15,000 in operating funds. The Okanagan Basin water board has also suffered a decrease from its requested allocation of $212,000; it is expected to receive $180,000. This has meant the elimination of its equipment reserve allocation of $5,000, plus a cut in its operating budget of $27,000. These jurisdictions are attempting to mount effective control pro-

[ Page 608 ]

grams but feel hamstrung by the reduced level, and future uncertainty, of provincial funding. No one wants to see the continued spread of milfoil. Local government should have the full support of the province in this battle.

In conclusion, I feel the province has an obligation to live up to the spirit and the letter of their 1994 agreement. If this government is not prepared to restore full funding for milfoil in 1996, I certainly hope it does in future years. We all recognize the need for budgetary restraint, but we all also recognize the need for honouring our existing obligations and commitments. I hope that these sentiments are shared by the all members of the House, and I look forward to the comments of my hon. friend from Yale-Lillooet.

H. Lali: I want to thank the member for Shuswap, who did an excellent job of presenting the issue of Eurasian milfoil. I was just looking at my briefing notes that I received this morning from the Ministry of Environment, and it seems that the member opposite has covered each and every one of those points that are here. It doesn't leave much for me to stand up here and speak about, so I'll keep my comments fairly short.

I agree with the hon. member that it is a fairly major problem, especially in the southern interior part of the province: in the Okanagan, the Shuswap and the Thompson-Nicola area as well. In my riding, in particular, Nicola Lake is used quite extensively for recreational purposes. There are a number of residences also located along that lake. It's about ten miles long and over two miles wide at its widest point, and there is a fairly major problem in that particular lake as well.

The member opposite mentioned that the provincial government should fulfil its obligation, and he also talked about the issue of budget restraints. The member is quite familiar with the fact that if that party had been elected to power, to represent this side, they would be looking at the issue in the same way that we are.

I just want to take the House back a few years. B.C. Environment first became involved in the milfoil program around 1974. From 1974 to 1980, Environment conducted extensive research on the biology, ecology, growth and distribution of Eurasian water milfoil, and approximately $4 million was spent by B.C. Environment during this time for the research and development effort.

Some of these issues of local governments considering the milfoil program to be a provincial responsibility and the province considering it to be a local responsibility, are issues that have been there in the past and will continue to be there. I do certainly share the sentiments of some and the distress of people living locally that share this issue. It is spreading to some of the other lakes in other parts of the province as well. Certainly the member opposite has my support in trying to lobby the government to see if we cannot expand the funding. I want to thank the member opposite for his comments.

G. Abbott: I do very much appreciate the words and sentiments of the hon. member for Yale-Lillooet. They are very constructive and much appreciated. I won't use the full ration of time here, but I'll just very briefly note that proper control in this area will not be possible without a full level of funding. Certainly when local governments proceed with their milfoil control plans every year, I don't believe that they have any intention of wasting money. What they try to do is achieve the best level of control possible with the minimum of expenditure. However, I think that in order to even have minimal programs, they need to maintain that $450,000 level. That wasn't a level pulled from the sky; it was based on a real assessment of what was needed in order to do the job. Hopefully, particularly with the general support around the House for this function, that kind of level can be maintained in the future.

There is always the ongoing problem of equipment. In the hon. member's riding, Yale-Lillooet, as he noted, Nicola Lake is affected by milfoil now, and there is, as a consequence of the spread of this weed, a need for new equipment. Again, there has to be allocation made for new equipment, or it's not going to be possible to cover all the bases that need to be covered here.

With respect to biological controls, certainly the province's efforts with biological control of Eurasian milfoil have been laudable. I suppose there haven't been a lot of really positive results that have come out of that, but it's not for any lack of trying, and I would never suggest that it was. It is difficult to maintain that.

I think one area where the federal government really should have been doing more and could still continue to be doing more is in funding biological controls. I think that the federal government should be taking a more realistic look at the impact of Eurasian milfoil on spawning beds, particularly in the Shuswap and other parts of the province as well. To date, they have been reluctant to agree that milfoil could adversely affect spawning areas like Adams River, but hopefully they will come to that conclusion. I suspect that part of their reluctance is a reluctance to start funding in this area, but I believe they're not going to have any alternative in the longer term as milfoil moves into that area and becomes a very significant problem.

I'd like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I'd like to thank the hon. member for his very constructive comments.

J. Sawicki: As we all know, tomorrow is Parks Day, not only here in British Columbia but all across Canada. In honour of that day, I hope members have noticed that I'm wearing my "In Celebration of B.C. Parks and Protected Areas" T-shirt.

I want to use my time this morning to talk a little bit about what we've accomplished in the last 80 years in this province and to reinforce that there is yet a lot left to do: not only meet the 12 percent goal by the year 2000 but also manage those areas that we've set aside to ensure that they indeed are passed on in good health to future generations. The first official Parks Day was actually in 1990. Although the national themes have changed over the years, since 1995 the theme has been "Take a Hike." I encourage all members to indeed do that tomorrow, whether it's with your families around a lake or in the alpine areas and the wilderness, where I like to go.

Like so many of our attributes in British Columbia, we tend to take our natural heritage for granted. As we are discovering, we do that at our peril. We have taken our clean air for granted. Just last week, we know in the lower Fraser Valley that people were recommended to stay inside their houses because of the smog. We've taken clean water for granted, and now we have groundwater contamination. As my colleague said earlier this morning, we have urban streams where fish can no longer live. We have disappearing food lands, old-growth forests and wetlands, all because for too long we thought there was enough, enough for everyone. When you think of it, with the frontier attitude that has 

[ Page 609 ]

dominated our history in B.C. -- sometimes to our benefit, but often to our detriment -- it's actually quite amazing that our system of parks has evolved as successfully as it has. Truly, we have one of the best systems in the world.

Being a student of history myself, I started looking back on just how some of these parks came to be established. What I found, of course, was an hour's worth of really fascinating stories. What also struck me, hon. Speaker, was that the controversies surrounding establishment of parks today aren't a lot different than in previous decades. The first parks in British Columbia actually were promoted by the railway interests in order to attract tourists. We know that today Tourism B.C. parks bring in over $400 million to provincial coffers and provide over 9,300 direct and indirect jobs in local communities all across this province. Actually, the first provincial park was established in 1911. That was Strathcona, right here on Vancouver Island.

Somewhere along the way we got off track. In the thirties, forties and fifties, parks fell victim to what they called the multiple-use philosophy that actually encouraged resource extraction in parks. This was when parks like Garibaldi and Kokanee were established. I wouldn't want to mention any names on a private members' day, but suffice to say that there are some hon. members in this chamber -- not on this side of the House, mind you -- who haven't really progressed beyond that and think it's perfectly okay to mine in parks like the Tatshenshini.

In the 1960s the conservation ethic came along. Besides, people were more mobile, and they decided they wanted parks to provide recreational facilities like campgrounds and picnic grounds, rather than gravel pits and clearcuts. Today that role in our parks is so popular that our government established a very innovative -- and I might say self-supporting -- system of reservations. I understand from B.C. Tel, whose headquarters are in my constituency, that that system is so successful that they've had to substantially increase the number of telephone lines this year.

In the 1970s and 1980s, with our continued population growth and the technology that allowed us to access hitherto inaccessible areas, the concern for saving wilderness really arose. In my mind, that's when we established some of our most fascinating parks, like Spatsizi, the Purcells and Cathedral.

Finally, the 1990s brought a government that had the courage and the wisdom to put protected areas at the top of its political agenda: spectacular and unique wilderness areas like the Tatshenshini and the Kitlope, and the Khutzeymateen, Canada's first grizzly bear sanctuary; critical wildlife habitat like the internationally significant Boundary Bay; and in my own community, urban open space like Burnaby Mountains. Over 200 new parks and protected areas were established during the first mandate of our government.

That's a phenomenal achievement, and I think the significance will only be appreciated by future generations, just as we in the lower mainland marvel at the foresight -- it wasn't particularly altruistic at the time, but I don't have time to tell that story -- of those who established Stanley Park over 108 years ago.

[10:45]

But the job is not done. We're only halfway to that 12 percent goal. I know that during the recent election campaign many people were extremely worried about what would happen to the rest of that work if we were not re-elected to this side of the House. So I hope that on this Parks Day, the member opposite who will be responding to this statement will use today's opportunity to join me in celebrating what we've achieved in British Columbia these past five years. I also hope that they will dispel that lingering doubt out there that perhaps the opposition party is not as committed as we are to completing our provincial system of parks and protected areas.

With that, hon. Speaker, I will wait for the comments of my hon. colleagues across the way.

L. Reid: I am delighted to rise today in response to the member for Burnaby-Willingdon around the future of parks in this country.

Certainly British Columbia is a focus for us today, but, more importantly, we have to look at parkland across this very fine land which we call Canada. The Premier referred in his remarks today to a letter from Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, when she talked about her visits to this country being important because of the vastness of the natural resource, because of the grandeur of this land.... We believe that, and we certainly are delighted to have many, many folks come and visit this country because of what it has to offer.

The issues around tourism are vastly important, but as a teacher, the issues around education for children using our parks are vastly important. The decision was originally taken in 1987, and I believe it was in the Northwest Territories, where a group on the Canadian Parks Partnership came together, believing that setting aside a day was important. I don't take anything away from that, but if we only set aside a day, we will not have accomplished a great deal. This is about how we care, nurture and steward our parks every single day of the year, year in and year out. It is about the bigger picture.

I'm delighted to participate today in the discussion of honouring a particular day. But my comment has to be broader in scope in terms of how we teach young people and adults to interact with their environment and, frankly, to revere their environment through ongoing care and nurturing. As the hon. member has suggested, we certainly have taken a tremendous amount for granted when it comes to the care and nurturing of this environment. Those days are over. The watershed protection, the airshed -- all of those can be distilled down in terms of how we look at parkland. But the issue is much broader than that. Also included in Parks Day is historic sites. Each of us has stood in this chamber and talked about historic parts of our ridings, things that we would like to see shared with visitors and other members of the community, things that will be in place for the generations that will come after us. I believe that's a vitally important part of nurturing our heritage, because our heritage is not just environmental, it's cultural as well. I was delighted when I read in the briefing notes that Parks Day is about historic sites, it's about culture, it's about ensuring that people come together to believe in something and to create something incredibly fine. Those things speak to me.

I touched on opportunities for youth, and I can tell you in my riding of Richmond East that we do need parkland, we do need access to water. We live on an island and we have one waterfront access in the entire riding of Richmond -- let alone Richmond East or Richmond-Steveston or Richmond Centre. So all of us, I believe, have a responsibility to go forward and advocate for parkland in our own areas. We can act locally and make decisions that will impact very positively on the opportunities that are available for young people who will come after us.

I also want to make a comment around care and caution when people are using parks -- certainly tomorrow, 

[ Page 610 ]

when there will be 30,000 to 40,000 people in British Columbia's parks as a result of the celebration, but also for every day that comes after. We often have tremendous tragedies and costs incurred in the system, where people simply do not take care when they're out in the wild, in the environment, doing some things that they are not prepared to do and have given very little thought to in terms of preparation.

So I come back again to the issue of education around the use of parks. We are asking people to take extreme caution, to care for themselves and to care for others in their group so that we can have fewer tragedies -- and often fatalities. When it comes to Sunday night after the celebration of our parks, I don't wish to read in the newspaper that someone has injured themselves out of carelessness or a lack of caution. I think we must ensure that we all care deeply, certainly for the parks, but also for each other as we go forward.

One of the other issues is natural heritage conservation in Canada, and that is reflected as well in a number of societies and non-profit agencies around the country whose goal is to ensure that those kinds of opportunities are available. I would lend my support to that endeavour, and I know there are many members of this chamber who are prepared to do as much as they can to ensure that the historic areas in their ridings are cared for.

I feel very fortunate to live in this country, and I know that the children we have and the children who will come after us also will feel fortunate if we all commit as Canadians, as British Columbians, that this is a priority. This is not a partisan issue. To me it's like health care; it's like education. No matter the party in power, we must put in place some preservation, some conservation that ensures, no matter who is in office, that those things we all hold dear are in place for all Canadians and all British Columbians to enjoy.

J. Sawicki: Thank you, hon. Speaker, and thank you also to the member for Richmond East. I certainly agree with her comments that the word "park" really should and needs to encompass a whole range of protected areas, including those of historical and cultural significance. I know that the Lower Mainland Regional Protected Areas Committee will be making their recommendations to government very soon. I for one will be urging our government to adopt those recommendations as quickly as possible. They've been reached by consensus through all parties, and I trust that the member opposite will join me in urging that, as well.

