(Hansard)
MONDAY, JULY 22, 1996
Afternoon
Volume 1, Number 25, Part 1
[ Page 629 ]
The House met at 2:06 p.m.
Prayers.
Hon. G. Clark: I have in the gallery today a friend of mine from my constituency, Paul Tigchelaar, who is here with his family: Arnie Tigchelaar, Sharon Tigchelaar and Steve Henderson. I'd ask all members to make them most welcome.
Hon. D. Streifel: Today in the House, in the gallery and on the floor, we have 36 representatives of Ad Hoc '96, which is made up of the B.C. Association for Community Living, the B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities and the Canadian Mental Health Association, B.C. division.
Hon. Speaker, I am pleased to individually welcome Mary Williams with her attendant Ms. Falconer, Carol Dixon, Geoff McMurchy, Margaret Birrell, George Lawson, Laurie Williams, Nicole Canow, Pushpa Patel, Ted Hobbs, Tom McGregor, Ian Hinksman, Patty Gibson, Anita Dadson, Joanne Calkins, Gerry Juzenas, Sandy McCartie, Eric MacNaughton, Rosemary Juszko, David Swatske, May Ng, Robin Loxton, Zara Macleod, Sam Rizvi, Cindy Marshall, Freda MacLellan, Ronnie Phipps, Judy Carter-Smith, Marcella Baldwin, Sue Scott, Barbara Carter, Dick Calkins, Lynn Rolko, Else Strand, Olga Carter and John Maddison.
Before I bid the House make these folks welcome, hon. Speaker, I would like to pass on my appreciation, and appreciation on behalf of these folks, for the cooperation your office has shown in accommodating them as they come here today for a very special occasion. Would the House please make my friends welcome.
P. Reitsma: In the audience today -- on the top left, actually -- is a friend of mine and a friend of local politics, Jim Abram, who is an electoral director of Comox-Strathcona and also a director-at-large of the UBCM. He is president of Local 20232 of the Union of Canadian Transport Employees, and he is the principal lightkeeper at the Cape Mudge light station. Please make him welcome. He's the one that's got a flashlight with him as well.
D. Symons: I would like to add my welcome to Nicole Canow and Zara Macleod. I've known Zara for a good number of years. She's here with the Coalition of People with Disabilities, and she has done an admirable job in bringing their issues to my attention and been a good friend over the years, so welcome to them. Would the House join me in welcoming them again.
Hon. S. Hammell: Hon. Speaker, I have a number of introductions for the House today, and all these people have a deep commitment to child care. In the House today is one of the Provincial Child Care Council chairs, Sheila Davidson, director of the SFU children's centre; from Westcoast Child Care Resource Centre, Maryann Bird, the executive director, and Karen Norman, the chairperson of the board of directors; from Early Childhood Educators of B.C., Joyce Branscombe, the executive director; from the University of Victoria school of child and youth care, Dr. Alan Pence; and from the UBC provincial infant development centre, Dana Bryndelson, provincial adviser, infant development programs of B.C.; and two special guests of Dr. Alan Pence: Peter Moss, senior researcher and associate professor at the University of London and coordinator of the European Union Child Care Commission, and Dr. Gunilla Dahlberg, senior researcher and associate professor at the University of Stockholm. Would the House please make all these people welcome.
Hon. C. Evans: Hon. Speaker, I would like to introduce what might be the last person left in the gallery who was not already introduced by the Minister of Social Services or the Minister of Women's Equality: Silas White, probably the youngest bestselling author in British Columbia. He's author of the book Local Heroes about hockey players, a UBC student and a truly important member of B.C.'s cultural community. Will the House please make him welcome.
F. Randall: I notice in the gallery this afternoon we have a crew from Rogers Communications Inc. out of Burnaby: Harley Steubing, Chris Siver and Costa Grigoriadis, and they're here, I believe, to interview the Burnaby MLAs today. Also, I notice in the gallery Len Werden, who is president of the B.C. and Yukon Territory Building and Construction Trades Council, and his assistant Leslie Roosa. Would the House please make them all welcome.
W. Hurd: I'm pleased to see in the gallery today a former colleague of mine, Jack Toovey, who's with the Association of B.C. Professional Foresters, and I hope the assembly would join me in making him welcome.
R. Thorpe: Today visiting the House is a colleague, Paul Smith, who I worked with some 16 years ago. Paul and his family are in the process of relocating to British Columbia. I'd ask all members of the House to please welcome Paul.
G. Robertson: Anna Vanderkamp, from my constituency -- in particular, Port Hardy -- has completed the first phase of the rowing competition at the Olympics and is going into the semifinals. On behalf of the members of this House, I would ask that you consider sending Anna our support, greetings and encouragement.
The Speaker: Thank you, member; it is ordained.
Hon. D. Streifel presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Disability Benefits Program Act.
Hon. D. Streifel: I wish to recognize the extensive work done by the community over the last year in advancing the awareness of issues relating to people with disabilities. They have been tireless in their pursuit of a new approach to income support for these British Columbians, who face substantial challenges to achieving financial independence.
This bill is the first step in the process of modernizing and updating a broad range of programs for people with disabilities. In partnership, government and communities have worked hard to reform the disability benefits program and to
[ Page 630 ]
develop a new act which embodies the principles and policy goals of the disability benefits program. The bill is based on the premise that British Columbians are committed to preserving a social safety net which is responsive to changing social and economic circumstances.
[2:15]
I am proud to be the minister tabling this bill today. It is the first of its kind in Canada, one which I believe will pave the way for national reform of programs for persons with disabilities. Furthermore, British Columbians support people with disabilities by treating them with fairness, dignity and sensitivity to the diverse needs of individuals. The bill provides for the disability benefits program, which supports the inclusion and integration of people with disabilities into their communities. It also authorizes the distribution of financial benefits and services to people eligible for the program. By the introduction of this bill, government recognizes the unique situation of people with disabilities who are in need. It also separates the disability benefits program from other income assistance programs.
Hon. Speaker, I move the bill be read a first time now.
Bill 15 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. S. Hammell presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled BC Benefits (Child Care) Act.
Hon. S. Hammell: It's my pleasure to introduce Bill 13. Along with other B.C. Benefits legislation, this bill creates a framework for implementing B.C. Benefits, which is this government's strategy to renew the social safety net. B.C. Benefits changes the whole approach to welfare, introducing policies and programs that meet the social and economic challenges facing us as we approach the twenty-first century.
As part of this government's plan to invest in jobs and our economy, we have worked to strengthen the child care system in this province. Child care helps open the doors for parents to search for jobs and to get the training and work they need to support their families. This act states government's commitment to a strong child care system in the province. It addresses the needs of children for quality child care settings and the needs of low-income parents for financial assistance with child care costs. This act recognizes that child care services support parents in attaining and maintaining employment or training, and will greatly assist in moving from income assistance to employment and independence. Bill 13, on its own and as part of the B.C. Benefits legislation, strongly reflects a belief that the opportunity to work and achieve self-sufficiency and self-determination is fundamental to the quality of life for British Columbians and their communities.
I move the bill be read a first time now.
Bill 13 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. D. Streifel presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled BC Benefits (Income Assistance) Act.
Hon. D. Streifel: It is my pleasure to introduce Bill 14, the BC Benefits (Income Assistance) Act. This bill is the cornerstone of a package of legislation designed to replace the Guaranteed Available Income for Need, or GAIN Act, under which income assistance benefits have been provided since 1979. These bills will create a legislative framework for the implementation of B.C. Benefits, this government's strategy to renew the social safety net.
B.C. Benefits changes the whole approach to welfare, introducing policies and programs that meet the social and economic challenges of the 1990s. Rather than a one-size-fits-all approach, symbolized by the GAIN Act, B.C. Benefits tailors programs and benefits to meet specific needs. Children, youth, people with disabilities and those requiring child care assistance will be served under separate acts. Recent changes to the Income Tax Act have already authorized the payment of a monthly family bonus to eligible low-income families.
This bill, the BC Benefits (Income Assistance) Act, will focus on adults 25 and older, providing basic income support and new opportunities to help them move toward self-sufficiency. Bill 14 clarifies and strengthens the ministry's ability to prevent and detect fraud and abuse, helping to ensure that assistance goes only to those who are truly in need. Through consequential amendments to the Child, Family and Community Service Act, this bill also ensures that children who have left home will have alternatives to welfare. They will be supported through the ministry's child protection division.
Bill 14, on its own and as part of B.C. Benefits, strongly reflects a belief that we have written into the BC Benefits (Income Assistance) Act: the opportunity to work and to achieve self-sufficiency and self-determination is fundamental to the quality of life for British Columbians and their communities.
Bill 14 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. A. Streifel presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled BC Benefits (Appeals) Act.
Hon. D. Streifel: Hon. Speaker, the BC Benefits (Appeals) Act is proposed to establish one appeal system for B.C. Benefits programs. The BC Benefits (Appeals) Act applies to appeals from decisions to deny, reduce or discontinue benefits under the BC Benefits (Child Care) Act, the BC Benefits (Income Assistance) Act, the BC Benefits (Youth Works) Act and the Disability Benefits Program Act. The two levels of appeal, community-based tribunals and the appeal board currently found in the GAIN Act and regulations, are maintained in the provisions of this bill. This bill will ensure there is fair, accessible and timely process available within the social safety net for those who feel that they have not been treated fairly.
I move that the bill be read a first time now.
Bill 16 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
[ Page 631 ]
I. Chong presented a bill intituled Donation of Food Act.
I. Chong: Hon. Speaker, this bill has been available to the government for some time. It was first introduced in April of 1995 by my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver-Langara. This bill provides that a person who donates food or who distributes donated food is not liable for injuries or death resulting from the consumption of the donated food, unless the person intended to injure the recipient of the food or acted recklessly in donating or distributing the food.
The need for legislation such as this should be obvious to all members. We are living in a society where, for some, the basic necessity of food is non-existent unless provided for by others. This is evident, as we have seen a tremendous growth in the area of food banks and soup kitchens. As more people have needed emergency food, this bill has gained support from numerous non-profit agencies that feed the poor -- agencies such as the Mustard Seed Food Bank, the Community Social Planning Council of Greater Victoria, the Greater Victoria Food Distribution Network, Victoria's Upper Room Society soup kitchen, the Greater Vancouver Food Bank Society, the Cranbrook Food Bank Society, the Quesnel and District Food Bank, and IWA-Canada Local 1-405 Holding Society. In addition, a number of local councils support this proposed legislation, such as the city of Victoria, the city of Quesnel, the town of View Royal, the town of Sidney, the corporation of the district of Oak Bay and the corporation of the city of Cranbrook, just to name a few.
Currently, this legislation has been enacted in six Canadian provinces, and I believe it is time British Columbia considers this important and much-needed legislation.
I move that this bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill M203 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
J. Weisgerber presented a bill intituled Financial Administration Amendment Act, 1996 (Special Warrant Abolition).
J. Weisgerber: Mr. Speaker, the bill has two purposes. First, this bill abolishes entirely the use of special warrants. Second, the bill introduces the use of supplementary supply, which requires the summoning of the Legislative Assembly and the approval of this body prior to a minister authorizing the spending of funds not previously passed during estimates.
As the auditor general notes, a fundamental cornerstone of parliamentary democracy is the principle of parliamentary approval of government spending. Yet due to conditions in the late 1800s and early 1900s, such as slow transportation and inadequate communications, special warrant spending was used due to the difficulties in summoning the Members of the Legislative Assembly to debate a funding request. Times have changed a great deal, and now the Lieutenant-Governor, with only a few hours' notice, can summon the Legislative Assembly. Yet governments, some more than others, authorize the spending of billions of dollars by special warrants, thus completely circumventing all opportunities for public debate on the merit of those spending priorities.
The special warrant is a Canadian aberration not found in other jurisdictions. It's an antiquated practice that doesn't permit proper scrutiny of government decisions. At the same time, we recognize that there has to be a mechanism for debating and passing legitimate additional spending requests. This bill recognizes modern transportation and communication networks and the demands of taxpayers who require and deserve accountability from their politicians. No longer should governments be legally entitled to spend taxpayers' money unencumbered by public debate or scrutiny. In other words, Mr. Speaker, not a dime without debate.
Bill M204 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
USE OF FOREST RENEWAL REVENUES
M. de Jong: Last week -- all of last week, in fact -- this government flipped and flopped about how, why and when it was going to effect its raid on Forest Renewal dollars. It took them a few days, but we finally got an excuse from the Minister of Forests. The Minister of Forests was quoted as saying that it would be unfair to hold him to promises made by a previous government. Let's leave aside the obvious, about who the previous government was. Maybe he could tell us which promise he was referring to. I'll give him some choices. Was it (a) the promise from the member for Saanich South to create an insurance fund for forests? Was it (b) the promise from the member for Mission-Kent to put stumpage fees right back into the land? Or was it (c) the promise from the member for Harry Rosen, also known as Yale-Lillooet, that no greedy minister will dip their fingers into the pot? Which one of those promises was it?
[2:30]
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Can I remind the member
What this government has done is deliver on its promise to increase the funding for forest renewal in each and every region of the province. In Cariboo-Chilcotin we're doubling -- from $14 million to $30 million. We're doubling the expenditures in Thompson-Okanagan. In the Kootenay-Boundary area, we're doubling -- from $18 million to $30 million. In the Omineca-Peace region we're going from $23 million to $44 million. We're doubling there. In Skeena-Bulkley we're going from $17 million last year to a target this year of $36 million. In the Pacific region, in which this member sits, we're going from $55 million to $107 million. That's delivering on our promises!
M. de Jong: I heard the comment, and it's true, that the Cariboo straight-shooter is firing a little crooked these days -- because the facts say something quite different. He's not dealing with the issue, which is this government's assault on Forest Renewal funds. He wants to avoid that issue, but he can't avoid the fact that his decision to join with the Finance minister in his assault on Forest Renewal funds represents a gross abandonment of his duty to the forest-dependent families in British Columbia. This is his chance to show some courage. This is his chance to do his duty. Will he stand up in this House today and tell the people of the Cariboo, and tell
[ Page 632 ]
the people of British Columbia, that as long as he is responsible for watching Forest Renewal B.C., those dollars will stay with Forest Renewal B.C. for the purpose they were originally intended?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I keep wondering if the member for Matsqui has ever met a forest-dependent family; I have. I know the difference between standing up for forest-dependent communities and not standing up for forest-dependent communities. Standing up for forest-dependent communities is bringing certainty by bringing in land use planning, which those people on that side did not support. Their predecessors, the previous government, left us in terrible shape, with conflicts all over the province. It's bringing in the Forest Practices Code to give certainty to all the values in the
C. Clark: Last week the Minister of Environment said that he thought it was perfectly acceptable to steal money from Forest Renewal B.C. that would otherwise have gone into environmental protection.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Excuse me, member. Choose your words.
C. Clark: Mr. Speaker, let me rephrase that. Last week the Minister of Environment said that he thought it was perfectly acceptable to raid the money from Forest Renewal B.C. in order to cover up the NDP budget shortfall.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Excuse me, member. I can't hear you.
C. Clark: Well, I'll try again.
The Speaker: Could we have some order, members. I literally cannot hear the question. Please proceed, member.
C. Clark: Last week the Minister of Environment said that he thought it was perfectly acceptable to raid the money from Forest Renewal B.C. in order to cover up the NDP budget shortfall. As the Minister of Environment, it is his duty to be the voice for environmental protection within this government and within cabinet. How can he support raiding money from B.C.'s environmental protection trust fund?
Hon. P. Ramsey: If the member opposite spent a little more time listening to the response of members on this side of the House and a little less pursuing media reports, maybe she'd understand the position of this government. This ministry and this government are committed to defending B.C.'s forest, the forest workers and forest communities, and we're committed to continue to invest in our forest resource. As my colleague the Minister of Forests just reported to you yet again, we spent more on forest renewal this year than last, we're going to spend more next year than this, and we are going to ensure that Forest Renewal B.C. has the necessary funds to carry out all the programs it's mandated to do for the forests of British Columbia.
C. Clark: This government is prepared to raid $400 million from B.C.'s environmental trust fund. The Minister of Forests was just outside, saying that projects like stream restoration and other environmental projects are long-term projects. Meanwhile, the Minister of Environment supports raiding the long-term funding for those projects. Can he tell us if there is any reason he supports raiding long-term funding for environmental restoration, other than the fact that his government has discovered a $235 :million sinkhole in its budget?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The facts are clear. This government is committed to doing the right thing by our forests, and Forest Renewal B.C. is going to carry out its mandate. We have invested tens of millions of dollars in stream restoration, supervised by the Ministry of Environment, through Forest Renewal B.C., and we're going to do more next year. We spent tens of millions of dollars getting accurate wildlife inventories for the first time, so we can do good planning, under the Forest Practices Code, for all environmental values in our forests. That's the commitment of Forest Renewal B.C., and that's the commitment of this government.
G. Abbott: When Forest Renewal was introduced in British Columbia, rural British Columbians were concerned that forest money would end up being funnelled out of their regions and not reinvested. In 1994, Don Wright, an ADM of policy and planning in Finance, said that the provincial government "risks being sued if it fails to return a fair share of northern B.C.'s $655 million contribution to the forest renewal plan." My question is to the Minister of Finance. Is he aware that his own civil service believes that he can be sued for this transparent ripoff of forest-dependent communities in B.C.?
Hon. A. Petter: This is the only opposition I know that would attack a government for running a surplus. If the member had listened, he would have heard from the Minister of Forests that we are spending more money this year than last in all the regions of the province under Forest Renewal, consistent with the commitments this government made, and that we are committed to continuing Forest Renewal and the program continuity fund, because we're determined to see those dollars returned to British Columbia to invest in our forests and the future of our forest communities.
G. Abbott: Mr. Speaker, we certainly wouldn't have any difficulty identifying a surplus made by this government, if they ever actually produced one. Mr. Wright goes on to say: "Ultimately, if people did feel that the government wasn't living up to these regional equitability criteria, I suppose people would actually take it to court."
Now the Finance minister is taking money out of those regions to make up for his blatant vote-buying in other parts of the province. My question is to the Minister of Finance. If he won't consider the appeals of rural British Columbians, will he at least consider the advice of his own staff and take his hands out of the cookie jar?
Hon. A. Petter: Nothing is coming out of the regions. In fact, more money is going into the regions. What the member is referring to is the commitment of this government to ensure that the money spent by Forest Renewal is spent on a region-
[ Page 633 ]
ally equitable basis. That was put into the legislation, and we are ensuring that that money is spent on an equitable basis. That's why the Minister of Forests was able to stand up here and announce today the increases that are taking place region by region by region, around this province, to ensure that the investments go back to those regions on a equitable basis.
W. Hurd: Mr. Speaker, looking back through the pages of Hansard is like shooting fish in a barrel. The Minister of Finance, when he was Minister of Forests, said: "It was understood in the first two years or so of Forest Renewal that more money would be coming in than would be going
The Minister of Finance, when he was Minister of Forests, talked about the virtue of building up a surplus, building up a fund. Will he leave that fund alone for the benefit of forest-dependent communities in British Columbia?
Hon. A. Petter: I think the member should re-examine his fish. The fact is that more money continues to flow into Forest Renewal than flows out -- much more. There is a program continuity fund that is fully committed in Forest Renewal to provide exactly for that added measure of security for Forest Renewal. In fact, Forest Renewal was intended to gradually build up a surplus in the range of $400 million. My understanding is that it's now in the range of $800 million. In fact, the very thing that the member is referring to has occurred. Forest Renewal is making investments, and those investments are increasing. The funds have come into Forest Renewal, and the program continuity fund is fully subscribed.
W. Hurd: The IWA doesn't agree with the minister. Darrel Wong, local president of the IWA, was quoted Saturday as saying: "We don't want to see any moneys leaving for anything other than forestry jobs. I'm obviously very concerned." We know the government doesn't listen to anyone else, but they do listen to the unions.
Will the Minister of Forests commit today to the IWA and to forest-dependent communities that as a member of the Forest Renewal board he will defend this fund in its entirety and will stand up for the forest-dependent communities when he goes to that board meeting in September?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We understand that there's concern on the part of forest workers in this province. Their concern is that they have an option to work in the industry. The program continuity fund and the base program spendings are there to ensure that we can provide employment opportunities for the people working in the forest industry. That's why I introduced the bill that I did yesterday: to give assurance to the people who are working in the woods that if they're laid off, they have an option that could be funded by Forest Renewal. Their employment is the first priority for funding under that program.
[2:45]
The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.
Hon. J. MacPhail: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply, and in the House, I call Committee of Supply.