I used the first part of my private member's statement to give a little background on parks because I think it's important to put our recent accomplishments into perspective. But I want to use the last minute or two on a personal note, to talk about why parks are important to me. I have hiked the West Coast Trail long before there were any bridges to cross the Walbran, and I have been awed by the magnificent peaks of the Stein and watched the tears flow down the cheeks of native elders when our government designated forever that sacred place. I have backpacked in one of our largest parks, Tweedsmuir, for days without ever seeing another person. And while there may be many legitimate reasons to protect certain areas in British Columbia, personally, I couldn't imagine the quality of life, 20 or 30 years from now, if people won't have the opportunity to experience the wilderness, as I have. To me, that is the most important personal part of Parks Day.

I worry that with our preoccupation with balanced budgets and debt reduction, future governments won't be able to put adequate funds into taking care of these areas we've worked so hard to protect, and the hon. member for Richmond East mentioned that. We need to invest the dollars to care for them; otherwise, it would be an abdication of our responsibility to stewardship for future generations.

In closing, I think that we should also take the opportunity to thank all of the citizens of British Columbia who have worked with this government during its first mandate to establish these areas. I look forward to working with them, as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks, in this next mandate. I think we should also thank citizens who, throughout our whole history, have worked to establish parks. Finally, there's a group that doesn't get much mention in this House: B.C. parks staff, who are incredibly dedicated. In addition, hundreds and hundreds of volunteers not only help to protect these areas, but also work to provide opportunities for recreation. So with that, hon Speaker, I thank hon. members, and hope everyone has an opportunity this weekend to indeed take a hike.

V. Anderson: As I begin today I would like to remind you of the beginning of the Olympics in Atlanta, and to send our good wishes to the Canadian team, Team Canada, and to Charmaine Crooks, who will be the flag bearer as they go into the Olympic stadium on this day.

Today I'd like to speak about the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. It was seven years ago, on November 20, 1989, that the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted this very important convention on the rights of the child, a landmark decision for the children of the world. Yet I would guess that less than 1 percent of our people know that such a convention was passed, or that Canada is a signatory and that British Columbia has endorsed this convention. Indeed, after consultation with all the provinces, it was ratified by Canada on December 13, 1991, and came into force on January 12, 1992. The convention sets out in precise terms the responsibilities which adults have towards children. It is clear that these adult responsibilities apply to all children wherever they may live.

Even a quick perusal of these 53 articles clearly shows that in Canada and British Columbia our responsibilities are not being adequately met. Article 2 reads:

"State parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present convention to each child within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child's or his or her parents' or legal guardian's race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status."

Judge Thomas Gove has clearly reminded us that we have not given our children the care, concern and protection which is required by this declaration. We do not need to look overseas to discover the abuse and neglect of children. The neglect is here at home, in every one of our communities.

[11:00]

As legislators, our first responsibility is to our children, for this is a fundamental part of our responsibility to our voters. I therefore urge all members of this Legislature to secure a copy of this convention, read it and apply it to all our actions in developing community awareness and programs related to our children and youth. Information and copies are available through various organizations, such as the Society for Children and Youth of B.C. in Vancouver, the Greater Victoria Child and Youth Advocacy Society and the United Nations associations across the province. It is our responsibility to secure this document, read it and apply it. It is an 

[ Page 611 ]

international, multicultural expression which treats all children with respect and equity. The following are some more key elements of the convention:

"Article 3: In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.

"Article 6: States parties recognize that every child has the inherent right to life.

"Article 9: States parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child. Such determination may be necessary in a particular case such as one involving abuse or neglect of the child by the parents, or one where the parents are living separately and a decision must be made as to the child's place of residence.

"Article 12: States parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express these views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.

"Article 13: The child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art or through any media of the child's choice.

"Article 44: States parties undertake to submit to the committee, through the Secretary General of the United Nations, reports on the measures they have adopted which give effect to the rights recognized herein and on the progress made on the enjoyment of those rights."

I suggest to the members of this Legislature that we need a focus for our actions -- today the term is "benchmark," a point of reference. Thus I suggest that our focus should be the well-being of our children, each and every one of them. When all of our children, from the moment of conception, have the best possible care and opportunity, then we will have developed a healthy society. When all of our children prior to school age have had a healthy, happy home life, then we will have developed a capable society. When all of our children, no matter where they live, have a relevant learning environment through their school years, then we will have a competent and responsible adult generation. The focus for our future is our children, for without their care, forests and mines, taxes and budgets are irrelevant.

J. Smallwood: I'd like to thank the member for his statement. In reviewing some of the material, it actually provided me an opportunity, in some respects, to put into perspective my desire to move more quickly. I think most people will agree that we come, each one of us, to this House with huge expectations as to what we're able to do, the changes and improvements we're able to make. In reviewing some of the progress our government has made, in some sense it has made me feel very good about my service and our government's leadership in this province.

I want to start by commenting on the convention and the UN's work in providing the rights to children that have been laid out in that convention. First of all, it's a recognition that we all live in a global village. I want to take from that some wisdom that has been brought to the work of children by aboriginal people in this province: the recognition that it takes a whole village, whether it is a global village or our local neighbourhood, to raise a child. I think we all need to focus on that perspective, because each and every one of us, regardless of where we stand, has responsibilities that must be brought to bear.

As a government, our legacy to this province is, I think, one we can be proud of. For the first time in well over ten years, we have established new child protection legislation called the Child, Family and Community Service Act. In that act, we have entrenched the rights of children in care, reflecting much of the wisdom of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. In that, we have recognized that they are the direct responsibility of the province and the state; that the best interest of the child is the primary consideration; that all children are assured that their views on matters affecting themselves will be taken into consideration; that when a child in temporary or permanent care is deprived of his or her family's environment, their interest is uppermost and their rights are entrenched; and that further to that, indigenous peoples, first nations people, have the right to enjoy their own cultural practices and religion. When we look back on the history of children's rights in this province, I think all of us have to agree that that is a significant step that all of us in this House should be proud of.

Let me also take the opportunity to comment on the fact that the first-ever child, youth and family advocate is now reporting to this Legislature. When I reflect on my impatience and the need for progress, I feel comforted that we have indeed made significant progress that has led not only in this province but in this country as well.

Let me conclude my comments simply by saying that while we all recognize, hopefully, that it takes a full village to raise a child, each one of us has responsibilities. In the struggles to deal with budgetary requirements, not only as a government but as opposition, we have responsibilities to ensure that our voices are heard. I would hope that the member, in raising this statement, will ensure that his voice is heard when dealing with his leader's comments with respect to the cutting of government services, in recognition that child protection workers and family support services are often the first to go when government services are cut. I hope the hon. member ensures that his voice is heard when his counterparts in the federal Liberal government cut services to children, cut a national child care program and deprive children of their rights to be supported in a strong and viable family.

V. Anderson: It's a very serious topic, and I'm disappointed that government members always have to make it a political issue rather than an issue about children themselves.

I want to commend the hon. member who has just spoken for her longstanding interest. It was in June of 1991 that, as an opposition critic in reply to the hon. Mr. Jacobsen, she reminded him of the convention on the rights of the child. She indicated that though they had principles which they were proud of.... Let me quote: "Yet we know that children in our care sometimes suffer from placements and have less than adequate access to counselling service -- just one little example of what is happening in this province." I read her comment, hon. Speaker, because though some things have been done, we are very much reminded by the Gove inquiry that significantly, for a lot of children, things have not adequately changed.

I want to give two other points from the articles. Article 5 states: "States parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents or, where applicable, the members of the extended family or community as provided for by local custom...." Article 7 states: "The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and, as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents." Here we have an international standard to which we as Canadians are committed, a standard which we may surpass but which we, at a minimum, should strive to meet. It is our challenge 

[ Page 612 ]

and opportunity that by our responsible action, our children may have the rights that are rightfully theirs in our democratic society.

Once again, I urge all of our members to take note of the convention on the rights of the child and to use it as the standard to compare against our legislation. Even as the Child, Youth and Family Advocacy Act was being presented in draft form, Judge Gove pointed out to us that in its original form it did not meet the standards of the UN convention. It did not have in it the opportunity for judicial review, which he requested should be added to it. So even when we think we're doing our best, we need an outside standard against which to compare ourselves, and the United Nations convention of the rights of the child is such a standard.

The Speaker: Thank you, member, and all members. That concludes private members' statements.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee A for Committee of Supply, and I call Committee B for Committee of Supply.

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

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

M. Coell: We have had two days of discussions on the estimates of the Ministry of Social Services. It was our intention to spend some time dealing with issues arising from the Gove inquiry today. I realize that we probably don't have more than an hour or an hour and a half before adjournment.

In November the Gove commission was completed and given to the government. In January the Premier of the day announced a commissioner who was to keep this House informed through a committee and to respond to the Minister of Social Services, the Premier and cabinet on a regular basis. The Gove commission, as you know, is essential to all aspects of the Ministry of Social Services. If there is one strand that runs this ministry, in all of its different departments, then it is children and the protection of children. So with that, I would ask the minister if he has had a briefing from the commissioner in charge of the Gove commission.

[11:15]

Hon. D. Streifel: I would suppose it would depend on your definition of a briefing. I have had a meeting with the transition commissioner, and I have offered the opposition members a briefing with the transition commissioner. I would encourage them to do so. I would remind the House and hon. members, particularly the critics with the questions, that the transition commissioner will be reporting through an all-party committee. That's the structure that was set up. Again I encourage them to take up the invitation from the transition commissioner, through me, for a full briefing on this very serious matter.

M. Coell: I thank the minister for those comments and will assume that he will be able to speak to some questions on the Gove commission. The committee is an all-party committee of this House. It was struck in January of this year and has only met once. I would say that that is not adequate for the opposition; we feel it should meet much more often. Since the election, it hasn't been reopened and a new set of members appointed to it, and I would encourage the government to do that as soon as possible.

As the hon. Chair may realize, there is a great deal of interest in the effects of this inquiry on the Ministry of Social Services, and a great many members of the opposition wish to make comments. We will keep our comments to the effects of the Gove inquiry implementation on the budget and the estimates as best we can, and we'll be in your hands if we overstep our bounds on the questions. But it is an important aspect, and I think the people of British Columbia want to know where the government stands on this, as well as how much funds and how many staff are committed. We look forward to the answers the minister might give us this morning on these questions.

Hon. D. Streifel: If I could just be permitted a short response to that, it's our intention, through these estimates, to deal with as many of the questions around this issue from the opposition members that we can; and we will. My intention is to supply all the answers that we can through this forum. If we can't get the information, or if we don't have the answers, then I would encourage members to take up the invitation for briefing to complete their information basket. If that's not satisfactory, I take under advisement the comments from the member regarding the all-party committee.

We have just come through an election, we have new ministers in place, we have some staff in place, and we have much the same hurdles, so to speak, on organizational structure to climb as the Liberal opposition has, with the many new caucus members. I've talked to many of them myself, and they talk about the learning curve they are on, and how they sometimes are not quite sure of processes and moving forward. This is a new parliament. This is a new government. We have many things to share, and my intention is to share as much of the information with the opposition as we possibly can around this very serious issue. I appreciate the members bringing forward their concerns, and I will endeavour to answer their questions.

B. McKinnon: Once again I would like to say that I'm honoured to be here as critic for the Gove inquiry. The inquiry has shown us that the government is sadly lacking in social conscience, and it's time that we invest in our most important and valuable resource: our children. As I said the other night -- and I think it's worth repeating -- this ministry needs a massive injection of resources into child protection services and programs in order to help our families deal with their problems so that they are able to bring up their children in a healthy, safe and vibrant environment.

This inquiry has raised a number of serious concerns about the standards of practice in child protection, and it has also given many suggestions for improving the situation. Between 1981 and 1991 the number of single-parent families climbed by 29 percent. These families are more vulnerable to becoming dependent on income assistance, and their children are more likely to live in poverty. Provincial figures for September 1994 indicate that 123,717 children under the age of 19 were living in families on income assistance; 75 percent of these children were in single-parent families.

Poor children are twice as likely to suffer psychiatric disorders and three times more likely to drop out of school. As well, children in single-parent households are more likely to require protective services. Over half of the children admitted to the ministry's care in 1993 and '94 came from single-parent 

[ Page 613 ]

families, and 39 percent of women in violent marriages reported that their children witnessed violence against them. Another survey done in 1993 found that one in four girls and one in five boys in grades 8 and 9 had been physically abused during their lifetimes.

The B.C. Government and Service Employees Union reported the findings of a 1995 survey of 542 social workers in family and children's services. Eighty percent felt that their workloads were excessive, almost 95 percent reported that they felt a high level of stress as a result of work demands, and 68 percent felt this hindered their ability to make good decisions. Twenty percent went as far as to say it affected not only their decision-making but also their confidence and ability to protect children.