The House in Committee of Supply B; G. Brewin in the chair.
On vote 51: minister's office, $398,000 (continued).
Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Chair, if I could just make a couple of comments. The Minister of Social Services is doing some protocol with people who were in the gallery today. I will continue to answer the questions until his return; I still know the answers.
K. Krueger: Hon. Chair, through you to the Government House Leader, we would like to know whether the government in its estimates has devoted any resources to investigation of the reasons why people end up on welfare.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, we do.
K. Krueger: Could we be advised whether any funds or employee resources have been devoted to the investigation of how many B.C. families end up requiring Social Services benefits because of gambling addiction?
Hon. J. MacPhail: No.
K. Krueger: Could there be any resources, then, from the estimates set aside to pursue that line of investigation for the coming year? Is there any discretionary allocation that might be used for that?
Hon. J. MacPhail: It's an interesting idea. We do have research priorities that create major pressures on the budget, and that is not among them.
K. Krueger: Could we be advised of specifically what goals this ministry and its minister have for dealing with these questions -- the reasons why people end up on welfare in British Columbia -- and also whether they are looking into prevention efforts rather than dealing in a reactive fashion in future?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. member, I actually do watch estimates in my office, and I know that you did explore some of these with the Minister of Social Services. This really isn't an opportunity to go through the same issues just because there's a new face here. Let me deal with your question, because I know you're very sincere in this, but this ground was covered.
There are pressures on people moving on to income assistance, both single people and families, and people with disabilities. Some of those pressures are shared across Canada, and some of them are specific to British Columbia and the economic situation in British Columbia. Our priority is to research and determine why people move on to income assistance and why people move off income assistance. We do research in British Columbia, and we also share research across Canada.
[ Page 634 ]
K. Krueger: Having the benefit of a fresh face and a fresh mind on the question is of value to me and to the official opposition. We hope that the question will be considered with this particular avenue in future.
V. Anderson: I'd like to go back to some of the recommendations made in the Gove report that we haven't considered as yet. These are recommendations that were to the Ministry of Social Services for changes, apart from the actions of the implementation commissioner. These were services within.
The first of these is a recommendation that the judge gave. In recommendation 85, he recommended that the act not be implemented until there was clarification about family conferences. Then he made the recommendation that if it was implemented, there would be a directive that the family conference should not be used for children who are in need of protection. Has that recommendation been made to the workers in the field -- that it should not be used for those who are in need of protection?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.
V. Anderson: He also recommended that the intake form that had been used as a fairly standard practice should be discontinued. Has this been discontinued in the operation of the ministry?
Hon. J. MacPhail: All the forms are under review. Many have been changed, and all of the changes have been in line with what Judge Gove recommends. But we'd be happy to share those forms with you as well.
V. Anderson: The judge in his report recommended that protection investigations should be done by those who have been specially trained in investigation and risk assessment. We know that all of those people, according to the reports, have a bachelor of social work degree. But because they have a degree doesn't necessarily mean that they have special training in investigation and risk assessment. Has extra training been given to all the workers who are now doing protection work in investigation and risk assessment? Is that already underway?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, it is. Judge Gove recommended a very comprehensive training program both for people new to the ministry and for those internal to the ministry. That comprehensive training program is well underway now. We are working very closely with the schools of social work, which are working with us to put those programs in place, both for people who -- I am sorry, I forget the term -- are already in a job and go back to school and for people who are new students as well. But yes, the comprehensive training program is well underway, and it's breaking new ground across Canada.
V. Anderson: Another of his recommendations, which is along somewhat the same line, is that in doing their investigations, social workers should be doing comprehensive social histories of the children and of the family. I know that in the past histories may have been done of the children but not of the family. Is it standard practice now to take social histories both of the children and of the families, and the relationship between those?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I am not a social worker, so I wouldn't comment from a professional practice point of view. But the recommendation of Judge Gove to treat the child as part of the family and that the child -- which is, of course, interwoven throughout his report -- be considered in the context of the history of the whole family is now part of our regular practice.
V. Anderson: In relation to this particular set of questions, has the UN covenant on the rights of children been made available to all social workers as background for the work they are doing? It's a standard that we have committed ourselves to. It very clearly highlights the issues that are related to the Gove report. Is it a practice to make this available to all social workers so they have that standard in front of them?
Hon. J. MacPhail: It is part of the new policy manual, yes. But if the recommendation is that it be brought to the fore with some greater attention, I actually agree with you and will see to that.
V. Anderson: When you say it's part of the policy manual, are you saying that the full covenant is in the manual for the social workers to have in front of them?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The manual is extensive, and it's not something that one has open to a particular page on one's desk the entire time. I think your point is that the covenant should be first, front and centre, and
V. Anderson: I appreciate that the minister has undertaken to investigate how this is made available. If she could advise us of the result of that investigation, we would appreciate it very much.
One of the recommendations of Judge Gove is that full reports should be made for children who are in need of protection to fully inform the outcome of the investigation to family, parents, foster parents and other people who had initiated the investigation. Those reports were not done prior to this. Is it the mandate now, when a child is taken in for protection, that all those involved will be fully informed?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, with one caution, though. It will be done in the best interest of the child, and, of course, that is paramount. That is the recommendation of the Gove inquiry, so within the context of
V. Anderson: I agree with the minister. It is always in the best interests of the child. But sometimes that has been used not to let anyone else know what is happening, which is not necessarily in the best interests of the child, because they can be denied their heritage and history, and their opportunity to be in touch. Judge Gove recommended that the GAIN Act should be amended to give child protection social workers access to all information from the GAIN program necessary to ensure the safety and well-being of the child. I'm quite aware that to date no amendment has been brought forth, but is an amendment planned in order to meet Judge Gove's request in that regard?
[ Page 635 ]
Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, we did pass an amendment last session to allow for the sharing of information between a social worker and a financial assistance worker when it's involving the protection of a child.
V. Anderson: Judge Gove recommended that the ministry's practice audit process should be completely separated from the system that delivers and manages the child welfare program and that there should be a separate audit process from the system that delivers the service. Could the minister indicate to us whether that separate process is now in place and whether it's independent of the process that delivers the service and, I presume, perhaps independent of the ministry itself in that regard?
Hon. J. MacPhail: In the short term, yes, the audit and review division has been restored, which was part of Judge Gove's recommendation, and the staffing has been increased by almost 50 percent now. Also, the transition commissioner will be looking at the long-term implications for how that can best be carried out -- such as you suggest, perhaps external to the ministry.
V. Anderson: Perhaps to understand the validity of the audit review system, is the minister able to give the reasoning behind why the system was discontinued a few years ago? Now that we have to re-establish it, was there a valid reason at the time?
Hon. J. MacPhail: By using the words
V. Anderson: The judge also recommended that all service resources should be under a licence arrangement and that there was need to extend the licensure to all child welfare resources. Could you indicate what kinds of resources would not have been licensed before? I know some were licensed. And what would lead to his recommendation? What needs to be included under that coverage to meet his recommendation?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Again, this is a long-term recommendation that the transition commissioner is looking into, because it does have implications for resources in the community. Some of the smaller foster homes, inner-city foster homes or even rural foster homes are not licensed, and the smaller group homes as well. But the method by which the community licenses those and maintains the standards is part of the transition commissioner's work.
[3:00]
V. Anderson: With regard to the child advocate, Judge Gove recommended two things: first that she should have authority to appoint legal counsel and to be
Hon. J. MacPhail: The child advocate's estimates will be here along with the other independent officers'. I'll make sure that question is noted for answer at that time.
V. Anderson: The judge recommended that there should be an independent provincial review of each child's continuing care order every 12 months. Is that process in place, and who would be doing that review every 12 months?
Hon. J. MacPhail: It is part of the ministry's policy now to review every year, but there is ongoing work to make sure that the review meets the needs of the new act and meets the needs of the new rights that the children have under the act. That review process may take a different shape down the road, but right now it is done every year.
V. Anderson: There's a series of recommendations here about the opportunities of the children on one hand to have easy access to advocacy, and on the other hand to have easy and independent access to an independent complaints investigator. Could you let us know how those two things are underway? What is being made available so they have easy access to advocacy, and how is that provided for; and on the other hand, how can they have an opportunity to access an independent complaints adviser?
Hon. J. MacPhail: You're talking specifically about advocacy for children, are you? The child, youth and family advocate does work specifically with children, but we also, internal to the Ministry of Social Services, have seconded Brent Parfitt from the ombudsman's office to put in place the complaint resolution process within the ministry, so that the children themselves are not ground down in some bureaucratic procedure. The hon. member is probably well aware of Mr. Parfitt's work within the ombudsman's office on behalf of children. Mr. Parfitt is also working with the office of the transition commissioner. The government would be happy to ensure that you have input to the work that Mr. Parfitt is doing now and to bring forward your suggestions, as well. If that hasn't already happened, it can.
V. Anderson: The next number of recommendations have to do partly with the social workers having a professional body of their own so that they would be self-regulating. There's been some discussion about whether that was going to come to pass, and how it would come to pass. Can the minister explain to us what part the ministry has at this point in helping or encouraging the development of the self-regulation of professional social workers?
Hon. J. MacPhail: We've been doing work on this issue for quite a while. Many of us from government have personally met with the various organizations that represent the interests in this recommendation to regulate social workers. It's not only the Ministry of Social Services but also the Ministry of Health that is participating in this, because social workers work within the Ministry of Health as well. But we've been meeting with the B.C. Association of Social Workers, the BCASW, and we've been meeting with the Board of Registration for Social Workers and with the unions that represent the social workers as well. There are two unions at this stage. This is all moving forward to assist in the establishment of a college of social workers, or a similar self-regulating body of social workers, which is the first step in terms of registering. Actually, the ministry has committed $100,000 in this budget to do the developmental work on reaching that goal. That will come out of the child, family and community services implementation budget.
[ Page 636 ]
V. Anderson: Judge Gove also recommended that there be a similar process for those who are not professionals under the social work designation and who are in the ministry -- the welfare service providers who are "currently unregulated" or "inadequately regulated" were his terms. What is being done to assist that particular group who don't come under the normal professional designation?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Let me take this from the point of view of the employers who hire the workers the hon. member describes. The CSSEA, Community Social Services Employers Association, has set up a multilateral task force including themselves, the unions that represent the workers in the categories described by the hon. member, and the colleges -- I think it's just the colleges to start with -- that provide training for the groups. They have a multilateral task force established, and they're moving toward agreement on standards for these occupations.
V. Anderson: Judge Gove recommended, and listed in the report as "not implemented," that there should be a change in the act in order to state the right of children to early determination of decisions, and that the onus should rest on any other party to show that its interests should take priority over those of the child. He indicates that that was not implemented in his first request. What is the result of that position at this point?
Hon. J. MacPhail: All of them are being considered for implementation.
[3:15]
V. Anderson: The judge recommended that when a parent gives his or her child into the care of a relative or friend, with agreement with the ministry, there should be opportunity for that care person to give parental consent for school functions and recreational activities -- the kinds of things parents normally give consent for -- without having to go to the ministry every time. Has that recommendation been implemented, or will it be implemented? It would certainly make the lives of these children and care people much simpler, and would also be simpler for the schools and the organizations they work with.
The Chair: I recognize the hon. Minister of Social Services, and thank the House Leader for filling in.
Hon. D. Streifel: I, as well, thank the former minister and my House Leader, and I sincerely thank the members of the opposition for indulging me a few moments with the folks from the disabled community that were here for the introduction of the legislation today.
Simply to answer the question from the member for Vancouver-Langara: as all the other recommendations, it's under active consideration.
V. Anderson: Perhaps the question
Another recommendation that the judge gave was that the director may have the discretion to bring a child protection case to court by summons instead of by removing the child, and they're being able to give a different kind -- a closer and a friendly kind -- of care. Could the minister comment on the direction by summons rather than going to court?
Hon. D. Streifel: Well, in response to the hon. member, some of these initiatives will need legislative amendment. Some of that's under consideration. The act was only proclaimed January 29. It was envisioned, when the transition commissioner was appointed, that this process would sunset in 1999. So the member is absolutely right when he says it may take a couple of years to bring about a number of these provisions, through the process of consideration. As a matter of fact, we have brought forward a number of recommendations, and I spoke about them the other night in my presentation. I refer the member to Hansard to refresh his memory.
V. Anderson: One of the recommendations of the judge with regard to foster parents -- and there are many items we could discuss under this issue, but at this point just this particular one -- was that before a child is taken away from a foster parent, where that child has been with the foster parent six months or longer they should have at least 72 hours' notice before that change is made. Is that in practice now? In fairness to the children and foster parents, for the separation that may be required, is that 72 hours' notice now a practice of the ministry?
Hon. D. Streifel: In fact, foster parents are given every consideration, and their views are heard, and they will be involved in the planning. The provision of 72 hours' notice that the member speaks of is under active consideration. Again I stress that the views of the foster parents are heard. We do give every consideration to the foster parents.
V. Anderson: I must perhaps refresh the minister's point of view or ask him to go back and look into the history and into some of the reports that were made to Judge Gove. It's our own experience, and from talking to foster parents and foster parents' groups, that in many cases they certainly have not ever been given every consideration. In fact, when difficulties arose it was often the practice of the ministry simply to cancel the contract, which was very detrimental to not only the foster parents but also the foster children. So I think the history doesn't quite stack up that every consideration has been given. I'm encouraged, if you like, by the new minister's promise that regardless of past history every consideration will be given.
The tendency under Social Services is to deal with children after the fact, after problems have arisen. One of the items that we've heard a great deal about is prevention. One of the recommendations of Judge Gove's is that we look at a system that includes our concern for all children. He mentions specifically the state of Hawaii's Healthy Start program, of which I've heard excellent comments. Are programs like Hawaii's Healthy Start program being looked at as part of the preventive and developmental programs sponsored by the Minister of Social Services?
[ Page 637 ]
Hon. D. Streifel: For the hon. member for Vancouver-Langara, the ministry and the B.C. Federation of Foster Parent Associations have completed revisions to the protocol on these issues, investigating allegations of abuse in foster homes and resolving disputes between foster parents and social workers. If the member would like, I can arrange for him to have a copy of that protocol.
Thank you very much, hon. member. Sometimes it's difficult when we can't chatter back and forth like in real and normal conversation.
The answer to the other part of the question is: yes. Cyndi Morton is working on that. She has met with other jurisdictions across Canada, etc., and work progresses.
V. Anderson: Yes, I've been waiting for a year for a copy of the protocol, so I would be glad to get it. I think it was promised a year ago -- or at least, last spring -- so I'll be glad to get a copy of the protocol. Thank you very much.
Also, one of his recommendations is that we would look forward to a ministry for children and youth. Is that being seriously considered, and is that a possibility under the changes that are taking place?
Hon. D. Streifel: Again, this will be part of the reporting-in process of the transition commissioner, and I'm not sure that final decisions have been made. I'm very new in this ministry. I know the hon. member has been very patient with me in our discussions, and I hate to always fall back on "I'm just kind of getting started here," but sometimes that's the way it is. I know this will be part of the reporting process, and I remind the members that the transition commissioner will be reporting through an all-party committee, so I imagine that those issues will be discussed at length within that reporting process.
V. Anderson: This has to do with the transition commissioner. In his recommendation, I could look for some clarity on what has actually taken place, because the press release doesn't clarify it enough for me to fully understand it. He recommends that the commissioner would be able to recommend legislative changes and to make organizational and structural changes to create a new child welfare system. What's the distinction between the recommendations and the power to make them, and is that in the mandate?
Hon. D. Streifel: The transition commissioner has the power to make recommendations on structure and legislation. I don't believe the power of implementation is there, but it certainly is for recommendations.
V. Anderson: Judge Gove also recommended that the Legislative Assembly, in the first legislative session following the presentation of the report, should pass legislation entrenching the appointment, tenure and mandate of the commissioner in legislation. At this point I think it has been done by order-in-council. Is it the intention to make it legislation or simply to do it by order-in-council?
Hon. D. Streifel: With all due respect, I believe that we are stroking into the area of future policy -- or moving in that direction. Government is open to all options as we very seriously consider the children in our communities and supply the maximum protection. That's why we're working with and through the transition commissioner and why the openness of the debates we have in this House.
V. Anderson: My last question in this particular section on the Gove report is that Judge Gove recommended that the ombudsman should undertake to monitor the process of change and the process in between until change is completed. I'm wondering if the minister is encouraging the ombudsman and the community to use the ombudsman as part of the monitoring process, as was Judge Gove's recommendation?
Hon. D. Streifel: The ministry and the office of the transition commissioner are in regular communications with the ombudsman, and I would encourage it -- well, I don't have to encourage it, because it happens.
G. Abbott: I want to change direction a bit here and to forewarn the hon. minister that I'd like to move into the area of dentistry and the Ministry of Social Services, if I could -- just so the transition's not too jarring here. I'd just like to preface my remarks by noting that I have received in recent weeks quite a number of letters from clients of the Ministry of Social Services in regard to dental services. Of course, I do intend to respond to these letters in a fair and evenhanded way, and I'll be looking forward to some sage advice from the minister as to how to do that.
First of all, let me just quote briefly from one of the letters, and I would like the hon. minister's response to it: "It has come to my attention that as a client under the Ministry of Social Services, my benefits have been reduced." Could the minister advise if this is the reduction for adults from $500 to $250 or if there are additional reductions that the respondent may be referring to?
Hon. D. Streifel: It's a very difficult question to answer without any specifics of the case. I don't know who or what age the reference is to. We did cover dental benefits at length with the member for Okanagan-Vernon the other evening. In general terms, we are in negotiations with the dentists, and I committed that evening that I would not in any way bring those negotiations to this chamber, as I don't believe it's appropriate. But if we can help with any of the specifics, you know I have staff in my ministerial office upstairs who can help track some of these problems and discussions for the member and help find solutions, if indeed there are solutions.
G. Abbott: I appreciate that obviously the hon. minister would not want to play out here the substance of his negotiations with the dental profession. I was wanting to get a clear understanding, first of all, of whether -- and we are talking here of an adult, an MSS
[3:30]
Hon. D. Streifel: As we covered the other evening, the adult coverage for employable adults only has been reduced from $500 to $250. I don't believe that limit is on emergency care; I think emergency care is on top of that. I would like to take this opportunity to bring forward to the House again the exposure of the Healthy Kids program that this government has embarked on. We have put $15 million into optical care and dental care for the working poor and income assistance folks in British Columbia. It's the first time ever; it's brand-new; again, I think it's a leading-edge social policy in this
[ Page 638 ]
country. I :would encourage members opposite to become aware of this. As a matter of fact, I can supply information to the members on the Healthy Kids program. It's very, very good policy and good news for the children in British Columbia.
G. Abbott: In a copy of correspondence I have from the Ministry of Social Services -- presumably to dental practitioners, as this letter of April 1, 1996, is addressed to "Dear Practitioner" -- it outlines briefly the Healthy Kids program and notes that as a result of providing basic dental care to many more children in this province, the adult basic yearly maximum has been reduced to $250. The first question that flows from here is: when were low-income families advised of the Healthy Kids program?
Hon. D. Streifel: Again, I would stress to the member opposite that the reduction he refers to is only for employable adults. In fact, the Healthy Kids program was announced, I believe, last November with the whole B.C. Benefits package, and it's been in operation. I would encourage the members to view it as $15 million worth of expenditures for those children in the province that never had the opportunity before to attend a dentist, or to have their glasses checked or changed on a regular basis, so they can function on a level of equality with their peers in the community. A number of these initiatives function without financial burden to families, as these programs are focused at low-income families in British Columbia.
G. Abbott: Certainly at this point my intention was not to debate the merits of the Healthy Kids program. I wanted to know, if indeed the information is available, on what date the potential recipients of the Healthy Kids program were advised of the new program. The practitioners were advised, I presume from this letter, on April 1, 1996. On what date were potential recipients of this program advised? If that information is not available now, I would appreciate receiving it as soon as possible.
Hon. D. Streifel: We'll see if this gets it back in line here. Notification first went out in November '95, and the program came into effect on April 1. In the meantime, and in between time, there were stuffers distributed with the cheques, and notification took place in that manner, with advertising as well. I will endeavour to provide to the member some of the dates and some of the style of correspondence that went out.
G. Abbott: The next question pursuant to that is: at what point were adult clients of the Ministry of Social Services advised of their reduction in yearly maximums for dental care? Did that precede, or follow, or was it simultaneous with the announcement or the letter going out with respect to the Healthy Kids program?
Hon. D. Streifel: The adult rates were rolled back April 1.
G. Abbott: Thank you for that advice. I wanted to know a little bit more precisely when the adult recipients of dental coverage under MSS were advised. It was presumably at some point after April 1. Could the minister advise me of when that was?
Hon. D. Streifel: In fact, individuals could have been made aware of this through their FAW, or when they contacted the dentist. It became effective April 1.
G. Abbott: As you might expect, there was a reason for these questions. One of the concerns raised to me by some representatives of the dental profession is that the difficult job of advising Social Services clients that their dental coverage had been reduced from $500 to $250 was left to the dentists when the patients arrived at their offices. Can the minister confirm that Social Services clients were not advised of the reduction at any point, that it was left to the dental profession to effectively put out this difficult news?
Hon. D. Streifel: As a matter of fact, this begins to lead us down the road to the negotiations table again, and I will not engage in those negotiations in this House.
Through the process of negotiations, the dental community was aware of this. They were aware of our focus of the $15 million into the Healthy Kids program, where we would be supplying dental and optical care for the poorest children in British Columbia. This is care that families and children of the working poor have never had the opportunity to have before. The overwhelming motivation behind this program is to supply that kind of care for the children of British Columbia.
G. Abbott: Again, I'm not attempting to steer the direction of this discussion down the road to negotiations between the dental profession and the province of British Columbia. What I'm really hoping to hear from the minister is an answer to a relatively straightforward question, which is: when, if they did at all, did the ministry advise adult recipients of dental care coverage that the yearly maximums had been reduced? If there was no advice from the ministry with respect to that, fair enough. I would just like a relatively straightforward answer to a straightforward question.
Hon. D. Streifel: My straightforward answer has been delivered three or four times now. Same question? Same answer.
G. Abbott: We obviously have somewhat different views here of what's straightforward and what's not. Again, is there something particularly secret about dates or ways in which people are advised of changes in programs? The ministry presumably came forward with advice that the Healthy Kids program was in place. I'm a bit puzzled as to why it's so difficult to determine if and when Social Services recipients were advised of reductions in dental programs.
M. Coell: The Gove inquiry proposal for an independent review mechanism for critical incidents was recommended, that being a children's commissioner. I wonder if I could have the status on that particular portion of the inquiry.
[J. Doyle in the chair.]
Hon. D. Streifel: Thank you very much, hon. Chair, and welcome to the hot seat on this glorious Monday afternoon.
This is all within the scope and the realm of the work of the transition commissioner. There will be considerations brought forward, and I would remind hon. members that the transition commissioner will be working through an all-party committee. I would encourage the members to participate in some of these processes. This, again, is work that goes on with the transition commissioner. The transition commissioner's work, I believe, has sunset in 1999.
[ Page 639 ]
M. Coell: Can the minister confirm for me that at this point the proposal for a mechanism for critical
Hon. D. Streifel: The reason for the delay over here is that this appears to be déj� vu again from the other night, where the same question was brought forward many times, and I will bring forward the response. I know it will be the same because I have the identical piece of paper in front of me.
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 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 has been reviewing 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 manager 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 for review to the audit and review division. In addition, the transition commissioner is working on this critical issue through one of the project teams. Brent Parfitt, deputy ombudsman, on secondment to this ministry, is tracking longer-term solutions.
So, as a matter of fact, hon. member, your opening statement that not much has been done is really not true. As a matter of fact, the work goes on as we endeavour to protect the children of British Columbia.
M. Coell: The Gove commission, on page 144, "Review of Child Deaths and Serious Injuries" says: "The children's commissioner should be given responsibility for receiving reports of deaths and serious injuries of all children and youth who are in the care of the province or who are receiving child welfare services." It goes on to say: "The commissioner should, in the case of any death or serious injury which the children's commissioner determines to be suspicious or unusual, refer the case to a judge of the provincial
[3:45]
Hon. D. Streifel: Well, as I just laid out for the hon. member, those are interim steps in place now. The office of the transition commissioner, in conjunction with the Ministry of Social Services, is exploring longer-term solutions.
M. Coell: In the inquiry there were 19 deaths identified by the commissioner of the inquiry. Has there been a review done by your ministry, the Ministry of Social Services, into the circumstances surrounding these 19 deaths?
Hon. D. Streifel: You know that the former deputy minister ordered a review of the 19 deaths highlighted by Gove, and the review will be completed in the next weeks. The purpose of the review was to ensure that we learned as much as possible from these deaths and that we build an effective child fatality tracking system. The results will be shared with the transition commissioner, hon. member.
M. Coell: Will the Legislature be supplied with a copy of that review of the deaths of those 19 children while in the care of the province of British Columbia?
Hon. D. Streifel: I can't at this time commit to that. The report will be available subject to FOI, the Privacy Act. There are some privacy provisions and some confidentiality provisions under the Child, Family and Community Service Act. Under those circumstances, and under the application of those acts, I think it would be inappropriate for me to make that commitment.
M. Coell: I'm very disappointed to hear that. This Legislature went to great lengths with the Gove inquiry to get to the bottom of some of the problems with the Ministry of Social Services and its delivery of service. The intent of that was to provide better services for children and families of this province and to protect children.
The minister has acknowledged that there has been a review of those 19 deaths. That review, like the Gove inquiry, should be made public and brought back to this Legislature. I ask the minister if he would reconsider that decision not to bring it back to the Legislature.
Hon. D. Streifel: I think I should actually repeat my answer for the hon. member from Saanich North and the Islands. As I said, the report would be available subject to FOI and privacy provisions. I support the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act in this province. I also support the confidentiality provisions of the Child, Family and Community Service Act, as I am sure members opposite support those very important acts. As a matter of fact, I believe their caucus voted for them, if I can remember correctly. If the hon. member is going to take an avenue other than the support of his caucus, we should be prepared for that. In fact, as we work every day and as we accepted the Gove
I would again suggest to the members opposite that children in this province are a high priority for this government, and we will do everything we can to ensure their safety. From time to time, hon. members, we're not successful, but on behalf of the children, we cannot stop trying. I would hope that the members would support us in these endeavours.
M. Coell: The report that we are talking about not being made
Hon. D. Streifel: Since November 1995, there have been 14 deaths of children in care of the ministry.
M. Coell: Would the minister confirm that these deaths are under review by his ministry at this time?
Hon. D. Streifel: Yes. Under the process I described earlier, each death is reviewed.
[ Page 640 ]
M. Coell: With the 19 deaths that the Gove commission brought forward, along with these 14
Hon. D. Streifel: Of the 14 deaths, hon. member, seven were from natural causes -- keeping in mind, I suppose, that the ministry deals with a number of children who are quite medically fragile -- five were ruled accidental deaths, one was a suicide and one was a homicide.
M. Coell: Would the minister comment for me on the review of the 19 deaths? That study is coming to his ministry or deputy minister in the next two weeks, I am told. Will that review of those 19 deaths be referred to the Attorney General's ministry for review?
Hon. D. Streifel: I would caution the member from across the way -- the member for Saanich North and the Islands -- not to put words in this minister's mouth. I didn't refer to two weeks under any circumstances. I said that in a few weeks it would be coming forward. Again, not having a clairvoyant personality, or whatever, I guess I'm unable to commit to that, given that we don't know what's in the report. Under the circumstances, without knowing, how can I make a commitment?
M. Coell: One of the frustrations the opposition has is knowing that a report, a review, of the deaths of children has been undertaken and that we potentially will not see that report -- not us, hon. Chair, the people of British Columbia, who are endeavouring through the Gove inquiry to get to the bottom of child abuse in this province. So I would hope that the minister would reconsider the questions that I have asked. They are questions on the review of these deaths -- questions which I think all British Columbians want answers to.
We have now spent approximately two and a half hours on the Gove inquiry, and I appreciate the comments the minister and his staff have made, as well as those of the House Leader, who stood in for him for a short time this afternoon. It's our hope that the recommendations of this inquiry are implemented as quickly as possible. I realize that the minister has said that it has a three-year time frame. I think that the questioning we have put forward indicates that three years is far too long for many of these recommendations to be implemented. I would encourage the minister and the government to move as quickly as possible on many of these recommendations, because they are of great value to our society and the children who live in British Columbia.
We have a number of other areas that we wish to ask questions about. We'll move on to those areas at this point.
G. Abbott: I would like to return briefly to the issue of dental care. I hope that I can pose my questions in such a manner that I can get informative responses from the minister without offending the possibility of labour negotiations or negotiations between the dental profession and the ministry. I gather that in April quite a few dentists in this province advised their MSS clients that they no longer would be providing care for them, because of the dispute with the Ministry of Social Services in respect to fees. Could the minister advise us, in at least approximate terms, of the number of dentists who have opted out of providing care to MSS clients?
Hon. D. Streifel: I don't have that number available here. I'll take the question under advisement and then caution the hon. member one more time that I will not get into the meat of negotiations in this Legislature. The process is underway. I think it's unfortunate that the hon. members opposite insist on promoting this as a debate and point of examination within the structure of estimates. The individuals being caught up in this, and who are being held up by the opposition in a hostage situation, are the ones who are most in need in this province. The opposition is coming forward on behalf of a group of individuals who are obligated under their profession to provide care. If the member has any names of dentists who are refusing to come forward and serve the individuals whom their profession requires them to serve, then I would ask that he bring those names to me.
[4:00]
[G. Brewin in the chair.]
G. Abbott: I think we need to make a distinction here involving emergency services, which I believe the dental profession and the medical profession are obliged to provide on an ethical basis. I'm not aware of any dentists in the province who would decline their ethical responsibility to provide that emergency care. What we're talking about here is the routine dental work which people need to have done on other than an emergency basis. I don't feel that I would be fulfilling my responsibilities as a member of this Legislature if I didn't ask questions which were of concern to my constituents. I believe that in order to make a reasoned and mature judgment about the direction of public policy with respect to dental care, I need to ask these questions. If I can't ask them because at some point the ministry is engaged in negotiations with the dental profession, then it makes it very difficult for me to take a proper course in response to constituents' concerns.
The next question, further to the first, is: are there any communities in this province which no longer have access to routine dental care as a result of dentists opting out of the MSS program?
Hon. D. Streifel: If that situation exists, we're working with the clients. We will be making arrangements to get them service in the nearest community. Again, I would suggest to the Legislature, to this chamber, that we are in negotiations with the dentists. We expect to resolve this matter.
G. Abbott: I believe this will be the last question I have with respect to the dental side of things, as my colleague from Okanagan-Vernon did touch on a number of these points the other night.
There is a complaint that reimbursement for dental care, whether it's by dentists or orthodontists and so on, frequently takes up to one year from the time at which the work is actually done. Could the minister please advise whether that is the case or whether the turnaround time is shorter or longer than that?
Hon. D. Streifel: I would offer the member opposite the opportunity to work on behalf of his constituents in this case. If you have some evidence of that, I'm certainly quite surprised. It's not my understanding. I'll give the member my commitment to look into it through my office.
[ Page 641 ]
L. Reid: With my question, I seek a clarification of the two questions that were posed by my hon. colleague for Saanich North and the Islands. He asked whether or not the Attorney General had been asked to investigate any issues of criminality around the death of that one child. The minister's response was that fourteen children had since died, and he gave a breakdown. I appreciate the breakdown, but I was interested in the answer to the question of whether or not the Attorney General's ministry has been asked to investigate. The minister did respond that out of those 14 deaths, there was one suicide and one homicide. I'm interested very much in the answer to the question.
Hon. D. Streifel: To the member for Richmond East, where there's evidence of criminal activity, of course the issue goes forward, but where there is
L. Reid: The question posed to this minister was whether or not the Attorney General had been asked to investigate any of the 14 deaths. The response the minister gave was that one of those deaths was indeed a homicide. Could the minister kindly advise this House as to whether or not the Ministry of Attorney General was asked to investigate that particular death?
Hon. D. Streifel: I'm tempted to offer the member opposite a little bit of process within the criminal justice system, but I would refer her to some of her colleagues just up the road. Yes, where there's a homicide involved, the police and Crown counsel are involved, hon member. I thought I made that clear at least three times now.
L. Reid: With all due respect to this minister getting a handle on his ministry, the question was specific to the Ministry of Attorney General, in that there are accountability frameworks in place for that ministry to look at all ministries of government. The question posed to this minister was: has he initiated an investigation? Has he asked the Ministry of Attorney General to examine that case?
Hon. D. Streifel: I'm going to try this one more time -- the last time, hon. member. Where there is a criminal matter, it has been reported through the proper processes. That's what has happened in these instances, in this case. Again, where there has been a criminal matter, it has been reported and action is underway.
L. Reid: It's difficult to piece together the minister's response, but perhaps one last time he could clarify whether or not this particular case has gone through a criminal investigation of any sort. Yes or no.
Hon. D. Streifel: With all due respect, and trying not to be too exasperated, this is the fourth time I've said yes in this process, and that this is what has happened. If the hon. member will refer to Hansard, I think it will be clear.
L. Reid: I would pose a similar stream of questioning regarding the one suicide that the hon. minister referred to, and indeed my question would be directed to any areas of negligence in terms of the death of that child. I think the minister is incredibly aware that this opposition has uppermost in its mind the fact that when a child comes into care in this province, it's a huge trust issue. I'm not impressed by the minister's flippant remark -- not at all. It seems to me that these questions could be answered with a simple yes or no, and it seems to me that the minister has tremendous responsibility.
If I might ask the minister to respond to the question
Hon. D. Streifel: Well, the death would certainly have been reviewed by the coroner and as well the audit and review division.
L. Reid: If indeed those reviews are now complete, can the minister please advise this House as to whether or not the death of that child was the result of negligence?
Hon. D. Streifel: I'd be pleased to supply as much information as possible on this issue to the hon. member for Richmond East, but be aware, hon. member, that I can't discuss a specific case in this matter. There are privacy provisions and there are legal ramifications, and I'm not going to get further into it at this stage. I will supply to the member as much information as we legally are allowed to.
L. Reid: I will take the minister up on his offer of supplying the information. My concern is solely with due process around placement of those children. What alarms me is that two children out of
I do appreciate the minister's offer to provide the information. I have scanned Hansard in some detail, and I've not seen tremendous reference to the criteria for placement -- i.e., when children are taken from their homes, from their parents, and put in peril when they enter care with the ministry. That's an enormous concern for myself and all members of this House, so I would ask the minister if he would be so kind as to elaborate a little bit on the criteria for placement and, in these two instances, to elaborate on what went wrong.
Hon. D. Streifel: I would suggest one more time to the hon. member for Richmond East that I cannot, nor will I, discuss the specifics of an individual case in this Legislature.
L. Reid: I took the minister up on his offer to receive that information in confidence. My question specifically to the minister was on criteria for placement, in terms of perhaps a moment of his time to elaborate on that process.
Hon. D. Streifel: The ministry has a thorough and comprehensive assessment of the screening process for new caregivers. In addition, it enters into formal contracts with caregivers which outline service plans and expectations for children in care and strict monitoring requirements for ministry staff to supervise caregivers through home visits and other contracts.
Currently, ministry and office-of-the-transition-commissioner staff are working jointly under a common work plan to implement a common set of standards for children's residential resources. Extensive groundwork has already been
[ Page 642 ]
done by a ministry working committee composed of staff and community partners. These standards will address the physical environment of the residents, the qualifications of the caregiver, staff-child ratios and organizational and administrative accountability.
L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's comments, because that's exactly what I am looking for in terms of an accountability framework. Could the minister kindly advise this House when that set of standards will be made available?
Hon. D. Streifel: The criteria that I read out are already in place. We have the assessment, screening and monitoring processes in place and the transition commissioner involved with the ministry. We expect that by next March we will have completed the work, but, as I say, the criteria that I laid out are already in place.
The working committee includes representatives from the B.C. Federation of Foster Parent Associations, the B.C. Association of Social Workers, the Federation of Child and Family Services of B.C., the Federation of B.C. Youth In Care Networks, the Child and Youth Care Association of B.C. and the Ministry of Health.
L. Reid: The minister's remarks do require clarification. When I asked about the common set of standards and when they would be in place, the minister's preamble said they are currently being worked on. From the minister's remarks, can I confirm that it is indeed March 1997, as per his latest response?
Hon. D. Streifel: We will be pleased to supply the information that I spoke of. We have the process in place: standards established by March '97 and completion in March '97. I will get the criteria forwarded to the member so she can peruse it at her leisure.
[4:15]
D. Symons: I have just a few questions to the minister. The first one is a follow-up of something I was asking last year, and that involved the day care programs for mentally handicapped children who have reached the age of 19, where they move out of the school system. They move out of a system where there are day care and other facilities such as camps supplied to them through the ministry so the parents can have some respite from the 24-hour care that you often have to give to some of these children. It turned out that at that time, there was very little available for someone when they reached 19. I guess what I'm really asking is: what has happened now? Is there now financial assistance being given to parents of mentally handicapped children who provide that care for them at home? How have things changed from last year to this year?
Hon. D. Streifel: Up to the age of 19, there's a program referred to as the at-home program, and it gives assistance to parents. For those over the age of 19, there are prioritized placements. Funding is always limited for numbers in these programs, hon. member, but we do the best we can under the circumstances.
D. Symons: Then I gather that there hasn't been a great change; prioritized placements means prioritized placements in either day care programs or camp programs, which might leave a lot out. I have two people in my riding that have raised this issue with me, and they seem to be faced with a problem. They're basically driven up the wall by the 24-hour care that they have to give to some children; in some cases, they require that much care. Their options are either to have a little bit of rest from the care that they have to give, by having a day off a week or possibly having the child away for a couple of weeks in the summer, or to put them in care of the government, which means the government looks after them 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, at a much greater cost.
I'm concerned that the government doesn't seem to have addressed this problem that I raised last year. For a small outlay now, you can maintain those children in homes where they are loved and cared for by their parents. The parents aren't given this sort of horrendous option of putting their child in provincial care rather than keeping them at home. Can the minister give some assurance that maybe they are going to really address this problem? In the long run, I think it will be to the province's benefit and the people's benefit if something can be done.
Hon. D. Streifel: The ministry funds day programs for adults with mental handicaps, hon. member. The budget this year is $76 million.
For those folks opposite who are interested, the staff person who has joined me is Fran Sadler, assistant director of community support services.
L. Reid: Perhaps just a second question in this line of questioning to the hon. minister. I trust that the funding levels that are currently available, and the programs that these individuals may participate in, Mr. Minister, would also be available to youngsters with autism well before they're 19 years of age but, as the member for Richmond Centre has outlined, most importantly after they turn 19. Parents of autistic children, certainly in my riding, are having tremendous difficulty finding appropriate programming for them. I would ask the minister to comment on the types of programs and on whether or not eligibility or availability is going to be restricted in any way in the coming fiscal year.
Hon. D. Streifel: I don't understand that there are any plans to alter the eligibility around these programs. There's always a greater financial demand than we can meet, but we do have the budget in place this year. As I say, there are no plans that I'm aware of to alter the criteria.
D. Symons: To continue on that thought, I wonder if the minister might supply me -- and I realize he won't have it at his fingertips here -- with the programs for over-19s who are living at home in care of their parents. What programs could they avail themselves of if there was a place in them? Possibly he could give us the number of children that have been handled by those programs through the years and the dollars spent on those particular programs. I'd appreciate that at some time in the future.
Hon. D. Streifel: Yes, we'll be pleased to supply that information to the member.
D. Symons: Thank you.
In a different vein here, the federal government instituted a program they called "Work Plus" -- in 1993, I believe -- which was a welfare scheme that was to be tried out as a pilot project in a couple of provinces. Basically, the idea was that they would supplement the income of people eligible for this program up to $10,000 per year. If they got off welfare, they
[ Page 643 ]
would supplement them to help keep them off welfare. It was a three-year program. I'm wondering if the minister could tell me whether his ministry examined what was happening with that federal program and evaluated the B.C. Benefits program in light of that to see whether he could avoid some of the faults the federal experience may have had there or improve on their program. Could the minister compare the two programs and give us a thumbnail sketch of what sort of studies they did before introducing B.C. Benefits?
Hon. D. Streifel: I have never heard of a welfare scheme called "Work Plus." I would encourage the hon. member to bring that information forward to us if he has it.
D. Symons: Yes, I'll do that in due time. I am surprised that the minister would not have heard of this program, since it does relate to his ministry.
The problem of child access and family maintenance comes up quite frequently in my constituency office. It's very emotional on either side of that issue. When the person paying maintenance or the person who has custody of the children comes in the office with a concern, it's a really emotional and often trying time for them. Certainly it's difficult for us in the office to deal with these problems when emotions sometimes take over from reason.