The submission of the B.C. Government and Service Employees Union to Judge Gove stated that professionally educated and trained social workers, given sufficient time and resources and using professional judgment, can protect and serve the families and children in B.C. better than overworked, undertrained workers who are limited by scarce resources and bound by hundreds of pages of contradictory policies and rules. This report has shown us the terrible stress that is put on our social workers. Under these kinds of conditions, how can we expect them to give proper care and make good decisions for the safety of our children, let alone the kind of help their families need? It doesn't matter how much education these people have; if you're burned out, you're not much good to anybody. When our abused and neglected children grow up, the dysfunction continues as the abused become the abusers. This vicious cycle will continue until this government decides to invest in our children and their families, and to put a stop to the cycle.

On Wednesday evening I was not given the opportunity to ask questions about the Gove inquiry, and I hope that this afternoon we will get the answers we need. I think it's really important that we, as critics, get the answers in the estimates so that our taxpayers know where our money is spent, how well it's being spent, what our social workers are doing, and if they are getting relieved.

My questions to the hon. minister are going to be on the transition commissioner. I would like to know how much money this transition commissioner has spent on advertising, meetings and travel so far. Do you have those figures for us today?

Hon. D. Streifel: The entire budget is $7.2 million for the transition commissioner, and $5 million of the $7 million will be allocated for the establishment of sites across British Columbia -- development projects or demonstration sites, if you would. The $2.2 million is allocated to the day-to-day operations of the office: staffing and public consultation, and in that manner. So, it's a total budget of $7.2 million, $5 million for demonstration sites or pilot projects, or however you would like to characterize them, and $2.2 million of the $7.2 million is for the operation of the office, staffing and the consultation process.

B. McKinnon: If I heard you correctly, the $5 million was what was actually put into running child care. That doesn't include the wages of social workers or that sort of thing, but it would basically....

Hon. D. Streifel: That money is just for the transition commissioner's budget. It's not for services that are delivered within the Ministry of Social Services. It's just the budget for the transition commissioner.

B. McKinnon: I ask the minister to speak up, because I'm not hearing you very well down here.

Hon. D. Streifel: I'll offer a bit of advice, as I used to sit in that corner for four and a half years, and there are some dead spots acoustically in this room. There's a hearing device available to pipe right in, and it may help the hon. member. But until that equipment arrives, I will raise my voice and we'll see where we're at.

We have in that envelope $5 million that's just for the work of the transition commissioner -- it's not to carry on programs under the Ministry of Social Services.

B. McKinnon: Have any recommendations been made to the ministry to date from the transition commissioner? If there have been, could you tell me what they are?

Hon. D. Streifel: Our staff are in active cooperation with the transition commissioner on an ongoing basis. All of the recommendations are being considered, but I would remind the hon. member that the transition commissioner's mandate concludes in 1999. We're just in the first six months of it. We're in the initial stages of cooperation, identification and identifying where we're going with this. I would like to remind hon. members again that the transition commissioner will report through an all-party committee.

B. McKinnon: I understand what the minister has said, and I understand that the transition commissioner has a three-year mandate. But it is my hope that we're not going to wait three years before we have any recommendations implemented or done. What's going to happen to our children in the meantime? I would like to ask the hon. minister, then, if we have to wait three years to get anything, or any news or that, from the transition commissioner.... I know that we have a committee set up. But that apparently isn't set up right now, since the election, and it hasn't met. Could you tell me when it's going to meet, so we can get on with this important inquiry?

[11:30]

Hon. D. Streifel: Specifically, we're in process and in progress. As we are in the first six months of a three-year mandate, it gives me the opportunity now to maybe go through where we're at in the relationship with the transition commissioner, how we got there and why we got there. As the member has multiple questions on this issue, this gives me the opportunity to bring forward some of the information maybe in a broader context. That may help focus the questions. In fact, it may even satisfy some of the concerns from the member opposite.

When we do a presentation like this, we thank Judge Gove, because Judge Gove undertook a massive and extremely difficult task when he convened the Gove Inquiry Into Child Protection in 1994. He delivered a very clear, frank report last November. I think we're all aware of that report, tabled in the House. It's been in public view since it was completed. Judge Gove's report painted a disturbing picture of British Columbia's child protection system. It left no doubt in my mind or in the mind of anyone in this province that the time had come for a change.

I'll get into the specifics of Judge Gove's recommendations in just a moment. I certainly don't mean to undermine their seriousness in any way, but I must point out that this government recognized the need for change in child protec-

[ Page 614 ]

tion back in 1991. We launched a comprehensive, two-year process of public consultation, asking people in our communities how we could improve this vital component of B.C.'s public sector. Based on that consultation, we brought in two new pieces of child-centred legislation: the Child, Family and Community Service Act and the Child, Youth and Family Advocacy Act.

I ask some indulgence from the hon. Chair, as a few of my colleagues are creating a high level of buzz, and it's coming into my right ear. I would not want to have to repeat their comments through my presentation, so if we could have them just move off to the side a little further, it would certainly help this presentation.

The Chair: All hon. MLAs....

Interjections.

The Chair: Government-side MLAs, some of the discussion that's taking place is interfering with the minister's presentation. If you could have your conversations more quietly or outside, it would be great.

Hon. D. Streifel: Thank you, hon. Chair.

These two acts were passed by the Legislature in May 1994, the same month in which my colleague the Hon. Joy MacPhail ordered the Inquiry Into Child Protection. I point this out not to suggest that the ministry was out ahead of the inquiry process but to underline the fact that there are two major initiatives currently underway, both aimed at strengthening the child protection system.

Implementation of the new legislation and implementation of Judge Gove's recommendations really are inextricably intertwined. Both involve a more holistic, proactive approach to child protection, with better coordination of resources, a greater emphasis on the role and responsibility of the broader community in recognizing and reporting child protection concerns, greater recognition of the child's views and of decisions made about his or her future, and -- above all -- clear direction that the safety and well-being of the child must be the paramount consideration in all decisions affecting the child.

As you know, government has appointed a transition commissioner to recommend, design and implement a whole new child protection system. I look forward to working with the commissioner and providing whatever support is needed through the Ministry of Social Services. In the meantime, we are making significant improvements where and as we can. Hon. members, virtually all of these improvements are consistent with Judge Gove's recommendations. Some address them specifically; others reflect a broader, longer-term response to problems we identified earlier.

I really do appreciate the concern of members opposite around this issue, and I'll try to address your questions as directly as possible. I just want to be sure you understand that there is more than one process underway around improving child protection, and sometimes it's neither possible nor advisable to categorize initiatives separately. In general terms, we plan to increase spending this year in the child, family and community service area by $35 million, and I have no hesitation in saying that all of the improvements in services supported by those funds will be consistent with the principles laid out by Judge Gove.

In addition, approximately $5 million in other areas of the ministry's budget, such as administration, which covers social work training, is targeted to initiatives supporting either the letter or the intent of Gove's recommendations -- for a total increase of $40 million.

Effective December 1, 1995, the bachelor of social work degree is the minimum qualification for all new child protection social workers. We have hired 228 new child protection social workers since April 1, 1996. These workers will assist us to meet the requirements of rising caseloads and enhance our child protection services. We have implemented a comprehensive 20-week training course for all new child protection social workers. This is the most comprehensive program offered anywhere in North America. We have provided case practice supervision and consultation training to 117 district supervisors and area managers in the past year.

Anyone who has read the Gove report understands that risk assessment is a critical part of child protection work, and accurate risk assessment requires a high level of expertise. Recognizing this, the ministry introduced the child protection consultation services in February 1995, building a coordinated, multitiered approach to protecting children from abuse and neglect. The program re-established the regional child abuse teams that had been disbanded in the restraint years of the 1980s. I wonder how many members opposite supported the political structure of the restraint years of the 1980s. I have one member negating his activity there. Thank you, hon. member.

We now have a network of ten regional child protection consultants to provide training and case consultation to front-line social workers on a day-to-day basis. The program also includes a closer working relationship with B.C.'s Children's Hospital. A team of specialists there, including pediatricians, psychiatrists, child psychologists and hospital social workers, now provides support to ministry workers in complex and critical child protection cases.

In addition, our child protection consultation services have developed a new risk assessment training program. It introduces a standardized approach that's being tested and fine-tuned right now. All ministry child protection social workers will receive this training in the current fiscal year, and we will incorporate it into our core training curriculum for all new workers.

The Ministry of Social Services is one of the largest and most geographically diverse ministries in the province. We have more than 5,000 staff in communities from Dease Lake to Port Hardy to Fernie. Our clients, like so many British Columbians, sometimes relocate, and they often receive services from more than one ministry or agency. Recognizing this, and the importance of comprehensive information-gathering and providing the best possible services to children and families, the ministry has been working since 1989 to establish a new computerized information system for social workers. This allows them, for example, to enter a client's name and almost immediately access every record of our involvement with that family. It also replaces slow, manual-labour-intensive processes with one streamlined, uniform approach, freeing up more time for workers to spend with children and families. This new information system represents exactly the kind of coordination needed to ensure the most responsive, most effective child protection services, and it addresses several recommendations raised specifically in the Gove report. This new system is currently up and running in about half of our ministry offices. It will be fully implemented this fall.

The children who look to us for care and protection, as well as the people of British Columbia who we serve, must be assured that the Ministry of Social Services is accountable for 

[ Page 615 ]

its actions. To strengthen and improve accountability measures, a number of steps have been taken. First, the mandate of the audit and review division has been restored, particularly in the area of protective practice audits. The ministry's executive audit committee has assumed a quality assurance role and reviews all findings related to critical injury or death.

The ministry is continuing its efforts to strengthen and enhance the accountability of its contracted resources, including initiating a contract management practice audit in consultation with the office of the comptroller general. Of course, the new Child, Family and Community Service Act addresses complaints of any breach of rights of children in care and improves and strengthens the overall protection system. The new Child, Youth and Family Advocacy Act provides an independent advocate for children and families receiving services under the Child, Family and Community Service Act. As you know, Joyce Preston has been appointed as British Columbia's first independent advocate.

Child protection social workers in the ministry are guided in their daily work by legislation, policies, regulations and their own experience, training and expertise. Case practice is the term we use to describe in non-technical terms how these ingredients all come together; case practice is where the rubber hits the road. The Gove report identified a need for more effective, better coordinated, better informed case practice and case management, all of which the ministry is currently addressing as part of the implementation of our new child welfare legislation.

All of these, I think, are good examples of how difficult it is to separate our spending and our commitment of resources, and to say that these dollars and cents are going towards the legislation and these are going to implement Judge Gove's recommendations. The two processes are so complementary, so inextricably intertwined, that attempts at that kind of separation would be useless. The point is that we're working to improve and strengthen British Columbia's child protection system. We're grateful to Judge Gove for his commitment, his hard work and his clear direction on where we should be heading. We're mindful of our role in relation to the transition commissioner, and we stand ready to act on her recommendations.

At the same time, we cannot ignore the needs of vulnerable children. We are continuing to implement our new child protection legislation, which directly reflects the needs and wishes of people in our communities. This issue is far too important to fall victim to partisan political disagreements. Quite frankly, any effort to specifically categorize our spending within this framework amounts to little more than splitting hairs. If the members opposite want to know how much of our budget we're committing to the implementation of Judge Gove's report and recommendations, I say: "Look at the bottom line." Spending on children is up $40 million, or 10 percent. Everything we're doing in this area is consistent with the principles and directions set out in the Gove report and with the feedback that we've received to date from the office of the transition commissioner.

I hope that helps the hon. members understand our dedication, our commitment, and I thank them for their support in ensuring that we do everything possible for the protection of our children.

B. McKinnon: I would just like to say to the hon. minister that I hope that he doesn't really think that we're being overly critical of the Gove report. We fully support the Gove inquiry. We are only trying, for our benefit and for the benefit of our taxpayers, to know where our money is going, how it's being spent and if it's being spent well on the protection of our children. I, for one, am looking very forward to meeting with Cynthia Morton about the Gove inquiry, in her role as transition commissioner. I still feel that we need some answers to some questions we have on it, and I hope that you can answer them for us.

I would like to ask you: has a task force been set up to design and implement a computerized child protection system? If one has been, at what cost?

Hon. D. Streifel: As I mentioned in my presentation, this is part of the system that began in 1989; 40 percent of the system is up and running and functioning. The group involved in this is the line workers and people within the system. This year there's $3 million in the budget to complete this, and I understand it will be done by the end of the year.