I find that there does not seem to be any great relationship between the access that's often awarded by the courts and the family maintenance. I'm not sure exactly how that's set, but one seems to be controlled by the courts and the other by the Social Services ministry. If the husband is in arrears in maintenance, the ministry or the family maintenance minions can attach or garnishee his wages, whereas if the child custody-holder refuses, ignores or circumvents the child access, it seems very difficult for the other parent to get that access restored. Indeed, they might have to go back through family court, go through a whole court process and pay lawyers when they're already paying maintenance. They're at a disadvantage in the sense that the wife -- and it's often the wife -- has access to legal aid, whereas the husband, who might be paying family maintenance, doesn't have that access and might have to go to the courts and incur lawyers' fees in order to get the access that a court order says he's entitled to. How does the ministry deal with these? Does the minister see any way we can maybe ease that problem between those two balances in the breakup of families?
Hon. D. Streifel: I share the member's exposure to and definition of the difficulty this presents within the work that an MLA's community office does. I have been a very active community MLA. In fact, my ministry doesn't deal with circumstances of access. It's a court-ordered issue; it's the Attorney General's ministry. I would encourage the member to approach the Attorney General during those estimates.
D. Symons: I think I missed the boat on that one, then, since the Attorney General's estimates are now done. I will approach him outside of the estimates debate, I suppose, to ask that question.
I think the next questions were answered, and I'll go back in Hansard and look them up, because I have some questions here on how many children were apprehended in '94-95 and '95-96. Then I was asking: how many were admitted to care by parental agreement in '94-95 and also in '95-96? I wonder if you might have those figures; I don't think they came up. My third question relating to this -- they're all related to care -- is: how many were in actual care during those years '94-95 and '95-96? Those that you've answered before I will look up in Hansard. I believe the one about those admitted to care with parental agreement hasn't been answered yet. I'm asking for the fiscal years '94-95 and '95-96. I'm trying to get a handle on what's going in and out related to children in care and apprehended in the province.
Hon. D. Streifel: In order to reduce duplication and confusion, if we endeavour to supply those figures to the member, would that be acceptable, hon. member?
Interjection.
Hon. D. Streifel: That's what we'll do.
M. Coell: In February of this year the ministry released a program: transportation home provided to those denied welfare under the three-month residency requirement. I just wonder if the minister can tell the House how many people have taken the government up on that offer to have a free plane or train ride back home from this province.
Hon. D. Streifel: We addressed this circumstance last week in examination of these estimates. The question was taken under advisement with the proviso that we would bring those figures back. Given that this question is phrased slightly differently than the first
M. Coell: The program was designed to save the taxpayers of British Columbia approximately $2 million a month. It's now been five months since that announcement. Could the minister tell me how much this program has saved the province during the five months of this program?
Hon. D. Streifel: We are on track to save $26 million over this year. I hate to say that we assume that's prorated over the year, but I'll take the question under advisement and then suggest again to the hon. member that we are on track to achieve a $26 million savings through this program.
[4:30]
M. Coell: The program would now be in its fifth month, so that would be $10 million worth of savings. Can the minister confirm that they are at $10 million savings because of this program, if they are on track?
Hon. D. Streifel: I told you it was dangerous, folks, for me to assume that. I cannot confirm that we're at a $10 million level because of in-migration from other provinces and peaks and valleys, depending upon climate, type of year, time of year and other factors. But as of March 1996, the out-of-province caseload -- that's defined as someone in the province less than 12 months -- was just under 12,000 cases. Without the residency requirement, the caseload would have been an estimated 16,000 cases. There again, we're dealing with a bit of an estimate. In fact, when information is available on this issue, as I agreed the other night, we will have a look at the figures.
[ Page 644 ]
M. Coell: I've had a number of complaints in my community about people with mental illness whose families would be in the province. They might have been in Toronto. They decide to come home. They're on social assistance in another province, and they come home. As I said, they're mentally ill, whether it be schizophrenia or manic depression. They have to wait three months for eligibility to get on the waiting list. If they end up here, is there any mechanism for people who are mentally ill not to wait three months? Or are they in the same boat as those of us who are mentally well?
Hon. D. Streifel: That three-month residency requirement is for those who have been out of the province for more than six months. It applies to everybody except refugees and families with children.
M. Coell: So that would apply to people who would be classified as mentally ill. Would it also apply to a child or adolescent who is mentally handicapped?
Hon. D. Streifel: As I understand the program, children are exempt. Issues related to child protection are exempt under this program.
M. Coell: Would that exemption extend to adult British Columbians with mental retardation or the mentally handicapped?
Hon. D. Streifel: For those individuals who have been out of the province more than six months, no.
M. Coell: I suggest to the ministry that they may wish to look at that, because in many instances you may be dealing with individuals who do not understand the circumstances. That they come to British Columbia, being that they may be mentally ill or mentally
Hon. D. Streifel: I thank the hon. member for his input. I will be bringing this forward in September when I meet with the other ministers and with Canada on these very issues.
M. Coell: Thank you, Mr. Minister.
Over the past six months there have been a number of government programs designed to help detect fraud and to allow the system to charge people who are defrauding the social assistance system. I wonder if the minister could tell us how much money is owed to the province by people who have been charged and convicted of defrauding the system over the last six months.
Hon. D. Streifel: The member is referring to fraud versus other forms of repayment agreements. The cost benefits for the fiscal year have been $15 million to the province. We don't have the answer to the member's question broken out.
M. Coell: I was looking for the money that may be owed because of convictions, or the moneys recovered. Is the $15 million moneys owed, moneys recovered or a combination of both?
Hon. D. Streifel: As a result of the investigations, there is a combination of factors where we save the $15 million: compensation orders, repayments taken and benefits stopped. The total is just a tad under $15 million: $14,942,065.
M. Coell: The government in March issued a press release: "Government Funds Support Guide for Parents and Caregivers of Sexually Exploited Children and Youth." This was a $15,000 Downtown Eastside Youth Activities Society project, and I just wonder if the minister can outline whether that project indeed has gone ahead and whether there has been a review of the guide that was produced.
Hon. D. Streifel: It's my understanding that the program went ahead, but I'll certainly take the member's question under advisement, and I'll endeavour to check into it from my perspective. I'm not exactly sure whether the program the member refers to has gone ahead, but I'll take the question and look into it.
M. Coell: For some time now, I believe, a number of provinces have worked with the Ministry of Social Services, Housing and the Attorney General's ministry to define child prostitution as child abuse. I believe Alberta is in the process of looking at a change of legislation under Social Services that would deal with people who have sex with children as child abusers and charge them under the Attorney General's ministry. I just wondered whether the Ministry of Social Services and the Attorney General have discussed that particular aspect of legislation.
Hon. D. Streifel: Under the Child, Family and Community Service Act, it is child abuse. We still rely on the Attorney General's ministry to levy the charges through the investigation, and I support the hon. member in his statements.
M. Coell: Thank you for that information. I appreciate that.
Could the minister outline any programs that may be initiated this year to deal with child prostitution? I'm thinking specifically of Victoria and Vancouver, where an increased number of youths have been found on the streets involved in prostitution, both male and female. I just wonder whether any new programs are expected in this group of estimates this year.
Hon. D. Streifel: The other day, in the examination of these estimates, we did speak of the Vancouver action plan the member has referenced. We do participate in a committee, the provincial committee on prostitution. It's separate from the Vancouver action plan. That's the extent of our involvement. These programs are under the Ministry of Attorney General, and I would encourage the hon. member to examine them under that ministry's estimates.
M. Coell: In March of this year, the government proposed funding of $234,000 to the Prince Rupert Community Enrichment Society. The program has a number of components. It's housed in a ten-bed residential facility, and it offers life skills training -- topics of parenting skills, budgeting, nutrition, anger management, health issues for young mothers and children, and also some career planning. I just wonder if the minister could outline whether that program has gone ahead. I have some other questions regarding it, as well.
[ Page 645 ]
Hon. D. Streifel: I am aware of the program, and I would endeavour to thank the member for his comments. I'll have a look at where the funding is and where we're at as that program rolls out and is participated in within Prince Rupert.
M. Coell: In March of this year the government brought forward a program -- the press release read "Government Renews Support to Youth and a Stronger Community" -- with funding of $115,000 to the Kitimat Community Services Society. This is to deal with adolescents. It's renewed funding that enables the society to offer rehabilitation services in Kitimat Secondary School, work for about 40 students a year. I just wondered if the minister could comment on that program as to whether it has gone ahead as well.
[4:45]
Hon. D. Streifel: With all due respect to the member, I don't have specific details on all of these programs. If the member would bring forward the list he has that he wants information on, we will endeavour to supply that to him.
M. Coell: There are a number of programs that the opposition has some interest in seeing whether indeed they've gone ahead and been successful. If the government is going to issue press releases, I think it needs to be able to answer our questions in the House. I'm disappointed that I won't be getting an answer, because this requires funds in this year's budget.
R. Coleman: First of all in my line of questioning this afternoon, I'd like to take you back to Hansard of July 17, 1996, at which time I asked for a split of the funds out of the budget that dealt with mental health and physical handicaps. At that time I asked a question of what the split was in the budget for ventilated quadriplegics and the balance of disabilities. The answer you gave me was $194.54 million for the ventilated quads -- I assume, because it was the first part of the question -- and a balance of $44.91 million for paraplegics. That would leave $73,126,611 for people having mental handicaps. Would that be correct?
Hon. D. Streifel: The expenditures are all part of the total budget. I would remind the hon. member that we canvassed this area very extensively the other day.
R. Coleman: That's actually incorrect. If you recall, we were interrupted by the ringing of the bells. The debate didn't continue into that evening, so answers to the line of questioning were never even near to being complete.
First of all, before I get into questions relative to that, I just want to clarify that I'm correct. There's a $300-some-odd million expenditure for service to adults with mental handicaps and multiple disabilities. The answer to my question was $194-point-some million for ventilated quadriplegics, which is one form of disability, and $44.9 million to another form of disability, leaving $73-point-some million for people with mental disabilities. I just want to confirm that that's the breakdown before I continue with the balance of the question.
Hon. D. Streifel: The total budget for services to adults with mental handicaps and multiple disabilities is $332.38 million. The $194.54 million is for residential care.
R. Coleman: What you're saying is that your answer the other evening was not correct in the fact that the question had nothing to do with residential care at the time, and now we have a different answer for the $194.54 million. Let's deal with the $194.54 million. When you're dealing with residential care, I'm assuming you mean home care?
Hon. D. Streifel: It's primarily group home services to over 3,600 individuals.
R. Coleman: So you say that there are 3,600 individuals with physical disabilities, in group homes, that are in this $194 million?
Hon. D. Streifel: I'll try this one more time. It's not physical handicaps.
R. Coleman: So the $194.54 million is for mental handicaps, yet stated on July 17 in Hansard, it's for physical handicaps.
Hon. D. Streifel: It's for services to multiple handicaps; they may have other handicaps.
R. Coleman: Let's take a step back for a minute, please. Earlier in my questioning the other night, I asked what the total budget and the split-out were for physical and mental handicaps of the $300-and-some million. I was told that that question had been asked earlier in the day. I then had my staff check Hansard for the breakdown that was answered earlier in the day, and it couldn't be found. I then rephrased the question at that time to say that I wanted to deal just with physical handicaps. I asked for the breakdown on physical handicaps, and that's when I got the $194.54 million and $44.91 million split. Now I'm a little bit confused, because I'm assuming that you are now saying that you've locked mental and physical handicaps in group homes into one amount of the budget, the $194 million. Would that be correct?
Hon. D. Streifel: As the other night, this material has been supplied to the Liberal opposition in the prebriefing. It's all there; it's all available. I encourage the member to ask his caucus colleagues to share with him. These individuals have a mental handicap; they may have a physical handicap. We don't have a mandate to supply a service to individuals with just a physical handicap.
R. Coleman: I did read through the briefing documents, and it doesn't break it down in numbers to my satisfaction. I'm asking the hon. minister the questions because I'd like to know exactly where the money is going, not in general terms.
Let's move away from the group. Let's assume at this point in time that $194 million and some $300 million are going to group homes for the mentally and physically handicapped, and no services are related to it. Maybe we could just step aside from that, and you could tell
Hon. D. Streifel: It's all part of the $332.38 million budget.
[ Page 646 ]
R. Coleman: So what? My question was what part, not that it's all part. My question is: what part of the budget takes care of the home care portion for the physically and mentally handicapped outside of your group homes? There's some $300 million being spent here, and I think the House has a right to know how it's broken down.
Hon. D. Streifel: Specifically, we don't have that number here. We'll break it out if we can and supply it to the member when it's available.
R. Coleman: I hope that the number of items that are going to be supplied to me from my questions in the last few days arrive posthaste. It has been five days since the last questions, and that information hasn't arrived.
All right, let's move off that for a second, because obviously if we can't break it
The other night when we were into this discussion, I was told that you supply forms of medical equipment and technical aids from this ministry to disabled people on an as-need basis. I'm assuming that since the $194 million is now not set aside for ventilated quadriplegics, the $44.91 million that's left
[5:00]
Hon. D. Streifel: I suppose the member opposite has just identified a major difference between the Liberal caucus and the New Democrat government. This individual has spent 35 years in retail. I understand commodities; I understand product; I understand inventories. And as the Minister of Social Services and as a New Democrat MLA for five years, I understand the differences between that and real people.
R. Coleman: As a person who's worked with disabled people on volunteer boards, I understand real people, too. But that wasn't my question. My question was simply: how much of the money in the budget, the $44-point-some million of services to the disabled, is going out on equipment?
Hon. D. Streifel: If I remember answering this question the other evening, it was that there is no money under this budget for the type of equipment the individual is looking for. It comes in under another budget.
R. Coleman: The quote is direct. It's medical equipment and supplied "on an as-need basis." That was the answer to the question, and the question was: how much of the budget is being spent on the medical equipment that is being supplied on an as-need basis?
Hon. D. Streifel: Under other parts of the ministry budget, on an as-need basis, we spent about $14.35 million.
R. Coleman: Just so I understood that answer: under another part of the budget, you spent $14-point-some million on an as-need basis for medical supplies and equipment? Is that the answer?
Hon. D. Streifel: Yes.
R. Coleman: Then I guess we'll skip a couple of questions here. We'll come back to the $14-point-some million breakdown after I am finished this line of questioning. This one comes as a revelation to me, so we will now add that to another series of questions.
Assuming that there are no technical aids and no equipment being given out of the $44-point-some million, and assuming that there is no group home coming out of the $44-point-some million because they are already covered in the $194-point-some million, would the minister please tell me whether there are home care services coming out of this $44-point-some million, or what services to the disabled are coming out of the $44-point-some million that's left over?
The Chair: Hon. member, want to try another line of questioning?
R. Coleman: I'd like the House to note that the question is not being answered by the hon. minister with regard to what services his $44-point-some million is being spent on.
I'd like to move on to the issue of equipment. Would the hon. minister please tell me how a disabled person in this province applies, what approval criteria he or she goes through in applying and what age restrictions there are on applying for equipment from Social Services?
Hon. D. Streifel: An individual that's on handicap allowance or on income assistance would apply through a financial assistance worker.
R. Coleman: Thank you, hon. minister -- an answer. I'd like to know, then, please, if the hon. minister could tell me, the portion of the $44-point-some million, since this is some sort of
Hon. D. Streifel: Under the income assistance budget there's a medical transportation budget of $7.89 million.
R. Coleman: Is that $7-point-some million included in this $44-point-some million?
Hon. D. Streifel: I'll repeat part of my answer: it's in the income assistance budget.
R. Coleman: So I've got $44-point-some million that is not going to group homes. It's not going to home care support services. It's not going to technical aids. It's not going to a transportation fund for the disabled. So what exactly is the $44-point-some million going to?
[ Page 647 ]
Hon. D. Streifel: If the individual is referring to the figure that's in the documents we supplied to the Liberal caucus, that budget is for services for community living for adults with multiple disabilities.
I would refer the hon. member to Bill 15, which was introduced in the House today -- the scope and coverage of that bill -- and encourage him to participate in the second reading debate and the clause-by-clause examination of that bill when it reaches committee stage. It is not appropriate to discuss that bill in the examination of these estimates. Be aware that the provisions of that bill are before the House in another form.
The Chair: Hon. member, this is not the place for legislation. That comes up separately.
R. Coleman: That was going to be my question. Whether I'm in estimates or debate on
The Chair: You're in estimates.
R. Coleman: On a point of order, I thought I was entitled to ask questions with regard to the expenditure of funds from the Ministry of Social Services under estimates, and that's all I'm asking for.
We might want to go right back to the beginning. On July 17, 1996, the minister told me that the split for the two portions of the budget to deal with disabilities was $194.54 million and $44.91 million, as recorded in Hansard. I'm referring to the $44.91 million because he somewhat explained the $194.5 million to me. I'm asking what the $44.91 million is being spent on.
Hon. D. Streifel: That budget is to service a group of individuals who have come over, so to speak, from the Ministry of Health. It is to service their community living needs, and it's for adults with multiple handicaps.
R. Coleman: I missed the first part of the answer because the air conditioner -- thank goodness it's in here -- cut in behind my ear. Maybe you could just refer to the second part and explain to me what a community living need is.
Hon. D. Streifel: It's residential care and some day programs, but primarily residential care and group homes.
R. Coleman: So a portion of the funds is for residential care, but in the $194.5 million, we were already into residential care, home care and group homes. Are we double-dipping, using the funds for the same purpose and splitting them out of the budget? What is the case?
Maybe we could just deal with another item. How much of this particular budget is available for adult day care for the disabled?
Hon. D. Streifel: The member's reference from the first instance is a different client group than referred to in my answer in the second instance.
R. Coleman: Thank you, hon. minister, for your response to my comments. Now, could we have a response to my question? What portion of these funds are set aside for adult day care for physically or mentally handicapped individuals?
Hon. D. Streifel: It would be a relatively small portion of it. We haven't got the breakout right here.
R. Coleman: I've never been a millionaire, so anything over $1 million I don't consider to be relatively small. When I'm dealing with $300-some million, I find the figure somewhat staggering.
Is there a qualification to people with physical or mental handicaps for adult day care, and what is that qualification so that Social Services would pay for their day care?
Hon. D. Streifel: Yes, there is a qualification, and that information has been supplied to the Liberal caucus.
[5:15]
R. Coleman: I guess we will have our Social Services critic deal with that in a minute. He was wandering his head back and forth as to whether it was supplied to us in the detail we probably require.
Let's go back, then, to the $14 million being spent outside the $300-some million -- and there's another $7 million in services. I'm just wondering if, included in any of these three budgets, there is a portion of the budget set aside for assistance to the disabled for residential design of their existing home for adaptation for a new-found physical disability.
Hon. D. Streifel: The living accommodations of group home structures are designed to accommodate the individuals' needs as they enter community living. Their needs would be identified in the program writing, and how the individuals are assessed as they leave a facility or an institution and come into community living.
R. Coleman: I think we're all well aware that there are certain designs in group homes for people with physical handicaps, but that wasn't my question.
My question -- and I'm going to try to make it as easily understood as possible -- was: is there funding within this budget for the ministry to supply experts to somebody that has recently been physically handicapped in order for them to design their own living quarters or have assistance in designing their living quarters in order to adapt it for their physical needs versus having to live in a group home?
Hon. D. Streifel: I don't believe it's under the mandate of the Ministry of Social Services. I would encourage the member to examine that under the estimates of the Ministry of Health or other organizations. This is a very broad-based question. There could be numerous other agencies, facilities or groups in the community involved. Under their specific mandate, I don't believe that the Ministry of Social Services has what this individual is looking for.
R. Coleman: When you have a budget of over $2 billion, it covers an awful lot of things. Obviously, if you have seriously disabled that are 44-point-some-million
I know that the criteria for group homes are set by the B.C. Housing Management Commission, and I don't know what funding Social Services has in that design. Maybe we could just go back to the design of group homes. If you're doing group homes, are you specifically funding their operation, or are you having any involvement in their design?
[ Page 648 ]
Hon. D. Streifel: The facilities are built based on client need.
R. Coleman: I think we're all aware that they are based on client need; they are done through proposal calls through different ministries. However, my question was: since you operate group homes, is Social Services involved in the design criteria and the adaptation of any of these particular homes? Are you giving input to these other agencies from your expertise?
Hon. D. Streifel: The homes are built to serve the needs of the clients and the folks that come into community living, primarily from institutions.