B. McKinnon: I must have missed that when you were speaking.

Could you explain to me how reports of new incidents of child abuse or neglect are being investigated today? How does the social worker handle that?

[11:45]

Hon. D. Streifel: The processes are that a report -- a complaint -- comes in from anybody. The social worker receives the report. A risk assessment is done, and work goes on based on that risk assessment. The information can come from a multiplicity of sources from within the system or outside of it. Indeed, the hon. member may bring forward a concern or complaint through the processes of these debates.

I have heard mention many times of a reference to a specific case, a specific problem, and I've asked that those come forward. When they do, if there's a danger or hazard to children, they will also become part of the report and part of the risk assessment.

To date, under the Child, Family and Community Service Act, situations where a child may be in need of protection must be reported to the director of child, family and community service social workers. Social workers with the delegated authority of the director investigate all reports of abuse and neglect. As a result, some children are apprehended. In fiscal '95-96, there were 21,497 investigations and 3,181 apprehensions or removals.

B. McKinnon: If a report on a child came in and it was investigated, and there was an actual need for that child to be removed because of abuse or neglect or whatever was going on, is there a very long time frame in which that happens, or can that be judged pretty well immediately, in case there is definite need for that child to leave?

Hon. D. Streifel: The social worker as well as police officers, based on the assessment and the risk.... In extreme cases the seizure could be immediate, if that helps.

B. McKinnon: Have the Guaranteed Available Income for Need Act and regulations been amended to give social workers access to all information from the GAIN program necessary to ensure the safety and well-being of the child? I don't remember if you mentioned that in your speech.

Hon. D. Streifel: Simply, quickly, yes, it has been done.

[ Page 616 ]

B. McKinnon: Could you explain to me what changes were made?

Hon. D. Streifel: Social workers can access income information -- GAIN information -- if the determination is a need to protect the well-being and safety of the children.

B. McKinnon: The changes which are being recommended by Judge Gove, and changes in other ministries serving children and youth, have led to instability in service delivery systems, according to the child, youth and family advocate, Joyce Preston. This has led to a situation in which individuals both within government and working for community organizations no longer feel safe and do not find it easy to take risks. Could I ask what this ministry is doing to create a different climate, to remove the instability in the delivery of services to our children and youth?

Hon. D. Streifel: Well, there are many things that have been underway and are in process and in development: communications, training, information-sharing, public consultation -- the work goes on. It's very important that we all understand and that we support the workers in the field in these times of quick change, sometimes, and quick response. I compliment them on their ability to rise to the occasion and support the children in our communities.

B. McKinnon: The Ministry of Social Services appoints independent legal representation for youth and children. When will the office of the child, youth and family advocate be given the power to appoint legal counsel to represent our children and youth independently? If we go ahead and do that, what kind of cost would this be to the ministry?

Hon. D. Streifel: The office of the child, youth and family advocate has an independent budget with a separate vote in the Legislature, hon. member. To address the other part of the question, we're working with the Legal Services Society to work out a process and a protocol to supply independent legal counsel in these cases.

B. McKinnon: I think the Gove inquiry talks about centres for children. I was wondering if there is anything in the works in the ministry for making these children's centre's available?

Hon. D. Streifel: The transition commissioner is working on developmental sites, but in the interim, there are many examples where we have done this already. In Kelowna, we share a site location with health and school district folks to deliver the needs of the children.

B. McKinnon: How does the Social Services ministry protect the confidential information in child protection practices?

Hon. D. Streifel: There are protection provisions contained within the act, and we have the office of the freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy commissioner as well.

B. McKinnon: Does the ministry audit the manner in which child welfare services are delivered to ensure that provincial standards are being met? If they do, are they done on a random basis or are they predetermined? I would also like to know how many staff are needed and what it costs to do this job.

Hon. D. Streifel: It's a bit of a long answer, so I hope the hon. member bears with me. Some of this information was contained in my presentation, but I don't mind bringing it back onto the record so that we all understand the importance of the work and how it goes on. The children look to us for care and protection, and the people of British Columbia, who we serve, must be assured that the Ministry of Social Services is accountable for its actions.

To strengthen and improve accountability measures, a number of steps have been taken. First, the mandate of the audit and review division has been restored, particularly in the area of protective practice audits. Policy on incidents that must be reported to the director of family and child services audit and review division, plus case review policy and a new administrative review policy, will be integrated in a way that clearly describes the accountability functions of the line supervisor, the field managers, and directors and central staff in the division.

On an interim basis, the responsibility for review of critical injury or deaths has been assigned to the chair of the Child and Family Review Board. The ministry's executive audit committee has assumed a quality assurance role, and it reviews all findings related to critical injury or death.

The ministry is continuing its efforts to strengthen and enhance accountability of its contracted resources, including initiating a contract management practice audit in consultation with the office of the comptroller general. A contract management unit was established last year to oversee the ministry's contract management policies and responsibilities, including implementation of the cross-government contract reform initiative.

The ministry's internal audit function has been moved to the OCG to ensure the reality and appearance of completely independent audit services. We have doubled the resources made available for audit work, to expand audit coverage of agencies under contract who provide program services.

The new Child, Family and Community Service Act addresses complaints of any breach of rights to children in care, and improves and strengthens the overall protection system. The new Child, Youth and Family Advocacy Act provides an independent advocate for the children and families receiving services under the Child, Family and Community Service Act. As you know, Joyce Preston has been appointed as British Columbia's first independent advocate. We have addressed that this morning already.

On administrative and support services, to get into the budget part of the question, it was $640,000 in 1995-96; in 1996-97 it is $900,000. In 1995-96, there were 11 FTEs, and in 1996-97 it's increased to 16 FTEs. In the Child and Family Review Board, it was $200,000 in 1995-96, with three FTEs; it's $900,000 in 1996-97, with eight FTEs. In the deputy director's office, in 1996-97 it's about half a million dollars and seven FTEs. I hope that helps, hon. member.

To anticipate the next question -- what's the OCG? -- it's the office of the comptroller general.

[12:00]

B. McKinnon: This next question.... I don't recall hearing it in your talk. If you did answer it, I'm sorry for repeating it, but I didn't really hear the answer. The Gove inquiry reviewed 264 files of children's deaths held by the deputy superintendent in the inspections and standards unit audit and review division. This review showed that the ministry had no systematic record collection and management system 

[ Page 617 ]

for these cases. These three offices do not have a complete understanding of the characteristics or patterns of deaths of the children known to the ministry. Has anything changed today in that respect?

Hon. D. Streifel: Simply, the answer is yes. If the member would bear with me, I'll try and lay out some of the information here. Notice these answers this morning seem to be somewhat longer than I'm used to, and I hope it helps the hon. members.

The ministry's policy requires that the director's office be notified by field staff when there is a death of a child in care or of a child for whom the ministry has provided CF and CS service in the past. Furthermore, the director must be advised when a critical injury occurs to a child in care. It is the director's responsibility to review whether ministry policy and appropriate practice have been followed by delegated staff, as well as to identify any systemic issues.

Since February 1995, the director reviews the deaths of children in care or any child known to the ministry because of a current or past child and family service matter. Within 48 hours of being notified of the death, the director determines the extent, form and scope of the review. Such a review may consist of a regional management review, a director's inquiry via the office of the deputy director or a review by the audit and review division. In practice, most deaths are being referred to a review by the audit and review division. In addition, the transition commissioner is working on this critical issue through one of the project teams. Brent Parfitt, the deputy ombudsman, is on secondment to this ministry and is tracking for longer-term solutions. Does that help, hon. member?

B. McKinnon: Yes, it does, hon. minister, and I appreciate your answer.

How are children who are affected by administrative decisions dealt with when their interests, their parents' interests or those of the caregiver differ from the administrators' decisions?

Hon. D. Streifel: There seems to be a bit of confusion, hon. member. With all due respect, if you could bring forward the question again with a little clarity.... I don't think we're quite sure of the point you need.

B. McKinnon: What I'm trying to get at is: when administrators make decisions, and the decisions affect the children's interests, their parents' interests or the caregiver's, and if the administrator's decisions differ from those.... I would like to know how the children are dealt with in that. If the administrator makes a decision and the children want to do something else, is the administrator's decision the final word? Is there any appeal for this child or parent or caregiver to go to, or is the final word with the administrator?

Hon. D. Streifel: It's a guiding principle within the act that the child's views should be taken into consideration when decisions relating to the child are made, so it wouldn't necessarily be an arbitrary decision. It's a decision made with the views of the child taken into consideration, and if the child is not satisfied with that decision, it can be taken to the Child and Family Review Board for further decision.

B. McKinnon: How do district offices establish a fair process when they receive, respond to or investigate complaints about the delivery of child welfare services?

Hon. D. Streifel: Again, I would beg the indulgence of the member and ask for further clarification. If we're dealing with a complaint of child abuse or a complaint of service delivery, there would be different processes, I imagine.

B. McKinnon: What I was trying to establish was if you receive a complaint about your services -- the child welfare services themselves -- how do you respond to those complaints?

Hon. D. Streifel: I'm making some of my staff nervous here this morning.

There are many avenues that can be followed, hon. member. A complaint can go to the supervisor, the manager; it can go to the ombudsman; it can go to the child and family advocate. In fact, this is exactly the program that Brent Parfitt, the deputy ombudsman, is working on as a complaint resolutions procedure. I am sure that Mr. Parfitt would be pleased to brief the opposition on his work and how it's progressing and processing, and I would encourage the opposition members to receive that briefing, as that's precisely what this minister is going to do.

A. Sanders: One of the recommendations of the Gove report was a bachelor of social work degree as a minimum standard of employment for those involved in working with children. What I would like to know from the minister is: what percentage of our people involved in the social work field in British Columbia do in fact hold that credential?

Hon. D. Streifel: All child protection social workers have the degree -- 100 percent of them since November 29, 1995. Overall through the system, 45 percent of social workers currently have a bachelor of social work degree.

A. Sanders: Could you perhaps clarify what other degrees are held by the other 55 percent of people working in the front line as social workers in the province of British Columbia?

Hon. D. Streifel: I can certainly supply in some general terms what other degrees are there. On a specific, individual basis, I don't have it here, but there are counselling degrees, child and youth care degrees and education degrees within the CVs of the folks that work for us.

A. Sanders: Specifically, what I'm interested in is: if a person has a baccalaureate degree in any field -- for example, geology or forestry -- has it been the tradition within the ministry that a bachelor's degree is significant enough to be working front-line in the Ministry of Social Services? Or do we preferentially pick those individuals who have a degree within the judicial system, in education, in counselling, etc.?

Hon. D. Streifel: As the member is aware, Gove recognized the problems and made the recommendation of a bachelor of social work degree, and we acted on it. Since November 29, 1995, all the new hires have a bachelor of social work degree.

A. Sanders: I'd appreciate an answer to my question: specifically since 1995, is a bachelor's degree significant and enough to have previously been employed within the Ministry of Social Services as a front-line worker with children?

Hon. D. Streifel: To try and answer the question again, we looked for experience and aptitude within the field of endeavour, and a degree to go along with that.

[ Page 618 ]

[12:15]

A. Sanders: Could the minister tell me how many child protection workers there are in British Columbia?

Hon. D. Streifel: We'll get back to the hon. member. We think it's somewhat under a thousand -- 900 or so -- but we'll make it accurate. We'll get the information for the member.

A. Sanders: I would specifically appreciate that information and, in addition, the stats for my own community of Okanagan-Vernon.

With the 1995 activation of a bachelor of social work degree, which I truly believe is a minimum standard of employment for anyone who is front-line in a community and working with protection of children and intervention in child abuse or mistreatment, my understanding from the deputy minister has been that the ministry has implemented a program to bring those within the field up to standard by providing a 20-week course to give them the education necessary to provide them with the skills that would be appropriate in recognizing and appropriately intervening in child abuse situations. Where in the budget line items is the cost of this program, and specifically, what is the total cost?

Hon. D. Streifel: For the member, it's contained within the information that was supplied to the member as child-in-care services in the "Budget Overview in Millions," and the total amount is $4.7 million. Again, it's contained in the information that was made available to the Liberal caucus.

A. Sanders: Thank you to the minister for providing that information.

The 20-week program that is to become part of this ministry's training for social workers in the field is commendable. Has there been, by this ministry, any communication with the Ministry of Education to provide that training within the program of social work at the university, so that the cost of the program will not be borne by the dollars that could go to direct care of individuals in need in our province?

Hon. D. Streifel: Hon. member, there have been extensive consultations with the schools of social work and schools of child and youth care, the Open Learning Agency, the Justice Institute and task groups comprised of representatives from social service-related education programs. Three task groups have been established jointly with the universities to develop models for prior-learning assessment, a concentrated bachelor of social work program and a child welfare specialization with courses that could be common to a number of disciplines -- social work, teaching, nursing, etc. So those task forces are in place, and the work goes on.

A. Sanders: I appreciate that information. I would be very interested in receiving a briefing on those initiatives from the ministry, so that I may follow up on those myself.

The minister has told us that, of those in the communities who are doing a very important job, 45 percent have a degree in social work. Since November 1995, which is not so long ago, we have implemented that any new hirings will in fact have that minimum standard. Based on the turnover, attrition, retirements, etc., that occur within the ministry, how many years does the ministry project it will be before we have 70 to 80 percent of our people in the field who actually have the appropriate qualifications to do the job that they are doing?

Hon. D. Streifel: As a matter of fact, I think the range is from five to seven years.

B. McKinnon: Could you tell me if social workers are regulated by a self-governing professional body that has the authority to set standards of practice which will enhance the quality of practice and reduce incompetent, impaired or unethical practice? If so, what authority do they have?

Hon. D. Streifel: There isn't one now, but we're actively working with the B.C. Association of Social Workers and the Board of Registration for Social Workers, as well as the BCGEU and Health Sciences Association, to assist in the establishment of a college of social workers or a similar self-regulating body for all social workers. They have a budget in '96-97 of $100,000, and this is part of the child, family and community service's implementation budget.

B. McKinnon: According to the Gove inquiry, Judge Gove recommended that the interministry child abuse handbook needed to be revised and updated to include the careful revision of all protocols related to child protection. Has this been done and distributed?

Hon. D. Streifel: Yes, there is an interministry group working; the work is in process. It's not yet complete, but I'd stress that it is in process and active, and our representative is Fran Grunberg, director of the child protection consultation team.

B. McKinnon: In his background paper to the Gove inquiry, Bob Whitelaw identified 15 layers of administration in child protection and noted that for every dollar spent on child protection, $6 to $8 is being spent on administration. Can the minister explain that kind of ratio?

Hon. D. Streifel: I don't accept that ratio, hon. member, but I will take your comment under advisement and endeavour to look into it, because you've piqued my curiosity.

B. McKinnon: I really would appreciate you looking into that, because I think that figure is rather outrageous if it's true, and it needs some looking into.

I don't think this question has been asked before, but you can tell me if it has. Do you have the number of children on social assistance today? I know that earlier I gave the number of children on social assistance in 1994, and I was just wondering what it was as of today.

Hon. D. Streifel: I beg the indulgence of the member opposite. We did canvass extensively with the member for Langley the other night on the 17-to-19-year-olds, if this question is the area of endeavour. There are approximately 2,200 children under the age of 19, if that's the number the member is looking for. Of course, there is a larger number in the whole system of Social Services.

[12:30]

B. McKinnon: The number I was looking for is the total number of children, from infants to 19-year-olds, that are on social assistance today. My follow-up question to that is: could you tell me how many of these children are visible minorities?

Hon. D. Streifel: We will endeavour to get the total number of children for the member. We don't break it down by racial origin or visible minority or ethnic group.

[ Page 619 ]

B. McKinnon: I didn't realize that you didn't break it down. I feel that maybe social workers need a bit of training in how they deal with visible minorities and aboriginal children, because the background is quite different for a lot of them than for ourselves. So my question to the minister is: do you give your social workers any training in how to handle visible minorities or aboriginal children?

Hon. D. Streifel: The answer simply is yes.

B. McKinnon: Have you broken down at all in your ministry the cost and the extra staff required to do this? If so, what is it?

Hon. D. Streifel: It's part of the core curriculum, so I don't know if it would be possible to break down an exact cost. To back up to the other question, I think we have an answer on the number of children: approximately 125,000 children.

B. McKinnon: The ministry allocates so few resources to professional development for the social worker; the ministries seem to have a disdain for professional development. Gove recommends that the province immediately develop a program of continuing professional development of 24 hours per year for every social worker. I would like to ask the hon. minister if this recommendation has been implemented. And if so, at what cost?

Hon. D. Streifel: We have already discussed the $4.7 million that goes into the training. I will try to break out some of the things that are included in that expenditure. As of July 1, a newly practising child protection social worker is receiving a comprehensive 20-week training program. Before taking on any caseload work, the entrance program includes eight weeks of classroom training and 12 weeks of protected field training. Each block of classroom training is two weeks in length and is followed by three or four weeks of corresponding field training. The knowledge and skills presented in the classroom are practised in the following field training sessions: fundamentals of child, family and community service practice, community resources, intake and investigation assessment, and intervention in working with children and families. The training program is competency-based, and participants are tested.

B. McKinnon: I don't think that was what I was asking you about. I was trying to get an answer to this: during the school year teachers get professional days to do whatever they do on professional days. I think Gove is saying that social workers don't get these professional development days. He is saying to the province that they should be given 24 hours a year immediately. That would probably work out to two or three professional days during the year. That's what I'm speaking of.

Hon. D. Streifel: Simply, the answer is yes. There will be programs and processes in place to upgrade training. Our major concentration in response to Gove is the focus on the BSW degree. That's where our effort has been. When we've completed that, we'll carry on.

B. McKinnon: Social workers working in child protection are paid less than teachers, nurses and social workers in hospitals. This government continually stresses how it is on the side of working people, and social workers are ranked last in the top salary range and fourth in starting salaries. I would like to ask the minister when they will be looking at decent wages for our social workers in child protection.

Hon. D. Streifel: This minister recognizes the good work that's done in the field by these individuals. Their work routine is under a collective agreement and is governed by the processes of free collective bargaining. It's governed by the processes of the bargaining table and their representation. That's a process that I'm very familiar with from my years within the trade union industry and as a contract negotiator. That's what sets the wages and the work relationship, and the day-to-day relationship with the employer is through that process. I'm sure the member would understand that we do support the free collective bargaining process in British Columbia.

B. McKinnon: I understand what you're saying, but are you saying, then, that social workers are unionized, or are they considered a professional service? Are they unionized through the ministry?

Hon. D. Streifel: Social workers in British Columbia are organized under the British Columbia Government and Service Employees Union, sometimes referred to as BCGEU -- and, within the trade union movement, as the "Goo." Yes, they are subject to collective bargaining, and they are union members.

K. Krueger: I've been charged by the official opposition with the duty to serve as the critic for gaming and the B.C. Lottery Corporation, which touches on your ministry, of course, in that a number of British Columbia families experience problems with gambling addiction, and this leads to the disintegration of families, poverty, hardship and severe social consequences. I wonder if the ministry has any information about the number of British Columbia families that have been thus affected by gambling addiction?

Hon. D. Streifel: The answer is no. I would request the member to direct issues around gaming to the appropriate minister when they're examining the estimates of that ministry.

K. Krueger: That almost sounded like a facetious response to me. I have a deep concern about families thus affected, and I'm hearing from constituents and experts in the field who likewise have a concern, and I think it's absolutely shocking that the minister doesn't think that this has something to do with his ministry. So I would ask the minister whether or not he would undertake to find out the statistics of British Columbia families affected by gambling addiction and how many of those families end up requiring the support of his ministry as a result.

Hon. D. Streifel: Simply put, I'm a little disappointed in the member for Kamloops-North Thompson, who feels that respect for the rules of debate in this House is facetious. I don't agree with him at all.

K. Krueger: I would ask the minister, then, if he refuses on the part of his ministry to find out how many British Columbia families are affected by a gambling addiction and thereby end up requiring the services of his ministry.

The Chair: The hon. member continues.

[ Page 620 ]

K. Krueger: Let the record show, please, that the minister refuses to answer that question. I would like to ask the minister what specific programs, if any, the Social Services ministry has to deal with people who end up requiring the services of the system because of gambling addiction.

Hon. D. Streifel: I'm going to try to clarify some information for the member opposite. The information he seeks is not, in general terms, available through this ministry. There's a variety of services that are delivered in the community -- both non-profit and profit, as a matter of fact, on this side of the border -- and others deal with the multiple facets of addictions. I don't believe this ministry asks in particular terms what drove an individual to a certain economic state that requires the help of the province of British Columbia and its citizens.

Our interest is to support those that are in desperate need, and that's why the ministry exists. I would refer the member again to the other ministries that have jurisdiction for gambling, particularly the Attorney General, and other ministries that deliver counselling services and health services for addiction and deliver addiction programs. I suggest that the member would be well advised, if he has some individuals in mind, to refer them to agencies -- Gamblers Anonymous, for instance -- and other social agencies.

K. Krueger: I can certainly confirm that the province generates substantial revenues through gaming, probably in excess of a third of a billion dollars per year. I wonder if the Social Services ministry might have any plans to request allocation of budget from those proceeds to deal specifically with this problem.

The Chair: The question is future policy; we're dealing with administration of current policies. Hon. member, do you want to proceed?

K. Krueger: I don't really see it that way. The funds that are thus generated have been flowing for many years now. The problem has also existed for many years now. The minister appeared to say that there is no money designated to deal with this issue, which is a very, very serious issue to the families affected. I've heard of marriage breakdowns and I've heard of homes lost. I've certainly heard of people ending up requiring welfare when they had assets and jobs before, because one spouse or the other finds himself or herself afflicted with gambling addiction. In a province where funds are generated through gaming, I would like to know whether or not this minister has been making any effort to acquire budget allocation, in consideration of that massive income, to help victims of this problem.

[12:45]

Hon. D. Streifel: I'll try one more time, for the member for Kamloops-North Thompson. I can only answer questions that come under the direct auspices of the office of the Minister of Social Services, and this is not one of them. In fact, any client within our system that has a substance abuse addiction would be referred to programs that are controlled and directed by the Ministry of Health or other such agencies, and the Ministry of Social Services does not set up, control, budget or fund those programs. They go in other directions.

I understand it's sometimes difficult to understand the rules of debate in this House, but I can only be responsible for answering questions that come directly under my ministry. I can't wander off to the future, I can't wander off to the past, nor can I wander off to the jurisdiction of other ministers -- only this ministry. With that, in view of the hour, in view of the day and in view of the weekend on the way, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask 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.

Tabling Documents

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I ask leave to table the report of the Ministry of Attorney General corrections branch with respect to the Vancouver Pretrial Services Centre issue.

Leave granted.

Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that the House do now adjourn, and I wish everybody a good weekend.

Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:51 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN
THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The House in Committee of Supply A; W. Hartley in the chair.

The committee met at 11:22 a.m.

On vote 11: minister's office, $400,867 (continued).

J. van Dongen: I thought I would make it clear this morning that I'm going to be putting questions to the minister with respect to vote 13, the Provincial Agricultural Land Commission, and that the questions will deal with the effectiveness of the money spent under that vote, so that we don't get into too much philosophy.

I want to say at the outset that I can tell where all the money is in the ministry. Judging by the annual reports, the money is in the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority, not at the Land Commission. This seems like a pretty bland annual report. I found it tougher to read than the other annual reports, and I would encourage the minister to speak to the members of the Land Commission and see if they couldn't 

[ Page 621 ]

brighten it up a bit in the coming years. Because I would like people to read the report of the Agricultural Land Commission, I want it to be attractive for them to do so.

I guess my main questions will be on the effectiveness of the ALR and the Agricultural Land Commission, and the work that it does -- there are certainly going to be other members that want to also question the minister on it.

I want to start with the involvement of the Land Commission in situations where there is intrusion into farmland. Thinking of a particular situation in my riding where we have a regional district putting in a water main, I'm interested in hearing from the minister what the permitting process of the Land Commission is and what it falls under. I was looking in the annual report, and there is a reference to a new general order 293-95; then there is also the Soil Conservation Act and there are performance bonds, etc., at the back. I am wondering what, specifically, the involvement of the Land Commission in that permitting process is, because I know there was a permit issued.

Hon. C. Evans: There is a process pursuant to the regulations of the Agricultural Land Commission precisely for water lines and sewer lines. The process involves the regional district applying to the Land Commission and addressing such questions as the depth to which the line would be buried and the ability to carry on agricultural uses above that. In other words, it wouldn't be helpful if it was 18 inches under the ground. You might be required to prove that the pipe would be to a sufficient depth to allow tilling and farming activities above it. There is also a reclamation portion to the regulations, so if you're digging up topsoil and then a gravel layer, the soil is put back together in the same profile in which it was taken apart. The land is returned to a state suitable for agriculture.

There certainly are other regulatory regimes. For example, if you're putting in a sewer line, you're going to have to deal with health and fisheries issues -- where the pipeline ends up and that sort of thing.

J. van Dongen: The regulations that the minister speaks of, are they under the Soil Conservation Act or are they under a separate aspect of the legislation?