R. Coleman: Who decides what those client needs are?
Hon. D. Streifel: I suppose there would be quite a number of individuals involved, from the clients themselves to the client's family to BCBC
I can't be any more specific than that, because I don't have a breakdown of who specifically the individual is addressing. If the individual were to bring forward who it is specifically, I couldn't discuss it anyway; it's an individual case. I can only give the member the broadest scope of how clients of the Ministry of Social Services are served. If the individual has a difficult time understanding that an individual program written for an individual is individual, then I can't make it any clearer than that.
R. Coleman: You've made it very clear that individuals have individual needs. But I've never seen a group home designed by taking six people with specific needs and saying we're going to design each unit to meet these particular individuals. There is a standardized format for the design of group homes that is used by your Housing Management Commission. I want to know if you are giving input into those designs? They're adapted when they move in.
Hon. D. Streifel: I'm going to try this one more time, on a definition, so to speak, of individuals. This ministry is involved to the extent that they serve the needs of their clients. Each one of these clients is individual. There are many other ministries and many other individuals and groups involved: the proposed operator of the group home, the contractor, the constructor, the clients, the client's family and the program writers. So to that extent there is some involvement.
R. Coleman: The hon. minister could have said that the first time. That's basically the answer I was looking for: that Social Services is involved in assisting with the design of group homes in conjunction with other agencies. It's obvious that no single group would be able to design group homes.
Seeing as I cannot get the breakdown of the $44.91 million or the $194.54 million by specifics, that leaves me with another $73,126,611, by my calculation, that is set aside for mental handicaps. Is the minister in a position to give me an idea of what that $73.1 million is being utilized for, for people with mental handicaps?
Hon. D. Streifel: As I mentioned earlier to a couple of the other members from the Liberal caucus, that's the funding for the day programs.
R. Coleman: Rather than belabour a point on a previous series of questions, would the minister, through his office, be prepared to give me, as the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove, the breakdown of the line items in all three of those categories we've discussed this afternoon?
Hon. D. Streifel: As we committed all through these estimates, whatever we can break down for the member we will, on a line-by-line basis. I've given this commitment to a few of the members opposite. We will give the breakdown.
R. Coleman: I'm a person that believes in sort of a diary date system. So my next question to the minister is: could you give me an idea of when I would receive that breakdown?
Hon. D. Streifel: As soon as it's available to us. Some of the information is a little more difficult to attain than others. We have been busy preparing for estimates. We did have a weekend in between now and last Friday, when I committed to some of this material. As soon as we can get it, we will deliver it to the member.
R. Coleman: I'm sure the taxpayers of British Columbia are comfortable in the fact that it's now July. This budget started in April, and we can't break out what we're spending our money on in July of 1996. It's somewhat disappointing.
Seeing as I don't have a date for that breakdown, I'm sure that through the next few days, I'll keep asking you as to when it might be available on a regular basis and as to when I can get it.
I have only one final question for the moment, and then I'll pass it on to another hon. member. My question is: out of the $73,126,611 -- and I keep coming back to these numbers because these are your breakouts, not my breakouts, according to Hansard -- how many people are being served by that day program?
Hon. D. Streifel: There are 6,894.
R. Neufeld: I want to go back in time a bit. I know the minister was not the minister at the time, but in early 1993, there was a report drafted concerning administrative error and fraud. In that report, there were approximately 58 recommendations put forward to the Ministry of Social Services. I am aware of a number of the recommendations that were acted upon -- about 20 of them, I believe. Could the minister inform me whether the ministry has taken it upon itself to put into place the balance of the recommendations and, if not, why not?
Hon. D. Streifel: For the hon. member, we're way beyond that report, and, as a matter of fact, I'm not familiar with it. The member pointed out very accurately that it was before my time as a minister. We have very many programs underway -- you know, data-matching, cheque-pickup and numerous other initiatives underway to combat fraud. We will be diligent in our movement against fraud and abuse. You know of the prevention, compliance and enforcement branch measures; we discussed that in detail the other night in the examination of these estimates. I would encourage the member to refer to that debate in Hansard to understand more fully some of the measures that we've taken and try to leave it at that, because we're way beyond 1993.
[ Page 649 ]
[5:30]
R. Neufeld: That's entirely correct. We are long past 1993, and I guess that's what begs the question. Many of the recommendations have not been acted on. Is that the practice of the Ministry of Social Services, then, that if they get a report in one year and they cannot act upon all the recommendations, it gets filed on the shelf? If you change ministers, then are you no longer responsible for it? Or are we taking recommendations seriously? Many of these recommendations come from financial assistance workers, those on the front line, those people who recommended many changes to the way social services would be delivered in the province. Do we take so lightly their input? Do we take so lightly the time that they put into these recommendations that we just lightly brush off the fact that we're not interested because these are recommendations from a number of years ago and we're just going to carry on and not pay any attention to them at all?
Hon. D. Streifel: I would just like to take the member back to the first debates and examination of the estimates for the Ministry of Social Services. I think we all learned through those debates that this ministry has a zero tolerance for welfare fraud and abuse. My colleague the former minister made that crystal-clear when she was Minister of Social Services, and I have no intention of softening our stance on fraud and abuse. People who cheat welfare are stealing from the poor, and I won't tolerate it.
Let me reiterate some of the steps the ministry has taken to date. It's a long list, hon. member, so I'll try to go in chronological order. When I'm finished the list, I'm sure you'll agree that we have accomplished a lot.
Two years ago, in 1994, we established a prevention, compliance and enforcement division, headed by a former RCMP inspector. Around the same time, the ministry launched a series of proactive measures aimed at cutting down on fraud, abuse and duplication. We got together with other provinces and worked out a system to cross-check our welfare rolls to check for double-dippers. We closed a costly loophole that allowed people to collect welfare and unemployment insurance at the same time. We brought in a new policy around lost and stolen cheques. We brought in mandatory job search report cards for single employable people and for childless couples. We brought in new procedures to recover rental security deposits. We introduced a system where some people had to come and pick up their cheques in person.
During that very first year alone, our proactive measures saved B.C. taxpayers $46 million: $35 million by closing the unemployment insurance loophole and $11 million by cracking down on fraud. That's not counting the value of deterrence: the money we save when people who might have thought of ripping off the system didn't because they knew they'd get caught. Obviously the measures we introduced in 1994 were successful, and they continue today. I'm proud to say that we've been adding to them, building on them, making sure that people who abuse the system get caught.
Last year, in 1995-96, we added 63 new staff to our prevention, compliance and enforcement -- PCE -- division, for a total of 158 FTEs. Since I know members opposite are most interested in the composition of the PCE division, I'll break it down for you. We have ten supervisors, each with a background in police work or ministry fraud investigation; 41 investigators, most of them former police officers; and 24 assistant investigators. These are the folks who deal with cases where the amount of fraud detected is not large enough to warrant the time and money involved in criminal prosecution. Rounding out the total, we have seven staff at headquarters, who develop and administer programs; 19 administrative support staff; 26 verification officers and 31 eligibility officers. All of our staff in these last two categories formerly worked as ministry financial assistance workers.
Before I give you the latest figures on PCE successes, I'd like to take a moment to explain how the division works. As its name suggests, PCE focuses on three separate areas: prevention, compliance and enforcement. Prevention is perhaps the most cost-effective means we have of dealing with fraud. It's right up there alongside deterrence. It's a whole lot cheaper to stop fraud from happening in the first place than it is to chase the bad guys down and take them through the court system. One good example of prevention is the data-matching we do with other provinces and the federal government, which makes sure people aren't collecting benefits in more than one jurisdiction. Another great example is our new early-detection program, the first of its kind in Canada. I suppose the acronym for that would be EDP. For six months, starting in October of last year, we tested this program at 16 sites in communities around the province. Specialized intake workers looked at applications for what we consider to be indications of high risk for fraud. Those high-risk applications, or roughly 25 percent of applications received, were referred for investigation. In more than half the cases we investigated -- 52 percent -- people either didn't qualify for benefits or they qualified for less than the maximum amount. Monthly savings just from the pilot were $1.3 million, and we're in the process now of implementing this early-detection program in all major B.C. urban areas.
So that's the kind of work we are doing with prevention. It's leading-edge, it's innovative, and it's the first time in the province of British Columbia that the government has been diligent in this area. We're doing more in this regard than any other jurisdiction in Canada, and these efforts are highly cost-effective.
Our compliance programs are also highly cost-effective. They involve reviewing eligibility for benefits in cases where, again, we spot what we consider to be high-risk indicators. A good example here is our cross-check of people on welfare rolls who have also won lottery prizes. That initiative alone saved more than $1 million in '95-96.
I think it's worth pointing out that our PCE programs aren't all punitive. Obviously, the more money we save through these initiatives, the more there is available to support those in need, but some of our programs help our clients in other ways. There's a case in point, hon. members. Last fall we placed a special focus on clients over 60 years of age. We wanted to make sure they were getting all the benefits they were entitled to -- not just from the province, but from Ottawa as well. Some of these folks qualified for Canada Pension Plan, or CPP, payments. Some of them were entitled to the federal widowed spouses allowance and didn't know these benefits were available to them. We helped close to 4,000 people get these federal benefits. A lot of them are now getting more money every month, and that's pretty significant for someone on a fixed income. So as I've said, our PCE initiatives can be quite helpful and supportive in enforcement.
Enforcement programs are a different story. They generally involve having people repay money that they shouldn't have received in the first place. As I mentioned earlier, a good portion of fraud cases just aren't big enough to warrant the
[ Page 650 ]
time and money needed for criminal prosecution. But don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying we shy away from enforcement, hon. members -- just the opposite. We push enforcement hard, and we will continue to push enforcement hard. Over the last two years, the number of fraud charges laid has increased by 110 percent. Last year alone, we laid 233 new charges and we had 141 convictions.
We also took nearly 5,000 repayment agreements, worth more than $9 million, and we sent a clear message that people who abuse the system will get caught. All told, prevention, compliance and enforcement -- that's PCE -- initiatives in '95-96 saved B.C. taxpayers well over $50 million. That's consistent with our solid commitment to eliminate fraud, waste and abuse and to make sure resources are available for those who are truly in need.
R. Neufeld: I thank the minister for that well-read response, but he still has not answered my question. I guess I can only assume, then, that the 58 recommendations that were made have not been followed up on -- other than about 17 to 20 of them. That's unfortunate. The minister evades answering that question, so I can only assume that that is the correct amount.
I understand that last year -- I have written down the information as he was reading it -- there were 141 convictions and 233 charges laid. As I understand it, there were over 15,000 reports of fraud. Would the 15,000 be an erroneous figure, or would that be correct?
Hon. D. Streifel: The ministry policy is that all referrals of fraud be investigated. A total of 12,746 cases were referred in '95-96, and as a result of investigating these referrals, welfare benefits were stopped in 1,133 cases; 4,986 repayment agreements were taken; and 177 court compensation orders resulted from a court conviction. In addition, 233 new charges were laid; an additional 169 cases sworn in '94-95 are still before the courts; and there were 141 convictions. The number of charges laid have increased by 110 percent since the establishment of the PCE division, a 56 percent increase in '95-96. Some investigations result in an inability to locate clients or in insufficient or unfounded evidence.
R. Neufeld: Thank you for that information.
On the "smart card," I didn't listen to all the debates, but I just wonder if the "smart card" issue has been discussed with the minister in earlier debates.
Hon. D. Streifel: The ministry has been working with the Ministry of Health and the motor vehicle branch on their new system of identification card with the digital photo. The new digital identification system is an important tool in our efforts to reduce fraud and abuse. It will become more difficult for individuals to produce fraudulent ID.
R. Neufeld: The driver's licence program that's in place is a start in the right direction. I know the minister read off fairly quickly what's taken place in the Ministry of Social Services, but maybe he could expand a little more on whether the ministry has any intention of instituting the "smart card" system to dovetail with the Ministry of Transportation and Highways -- the motor vehicle branch; or ICBC, I guess, is what we'll know it as here shortly -- and the Ministry of Health to detect fraud and to provide to those people the services they should receive.
[5:45]
Hon. D. Streifel: If the individual is referring to a single identifier -- master identification or something like that -- it's far beyond the realm of just this ministry. There are other ministries involved. It could be part of future policy discussions by government, not just this ministry.
R. Neufeld: I realize that it would cross ministry lines. That's pretty evident to all of us. I didn't need that explanation.
I would like to know how the minister feels about the implementation of a "smart card" system within the Ministry of Social Services.
The Chair: Hon. member, do you want to try a new line of questioning?
R. Neufeld: It's obvious that the minister doesn't have the answers written on a piece of paper, so he elects to just sit in his chair and not answer questions that are ably put by members of the opposition. I find it rather disheartening.
Something that other provinces are using to identify people and to streamline the system to make it better for all, for those that pay taxes and those that receive the
The B.C. Child and Family Review Board has started up. I would like to know if all 15 people that are supposed to be on that board have been appointed?
Hon. J. MacPhail: It is interesting to sit and listen to the debate, and I do appreciate the exchange of ideas here. I just want to advise the member for Peace River North that some of the questions he raised are truly cross-ministry and are future policy that the executive council has not contemplated yet. So we are trying to be extremely cooperative, but there are some things that are just not within the realm of estimates, but later on they will be within the realm of future discussion within this Legislature, so I hope there is some understanding of that.
Hon. D. Streifel: The answer is six and more to come. I guess I don't need this written-out answer, because future policy is out of order.
R. Neufeld: I would like to go to the estimates book and a section which is, at least to me, new. You may have canvassed it already, and if you have, the minister could just inform me and I'll read Hansard. It is the social service agencies restructure program that is in place. Maybe the minister could just explain to me a bit about the meaning of it and what really happens on the ground with this money.
Hon. D. Streifel: I really thank the hon. member for this question. It's the first time it's come up, and it's a new initiative. If the hon. member will indulge this minister, very new to the ministry, I'll give him the response off a piece of paper.
This is a new initiative introduced this year to encourage the province's community social service agencies to explore cost-saving opportunities, providing loans to stimulate investment in innovation and efficiencies. Loans will be available for new programs or systems which will increase the efficiency of agency operations or reduce agency costs.
[ Page 651 ]
Projects will encourage joint provision of administration services among several agencies -- for example, joint payroll systems, amalgamation of agencies. Agencies will be required to submit a business case outlining projected operating costs and expected savings and benefits to be achieved. The program provides seed money, so to speak, for innovation in return for commitments that the loans will be repaid over a number of years out of operating-cost savings.
Thank you again, hon. member. It's a very good question, and it's a program that should help a lot.
R. Neufeld: I want to go back to the Child and Family Review Board. I know the board is fairly new. It's supposed to be at arm's length from government, but government funds it. It was to start reviewing cases, I believe, in March. In fact, applications were out as early as last fall. I just wonder if the minister is satisfied that we have only six members appointed to date, instead of the 15 we're supposed to have. Does the ministry intend to speed up that process a bit?
Hon. D. Streifel: The board is functioning. There's no backlog. We will be filling out the board in the fullness of time, so to speak, when there is a function. It's there, and the board works. If it works, it works, I suppose.
R. Neufeld: One more question, I guess -- probably before we have to adjourn. In late February of this year I was sent a press release by the government which stated that the Ministry of Social Services eliminated 102 positions in an effort to save money. Could the minister explain briefly -- or if he wishes, he can give it to me by letter later on -- which positions were eliminated in the Ministry of Social Services? Maybe he could give a brief explanation of why we now see an increase in FTEs for the Ministry of Social Services of 242 people this year. In effect, if you reduced the ministry FTEs by 102 in February, we really have an increase, then, of about 344 people in the 1996-97 year. Would that be correct?
Hon. D. Streifel: The member is correct. There was a reduction in FTEs in an attempt to streamline, but we have a net increase of 242. These have been dedicated to high-priority programs and areas in keeping with the mandate of the ministry in, for instance, the protection of children and detection of fraud. We did do some shuffling -- sort of.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I move 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.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that the House stand recessed until 6:35 p.m., and thereafter sit until adjournment.
Motion approved.
The House recessed at 6 p.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; W. Hartley in the chair.
The committee met at 2:54 p.m.
On vote 11: minister's office, $400,867 (continued).
J. van Dongen: We're going to continue putting questions to the minister about the agricultural land reserve. Some of the other members are going to join me in that effort. I thought I would start out by asking a few questions about the status of certain lands within British Columbia with respect to the agricultural land reserve. I gather that there has been some change in the status of Colony Farm, but I wonder if the minister could tell us exactly what the situation is with respect to that.
Hon. C. Evans: It's still in the ALR and a forensic institute has been approved for the site, but there's going to be rehabilitation of lands that were not previously of agricultural quality up to agricultural lands. Therefore it will fall under the sort of no-net-loss policy of the Land Commission if agricultural land is used for any other purpose. Agricultural capability land will be raised to agricultural use to present no net loss to the provincial inventory.
J. van Dongen: Is the no-net-loss policy on an acreage basis or on an agricultural capability basis? How is that measured?
Hon. C. Evans: It's a policy in evolution. The no-net-loss policy could mean either of the examples the member used. Because these kinds of situations are increasing, the Land Commission is attempting to nail down a policy that would be applicable across the province rather than on a piece-by-piece basis.
J. van Dongen: As I understand it, then, it's a concept that employs the use of trade-offs to meet other needs within the community, but at the same time protects agricultural capability. Is that a reasonable definition?
Hon. C. Evans: That's more or less true, but with the caveat that whatever is being traded off doesn't impact negatively on the surrounding agricultural community. We're not going to make an arrangement for an isolated parcel which then makes it more difficult to farm adjacent or nearby parcels.
J. van Dongen: In the case of the forensic institute, is there a whole new facility being built? If so, will the old one be torn down or what will happen to it?
Hon. C. Evans: It's going to be a brand-new building. The site of the old buildings is part of what is going to be rehabilitated so that, in fact, when a new building is built and the old buildings are removed and the land is returned to agricultural capability, there ought to be fewer square metres removed from production capacity than was the case before.
[ Page 652 ]
J. van Dongen: Is Colony Farm still officially held by B.C. Buildings Corporation? How is the ownership of Colony Farm held?
Hon. C. Evans: It's a tough question, because it's not in my area of responsibility. This ministry doesn't control that land, but I'll find out for you.
J. van Dongen: How would the ministry and the Land Commission respond to a submission to have the PNE located there? I think that was considered at one time. I'm just wondering if the minister can fill us in on how that would be viewed?
Hon. C. Evans: In the interest of getting out before fall, let's just say we don't deal with hypothetical questions.
J. Weisgerber: I'm intrigued by this notion of evolving policy around the no-net-loss issue. I guess the first thing I have to ask the minister is: is this covered by legislation? Is it covered by regulation? Who is allowing this policy to evolve? Is it evolving out of the minister's office? What's the basis for this process?
[3:00]
Hon. C. Evans: It is neither legislation nor regulation. It is evolving out of the commission and the work of the commission itself. It will result in policy which the commission will make public.
J. Weisgerber: Is the commission empowered to make those kinds of policy decisions? I was under the assumption that the commission would be guided by the appropriate legislation. It seems to me that what we have, then, is policy being developed by people who are not directly accountable to anyone. Moreover, if I were seeking to make an application to the commission on a particular piece of property, then I would find myself somewhat at a disadvantage unless I happened to be here in the committee and aware of this evolving policy by some process other than the available literature.
Hon. C. Evans: I don't think that the hon. member is correct to say that the only way anybody would know about the policy is if they happen to be here and hear it discussed in estimates. An applicant goes to the Land Commission and says: "I would like to apply for an exclusion." The Land Commission will say to the applicant: "Our policy is that we find a way that there be no net loss." Then the applicants themselves are engaged not through some process of third parties but directly with the commission and the commission's employees to find a way to make the policy work for them.
The other thing I want to say is that the commission answers to me; I answer to the Legislature. I don't think that the notion that the decisions are made by people unanswerable to anyone is necessarily correct.
J. Weisgerber: Does the minister anticipate that this policy, as it emerges, will ultimately be reflected in legislation or regulation, or in some policy statement that is broadly available to people who have an interest in this area?
Hon. C. Evans: The power to exclude land and to include land is entrenched in legislation now; the power is granted to the commission. It is the interpretation of that power which will be enunciated as a policy by the commission, and the way that it will be discussed with the people of B.C. is by written communication with all 130 municipal governments with which the commission does business.
The hon. member probably knows that if he wants to get some land excluded where he lives, the process involves attending his regional district or municipality to make application. It will be those people with whom the commission will enunciate their policy.
J. Weisgerber: At the point where the policy is at today, does it require that this transfer or makeup of agricultural land come from land that is owned by the applicant? Does it have to come off a commonly owned piece of property with the same title? Does it have to come off other lands owned by the applicant, or can the desired effect result from an arrangement between a number of applicants?