Hon. C. Evans: They are under the Agricultural Land Commission Act.

J. van Dongen: Are there guidelines or are there specific requirements in terms of depth set out in the permit? Is there a specific set of regulations in terms of the depth, or are there just guidelines in terms of precautions?

[11:30]

Hon. C. Evans: There aren't specific regulations. Each application is considered on its own merits. If there is disagreement on what is, or is likely to be, acceptable, the process for an application would be that the commission, before considering it, would refer it to their own agronomist, to officials in my ministry, and for a local opinion to ask the local agricultural community for an opinion if the internal referrals failed to resolve the question.

J. van Dongen: Turning to the last page of the annual report, just inside the back cover in the notes to the financial statement, it refers to performance bonds and securities. Do those instruments apply in this situation, and if not, where are they being used?

Hon. C. Evans: They apply in the case that the member is asking about, but they also apply in any rights-of-way crossing ALR land, for example. If you want to build a road and it is permitted and there are conditions applied, you would have to supply a letter of credit. If you have permission to remove gravel from ALR land and there is a reclamation plan, you would have to supply a letter of credit. As the member can see in the book, it also applies in golf course situations. It's my understanding that the bonds are basically to be used in any case where a development is allowed by the commission, with a series of conditions requiring some form of reclamation; then the letter of credit guarantees the commission that the reclamation work will take place, and then the letter of credit is returned.

J. van Dongen: How does the commission determine the size of the bonds that are requested, or letters of credit that are requested?

Hon. C. Evans: General guidelines have been developed over the years on the cost of reclaiming an acre of land, and of course, it would be different in Abbotsford than it is in Nakusp. So the commission applies some analysis to try to make the overall guideline actually fit the local case, whether it's mountainside, gentle slope or wet ground. The specific project is applied to the general cost, and they figure out if you're going to actually use a quarter of an acre, and how that fits into the cost of reclaiming a hectare of land. Lastly, should the developer object to the total, there is an opportunity for some negotiations. An applicant can say: "Here's a contractor who says he'll do it for this price, so we would like to adjust the price to the local cost of doing business."

J. van Dongen: I want to assure the minister that I certainly support the concept of performance bonding. In my experience, contractors that come in and do pipelines or sewer lines or water lines have absolutely no understanding about farmland and no respect for it, and maybe the lack of respect comes from that lack of understanding. So I think this is an appropriate program. But I am concerned because of a situation in my constituency, and I'll be investigating it further as to the effectiveness of it.

Still on that subject, I'd like to ask: have there been in recent history, or even in the whole history of the Land Commission, situations where the contractor didn't perform to expectations and the bonds have been claimed by the Land Commission?

Hon. C. Evans: There has never been a case where the Land Commission actually had to end up doing the reclamation work themselves. There have been cases all through the history of the Land Commission where they had to actually cash the bond or letter of credit and take the money. But in every case where that has taken place, the landowners then set out to do the reclamation work themselves, and the Land Commission has never had to actually hire a contractor with the bond itself. The landowner or the proponent has always decided that they would do the work and then claim their money back. In one case on Vancouver Island, it took a court order to convince the landowner that they were actually going to lose the money. An injunction was issued and then the landowner did the work and the bond was returned.

J. van Dongen: If I could, I'll prevail on the minister to ask about the specific case of Charlie Iberg in Langley, which was referenced in our estimates discussion last year. There 

[ Page 622 ]

was a B.C. Gas line that went through. Was there a performance bond on that job? If so, what was the impact of having a performance bond in that situation, whatever resolution or non-resolution unfolded in that case? I know that the farmer involved was very unhappy. I haven't talked to him lately, but I am wondering what the role of the performance bond was in that case.

Hon. C. Evans: In the case of the Iberg land, there was no bond. The commission determined that it was a case of B.C. Gas crossing the land, and the commission instructed B.C. Gas to employ an agrologist to act as the monitor on the job between B.C. Gas and their contractor. It turned out that when it was finished, the job was not done to the satisfaction of Mr. Iberg, and it took negotiations among the agrologist, B.C. Gas, the Land Commission and the landowner before there was eventually a resolution.

The only good news seems to be that the Land Commission has learned from the experience, and it's not something which is likely to be repeated in future. I asked why there was no bond in this case, but I don't know the answer.

J. van Dongen: I appreciate the minister's response. I don't know exactly what the Land Commission has learned from it, but my own observations are that when you're dealing with governments or the larger companies -- but also governments, as in the case we have in Matsqui Prairie -- that's probably when you need to take the most precautions. When I was speaking to a lawyer about the situation in Matsqui Prairie, he made an interesting observation, and that was that local governments are the most oppressive governments there are. In our case, we're dealing with a regional district, which I think is even worse.

I hope that the Land Commission is ever-watchful on those situations, because when we consider the really scarce amount of good farmland, particularly in the Fraser Valley, and that we've got roads and pipelines of all kinds cutting it up in every direction, it's a real battle to maintain some of the integrity of that farmland. In the case I'm involved in right now, we're dealing with drainage as a problem, so it's a pretty serious situation.

I'm going to go on to a different topic, and first of all, I need some clarification in this. This is the issue of second dwellings on farmland and the permitting process that allows that to happen. I'm well aware of the interaction -- a lot of interaction -- between the Land Commission and local governments, which is good. I'm aware that in many situations and on many issues, the Land Commission delegates decision-making authority within certain parameters to local governments. But it seems to me there is a lot of variation between different local governments and many regional districts as to the ability for people to build second dwellings on farmland.

I know that in my own municipality -- the city of Abbotsford -- they have always had a very appropriately rigid policy whereby you have to have a very good reason, from the point of view of that farming operation, to build a second dwelling on that farm or on that particular parcel. I agree with that strict approach, but I see a lot of variation, and I wonder if the minister could first of all clarify the legal aspect of that issue from the point of view of the Land Commission. I wasn't sure that the Land Commission was involved in that; I didn't realize they were, but I gather they are. What is your legal involvement in that issue? How does it work in terms of delegating some responsibility to municipalities? Maybe we'll go with that first and I'll have some further questions.

[11:45]

Hon. C. Evans: Section 16 of the act empowers local governments to allow a second dwelling on land when it is "necessary to farm use." The commission has had success in some communities, such as those the member refers to, where very specific guidelines to define the terms "necessary" and "farm use" have been applied. However, the commission recognizes that there is a problem in that local governments around the province interpret "necessary" and "farm use" differently, and is attempting to address that by developing some guidelines and asking regional districts around the province to operate on the same interpretation of that section.

J. van Dongen: I have just one other question on that. Are there limits on the size of the second residences that can be built, and if not, would that be a consideration in the guidelines that you're talking about?

Hon. C. Evans: The commission doesn't say what size of house is a house, and hopes that local government will use building bylaws, zoning bylaws and the like to define what is appropriate. I recognize that, in the absence of a universal guideline of what kind of house is a house and what's appropriate to a piece of land, you can wind up with some anomalies that are deemed inappropriate by some people. Resolution, I would hope, would come from some kind of common sense at the community level or regional district level, or perhaps, if that can't be effected, through discussions with the UBCM. I think that the popularity of the ALR itself might be somewhat in jeopardy if people charged with looking after farmland were to try to define what is a house. It would make some people grumpy, and then the Land Commission would be a target.

J. van Dongen: I can certainly appreciate the concern about the Land Commission being unpopular. I think it's fairly popular amongst the public, but the people that are unhappy with it are certainly vocal. But it is a real problem, I think: the trade-off between local decision-making and doing what we think may be right for farmland. I think the minister knows that these very large houses -- and I'm sort of getting into the area of not just a second dwelling but what I call a residential use within the agricultural land reserve.... Those large houses in particular tend to impair the likelihood of those farm properties staying in farming over the longer term, because the house takes on a much higher value relative to the land, and that creates some further difficulties. Down the road, agriculture isn't going to be able to lay out the money to buy that ten- or 20-acre piece of orchard land to actually farm it. My experience is that local governments in particular tend to want to avoid unpopular decisions, and even though we hear lots of complaining about the size of the houses being built and whether they really are houses or hotels, nobody seems to want to do anything about it. Yet in many building or zoning situations we have equally restrictive guidelines on other types of buildings on property, whether they're on farmland or not on farmland.

I would encourage the minister to take a look at that if we're interested in preserving farmland in the long term, recognizing that, yes, the Land Commission will again be blamed for something that somebody considers a restriction of their freedoms. But those houses that are being built are not single-family homes, and I think that everyone involved, including local governments and people at the provincial level, are kidding themselves if they are going to consider them single-family dwellings -- which is technically, legally, 

[ Page 623 ]

what we're supposed to be considering them to be. I guess I'll just leave it at that, and leave it to the minister to consider that issue.

I'll just ask one or two more questions, and then I'm going to have to leave. I'll turn over the agenda to one or two other people. The value-for-money audit by the auditor general was considered received by the Public Accounts Committee a year ago, I guess. One of the issues that was flagged in that audit was the time it takes to process an application through the Land Commission, whether it's an application to exclude, or for some kind of subdivision or whatever. I'm wondering if the minister could comment on what has been done, what progress has been made and how performance is now being measured in that area.

Hon. C. Evans: Let's go back to the member's previous line of questioning first. The member finished up his comments about the size of a dwelling and the rules surrounding a private dwelling on agricultural land by saying that nobody seems to be willing to deal with it. Well, I'll you what: if you want to deal with it, you figure out what it ought to be, get your caucus to agree and I'll be your friend and try to make it happen. Okay?

On the second question of the value-for-money audit, I have good news to tell you. The commission took it seriously, and in the last year has reduced the amount of time it takes for an application to go through the process by approximately 50 percent. They set a target of 90 days from receipt of the application to issuance of the answer, and are now meeting that target in 70 percent of the applications. The audit identified that the Land Commission office was operating with some antiquated equipment, and recommended that they enter the computer age. They've done so, and there has been a really good return on that investment in that people's applications are being done in half the time.

J. van Dongen: I am pleased to accept the minister's offer. I'm sure we'll have some interesting discussions in caucus. I will say to the minister that I have talked to the chair of the Land Commission about the idea of having him, and others from his staff or the board, make a presentation to the agricultural committee. I know that members of our committee are looking forward to that, so we'll certainly be talking about this issue as well as many others.

With respect to the processing of applications, it's been put to me that there's some concern about service and, maybe, attitude. Is there anything besides the measurement of the time of the applications that it is being used as a measurement of service levels in general? Is there anything besides the time issue that's being measured? Could the minister maybe comment on that a little bit?

Hon. C. Evans: We keep track of the number of people who write in and say they're dissatisfied, and the number of people is going down.

[12:00]

G. Wilson: If we can shift gears a little bit.... I heard the generosity of the minister with respect to the offer made. I think there was a caveat, though, as it was "Get your caucus to agree," which is fairly safe for the minister, maybe, but....

Hon. C. Evans: It would be easier for you, though.

G. Wilson: Oh, much easier for me, hon. Chair. In fact, my next comment was that if you just simply make that offer to me, I'm sure that we could move along with great speed. I rarely have disagreement within my own caucus, but when I do it's profound, I have to tell you.

I want to ask some questions, and I don't have a lot of questions. I want to direct my remarks around the ALR with respect to the measurement of quantity, that is by hectare, of various classes of agricultural land, and the degree to which we are now starting to examine values of land in terms of revenue produced off that land by various types of agricultural production.

The reason I'm asking these questions is because there are a growing number of people who are involved or have been involved in agriculture, who are finding themselves less able to make money and therefore less able to provide for the welfare of their families, yet are locked onto land that they can't sell, can't market, and can't move. As somebody who strongly believes that we have to preserve and maintain the agricultural base of land in the province of British Columbia, it strikes me that, in order for us to do that and achieve the necessary goal of the reserve itself, we also have to measure, on the other side, the cost of doing that and who is bearing that cost.

I don't know whether or not, in looking through all the data that comes out of the ALR and the Agricultural Land Commission.... I don't see that there is much focus placed on an assessment of value -- that is, the value in a dollar sense -- of what's being generated off each parcel that is within the reserve.

Similarly, there are parcels of land that are prime subordinate, some even secondary class lands, that are producing substantial values in terms of product because of innovative and different techniques of farming -- particularly when you get into greenhouse, hothouse, those kinds of things.

I wonder if there is thinking within the ministry right now that we ought to shift focus, not so much to look at quantity of land class and type, but to start to examine the whole prospect of value -- to see whether or not there is another measure that might be more effective with respect to what kind of base of agricultural land protection ought to be in the province of B.C.

Hon. C. Evans: The answer is no.