Hon. C. Evans: Hon. Chair, the first answer is: all of the above. There are possibilities. There have been cases. Fraser Valley College is another example where negotiations have taken a long period of time and have involved a third party; where party A requests to have land excluded and gets together with the municipality, party B, willing to include some land in order that there be a no-net-loss accommodation. It's also possible that a large developer who owns more than one piece of land might make the same offer to the commission within their own land portfolio. Before people imagine a provincewide scale to the whole thing, I would caution them that the commission deals with pieces of land that are adjacent or within the same community, and has not extended this arrangement to offers in different valleys or different communities. It has thus far been an attempt to arrange an accommodation for development within a specific area, and the lands contributed or removed have been adjacent to or nearby one another.
J. Weisgerber: One of the risks that I see with this notion of emerging policy or policy that's not well defined is that everyone has an opportunity to put on their own spin, or at least approach this with some uncertainty, and perhaps go away unsuccessful and feeling that the undefined policy hasn't been well interpreted in their particular circumstances. That causes me some concern.
I'm curious to know, though, about an area in the Peace. For example, you might have a quarter section of land that's included in the agricultural land reserve, a portion of which is not farmed but is covered with aspen trees. Is it the kind of policy that would allow an application to take off a home site in the cultivated portion of the land, and in turn start to cultivate some land that has always been agricultural reserve land but not used for farming purposes? Would it be the commitment to take the forest cover off and start actively farming the land? Would that be part of the no-net-loss kind of offer that someone might put forward as part of something that would fall under this new policy?
Hon. C. Evans: No. The case the hon. member mentions is not the kind of case where the policy has been used, nor can I imagine it being used in that fashion. The question was prefaced by a statement that an evolving policy offers an opportunity for people to misunderstand it and be told no. Of course that's true, but the converse is that we spent most of last week talking about whether or not it was possible to apply logic and common sense in working out solutions to complex problems in a spirit of partnership. The no-net-loss
[ Page 653 ]
policy has made an attempt to apply logic and commonsense solutions to complex problems, particularly in cases like those of Colony Farm, the University College of Fraser Valley or a piece of land in a semiurban situation with land pressures.
The case the member asked about where a person would take some land out in exchange for beginning to farm some land that had never been farmed before would take the commission into brand-new territory -- judging the value to the province of ALR land that was not farmed. That has never been the intention of the commission.
J. Weisgerber: Then, rather than me cast around for examples that might work, perhaps the minister could explain how the policy is being considered at Colony Farm? What land is being brought in? By what process do you add land or capacity if indeed you don't start farming land that isn't currently being farmed?
Hon. C. Evans: In the Colony Farm example there is no new land being added to or deleted from the ALR. What's happening is that the applicant had some land that had always been inside the agricultural land reserve and asked if they could build a brand-new building on it. The commission said: "Yes, you can build a brand-new building on it, but then you have to take down some of the existing facilities and rehabilitate the land to agricultural capability in order that there is no net loss to the agricultural capability of the whole."
J. Wilson: Hon. Chair, I have a question for the minister. He stated that with this no-net-loss
Hon. C. Evans: In the law -- and the member said to be very precise -- the minister does not have the right to overturn policy. But if the hon. member would like an understanding of practice, in practice the minister reviews the annual report and the evolution of policy at the commission, and dialogue is relatively constant. Historically, it is not my impression that the commission has gone in directions opposed to the will of the minister; but in law the minister has no more right to overturn their policy decisions than their decisions about a particular piece of property being excluded from the ALR.
[3:15]
J. Wilson: If the scenario were to arise where the Agricultural Land Commission developed policy that was unacceptable to the people, how would they go about having that change so that it would become more equitable?
Hon. C. Evans: First, I think that the minister would correspond with the commission and encourage them to have a meeting with the minister, and then there would be a strong kind of conversation where some straight talk was expressed. If that didn't work very well, the WCB example might then be a good thing for the member to contemplate. I'm getting at the fact that ultimately the minister, of course, has the power -- not to tell the commission what to think, but to remove the commission from their jobs.
J. Wilson: What I'm hearing, in other words, is that as long as the commission doesn't upset the minister too much, then they will be allowed to function. The question I asked originally was: does the minister have the power to control the policy of the Agricultural Land Commission? So if he has the power to remove the commission at any time because he doesn't agree with them, then indirectly he would have total control over policy. Is this what I'm hearing?
Hon. C. Evans: No.
J. Wilson: I'm still confused, but I'll go on to something else. Is the Ministry of Agriculture an advocate for the Agricultural Land Commission, or for the producers that are out there? What exactly is the mandate that the minister would like to see worked on here? Is it for the benefit of the actual producers who are in agriculture? Is it for the ministry? Is the ministry basically a service ministry, or does it have the ability to intervene at any time if a situation comes up where we need changes that will benefit the producers so they can survive in their line of work?
Hon. C. Evans: The question sort of asked what my point of view is. I'm not going to answer that, because it would be a philosophical conversation. It would be better if we had it over a cup of coffee. But the law says that there's an agricultural land act, and the minister's mandate is to enforce the act; the act mandates the minister to support the act and the commission. If the act requires amendment, usually the way it goes is that the minister asks the ministry to prepare amendments to the act, the act is changed and then the commission does what the new legislation requires them to do.
J. Wilson: There are a lot of people in agriculture today who have worked hard all their lives, they've reached a point where they have to or would like to retire, and they cannot get out of the situation they're in with regard to cutting a retirement residence off a piece of land they're on. The value of their land is depressed by the fact that we have an agricultural land reserve. The value is not allowed to increase to any appreciable extent. There's a great deal of unhappiness and concern out there today, and we are constantly hearing that we need to change the Agricultural Land Commission's policy with regard to the utilization of certain parcels within parcels, etc., and to various uses on this agricultural reserve. We all know that it has never been inventoried and that there is a considerable number of acres within that reserve that are not for the use of food production.
On Friday the minister stated very definitely that he is totally committed to the integrity of the Agricultural Land Commission and the agricultural land reserve. That tells me that he's not going to work towards amendments or changes to their policy that would accommodate the vast majority of producers of agricultural products in this province.
I would like to know if he will consider changes, regional changes? We cannot use a one-rule-fits-all policy in this province. When it stretches out for 1,000 miles and everything changes every few hundred miles, you have completely different conditions, different environments and different uses for that land. We need regional modifications within this policy.
Is the minister prepared to look at some changes that will help the people? Instead of keeping at a job with no good future except depressed prices all their
[ Page 654 ]
We need to make a lot of changes in the industry, and one of the biggest factors holding us back is this agricultural land reserve.
Hon. C. Evans: Once again we are getting pretty far away from the estimates and dangerously close to a philosophical discussion on what kind of guy is the minister, or what's in his heart -- which I think is inappropriate to this moment.
Secondly, I would bet that if the hon. member canvassed the other people in the room on Friday when we were having a philosophical conversation, he would come up with a completely different understanding of what I said and what that means for agriculture. I'm not sure that going through it again is hugely productive.
Specifically, my job as minister is to preserve agricultural land. Democracy works perfectly because the hon. member's job is to act as advocate for individual constituents who sent him here to do that job. Between us, we ought to be able to manage complex issues as close to perfection as we can because one of us is looking after the main issue over the long term, and the other individual with a singular issue, immediate needs. I think that is exactly the way the system was designed to function.
In terms of the question about regionalization, over recent years and even months, we have gone from a fairly centralized commission to one in which the vast majority -- by far the greatest majority -- are actually people from the regions, including the hon. member's region and my region. The days when you had an urban commission making decisions for rural people do not exist anymore. In recent years, we have doubled the speed with which people get an answer.
In recent years, we have created a whole system by which the plans of regional districts and the Land Commission are melded, in order to allow people to see what the future looks like for their community, and at the regional district level -- also by elected people -- to influence that future. I think that the situation is evolving quickly towards a more perfect system, and I would argue that, in this room, the hon. member's job and my job, while not the same, is to work on behalf of the hon. member's constituents.
B. Barisoff: Maybe the hon. minister could tell us what the criteria are to be appointed to the Land Commission. Then we could tell what kind of people get on it from the regions and where the decisions flow from.
Hon. C. Evans: We try. In trying to improve the makeup of the board, we try firstly for geographic representation, secondly for gender representation and thirdly for skill set representation. In other words, people who bring representative skills that are useful to the table -- like understanding of agriculture, of different commodity groups, of municipal government and of legal matters -- so that you wind up with a table which is reasonably balanced between men and women, people around the province, people who have an understanding of different commodities, and those who have the skills to understand the technical and legal questions with which the commission is working. But you don't try and find all those skills within an individual. You're trying to assemble one homogenous, thinking body.
[3:30]
B. Barisoff: There seemed to be some concern on Friday about the criteria for second dwellings, the size of second dwellings, and when a person could put a second dwelling on their property. Perhaps the hon. minister could go back into that area. My concern was whether people who have bought since '72 were entitled to put a second dwelling on their property.
Hon. C. Evans: A person with land in the ALR can apply for a second dwelling for farm help. A person with land in the ALR -- whether it's a family member or a non-family member -- can apply to put a single-wide manufactured home on their land for use by a member of their family, whether or not that person is engaged in farm help. And if additional homes are valuable to farm production, a person can apply for additional residences and make their argument in terms of the farm operation.
B. Barisoff: Does that also apply since '72? Can people buying after 1972 apply for those same rights?
Hon. C. Evans: Yes.
B. Barisoff: Would the hon. minister be thinking that since the Land Commission has come into effect -- it's been some 24 years, and for some people who bought just after, it would almost be coming to a retirement stage in their
Hon. C. Evans: I think I understand the relationship between the two questions, and I think I didn't answer the first question just right. The hon. member was asking about a comment I made on Friday, and his question had to do with the difference between ownership prior to 1972 and after 1972. When the legislation was passed in 1972, it allowed for homesite severance for people who had owned the land prior to 1972 -- which meant you could cut off your home and sell the farm. That is not allowed for people who have acquired the land since. I think the hon. member's question is: are we thinking of allowing homesite severance for people who have acquired their land since 1972? The answer to that question is no. You need to know that I don't think farm groups in British Columbia generally support homesite severance for people who have bought land since 1972, for the logical reason that everybody knew what the rules were when they bought the land.
R. Thorpe: On page 12 of the annual report of the Agricultural Land Commission, it says that one of the goals is to maintain the integrity of the ALR. In pursuit of that goal, does the general manager have any discretionary decision-making power that would call for the application of common sense?
Hon. C. Evans: Sure.
R. Thorpe: Could the minister explain to me, then, since the general manager has that authority or discretionary
[ Page 655 ]
are looking at building a winery, they have to go through the process of applying through the Agricultural Land Commission. That usually takes some time, and we can understand that it does. But after their application has been approved and they have built their winery, if they decide to put in a J licence, then they have to go through the same approval-from-authority process again. I just wonder what the minister thinks about that application of common sense.
Hon. C. Evans: The application of common sense to any question implies that for starters you should get all the information. As with everything else in government, the issue of J licences has more than one side; in fact, it has a whole spectrum of different points of view. It's a new area for the Land Commission and for government.
Firstly, they've got to coordinate what they do with the liquor control and licensing branch. Secondly, they have to coordinate what they do with the impact on other farms and farmland. Thirdly, the winery industry in general -- it would be incorrect to say the entire winery industry -- is in support of J licences. And fourthly, as the member from the Peace pointed out before, when you create a policy, it then makes possible all kinds of creative thinking all over the province. It's important in the application of common sense to make sure that what you do is defensible in all the other industries in all the other regions; it can't be designed just for the Okanagan.
It makes sense to me. I would defend the notion that in the application for a J licence, the first job of the commission should be to wrap their head around the issue, gather information from all the various parties, come up with some defensible policy that's applicable to all cases and then attempt to fit each application into that policy. We have assigned an individual at the staff of the Land Commission to work specifically on this issue. I hope that when I stand up here in estimates next year, the hon. member will be quite satisfied that this evolving issue has been addressed with common sense and that there is a pragmatic application system in train.
R. Thorpe: I hope that is true. I'll be one of the first to compliment you, minister, if that does in fact happen, because I read in the report about having to be internationally competitive. That's one of the things we have to make sure of -- that the producers, the farmers, are able to compete. When we look at the global picture, that's part of competing.
I would also like to suggest to the minister that perhaps the commission should be having aggressive dialogue with some of the other people from government facilities that are involved in the process, because when I ask them what the problem is with the J licences, they suggest to me that it's the ALC. So perhaps we have to convene a meeting of those parties to see what really is the problem. But I do look forward to being able to congratulate the minister next year.
On page 15 of the report, it indicates that one of the goals of the ALC is to ensure that administrative procedures are efficient, responsive and fair. Could the minister describe for me which benchmarks have been in place to measure such efficiencies in this administrative system? Could the minister, after this meeting, perhaps have staff provide us with a report on how they're doing against these established benchmarks? I'm sure the minister would realize that if it's to be more than words, there have to be meaningful benchmarks to measure the results against.
Hon. C. Evans: The benchmarks for the Agricultural Land Commission are determined in the creation of the business plan. The business plan is created on an annual basis. It sets out for the commission what their objectives are to be -- you know: "Here we are in 1992. Where do we want to be in '93? Here we are in '93. Where do we want to be in '94?"
The last benchmark that I can give the member as an example was that the commission responded to municipal governments who were saying applications take too long. They set a benchmark that they would have a turnaround time of 90 days. They haven't met it 100 percent, but they are up to 70-plus percent. I hope that by the time I come back, we can say that they are 100 percent there. I will ask the staff to supply the hon. member with last year's business plan so that he can see what the commission is setting as its targets for this year.
R. Thorpe: I would assume -- and I know one should not make assumptions, but I don't want to insult the staff and the minister, so I'm going to make the assumption -- that the commission takes very seriously comments and recommendations made by other government-sponsored agricultural organizations such as the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority. Is that assumption correct?
Hon. C. Evans: Sure.
R. Thorpe: We seem to have -- or you and the ALC seem to have -- some concerns about the possible application of a regionalized approach to administration of the ALC. Is my assumption on that point correct? I believe that's what you stated.
Hon. C. Evans: Yes.
R. Thorpe: My concern, then, is that when we have what appears to be a successful regional agriculture-government
[3:45]
Hon. C. Evans: I think it's a really good question. And I'm not going to tell you the answer. [Laughter.]
R. Thorpe: Thank you very much, I appreciate that vote of confidence.
Hon. C. Evans: I take the question to be: since the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority is a regional body, or applies to a regional client group, and it works pretty well, then why wouldn't I consider the regionalization of the agricultural land reserve? I think that when, in an attempt at brevity, I simply said no, maybe I should have given a longer answer to the previous question.
I do think that it's important to have an understanding of regional differences, and that's why we appoint people from the regions to the Agricultural Land Commission. But we don't ask, and the OVTFA doesn't ask, the Agricultural Land Commission to exclude particular lands in their region -- nor would it be appropriate if they did so. We need to be able to have the people in British Columbia trust the Agricultural Land Commission, and anything that's been around for 24
[ Page 656 ]
I can't imagine a way to break that down faster or to create chaos faster than to say: "Let's manage this thing eight different ways around the province. Let's manage it differently in every forest district" -- or whatever. It was that refusal to consider balkanization of the process that led me to say: "No, I'm not interested in regionalization." But if the member is saying: "Isn't it important to bring some local understanding to bear on local
R. Thorpe: Everything we do in our life -- on a day-in, day-out basis -- has to be based on the premise of trust. There's absolutely no question about that. I think, too, that we have to make sure that we're producing workable results. This is 1996, not 1972. The world has changed, and the world will continue to change. As the minister said on Thursday, I believe it was, about international competitiveness, niche marketing, premium
I would just really like to suggest that the Tree Fruit Authority, which I guess we'll be talking about later, has had some successes. People in the Okanagan do not want to live on subsidies. They want to produce premium products, get premium dollars and replant. There are some other considerations which other members over here have attempted to raise. I would just really like to suggest to the minister that his office work very hard at integrating workable recommendations from one organization to the other, and have the courage to take those bold steps. That really wasn't a question. It was a statement.
My last question for now: is there an independent appeal process of ALC decisions?
Hon. C. Evans: No.
R. Thorpe: Given the complexities of our society today and the number of appeals that people can enter into and pursue in almost every facet of their life, do you believe, in 1996, that individual citizens of British Columbia not having the right of independent appeal is the correct position for the ALC today?
Hon. C. Evans: Yes.
J. van Dongen: Hon. Chair, just to continue on the questions to the minister about a few of our famous -- or I guess infamous -- areas of farmland, I want to get an update from the minister on the situation with respect to the Roberts Bank backup lands that were purchased by the government sometime in the late sixties, I think. There's a group of farmers, former owners of that land, who've been very actively trying to pursue an option to repurchase that land. I wonder if the minister could just tell us what the government's position is on that situation.
Hon. C. Evans: First answer: it's not my area of responsibility. It's a Ministry of Lands issue.
Second answer: it's been referred to the Attorney General by the Premier's Office. At the Premier's request the Attorney General is looking into this issue and what has gone on.
Third answer: I have an opinion, too, and if you want to know, you can ask me.
J. van Dongen: Jeez, I like that invitation. What is the minister's opinion?
Hon. C. Evans: I think that the land should be available for long-term lease.
J. van Dongen: Is there any involvement by the Land Commission right now in the leasing of that land? Or are the leases also being handled by Environment, Lands and Parks?
Hon. C. Evans: The chair of the Agricultural Land Commission is co-chair of the committee that's attempting to get long-term leases in place. He expressed some personal opinions about the length of time it's taking, but I shan't put that on the record.
J. van Dongen: If we keep going, we should have everybody in trouble before we're done. But we'll play it safe and go on to something else.
I know that the Land Commission was engaged in what I think are some pretty innovative efforts to rationalize land use at Coldstream Ranch. I wonder if the minister would care to update us on those efforts.
Hon. C. Evans: It took me a minute to remember where Coldstream Ranch is. Then I remembered that I was shoeing some horses there at 20 below about 15 years ago, and I actually broke into one of the barns to get some shelter.
Yes, I know where it is and what's going on there. It's another no-net-loss question. We are in discussion with Coldstream Ranch, but we have put that on hold for a little while to allow the community to develop a response of what they wish to see happen in the area.
J. van Dongen: I hope that doesn't mean the process is slowing down or going to grind to a halt there.
I'm wondering if there are any further efforts or new initiatives within the Agricultural Land Commission to deal in a similar manner with some of the ancient subdivisions within the agricultural land reserve. Members of the commission know that this is a longstanding concern of mine. We had a recent example in my area where one of my neighbours' farms came up for sale. This farm was 11 different legals, ten acres each -- an extremely good-quality piece of land, a dairy farm, a very good economic operation. Yet within a couple of weeks, four of those ten-acre parcels were spoken for. It really was kind of a heartbreaking situation if you have any interest in good farmland. Luckily, in that case one of the larger local farmers decided to buy up the whole operation.
I really can't stress enough my concern, particularly in the floodplain parts of the Fraser Valley, that this continues to happen. We have a so-called policy of preserving farmland and, hopefully, enabling people to farm in that reserve. But if the encroachment of houses within the agricultural land reserve is allowed to continue at the rate it's going at, I don't know that we're really preserving farmland at all. I think this is a very, very serious situation for a lot of the Fraser Valley.
Hon. C. Evans: If the question is whether I think it would be a good idea to eliminate old subdivision lines that predated 1972 and are captured inside the ALR -- and no one has yet
[ Page 657 ]
built on them or actually sold them off in separate units -- and to eliminate those lines before they get literally subdivided into different ownership, sure I do. If the question is whether I think it would be a good idea for government to legislate that or to do it by simple directive, no, I don't think it would be. The reason is that nothing could damage the future credibility of the ALR more than the minister directing people who own land in the ALR to lose options that they have had for the last 24 years. If the question is whether I or the commission would consider it a good idea if it came forward, especially by a caucus rather than by an individual, you bet. You come forward with a good idea, and I'll try to help you make it happen.
With respect, hon. Chair, I'm standing up here one second defending the fact that we even have an agricultural land reserve and the next second being asked why we don't defend it harder by taking away people's right to subdivide. People need to come forward with a good idea that has general buy-in in order for the commission to activate that idea without having someone attacking the commission.
[4:00]
J. van Dongen: I have just two or three points I'd like to make. First of all, I think it's good that we use this forum as an opportunity to raise all the questions about the policy of the agricultural land reserve and the operations of the Agricultural Land Commission. This is really a once-a-year opportunity for all members to question the effectiveness of the money we're spending operating the Land Commission. I hope the minister doesn't view the open discussion negatively. I'm pleased that a number of members in our caucus have an interest in agriculture and are prepared to come here and ask the questions of the minister.
Secondly, I would never suggest to the minister or anyone else that the minister or the Land Commission should impose some kind of solution or decision upon owners of multiple titles. I would like to see some options developed by the Land Commission and by the Ministry of Agriculture for those property owners so that they could avail themselves of other options that might be equally as viable for them as going out and breaking up the whole farm unit.
I think it has to be stressed that, as the minister has said, those people in those situations own what I would loosely term development rights, and that any policy should respect those. I agree with the minister on that, but I think that there are some possibilities. They could probably follow the concept of no net loss for agriculture, where possibly you could say to them that we'll let them take those loosely termed development rights and move them somewhere else, say, within the agricultural land reserve. This is an example of something that would not only protect the very high-capability land but the farming operations around it, because what we see in a lot of areas is a mixture of small titles and larger legal titles. Some of those areas are going to continue to farm because they're 40-, 60-, 100-acre titles. But interspersed there, we've got a lot of ten-acre legals. I just think that something has to be done about this fairly quickly if we're serious. I think that there are some options that could be developed that property owners would prefer to avail themselves of and, in that way, protect that farmland.
Hon. C. Evans: The staff of the commission are in discussion with different commodity groups and different regions of the province trying to figure out a policy that will allow us to address the issues raised in a coherent fashion. We would love to have the ideas of hon. members as well as those that the commission is soliciting outside this place. As for the member's comments that I shouldn't be so grumpy as to want to diminish the democratic right of everybody to stand up and say what they want -- you bet.
J. van Dongen: Just a quick question out of the annual report. The annual report -- I can't even tell the minister what page it is; I didn't reference it -- talks about a Strengthening Farming initiative. I'm wondering: was that the initiative dealing with the right-to-farm legislation, or was that some other initiative?
Hon. C. Evans: It was the right-to-farm initiative.
J. van Dongen: I ask the question because a little later I want to get into discussion of the objective of strengthening farming and maintaining the industry; I wanted to clarify that. In terms of the annual report, has the commission considered the possibility of publishing a number of examples of the types of applications they get, the decisions made and some of the rationale for the decisions? I think that might be useful in terms of helping improve people's understanding of the work the commission does. I see a real need for the public and people who feel aggrieved by decisions of the commission to better understand some of the rationale, and I think that publishing a number of examples each year would be useful in that regard. I see, for example, that the Environmental Appeal Board has just put out its annual report and published a number of cases it looked at and some of the decisions that were made. I'm wondering if the Land Commission would possibly consider that.
Hon. C. Evans: It's a good idea. The commission is considering publishing its activities in the way the ombudsman does, so that people could develop a library of decisions taken in the past. We would encourage anybody who has any good ideas about how to pay for it to help us with that.
I have a question for the other side. I see people here who work for the Columbia Power Corporation and people who do fish; we're paying for a whole bunch of wisdom here. I wonder if the members opposite would like to say what they would like to discuss between now and dinner, and maybe the rest of the people could go home.
J. van Dongen: I have a few questions about fish and a few questions about sports fishing and aquaculture. It's not particularly extensive. If the minister wans to deal with that now, I could certainly do that.
Hon. C. Evans: We'll just keep them here. I just wanted to know if they should continue to stay. Are you going to get there by dinner?
Interjections.
J. van Dongen: Maybe we could deal with the fish issues more quickly, Mr. Chairman. I'm certainly prepared to do that. Is that okay?
Hon. C. Evans: No. I just want to know so those of them who aren't required here could leave. We'll just deal with the Land Commission until we're done, and then those people can go home.
J. van Dongen: The annual report of the Land Commission makes reference to a reference handbook being
[ Page 658 ]
developed. I'm wondering what the status of that is -- if it's finished and if it's being used.
Hon. C. Evans: Yes, it's finished and yes, it's being used. There's one in your office.
J. van Dongen: I guess it's probably there somewhere, along with all that other paper.
I just want to ask the minister a bit about the relationships between the Agricultural Land Commission and local governments. I think it's very often said that the relationships aren't always all that good. That's not really my sense of it. But I wonder if the minister could comment in terms of roughly how many situations out of the 135 local governments that the Land Commission deals
Hon. C. Evans: I can't answer that there are this many very warm relationships, this many neutral ones and this many hostile ones. But I am advised that the vast majority are good working relationships and that there's probably only a handful that are dysfunctional or difficult to get along with. I want to point out that the vast majority of municipal governments in B.C. support the Agricultural Land Commission. That's not necessarily reflected in the mail that the Land Commission or my office gets, because the mail tends to be about specific pieces of land.
I was a regional district director for five years, and I'll tell you what we would do. I would stand up every time I ran for office and support the agricultural land reserve. Then every time Fred Smith would come to me and say, "Help me get my land out," I'd write a real nasty letter to the Minister of Agriculture, the opposition caucus and the Land Commission, saying: "Please help Fred get his land out" -- while at the same time I'd be supporting the agricultural land reserve, knowing full well that that would help me get elected, that Fred would like me and that it wouldn't influence the situation. So I didn't have to worry about attacking the Land Commission itself. That kind of relatively frivolous advocacy on behalf of people, like that of the regional district director I used to be, skews the public vision of support for the agricultural land reserve. But anytime you go to a large enough slice of society to receive a more philosophical and less specific response, municipal governments tend to support the Agricultural Land Commission and the agricultural land reserve every time.
J. van Dongen: I want to say to the minister in response that I hope he doesn't ever regard any of my letters as frivolous, because I try not to write letters like that. I don't disagree with his comments.
The direct-farm-marketing policy -- like a lot of things, I know that it's also an evolving policy. I am wondering if the minister could just provide us with an update as to how that is currently being interpreted. I think there was some discussion in the annual report about broadening the policy.
Hon. C. Evans: There is a new year-end report about to be tabled, so it has evolved from where it was when the hon. member was asking about it. There is now a general order -- that means a rule for interpretation of the agricultural land reserve all over the province -- in place that allows you to sell a certain amount of food from your farm without even applying, in order to reduce the amount of paperwork involved. I can't really say what the number is; I don't have it here. It is an evolution because we decided that we were going to try to deal with the issue of reducing the amount of applications that were required.
J. van Dongen: Well, I certainly support any effort by the commission to be flexible in terms of dealing effectively with evolving economics on the farm.
Part of the reason that I asked the question is that I noticed in the value-for-money audit that was done, the
Hon. C. Evans: Enforcement is an issue, and the commission has doubled the amount of enforcement officers in just the last year, from one to two.
The answer to the question on what percentage you are allowed to sell is that if you grow the product on your own farm, you don't need to apply. You can sell anything that you grow; you don't have to get permission from the Land Commission. You just have to apply if you reach a certain threshold of stuff that you bring in from off the farm. Specifically what the percentage is and specifically what the dollar amount is -- the percentage that you have to have from your own farm in order to sell it there, and the dollar amount that you have to have before you are required to apply -- I don't have with me. However, they are in the document that's in your office and mine. We could go back to our offices and answer the question for ourselves.
J. van Dongen: On page 17, there is a reference made to conservation covenants. I am wondering if the minister could explain what that means.
Hon. C. Evans: This refers to the ability of a non-profit agency or the Ministry of Environment to purchase a covenant on people's property -- say to allow elk to have habitat on East Kootenay ranchland, or ducks to have habitat on Kootenay Lake marshland, or the same example on Fraser River marshland. The Land Commission is concerned that such a covenant on property A might negatively impact the agricultural production capability of property B, because you have problem wildlife issues, which don't honour boundaries. The Land Commission is now on the referral list. If someone applies to purchase a covenant for wildlife purposes on a piece of property, it is referred to the Land Commission, and they can comment about whether or not it would have negative impact on adjacent properties.
J. van Dongen: Not being a fan of geese and ducks and things like that, I'm glad to hear that. I hope the Land Com-
[ Page 659 ]
mission is very, very careful with what they allow on neighbouring properties. I've had the experience of a massive flock of geese chewing up one-quarter of a 50-acre field of cannery peas within a week of harvest, so I hope the Land Commission takes their responsibility in this regard very seriously.
On the same note, I'm wondering if the minister could comment just in a very broad context, on the effectiveness of the Land Commission agreeing, in some of the transactions that they're doing, to the use of restrictive covenants. It seems that very often you put a covenant on, and then someone comes down the road and wants to remove it. Has it been an effective tool, or is it something that the Land Commission would rather avoid?
Hon. C. Evans: The commission is concerned with them because, as the member says, they don't always work. In some cases it's the Land Commission's only ability to attempt to restrict, for example, the number of dwellings on a piece of property. The hon. member is correct in that the Land Commission has experienced difficulties with enforcement in the past.
J. van Dongen: Just a couple of questions about funding for the Forest Land Commission: where does that come from? I thought I might find it in the estimates with the Ministry of Forests. Was I looking in the wrong place, or is it there somewhere?
Hon. C. Evans: It's out of this ministry's budget.
J. van Dongen: So the Ministry of Agriculture is subsidizing the Ministry of Forests. Is that correct, minister?
Hon. C. Evans: We're happy to be paying for the Forest Land Commission. We think it's a great initiative, and it marries wealth production in the rural areas -- agriculture, woodlot production and forest land -- in a way that's never happened before. So we couldn't be happier. We think it's appropriate, we're very pleased, and ultimately the people of B.C. are paying for it anyway.
J. van Dongen: I appreciate the minister's enthusiasm, but maybe he could explain the rationale a little more. I ask the question seriously. In the report, I see that the forest land reserve encompasses 920,000 hectares; that compares to some 4.7 million hectares in the agricultural land reserve. I'm wondering what the connection is. What is the scope of the lands that are involved in the forest land reserve?
Hon. C. Evans: The responsibility for administration of the act rests with the Ministry of Forests. The budgetary responsibility to pay for it rests with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
The logic that the hon. member asked for is the common sense that someone was asking about before. We had a Land Commission with the technical and staffing capability to administer a form of zoning with the Agricultural Land Commission. When the government wished to replicate that experience in terms of forest land, the options were that we could create a brand-new, stand-alone institution or marry one that had 20 years of experience to a brand-new need, and use the same people and equipment, and the same facility. It seems to be in vogue, in recent years, to try to find ways to reduce costs, so we did that.
In terms of hectares, I think the Forest Land Commission is now somewhere around 11 million hectares. I think that the hon. member's numbers came from the days when the forest land reserve was made up of land which had privately managed forest land status with the Assessment Authority. In other words, if you own 100 hectares of land and have a management plan on that land, you can apply for and receive a tax-reduction status in exchange for the management plan. When the forest land reserve was initially created, the land put into it was that private land.
[C. McGregor in the chair.]
Following on the completion of the Kootenay, Vancouver Island and Cariboo land use plans, the part of the forest land that was zoned for industrial use was also entered into the forest land reserve. The intent in both is to try to protect what is referred to in the jargon as the "working forest" -- that land that we know we're going to use for the practice of forestry and that we don't want removed for other uses.
J. van Dongen: I'm not intimately familiar with this -- the member for Cariboo North is -- but I know there is a concern that by allowing the growing of trees on what is currently rangeland, the beef cattle industry is going to be shorted more and more in terms of available rangeland. I wonder if the minister could comment on that. I don't know if the member for Cariboo North will be back; he had to go to another meeting. I'm sure that he wants me to ask this question, even though I haven't phrased it very well. I wonder if the minister could respond to this issue, which concerns the pressure on grazing lands that has been created by allowing the growing of trees. I think he's talking about ALR land, but I don't know. Possibly it's in the forest land reserve.
[4:30]
Hon. C. Evans: In the absence of a more specific question, I can give you three different answers on the subject of timberland and grazing leases -- one for Vancouver Island, one for the Cariboo and one for Prince George. But the single answer that covers all of them is that there has always been a mixing together of the forest industry and the ranching industry, both on private land inside and outside of the ALR and on Crown grazing leases -- which are really administered by the Minister of Forests, because it's a matter of grazing on forest land. I don't want to duck the question. Maybe we could get the member from the Cariboo back in here to ask a specific question, so that we can give a specific answer.
J. Weisbeck: One of the concerns in my constituency has been the fact that the ALR was produced in the seventies and now we are in the nineties. It really hasn't kept pace with some of the thinking going on now. I think the B.C. Committee for Community Land Choices submitted a resolution to the B.C. Federation of Agriculture in January. It's a standing resolution, and they would like to know what the status of that resolution is.
Hon. C. Evans: The estimates are an opportunity for a minister to answer for the activities and expenditures of his or her ministry within the context of government. The B.C. Federation of Agriculture, which is where that resolution went, is none of the above.
J. Weisbeck: My question to the minister is: do you have any plans, then, to have a look at the ALR and its current criteria, etc.?
Hon. C. Evans: I think this might be semantics, but no, we are not going to review the ALR. The ALR is a fact, and it's
[ Page 660 ]
going to continue to be a fact. Is the ALR going to evolve? You bet it's going to evolve. You know, at one point in time it evolved to say, "Okay, we'll take land out and build golf courses," and then it evolved again to say: "We won't do that anymore." At one time it evolved such that cabinet could overturn the actions of the commission, and then it evolved such that cabinet didn't have that right. My guess is that it will continue to evolve with the thinking of the society of the day. The agricultural land reserve is not under review. In the context of whether or not it should be a fact, it will not be reviewed by this government or, I think, by any government in the future. It's a fact.
J. Weisbeck: I will not question the fact of the ALR, because I happen to agree with it. I'm questioning it because I would like to see it updated to the point where it becomes more progressive in its thinking and takes into account some of the problems we face in the nineties, rather than 1970s thinking.
Hon. C. Evans: Good.
J. Weisbeck: I still have not had an answer to my question. I want to know whether there's ever going to be a review of the ALR, not the existence of the ALR, but the actual criteria that it functions under, and whether that review would be an independent review rather than something that's done in-house.
Hon. C. Evans: The agricultural land reserve is going to continue to evolve. The attempt to come up with a no-net-loss policy, which we've been discussing for the last two hours, is an evolution. The attempt to get regional people on the commission is an evolution. The attempt to find ways to allow people less time for the application -- and in some cases, without even an application -- is an evolution. The whole attempt to do regional land use plans and work for the Agricultural Land Commission in consort, instead of in opposition, is an evolution. So yes, I think it is evolving and will continue to evolve. If it stops evolving, it will probably cease to be such a favourite of the people of B.C. It's only in its evolution that it seems to keep people supporting it.
J. Weisbeck: I'm looking at a report here that's done by the auditor general, and it has a number of key findings in it. One of them was the fact -- and I had this argument from my local riding -- that it takes a long time to process something. In here it talks about everything being done manually. This is an old report, I appreciate. So have we changed that policy now? Do we have more electronic means of resolving these applications?
Hon. C. Evans: Yes.
J. van Dongen: I want to move on to the kind of question the minister is looking for: something with numbers in it. Page 63 deals with vote 12, ministry operations. I think we attempted to canvass this issue when we were in the interim supply debate. I'm looking at the operating costs on page 63, and there was about a 19 percent increase in operating costs in the estimates for '96-97 compared to the previous year. I wonder if the minister could just explain what the source of that increase is.
Hon. C. Evans: Boy, was I ever wrong when I thought that when we got to the numbers, it would get simpler.
The increases reflected on page 63 in the budgets for Fisheries and Food, and Agriculture -- two different sections -- need to be looked at in context with those on page 61, which include administration and support services, and financial programs. What I would like the hon. member to observe is that while he sees an operating cost increase in the delivery of the actual service in Fisheries and Food and Agriculture, there's a concomitant decrease in administration and support services on page 61. So I think what you're looking at is much closer to a zero change than a 19 percent increase. I hope the next question is simpler.
J. van Dongen: So then, it's just a reallocation of costs in terms of how the accounting is done. That's the only change.
The other question I had was about the grants and contributions in both those sections. I know the minister will probably welcome the opportunity to expound on how some of those moneys are expended, both under Fisheries and Food and under Agriculture. I wonder if he could comment on both those line items, what's included, and why there is a reduction of 16 to 20 percent.
Hon. C. Evans: The question is: would the minister like to explain the decreases in the grants and contributions for this year's budget? The primary decreases between last year and this year relate to about $400,000 of food industry market development expenditures, which have been moved into Buy B.C. advertising. So it's not a reduction in expenditures on agriculture, but represents the ministry's emphasis on Buy B.C. There is a $494,000 -- half a million dollars -- reduction in the dairy herd industry agreement, which was a contract for a specific amount of time that came to completion. Buried in all those decreases is an increase to the Peace River initiative of $113,000.
J. van Dongen: Is Buy B.C. not part of this category of expenditures? Is it not included under grants and contributions?
Hon. C. Evans: That's right. The member's right. Buy B.C. is not under the grants section of the budget, but under the communications section, which is STOB 40.
Interjection.
Hon. C. Evans: What I said is correct, except that Buy B.C. exists in two different parts, and we just moved it to the communications section of the Buy B.C. budget.
J. van Dongen: I'm still not sure if I'm clear on the answer. Is Buy B.C. separated, based on the projects going into Fisheries and the projects going into Agriculture? It isn't?
Hon. C. Evans: The Buy B.C. program remains and is under the fisheries and food division. It remains there. But the food industry market development program has seen a reduction of the Buy B.C. component, and that Buy B.C. has been moved to the deputy minister's budget for communications. It is under the deputy's part of the budget.
J. van Dongen: Just so I'm clear then, all of the Buy B.C. funding is under the deputy minister's budget.
Hon. C. Evans: No.
J. van Dongen: No?
[ Page 661 ]
Hon. C. Evans: Part of it.
J. van Dongen: Part of it. Okay. I think I'll leave that alone. I'm not concerned about the technicalities of accounting. I guess you could get into some interesting debates about rationale, but I'm satisfied with the minister's answer.
I'm looking at the statement that the minister graciously provided, which sets out by line item this year's budget in a little more detail. I'm interested in particular in the staffing levels, starting with crop insurance. I guess I was a bit surprised last year when I found out the level of staffing we have in crop insurance. Now we see an increase of approximately six FTEs. I wonder if the minister could explain why there are the additional people in that program.
[4:45]
Hon. C. Evans: The agricultural risk management program, which had six FTEs in it last year, has been eliminated. Those six FTEs are now into the crop insurance program. So there is no net change to the FTEs, but that's where the increase that the hon. member sees in crop insurance comes from.
J. van Dongen: What was the agricultural risk management program, if the minister could clarify for me what that program actually entailed?
Hon. C. Evans: Good question. Risk management was the administrative component of revenue protection and crop insurance. As the hon. member knows, we don't do revenue protection any more, so it's eliminated. The risk management -- the administrative part -- is rolled into crop insurance.
J. van Dongen: If I can register a concern, it's just that I certainly hope we're not increasing staffing levels in that section when we are in fact eliminating one program. I hope that it's not just a case of finding a home for some staff, because in fact, as the minister knows, we have scarce dollars that the government is working with. If we have a preference, I would certainly prefer to see those dollars go into front-line programs, where farmers benefit as opposed to, say, maintaining staff for the sake of maintaining staff.
Having said that, the minister will probably wonder about the next question. Looking at aquaculture and commercial fisheries, where we see a reduction of two FTEs, I'm wondering, given the level of activity that I think we can expect in the next year, whether maybe a couple of those people who went over to crop insurance might be more appropriately deployed in the fisheries section of the ministry.
Hon. C. Evans: Good idea. I think I agree with him, hon. Chair.
J. van Dongen: We're going to have to be careful here. We're agreeing on so many things.
The farm management branch: 15 FTEs last year and 16.5 projected for this year. I wonder if the minister could just briefly review for me what is included in the farm management branch. Personally, I certainly have quite a bit of historical knowledge of it, but maybe he could just update me.
Hon. C. Evans: The farm management branch includes not only farm management, which is working with farmers to help them with their business practice, but also 4-H and rural activities, looking after fall fairs and the like. It would appear that they gained one person simply by virtue of shifting an activity that had previously come under some other branch to farm management, and I think it's the rural activities function.
J. van Dongen: What's the annual expenditure by government now on 4-H in this particular budget?
Hon. C. Evans: It's the cost of six FTEs, plus $95,000 to the 4-H council.
J. van Dongen: If I'm not mistaken -- I'd just like some clarification -- there is now a five-year agreement that governs the funding of 4-H? Or am I wrong on that? If not, what kind of an agreement do you have?
Hon. C. Evans: Yes, there is a five-year agreement for 4-H between the province and the 4-H council.
J. van Dongen: In terms of the financial management aspects of this branch and section, has there been an evaluation done in recent years of the work of that branch in terms of the need for it? Is there any change anticipated in that program?
Hon. C. Evans: There have been evaluations done on the programs that are delivered by the branch, but there has been no evaluation on the branch as a whole -- like whether or not the idea of the branch is to deliver the service that the member might want.
J. van Dongen: Maybe this would be a good point to ask a question about what was mentioned in the '93-94 annual report. It was also mentioned in a recent Public Accounts Committee meeting last week, where they talked about the fact that the Ministry of Agriculture had adopted the Canadian Comprehensive Auditing Foundation's methodology for evaluating effectiveness within the ministry. I think, based on some of the materials I saw, that one of the ministry staff had made a presentation to Public Accounts on that at one point. I wonder if the minister could tell us how that program is working in a practical sense. Is it found to be a useful tool in terms of evaluating the work of the ministry?
Hon. C. Evans: Yes. Some of the branches of the ministry have gone through the process. The process that the hon. member is talking about involves asking fundamental or philosophical questions like what results government wants to achieve and what services and goods it plans to produce to achieve those results, what its delivery standards are and what results were, and whether service delivery standards were actually achieved. The answer to the question is yes, part of the ministry has already gone through the process. Yes, it has been found to be a productive process. The remaining branches of the ministry have yet to go through it, but they will.
J. van Dongen: In terms of the dairy branch, I know there's been some discussion about the future of that program, the business of inspecting dairy farms and some of the other services that branch provides. Could the minister provide us with any kind of current status of that group of staff and that program in terms of possibly redefining their responsibilities to other initiatives with respect to livestock agriculture, or shutting down that program -- whatever?
Hon. C. Evans: Yes. The branch is under review, but the member shouldn't read too much into that, because most of
[ Page 662 ]
the branches are under review. Logically, there would have to be a review anyway, because the national dairy code that's coming in will create changes. No, I can't predict for the member what the outcome of the review might be.
J. van Dongen: I just want to say to the minister that I don't ask the question for any preconceived reasons. I do feel, though, that historically farmers have been well served by a lot of the ministers and the ministry staff.
I guess, if I have a suggestion about the focus, direction or deployment of those staff, I can certainly think of other endeavours which those people could do within the scope of government that would be of great assistance to agriculture. In particular, I'm thinking about some of the issues where we have other ministries interfacing with the Ministry of Agriculture and other ministries interfacing with farmers.
I would rather see some of those regulatory functions -- for example, some of the environmental regulations, or some of the other initiatives that are coming out of other ministries -- channelled through the Ministry of Agriculture and its staff. I say that because the ministry staff that have worked in some kind of field capacity -- at least those I've dealt with, even on the regulatory side -- are away ahead of staff in ministries of other parts of government, in terms of developing effective relationships and effective programs with farmers.
[W. Hartley in the chair.]
[5:00]
In a few minutes, maybe we'll get into some discussion of environmental issues. I simply want to put it to the minister that if there's going to be some change in the responsibilities of those staff, I hope that he would consider trying to make a deal with the Ministry of Environment to get some of those functions over into Agriculture. I think that subject to standards established by Environment, we would have a much more effective overall result, because the people who are involved in the Ministry of Agriculture have a much better understanding of farmers and how to deal with them. I wonder if the minister could just respond to that, comment on it.
Hon. C. Evans: Well, I take that as an endorsement -- in fact, a really large endorsement of the work of the people on the ground in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I think it's to their credit, and I accept the drift of the direction that the hon. member is trying to offer me.
I would caution, though, that this ministry tries to work with other ministries -- sort of, to humanize them once they get on the track, and it's kind of a train, you know. We try to present a human face and see if we can't make it work with real people. However, the idea of taking the functions of other ministries into this
So I would just say that my vision of how we work with all those environmental rules, all those other ministries and all those people, is that we try to get in between them and the farming community at the point where all that regulatory environment actually impacts on a person trying to do a job. We'll try to keep doing that well, rather than taking over all that other stuff that's behind it.
J. van Dongen: What I was suggesting to the minister is that he and his staff should continue to be cordial with farmers, and probably that he should become less cordial towards some of the other agencies that he and farmers have to deal with. I say that quite seriously because some of the regulatory problems that farmers face are unnecessarily troublesome to them. The septic regulations -- my favourite hobbyhorse -- are incredibly troublesome when you look at the scale of the issue involved, and the amount of time, frustration and difficulty that becomes associated with it. I'm saying to the minister that, in my view, there are serious problems in the delivery of those regulations -- particularly that one in the Ministry of Health. There are very serious problems in that ministry, which I think the minister will agree need to be addressed. I'm saying that we're nowhere close to resolving what I see as the difficulties there.
One of the options for government is to deliver some of those services to farmers through your ministry. I think it's a viable option. It's not necessarily a substitution for dealing with the real-life problems we have in those other ministries, but there's got to be a better way for farmers. That's who your ministry is servicing, and I present it as one of the options.
The corporate review that the deputy minister embarked upon -- I realize that this was an internal process -- can the minister update us as to what stage that's at? I had the sense that it is a fairly comprehensive review. Is it a pretty routine review? Is there anything that the minister can say publicly about it?
Hon. C. Evans: It's true that there is a major review going on in the deputy's office. It's ongoing -- there is no product to report, nor is there a target date for unfolding an end product. There is no draft or provisional product that I can share with the member at this time.
J. van Dongen: I want to move to something that we probably should have started with -- but better late than never -- and that is the agrifood strategy. The minister's predecessor started this process mainly at the request of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture. I had some personal involvement in that -- I saw the process go through a couple of stages. Where are we with the agrifood strategy from the minister's perspective?
Hon. C. Evans: The agrifood policy continued along under the previous minister and is still in process. It is my desire, this fall, to review where we got to and set some direction for the future. I'd like to hear what the hon. member would like to make as a suggestion, whether he thinks it's a fruitful process and where he sees it going.
J. van Dongen: In response, I would refer the minister to my opening comments, where I expressed great concern over what I have seen happen in the industry in the past year. It's probably appropriate to follow through on this initiative of agrifood strategy, even more so because of that situation. I know that part of the motivation of the member for Cariboo North, who may or may not get back in time to ask some more questions, is the really serious concern about the future of agriculture from an economic perspective. A concern that farmers have always had with the agricultural land reserve policy is the economics of farming and the preservation of the farmer himself, as opposed to just the land resource.
I never had a great deal of time for those arguments, necessarily, but given what has happened in the past year I think there's reason to be very concerned about the future of
[ Page 663 ]
a economically viable agricultural industry in B.C. I did talk to people at the B.C. Federation of Agriculture about this issue. I actually canvassed them and asked them what sorts of issues they see. Everything I got was that main issue: the future of agriculture. It talks about us as a province spending less on agriculture than virtually any other province. It talks about forecasts of net income for farmers being down, relative to past years. It talks about the deterioration of net income, particularly in the livestock sector because of the feed price increases I talked about earlier. That 30-40 percent increase includes both an increase in grain price, which we haven't seen in 15 years, and the loss of the feed freight assistance once the short-term adjustment program expires. It's going to be more difficult to maintain a viable livestock and poultry industry in this province.
I think I also mentioned the very competitive situation that we face within many commodities, both at the farm-gate level and at the processing and wholesale level. We have a situation where we're spending more and more in ministries like Health and Social Services; they're all good causes, but the revenue-producing industries are having to make do with less funding and, in particular, with less and less direct farm support. I think it's fair to say that the direct farm support in British Columbia is lower than virtually anywhere else in North America. I mentioned the hassle, but we also see the costs of dealing with more and more stringent regulations on environmental issues, WCB and that sort of thing -- particularly in environment, currently.
I think we're going to be facing some serious cost increases and some serious questions from farmers before they make the kind of long-term investments these newer standards are going to call for. The federation questions the willingness and the capability of farmers in British Columbia to reinvest in their operations. They speak of a dramatic downturn potentially developing within agriculture.
I mentioned all of these points because I agree with them. I think that the situation agriculture is in right now is very serious. I don't think the kinds of programs that are called for under these circumstances really involve the kinds of things that Buy B.C. delivers. I would certainly agree with the minister it's been a good program. I don't think that the situation agriculture faces now will be necessarily met or rectified or assisted by programs like the farm management program, although I've always supported that program. I think the more recent efforts in human resource management, for example, have been very useful and very productive, very leading-edge. But I don't think the kinds of problems we face are going to be solved by that kind of activity.
[5:15]
I guess I would just like to suggest to the minister and the ministry that we take a really serious look at what is happening. The evidence, for me, starts at the processing level, where we've seen major restructuring over a number of years now; but the pace is speeding up. I'm thinking of some of the restructuring that has taken place within the fruit industry, at the marketing and processing level. I'm thinking about Sun-Rype. I'm thinking about situations where we formerly had co-ops and they are now, in effect, privately held corporations. In the case of Sun-Rype, we see Clearly Canadian, in effect, attempting a hostile takeover of that company. We've seen the shutdown of Fraser Valley Foods in Chilliwack -- of their second plant; the first one was shut down a couple of years ago. That was a major buyer of field crops in the Fraser Valley.
We've seen a situation here the last couple of months where we used to have three major milk-processing plant operators in British Columbia -- I probably should include Island Farms in that as a fourth one -- but we've had Foremost shut down on May 1 -- permanently I think. They made a deal with a Calgary processor to haul all their milk over from Calgary. We've seen the shutdown of the Lucerne milk plant during the retail strike. We've seen the retail strike as another reflection of extreme competitiveness, which tends to pressure down on the farm-gate price. As I understand it, the Lucerne milk plant is going again, but with some concern that the whole situation is still being reviewed by the head office of Safeway.
I look at other processing plants -- Empress Foods, which is now Lucerne Foods, in the Fraser Valley; Snowcrest, that I have historically shipped product to -- and I'm really concerned about that.
So I'm raising this as one area that I think and I hope the ministry will take a look at. I hope that the minister will look at it from the context of the total impact of government on that situation. We're looking at some major wage differentials between B.C. and Alberta, and we're looking at other regulatory issues. Historically, I think, we're looking at a degree of subsidization of processors by the Alberta government. We've seen, historically, a higher level of subsidization of farmers by the Alberta government. I'm wondering if the minister would consider initiating -- through his ministry or in some other manner -- a significant, serious review of the economic situation faced by processors generally in British Columbia. I'm talking about all of the considerations agricultural processors face.
The member from Richmond mentions fish. I think the same could apply to the fish-processing industry. I know from talking to some fish farmers that they have chosen to process their fish in Washington. I wonder if the minister would give some thought to, and possibly comment on, what he might consider with respect to processing of agricultural product.
Hon. C. Evans: I think those are serious thoughts and all part of what we need to address in completing the agrifood policy initiative. I asked the hon. member what he thought and he told me. I appreciate that, and I'll take it under advisement.
J. van Dongen: Similarly, I'm wondering if the minister feels that the ministry has a good set of up-to-date data on differences between provinces at the farm gate. I'm more concerned right now, personally, about the economics of farming and competition within Canada, as opposed to Canada and international competition. That's also a very big concern, but what we're seeing in the short term here is extreme competitiveness within Canada, and it's basically cross-border between provinces. Do we have a good sense in terms of data available, an understanding of provincial programs in other provinces, that allows us to get some kind of handle on how we stack up compared to those other provinces?
Hon. C. Evans: I'm advised to say no, we never have enough information. We like to have lots of information. We have here a comparative analysis between the provinces in taxes, irrigation rates, labour rates, carrying cost for capital and premiums. I'd be happy to share them with the member if he doesn't have them.
J. van Dongen: I just want to ask the minister if there is any sort of understanding between the provinces with respect to the issue of subsidization of farming within each of the provinces. There are a number of different dimensions to the
[ Page 664 ]
possible support or subsidization of agriculture, but it's the historical experience that provinces like Quebec and Ontario will go to any extent, including adding provincial dollars to the pot, to ensure that they retain the bulk of agriculture in Canada.
Hon. C. Evans: We discussed some of these issues, as the hon. member knows, at the agriculture ministers' conference last month. Agriculture ministers came from around the country -- all the provinces and the federal government. Commitments were made every hour to level the playing field on some issue, and sometimes I believe those commitments a little bit. But it was my observation that if what I saw for three days over there was true, Canada is dysfunctional in some respects. You would have nine provinces say: "Okay, we'll agree to work together on that." Then Quebec would raise their hands and say: "We aren't going to do that. We don't work with other provinces; we only work nation to nation. You give us the money for that, we'll go do our own, and you nine can go do whatever you want." The federal government would say: "Okay, fine, Quebec, we'll give you the money to go do whatever you want." Then we'd go on to the next subject. We'd go around, everybody would say, "Okay, we'll do that," and then Quebec would say: "We're not going to do that." I don't think it works; I think it's barely a nation. I think whatever will there is to level the playing field or deal with interprovincial trade issues is being consumed at the present time by the national preoccupation with the status of Quebec.
J. van Dongen: Well, at least the minister's aware of the problem. I think it needs to be seriously considered on an ongoing basis; it's a reality. I think there are many situations where it's very, very difficult to make a deal with Quebec, one that's going to stick over the longer term. They have visions of taking over most of the agriculture production in the country if they can, along with a lot of other things. It bears keeping in mind.
I want to ask a few questions about environmental issues generally. I wonder if the minister could tell us what his ministry is doing to assist farmers dealing with environmental issues as they're evolving.
Hon. C. Evans: The area that the hon. member is from, and the area of the newspaper articles this week, have largely to do with manure management in terms of its agricultural relationship with environmental regulations. As the member knows, we've been working on that issue for some years. This has included assisting farmers to meet regulations and assisting the larger society to make the regulations acceptable to agriculture -- trying to help farmers to either transport manure out of the region or to manage it within the region so that it won't increase nitrate-loading on the aquifers.
That's only one basin, one issue and one sector. Another example is the right-to-farm legislation. Basically, what we're trying to do is to say that all the laws of the government have to be interpreted in ways that don't impact
J. van Dongen: The minister mentioned right-to-farm legislation, and I had a few questions about that, so I'll put those forward and then maybe go back to environment. As I understand it, the code-of-practice
Hon. C. Evans: Yes.
[5:30]
J. van Dongen: I understand that there's some hesitation on the part of the minister and the ministry on the issue of making it a requirement, as contemplated in the act, that new bylaws created by municipalities that would impact on agricultural operations be passed by the minister for his approval. It's my understanding that there's some hesitation in enacting that part of the legislation.
Hon. C. Evans: I assure the hon. member that that part of the law will be enacted, but the question is when. We want to enact the legislation at a time when we actually have the resources to do the job; it's not creation of a law when government doesn't have the wherewithal to deliver. So we're working on putting together the resources in this ministry, in Municipal Affairs and then at the municipal level, so that when we say we're going to do it we can actually review all those bylaws and keep our word.
J. van Dongen: Just so I'm clear, the intent of the legislation is, first of all, to review all the existing bylaws that impact on farming operations within the range of municipalities. Is that a correct understanding? Is that part of the intent of the act?
Hon. C. Evans: Yes, except that we're not going to actually get together in a room and try and review all the bylaws in British Columbia all at once; we're going to proceed with some kind of a regional plan through the province.
J. van Dongen: I appreciate the minister's response on the issue of ensuring that the resources are in place to properly enact the legislation. I hope that the appropriate actions are being taken to put those resources in place, because it would be a real disappointment to those people who have the energy and drive and still want to farm to lose the benefits of that legislation, because I think it's becoming more and more critical. It is progressive legislation that makes it a requirement to have those bylaws vetted by the minister and the ministry, and I hope that the minister will give us his assurance that there will be a proactive approach to putting the necessary resources in place in all parts of government to implement the full extent of the Farm Practices Protection Act.
The Chair: Member.
J. van Dongen: Hon. Chair, I would appreciate a response from the minister on my previous comments.
Hon. C. Evans: Okay. Help me out then. I missed the question part of the comments.
J. van Dongen: I would just ask the minister to confirm specifically that there will be a proactive approach to putting all the necessary resources in place to implement the Farm Practices Protection Act to its full extent.
[ Page 665 ]
Hon. C. Evans: Yes.
J. van Dongen: With respect to the environmental regulations and the legitimate environmental concerns in the Fraser Valley, also in general in other parts of British Columbia, I wanted to ask: first of all, what is the status of the Green Plan, this federal-provincial agreement? It relates to what I'm going to talk about in a minute.
Hon. C. Evans: The Green Plan is a federal-provincial program. The provincial part is just fine. The federal plan is actually run by a Liberal government, and the Liberals appear to be pulling the pin. It's going to end at the end of this year. I would ask the member opposite: what do you think is the commitment to this program, and what can you do to help hold up the other end? We'll hold up our end if you get the other government to hold up their end.
J. van Dongen: I want to confirm for the minister something he knows already: I have no more influence over those guys than he does. But we'll try and work on it anyways.
I asked the question because one of the difficulties we face when dealing with environmental issues is that there's very often not much of a payback, particularly in the short term, to farmers that implement the capital spending required to make the necessary investments. One of the failures we've had over the course of a number of years in addressing environmental impacts is that we haven't had much contribution by government, in any way, shape or form, to provide incentives for farmers to make the investments required and to put in the kind of management regimes that are required.
I note, for example, the ALDA program, a low-interest program which provided an incentive for farmers to invest in long-term projects like drainage, irrigation and manure pits, and it was discontinued. I felt that one of the positive aspects of that program was that it provided -- for not a large investment by the government -- some tangible incentives to farmers to make the kinds of investments that were required.
I look at the funding of things like the Sustainable Poultry Farming Group, the livestock group and the dairy group, and I think that they really have had very, very minimal funding. If I look at the range of places we're putting money in the ministry, including some that I referred to earlier, and the range of places that we're putting money as a government generally, then there are certainly some dollars justified for an incentive program to provide a little carrot to encourage people to make the right kinds of investments or to develop programs.
I think, for example, that the initiative of the Sustainable Poultry Farming Group to develop a program and some facilities to move poultry manure to the western end of the valley on the lower mainland, onto land where it's actually very much needed, is a good one. But I think that for want of a bit of support it hasn't had the kind of impact it might have. I drive by lots of land that's in the ALR which never sees a stitch of manure, and then we see it concentrated up at the end of the valley, where we've got all our problems. I don't think it would require a lot to make some positive things happen.
At the same time, I see money going into one study after another. I know that something like $100,000 was expended on one study, not within the Ministry of Agriculture but within the Ministry of Environment. I don't know if that study is finished and I don't know how much benefit it will be. I think that some of the potential solutions are pretty obvious. We don't need more studies to develop some of the potential solutions that the Sustainable Poultry Farming Group, for example, has identified. I wonder if I could get some response from the minister in terms of whether or not the Ministry of Agriculture is planning to be more proactive on that front -- and if so, how.
Hon. C. Evans: I want to be able to give the hon. member the assurances that he wants. I also don't want to lie. At the agriculture ministers' conference, they universally addressed the question of environmental problems across the land and the need for investment to come up with environmentally sound solutions, as they need in every province in Canada. And people called for a continuation of the Green Plan, to allow the cost-shared funding to solve problems, as a need in every province in the country. I don't think it's going to happen. So if I stand up in this year's estimates and say, "Yup, I think that the situation is going to get better," when I'm actually standing up in a year where a little bit of funding exists to solve these problems, and we're going to have to review it again another year when it probably won't, I don't feel very honest about saying: "Yup, it's going to get better."
But if the member is just saying, "What about the resources the ministry can deliver," then I would suggest that probably, one way or another, half of the staff time and research moneys and efforts of this ministry are directed towards trying to solve the kinds of problems the member is asking about. It's my hope that when this Agriculture Investment Initiative kicks off later this year, the commodity groups themselves -- which are going to have, I think, $26 million to spend over four years -- will choose to allocate resources in the direction of environmental management.
J. van Dongen: I wonder if the minister could tell us how much was expended in the Green Plan, both the provincial and federal components, over the five-year period or on an annual basis.
Hon. C. Evans: The provincial-federal contribution totalled $12 million over a five-year period of the Green Plan ending March 31.
J. van Dongen: What was the scope of the application of those funds? How was the money spent and who controlled that?
[5:45]
Hon. C. Evans: There was a management committee of staff, our deputy and a federal government representative. An advisory committee of farmers' groups made recommendations to that management committee on those expenditures that ought to qualify for Green Plan funding. The staff took the possible suggestions to the advisory committee, got recommendations and made funding allocations.
J. van Dongen: I guess the time has come for me to move to rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 5:47 p.m.