G. Wilson: That's what I suspected the answer was, so I want to toss out some ideas that the minister might consider in this set of estimates for future budgetary consideration.

It strikes me that in the province as a whole -- I note this within the reports that come out from the Land Commission and certainly in the rhetoric that is part of the verbiage most politicians trot around, especially at election time -- the protection of the agricultural land reserve is in all our interests, the best interest of the people of British Columbia. The people of British Columbia benefit through the protection and preservation of agricultural land.

The problem is that the cost of it is borne by the farmers, the people who are actually on the land. That's the difficulty. Where I am heading with my remarks today is that the cost should be borne by the people of the province, because if it is in the people's best interest to protect agricultural land, then that cost should be borne more equitably by the people of the province. I put to the minister that if we were to do that, if we were to start to assess actual values -- that is, production values coming off each class of agricultural land -- and if we were to determine how those values could be enhanced 

[ Page 624 ]

through value-added production -- if I can use that term in the farming industries -- through new technologies, new techniques and perhaps product changes, we might find a much more equitable approach to agricultural land protection that doesn't shackle farmers onto land that they can't make any money on.

From voices that I hear as I travel the province, especially coming out of the Okanagan -- but not just the Okanagan -- the people crying most loudly now about getting out of the agricultural land reserve are the farmers themselves, people who can't make any money. Those who seek to expand their lot are finding that, in order for them to do that, there are some significant impediments to their ability to make that happen.

So I ask the minister this: has the minister considered that perhaps what we ought to be doing is looking at the creation of either an agricultural land trust or, as I would argue, and agricultural land bank that would allow farmers the opportunity to deposit that land into the bank. It would mean that we have to look at either joint stewardship on that land or perhaps even tenure changing hands, in terms of title, so that the farmer can look at the long-term protection of that land and can focus on the operational cost of the farm -- knowing that the cost of bearing out that land is now going to be borne by the province as a whole.

Hon. C. Evans: I guess the answer to the question which I think has been asked is also no. I'll comment about the philosophical underpinnings of the question.

It is true that when we created the agricultural land reserve, society said to the agricultural community: "We're going to make a decision to protect farmland, and you are going to pack that farmland for us into the future -- live on it, pay taxes on it, own it." And society put in a concomitant bunch of rules, or decisions, which said: "We'll pay you the cost of production for your farm crops." We operated for 20 years in a situation where about half the expenditures of this ministry were paying people the cost of production.

Happily, everything is sort of changing in process here. For one thing, the people who own farmland now in 1996 -- most of them, the great majority of them -- actually acquired that land as agricultural land reserve land. And 24 years have passed for folks who didn't acquire it as ALR land to adapt their cultural or economic practices to fit the ALR. The world is changing and saying: "If you give people the cost of production, we'll countervail your products." So we as a ministry are saying absolutely yes to the member's question: "Have we given thought to helping people put products on the land that they can sell?" You bet. That's most of what we do anymore. But similarly, we have reduced paying people the cost of production because their land is in the ALR. In the main, I find, there's general buy-in for that sea change. We should accept, as people in public life, that most or some of the folks the member is talking about have acquired their land knowing full well that it was agricultural land reserve land. There's nobody in the system that's shocked anymore.

Lastly, I want to say it is, of course, true that there are places where society's desire to protect farmland has a cost. The cost is borne by the agricultural community. We need to address that all the time and in many ways. We need to defend those people with right-to-farm legislation. We need to enhance those people with investments in product development, marketing and education. We need to make those people's lives easier by community planning and to see to it that their entire community accommodates those people.

The solution, though, isn't to say that in a given moment there are some pieces of land that are not making enough money to own that land. Over time, as the member knows full well, every part of the province would in one decade or another fall into such a category. Within our lifetimes, there would be no agricultural land reserve.

G. Wilson: I don't disagree with what the minister's saying with respect to trying to protect the integrity of the farming sector. There's no question that the countervail issue is a big problem, and we are now looking at greater threats with respect to international trade issues that come into play, marketing boards that now come under suspicion of being farms, and so on. That's not really where I'm directing my concern.

The reason I want to raise this in these estimates is that I believe that within the next two to four years there will be a very major thrust in British Columbia to redefine the equity position of farmers with respect to their land. The responsibility of the people of British Columbia -- if we take the choice to put it into a frozen situation such as the Agricultural Land Commission provides -- is that we're going to have to recognize that if it's a decision of government on behalf of the people of British Columbia, we're going to have to bear some responsibility for doing that. And there is going to have to be some protection for the equity position farmers have with respect to their land and future potential, in terms of retirement equity or whatever equities they may want as they come out of that agricultural process.

You and I can go and buy fee simple properties. We can run on it, do what we wish on it. We can sell it all off when we retire, and we can walk away, with a nice parcel of property which we've built up equity in because of wise investment. Farmers who sit on that land can't do that.

Local governments are consistently now putting in place zoning regulations and building restrictions. We heard from the member for Abbotsford, who was lamenting the fact that those local government restrictions weren't solid enough. I don't know how we can protect against that.

The fact of the matter is that we have made a decision for agricultural land to be protected in perpetuity, which I fully support, but we're doing it squarely and solely on the back of the farmers. I'm suggesting to the minister that there may be a better way. Instead of looking at the Agricultural Land Commission as essentially an administrative agency over agricultural land that is by legislation defined and protected, maybe we should be looking at the province establishing an agricultural land trust or land bank into which that land can be deposited in perpetuity so that the activities and actions off that land can generate profit for the farmer without the liability that farmer is going to have to carry as a result of not being able to sell that property for some other function, because he or she is frozen on that land as farmland.

It's an important public policy matter that I hope this minister will take seriously, because if we don't take the equity position of farmers on that land seriously -- and I offer this because I believe that what I am putting forward is supported by many people in the agricultural sector today -- we will find that the greatest threat to farmland will be those farmers who are no longer able to compete with local government issues and concerns, problems that are happening on the international market or countervail processes, and we'll lose viable farms. We'll protect the farmland, to be sure; it will be there in perpetuity; but we will not have a viable farming industry. The farming industry itself will not be there. I caution the minister, and I hope he'll take seriously the suggestions that are put forward today. If he has a comment on that, I'd like to hear it.

[ Page 625 ]

Hon. C. Evans: I'll take it seriously.

B. Barisoff: I don't think it's a fair statement by the minister to say that.

Farmers in the Okanagan who bought farms 24 years ago bought them based on the fact that the income stabilization program was in place. Now what has taken place with the Agricultural Land Commission is that, in government, we've frozen the land and they can't do anything with it. We have also taken away the income stabilization program. I think the hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast is right: what's taking place is that farmers can't make any money off their land, so in this situation they're basically cutting down the trees, leaving the land vacant and not farming at all, because when the government took away the income stabilization program they didn't allow that portion.... Their portion of the original agreement in '72 said that this is the only way we as government will take your land away. Now they have reneged on their half of the agreement.

There should be some comment by the minister. Something has to replace this kind of agreement with the farmers if they're to continue on in the ALR.

[12:15]

Hon. C. Evans: The hon. member is right: something has to replace the cost of production stabilization subsidies. I guess I think it has to be forms of crop insurance that give the farmers some hedge against acts of God and the weather. But on the production side, excellence has to replace those subsidies. Although everybody here can probably point to examples of people who are losing money, you can also point to examples -- as I know you can in your own constituency -- of people who are doing very well moving from a tonnage notion of how to be in business to an excellence notion of how to be in business and marketing what people want to buy instead of growing what it is they know how to sell.

So I don't argue with the member's point of view, but as he knows perfectly well, that transition is being made by the majority quite well.

B. Barisoff: While I think the minister is right in some respects on the fact that some of the farmers are doing well, there are a lot of farmers who aren't doing very well. I must commend the government on the tree-plant program, which is working very well. That's one of the programs, actually, that is probably the only thing saving a lot of the farm industry.

Carrying on with the same line of thinking, we've got a lot of farmers now who are tied to their land, who have bought since 1972. They can't sell their land with the house and go to try to buy a house in the community. The house in the community is probably costing not quite but almost as much as what they can sell their house and land for. The argument is: even though they bought later than 1972, why can't they have a severance where they could take their house off and put a covenant on the rest of the land saying that it can stay for agricultural purposes, and then sell it off to an existing farmer or somebody else? Has that been considered at all?

Hon. C. Evans: Yes, it has been considered. The obvious conclusion of moving in that direction, in many areas of B.C., would be the slow subdivision of agricultural land.

I don't want the member to think that I'm being flippant about other people's situations. I am in precisely that situation, owning land bought since 1972 with a house and some farmland on it, knowing full well that if I sold the whole thing, I couldn't move to town and buy a home. But I'm a grown-up, I made those decisions, and I will live a good life within the context of those investment decisions. We are not going to practise the kind of subsidy situation.... I can't think of the right.... We're not going to try to figure out a way to make it easier for people like me to change our minds. We don't do that for industries. In the logging industry, they all went into business and we doubled their stumpage, and they stay in business or they leave. In the fishing industry, they go into business and we change all the rules, and they stay in business or they leave. Everybody who started out as a legal secretary started out in an office where it took ten people to look after one lawyer, typing by hand; now one person looks after six lawyers. They stay in that work and retrain, or they leave. It's happening to all of us. It's happening in the work that we do. I don't think that it's correct to suggest that in this one industry, government or society should try to hedge people against change. In fact, to the extent we tried to protect people against change, we stuck them in a place where they didn't adapt to an evolving world market, evolving world technologies and changing consumer habits, and we hurt those people.

B. Barisoff: But the ultimate result in the Okanagan is that we end up with stump ranches where they cut them down. They can't look after the farm. In the case in point, the gentleman is 65 years old, he's sick, he can't farm any longer, but he can't sell his house off to buy the land. But in turn, he's prepared to put covenants on that land to say that nobody else can build on it -- and people will buy just the basic portion of the land to farm it. But the Agricultural Land Commission won't allow him to subdivide off his residence, stay there and have a covenant put on the land to say that it stays as farmland. Somebody else could buy that, as such, and farm the land, and it would stay in production. As it's turning out right now, the gentleman is going to cut the trees all down. As time goes on, erosion will blow the topsoil away and it will be gone.

Hon. C. Evans: I'm sure the hon. member knows that the situation he describes takes place in all our constituencies all the time. There are ways around it. You could encourage the gentleman to sell his land to a buyer who will allow him a lifetime lease on his home as part of the agreement of sale. It happens all the time, everywhere. That's only one of a bunch of solutions that the hon. members knows people bring to this situation.

B. Barisoff: Carrying further down the line, there are other instances where the farmland becomes frozen, and the ALR doesn't seem to go out and check. The example I'm going to use here is where a gentleman up in the Christian Valley, which is probably something that you and I wouldn't consider to be part of farmland, has built on the rocks. He's bought since '72. He wants to sell the rest of the land to his son, and he wants to build on the other portion of the rocks and maintain the farmland. We can't seem to get through to the ALR bureaucracy that that's a good idea. The reason that he has is that it could set a precedent for somewhere else. Well, when we look up into Kelowna and the Glenmore Valley, those are precedents of taking good farmland out, not when you look down at something like the Christian Valley where there's no farmland around in the ALR. Yet this can't take place. The minister has got to look into these kinds of things if things are going to happen to get some credibility back into some of the decisions that are made.

[ Page 626 ]

Hon. C. Evans: Well, the hon. member is right in that the minister and the commission have to constantly review all parts of British Columbia to fine-tune what we do in order to maintain the credibility in the system. The Christian Valley is scheduled for review this fall, and it might be that we don't get to another set of estimates with you having this problem.

I would remind the member that if.... Of course, I know nothing about the individual case he describes, but in the case of a parent who wishes to sell the farm to their children, the Land Commission since 1972 has had provision for exactly that. That's the provision for the second residence for a parent that wishes to get out of the business of farming. I would bet all off us have had exact situations like that in our constituencies.

B. Barisoff: These really aren't farms. Up there, from what I understand, the elk are taking over, if you want to call it anything. There's nothing there other than wildlife taking over the areas.

Further along this same line of questioning are the areas where school districts are looking for land to put schools. I don't understand why, if a school district, a hospital or whatever is looking for a piece of land that happens to fall within the ALR, we have to not use a piece of land that probably suits the area and its needs for the area of concern. Is the minister at all looking into this area where other forms of government are looking for land that is tied up? And probably the particular incident.... I hope I didn't steal the thunder from the member for Okanagan-Penticton. The case in point is in Summerland -- and you probably know better than I do -- where they've been stalled for years and years, looking for a piece of land to put a new high school on. Consequently, we're looking at total renovations to the school. We've gone back and forth in many different ways and yet it seems that forms of government aren't looking at a piece of land that could be utilized. Even though it's being taken out of farmland.... I think sometimes we've got to look at the fact that children that are coming up are also an important part of our society.

Hon. C. Evans: The Land Commission deals with this issue all the time. It's not just schools. Churches also wish to take land out of the ALR. They make the argument that it's not just children that are important parts of society, but that worshippers are too. The Land Commission takes the position, and the government takes the position, that this is precisely the function of community planning. We encourage communities to do community plans to find suitable pieces of land that are non-agricultural in nature to put institutions on.

The Land Commission works all the time with different school boards to try to assist them in finding appropriate pieces of land, and I believe that the principle that public education or public worship or public roads are important to society doesn't reflect on the integrity of the ALR. Of course they're important to society. You've got to have roads and schools and churches, but what we've got to do is find ways to plan the growth of a community so that, wherever possible, they're not placed on agricultural land.

B. Barisoff: The only problem is that most of the land in the Okanagan is in the ALR. If you look at planning, the only choice a lot of the municipalities and regional districts have is to put schools in areas that are in the ALR. We don't have a choice. We don't have that luxury of having all kinds of pieces of vacant land, because land in the Okanagan -- most of it I should say -- is probably in the ALR land base. So when they do their planning, they do plan for areas to put schools, but there are no areas that they could plan which would be suitable for educational purposes that wouldn't be in the ALR.

Hon. C. Evans: I don't have the percentage of land in the Okanagan that's in the ALR. I'm sorry about that, but I'll tell you what my I guess is. My guess is that it's perfectly reasonable that school boards tend to find land that's in the ALR preferable because they can afford it. Suitable land that's not in the ALR is in competition with the development community. We're saying the farmer would keep the farm as farmland, and therefore have a low value until some school board wants to buy it. Then the school board is facilitated to buy the land because it's at an arbitrarily lower land value than the land around it.

I think that's a completely wrongheaded use of the agricultural land reserve. I don't want to be in any way stuck or pigheaded about it, but you have to work with your community to go through a planning exercise to find appropriate land. When they say to you that they can't, please ask them: "Are you saying you can't and giving us an economic answer, or a land availability answer?" If it's an economic answer, then they're really asking you to take land out of the ALR because it's cheaper.

[12:30]

B. Barisoff: Land availability is the most important thing. The other thing is the location, so you're not putting something where you're putting out a tremendous amount of dollars and busing people to whichever area that might be. It's more land availability than it is economics for what takes place.

When you look at choices of school sites -- it's usually elementary school sites you're looking at -- you want to put them in areas that are relatively close to the population that you're trying to serve. When you do that, you're on the fringes of whatever. In turn, the Land Commission gives land to municipalities, but doesn't take it out of the ALR. Then they really don't have a choice of sending you anywhere but outside the municipality. You're creating other costs for government. Whether it's in the arm of education or wherever, it just creates another cost for government.

R. Thorpe: I would like some clarification on a comment that I thought I heard the minister make.

Hon. C. Evans: I take it back.

R. Thorpe: Would you like to hear the question?

Hon. C. Evans: Sure. I was just teasing. Sorry.

R. Thorpe: I don't mind, I like your style; it's great.

Hon. minister, I thought I heard you say the agricultural land reserve is responsible for depressing -- you didn't use that word; that's my interpretation of what I thought I heard -- the value of the land that many of our farmers and orchardists have worked their lifetime at, and therefore it would be depriving them of the same style of retirement and lifestyle after they've worked this land for so long. Is that what the minister said and meant?

[ Page 627 ]

Hon. C. Evans: All zoning impacts the price of land. The minister said it and it's true and we all know it. The agricultural land reserve is a form of zoning, and it impacts the value of land -- not only the land that we're talking about but the land around it.

R. Thorpe: One of the things I have begun to appreciate about this particular minister is his approach, his frankness. I believe one of the things that I have picked up is that he believes in fairness. I'm just wondering if we shouldn't be looking into some form of ensuring that people who have put in so much time really are treated fairly. My friend from Okanagan-Boundary cited as an example the 65-year-old sick gentleman and his wife.

Do you not think that when we're building these kinds of bureaucracies and rules and regulations that we should have that common sense and fairness clause that people can be treated with some respect and fairness in the later parts of their lives?

Hon. C. Evans: Yes, I do. Probably you wanted more of an answer than that.

The earlier question on whether the Land Commission is changing its process to be fairer to people so stuff goes faster is a really important one, and you got a good answer: it's going twice as fast as it was two years ago.

The question whether it isn't important to be fair to an older family that wishes to pass on the farm to their kids is really important, and maybe I didn't elaborate enough. Right from the get-go, it was built into the system that when folks wish to retire they can sell their land to their kids and move into a trailer on the same land. They are allowed a second dwelling on the same land in most cases. I think when land is inappropriately in, it's fair to send commission people out to inspect it and to see if it's appropriate or inappropriate. Sure, I think fairness is important. I also think the principle has to be that, as a society, we keep the stock of farmland intact and then we solve these problems of fairness for people from generation to generation rather than saying that the solution to fairness is to attack the principle, which I hope none of us would agree with.

R. Thorpe: I appreciate the direction of your answer. I too want to clearly state that I endorse and support the overall principles of the ALR. But I think we need to work together in trying to introduce fairness so that situations where some form of unfair treatment are potentially existing.... You talk about people having the ability to stay in their house so that their children can put the trailer on the property and live there. Well, that's great if you have children; if you don't have children, you've got a problem. So I think we need to work together, and as you've been in the last, I guess, just a day, throwing back to our critic the possibility of getting together and working for equitable solutions and bringing forward solutions, I hope that you would welcome our constructive views in addressing fairness for situations like this. I trust that the ALR and the ALC would also look forward to that kind of input.

J. Wilson: I just can't help but hear something here -- I thought my ears were playing tricks. Did you actually say that if you wished to retire, you could put another dwelling on a piece of agricultural land and hand it down to your children and live there? Is that the statement?

Hon. C. Evans: Yes, you did hear me say that, and now I will clarify that. What you can do if you own a farm, wish to retire, and have kids is put a trailer on your land, let your kids live in the house, and move into the trailer. In some cases you can put a second dwelling with a foundation on the land, but you have to apply to the Land Commission and get dispensation to do that. In some cases where, for farm purposes, it is of value to let more than one of your kids live on the land, you can put more than one trailer on the land, but you have to apply to the Land Commission and make the argument that it has to do with farm purposes.

J. Wilson: I have a problem understanding why you would use a trailer rather than a standard dwelling if you wanted to let one of your children live there. What significance does a trailer have over a standard dwelling?

Hon. C. Evans: Well, I withdraw the word "trailer." I meant to say manufactured home. I say that not because these guys told me to but because I got taught when I was inspecting the manufacturing facilities of manufactured homes that they're insulted if you call them trailers. So I really meant to say manufactured home.

The reason you can put a manufactured home on there and not a regular house is, I hope, obvious. The intention of the older couple moving out and the younger couple moving in is continuity, right? Somebody is going to farm the farm. It is presumed that your parents won't live forever, so you build this dwelling on there to provide that overlap, that continuity, that 40 years or 30 years, or whatever it is. But you don't actually change the shape of the land during those decades that there are two generations living there.

One other thing I want to tell you that I learned in the forest industry is that manufactured homes are the norm, hon. member. There are more folks out there buying them than the kinds of homes that some of us think of as ordinary. In fact, it is the norm in lots of societies.

J. Wilson: Then I assume that you cannot bring in, as a manufactured home, a double-wide and set it up on a foundation and live in it. Your lifestyle is restricted severely when you're forced to live under these conditions and to work for maybe 20 or 30 years waiting for your parents to die off so you can come into their house.

Hon. C. Evans: All of us make decisions in life that restrict our lifestyle -- I would suggest that getting this job is probably one of the most serious -- and we accept that. There are people out there living on gill-netters or troll boats; when I made shake blocks, I lived in a tent. We all make decisions related to what it is that we need to do. I don't think that something that's 68 feet long and 12 feet wide is a very serious restriction. It's a lot of land, a lot of ground. If a younger family needs more space and more bedrooms, they could move into the house and the older couple could move into the 68-foot-long dwelling. If that isn't enough, they could apply to the commission to see if they could get dispensation for even more square footage.

And then, I think, he could stand up next year and say that actually they can't make enough selling food to afford that kind of house.

J. Wilson: I appreciate what the hon. minister is saying here, but in actual fact in a lot of areas what has happened is that the Agricultural Land Commission has downloaded onto 

[ Page 628 ]

the CRD, and said: "You run this. These are our recommendations. You can put a second dwelling on there for a hired man or whatever. You can't put a second dwelling on there for your kids or grandkids, or for your mother or your father, if they want to live there." They won't allow you to do it. It doesn't happen. In many cases, if it is not an employee of the outfit, you cannot put another dwelling on that property. Those are the actual facts. I just thought I would bring this to the hon. minister's attention.

R. Thorpe: As the minister is well aware, I'm from a riding where manufactured homes are made. Just prior to or during.... There was an amazing statement which was appreciated in Penticton. But from a regulatory sense, Mr. Minister, what is the difference between a home and a manufactured home?

The Chair: I'm not sure this is in the minister's estimates.

Hon. C. Evans: The intent, at least, of the regulations is that a manufactured home is a temporary situation and a home that's actually built on the site is assumed to be permanent.

[12:45]

R. Thorpe: First, it may or may not be within the purview of this, but I believe it was raised over there, so we'll try to respond to it. One of the things that I believe I heard last night was an approach of partnerships. Like all caucuses, certain people have different views on what partnership is and is not. But the minister had some interesting comments on partnership last night. He also had some comments, I believe, about working together and common sense, etc.

We're talking about competitiveness and target-marketing, uniqueness... to survive off the land because of the international marketplace. Can the minister share with us the cross-sharings of ideas that the commission and perhaps the Minister of Agriculture and other ministries may or may not have, on making sure that what was the overall intent here is applicable to the world we live in today?

Hon. C. Evans: It's a really good question, although it is 12:45 or something, so I'll try and answer as quickly as I can. When the Land Commission was created, we sort of dropped it on the province. It was created by aerial photographs. You can imagine in your mind some guy flying over with a big airplane and dropping this zoning regulation on the people of British Columbia.

The partnerships that we're talking about are an attempt.... I think it's new and it's a wonderful initiative to try to relate the agricultural land reserve to the community plans of all of the different communities out there -- from yours to mine to the communities in the Cariboo or the lower mainland.

It is some kind of community planning that will allow us to make the agricultural land reserve fit the nature of the culture in the area. I think there's general buy-in. It's my experience in discussions I had in the last government around the freedom-to-farm legislation that that's exactly what the agricultural communities out there were pretty much asking for. I have experience as a regional district director of kind of sitting on your side saying to the Land Commission, "Let my people go," and the Land Commission saying: "Well, make a community plan and we'll talk about it."

And it is only in the planning phase that the local government can grapple with the issues the commission is dealing with and come to some understanding. So I think all that's good.

Another example of partnerships: We used to appoint people to the Land Commission according to some variables which I don't pretend to fathom. But in recent years, increasingly, we have appointed people from the regions to the Land Commission -- and in the case of my own constituency, people who actually raise beef cattle. That's creating partnerships with the agricultural community.

Time is also working on our side. Our generation of people who are actually engaged in these estimate debates were in our twenties when they passed this law, or thirties. Partnerships are developing simply because most of the businesses that are extant out there today and most of the leadership that's extant today grew up with the fact of the land reserve and is working in terms of it, instead of trying to buck it all the time.

I'll come back next week, you guys. Don't worry about it.

The Chair: There is really just time for one quick question.

R. Thorpe: It's not even a question, it's somewhat of a statement. I appreciate your answer. Obviously I am asking my original question because I am eventually going to attempt to go somewhere with this question. I would just hope that we would continue, whether it would be that side of the House or this side of the House -- and, of course, the independents -- to look at some meaningful stuff, that we're not just going through an exercise here in good old gobbledegook, but that we really are.... I would just like the minister's undertaking that we really can work in a meaningful and a timely -- I think timely is one of the words we have to fit into this equation -- way in developing strategies that we can really implement to ensure that farmers and orchardists are treated fairly and equitably.

Hon. C. Evans: The answer in terms of working together is yes. The answer in terms of doing anything that attacks the integrity of the ALR is no. We'll be really nice and get along so long as we're working together, and I'll be the worst person you ever tried to deal with if I think we're trying to take apart something I believe in. There's an answer.

I move that the committee rise and report progress and go home for the weekend.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 12:51 p.m.

Copyright © 1996: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada