[ Page 707 ]

The House met at 10:07 a.m.

Prayers.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I would like to set the tone for today. Knowing that the Minister of Environment is going into his estimates, and just to inform the House, he turned 52 today, so please be gentle.

I. Chong: I rise today to acknowledge our British Columbia athletes competing at the Olympic Games in Atlanta. Our B.C. contingent is comprised of 68 athletes competing in 19 sports. Mr. Speaker, I have a list available identifying these 68 athletes, and I would ask that your office, on behalf of the Legislature, convey our greetings to these fine athletes and wish them well in pursuit of achieving their personal bests.

The Speaker: I shall be delighted to pursue that matter on behalf of the assembly.

Members, may I take the unusual step of also making an introduction today. Seated on the floor of the chamber is a former Speaker of this Legislature. John Reynolds was the Speaker of the House from 1987 to 1989 -- in what I like to think of as a quieter, gentler time. Could you all join me in making him welcome.

Hon. J. MacPhail: First, I would like to advise the House that we will be sitting tomorrow. In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply, and just for the information of the House, we will be discussing the estimates of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. In the House, I call Committee of Supply, where we will be discussing the Ministry of Social Services estimates.

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

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

R. Neufeld: Hon. Chair, through you to the minister: the last time we were discussing the minister's estimates, we had just started on a line of questioning about a press release I had received at the end of February 1996. It stated that the Ministry of Social Services, through increased savings, was going to reduce its FTEs by 102 positions. Would the minister confirm for me, please, that that actually did take place before the fiscal year-end?

Hon. D. Streifel: Yes.

R. Neufeld: In the 1995-96 estimates, the number of FTEs was stated as 5,055. The number anticipated for '96-97 is 5,297 -- an increase of 242. Would the minister confirm, then, with the reduction of 102 in '95-96, that an increase in FTEs for the Ministry of Social Services for '96-97 is anticipated at 344?

Hon. D. Streifel: It's to focus on the priorities of child welfare and income assistance enforcement.

R. Neufeld: I want to proceed on just one other issue, if I could. How many of the smaller communities in the province have residential care resource homes? Would there be quite a number of them across the province, or are they just in smaller, specific areas? Maybe the minister could tell me approximately how many.

Hon. D. Streifel: There are 6,500 foster homes across the province. Most communities would have foster home facilities.

R. Neufeld: I'm not talking about foster homes. I'm talking about.... The ministry relates to them as residential care resource centres for children who go into care. They're in communities, not foster homes. They actually go into the care of the Ministry of Social Services for whatever reason.

[10:15]

Hon. D. Streifel: Most communities have group homes available, and smaller communities around the province have foster homes available for children. It somewhat depends on the size of the community. I don't have the information right with me about how many facilities are available, community by community. If the member would bring forward a specific community, I would be pleased to supply the information.

R. Neufeld: Could the minister then tell me by what criteria these homes are either purchased or built, and is there some framework that designates cost factors?

Hon. D. Streifel: The ministry doesn't own the homes per se. They're supplied or developed through the B.C. Housing Management Commission. The standards and criteria around safety, fire safety and access would be available through the B.C. Housing Management Commission, if that would help the hon. member.

R. Neufeld: It's interesting that it would be through a different agency. Actually, the Ministry of Social Services -- and I have this confirmed in a letter from the previous minister -- purchased a house in Fort Nelson. It's 1,100 square feet. They purchased it for $166,610. It was to serve the needs of children in care aged 12 through 18 -- three children. The renovations to meet some ministry standards amounted to $136,906. So we now have an 1,100-square-foot home that looks after three teenagers at a capital cost of over $300,000, and this doesn't take into account the family that would live in that house and look after these children.

I'm not disputing the fact that there needs to be something to look after children who have to go into care, but if this is standard procedure across the province, I would think that we have some awfully expensive housing. A capital expenditure of $300,000 for an 1,100-square-foot home to look after three people seems fairly expensive to me. Maybe it's not; maybe the minister can explain to me how this is fairly reasonable in British Columbia. But I would think that if this is consistent in many of the smaller communities, maybe this is an area that the ministry could be looking at to try to save some money and still be able to provide care for those 12 to 18 years of age.

Hon. D. Streifel: I thank the member for his statement and his position. I agree that it's important that we supply care. It's important that the care be cost-effective as we focus on our need to protect children in our care. I don't have in front of me a list or a reason for this particular home. The B.C. 

[ Page 708 ]

Housing Management Commission does set standards and criteria that are available through their office. Again, I thank the member for his input.

R. Neufeld: I would assume, then, that the minister feels that the $300,000 that was spent on an 1,100-square-foot home to look after three individuals is an acceptable cost to the Ministry of Social Services and that we do this on a regular basis around the province. Obviously the minister doesn't want to talk about anything other than providing care to the people that have to go into care. I don't have any problem with that; I never have. If there are people that have to go into care, we have to look after them. I am asking if it makes economic sense to have an 1,100-square-foot home that cost $300,000 to look after three people. I wonder if the minister would like to comment on those kinds of numbers and those kinds of costs. Through all of his estimates he's been very conscious about costs and zero tolerance for fraud, and he talks about trying to save money. I commend the minister for those kinds of things, but I detect a certain amount of evasiveness on this question.

Hon. D. Streifel: I'll try this one more time for the member before I ask him what his point is. Without having the basics about the need for this home or the needs that this home provides.... It's very difficult for me to generalize across the 6,500 foster homes and many other care facilities. In fact, I would suggest to the hon. member that it's somewhat dangerous to generalize from one anecdotal piece of evidence on one home in one community. I don't know the specific needs that are provided for in this home. I do think the ministry is diligent in its effort to provide cost-effective care.

With that said, I would ask the member what value he places on a safe home for children. Could he give me a baseline, a base dollar or an absolute base cost that he would be willing to spend, as a Reform Party member, on one of these homes?

R. Neufeld: Well, I don't know. It's interesting that it's estimates and the minister asks for responses. I can tell him that $300 a square foot in a small community is, to me, just a few dollars too many, to be perfectly frank. We should be able to, on top of that.... We still have to look after the children, and that's not even brought into the equation. On top of that, there's a family that will live with these children and look after them, and those costs are separate from the capital costs. I'm talking about the capital costs, not the fact that we have to look after the children.

So that I can have a better understanding of what takes place in the rest of the province, maybe the minister would be willing to provide me with a list of homes across the province that are similar to this situation in Fort Nelson, and the capital costs of constructing or purchasing those homes to provide this care. Then maybe I could respond in a better way, because maybe then I would be better informed about what really takes place in the rest of the province. Maybe this is terribly cheap compared to what happens in reality. The minister has that information, and if he would be so kind, I would appreciate it if he would forward that kind of information to my office so I will know whether this is actually a good deal or not.

Hon. D. Streifel: I will supply to the member what information we have available on the comparative costs and the physical structures for providing this type of care in communities such as Fort Nelson, Cranbrook, Surrey or downtown Vancouver. I will endeavour to supply that kind of comparative cost analysis for the member.

But I would still ask the member what value he places on one of these homes. He has asked some very pointed, very critical questions. He has insinuated in his questions that $300,000 to protect three children is too much. I would ask the Reform member for Peace River North what value he places.... What would he spend, and where would he stop spending? Or is this just another cut method or proposal from Reform that any dollars are too many?

R. Neufeld: If we want to get into a combative situation right off the bat at 10 o'clock in the morning, we can. I said -- and I prefaced my remarks with "through the Chair to the minister" -- that I was not disputing the fact that children have to be looked after in this province. I'm not disputing that fact in any way, shape or form, and I never have. The minister knows that. What I am asking is whether the minister felt that $300 a square foot to provide services to three children in Fort Nelson was within the range of what happens in the rest of the province. That's the question I asked. I didn't dispute. The minister puts on record that I have a bottom line as to how we should look after children. We have to look after children. I don't have one problem with that.

I say there's another part to this, and that is a contract that looks after those children. I'm talking about the capital construction costs only, not looking after children. This minister knows that fully. I would appreciate getting that information for across the province from the minister. I'm talking about capital costs -- through the Chair to the minister, so you've got it straight -- and about what is acceptable in the Ministry of Social Services for capital costs for a home of this kind.

Hon. D. Streifel: I thank the member for his input on this very serious issue and for clarifying his comments for me. I will say again, as I said the last time I was up, that I will supply a comparative cost structure from various communities across the province. If that doesn't satisfy the member, we'll have to try again. But I did commit to supply the information that the member asked for, and I will.

J. Weisbeck: I would like to speak to a situation in my riding of Okanagan East. I have a young lady who enrolled in a business college, and halfway through her program she found herself in the unfortunate situation where she had to apply for social assistance. Unfortunately, when she received the assistance, she was told that she was no longer able to complete her school program. She had already paid for this program. So my question is.... It would appear to me that this policy doesn't help the individual get off welfare. I wonder if the minister could answer that question, please.

Hon. D. Streifel: The member would be well advised to advise his constituent to apply to the student financial assistance program to cover their needs.

J. Weisbeck: She applied and was refused.

Hon. D. Streifel: Again, it's difficult to deal with actual casework in here. If the member would be so kind as to bring forward the specifics to some of my staff outside the scope of the estimates, we'd be pleased to help where we can.

In general terms, in order to qualify for income assistance, a single individual has to be available for work. If the individual is a student, they would go to the student financial assistance program. With the casework I do in my constituency office, I find it very unusual that we have a turndown under that program.

[ Page 709 ]

J. Weisbeck: Once again, this might be a bit premature, considering that Bill 11 hasn't come to the floor, but how will Bill 11 affect this sort of situation?

The Chair: Sorry, I don't think that's a proper question for this time. It's legislation, and we're dealing with estimates.

J. Weisbeck: I'll wait till then.

[10:30]

A. Sanders: I would appreciate some information on Youth Works. I know that the hon. minister may tell me that this is now an Education program, so I am restricting my comments on Youth Works and Welfare to Work for those over 25 to those areas that could be in the budget of Social Services.

My question to the minister.... We have been instructed that Youth Works, first of all, is an $80 million program. I have looked at the Education budget and know there is not $80 million in the Education budget for Youth Works. My understanding is that the technical and training part of Youth Works will come from the Education budget, and the housing and support would most likely come from Social Services budget. Could the hon. minister give me the dollar figure in his budget that will be addressing his part of the Youth Works program?

Hon. D. Streifel: A large portion of this program is under another ministry and covered in another way. I'll endeavour to supply you with as much information as I have. The $80 million referred to by the member is in the Skills budget, and it covers training. Shelter and support comes under the budget of this ministry, and it's $202.88 million. The majority of funds -- 98 percent -- go to support and shelter for youth participating in the Youth Works program. The remaining 2 percent is primarily used to provide funding for crisis grants and to support work entry. That's where the jurisdictional split occurs.

A. Sanders: My understanding, then, would be that the $80 million should be included in the Education budget. Is that correct? Thank you.

My second question -- again having to do with the interdigitation and integration of these two areas in Education and Social Services -- is: how many dollars in the Social Services budget...? What is the breakdown of the total program for rehabilitation of mentally and physically disabled individuals? What part of that rehabilitation budget is earmarked in Social Services and not in the Education, Skills and Training package?

Hon. D. Streifel: I ask the indulgence of the hon. member: if you could supply a little bit of clarification through further questioning, we'll find out exactly which area we have to look at.

A. Sanders: Because it is an integrated area these days, this does present difficulties for both of us. Specifically, with information from the ADM of Education, in the area of skills development I'm aware that there now is a program of rehabilitation for mentally and physically disabled people. It is mostly contracted out. If there is an integrated budget where this would previously have come from Social Services and is now under the Education portfolio, is there still money coming out of the Ministry of Social Services? Or should I be looking specifically in the Education budget for those dollars?

Hon. D. Streifel: The budget under this ministry covers basic shelter. The training aspect is all under Skills; it has all been moved over to Skills. We have the shelter component in this budget.

A. Sanders: The third component, again another integrated area, refers specifically to Welfare to Work, which is the program providing training for individuals over 25 who are now being prepared for the workforce. Is there any aspect of the budget in the Social Services ministry to provide housing and support services for Welfare to Work, and if so, what is that figure?

Hon. D. Streifel: Again, the basic shelter and support is the component that comes from this budget, and it's $1.025 billion.

S. Hawkins: I would like to ask the minister a few questions about an issue that raised a great deal of concern in my constituency earlier this year -- the issue of the mentally disordered offender. There was quite a bit of concern raised in my constituency when a group home opened up in Lakeview Heights. One of the clients, who was mentally handicapped, was on probation for assaulting a four-year-old girl, and the care of the client was privately contracted out by the Ministry of Social Services. The care home was set up in Lakeview Heights without the knowledge of residents in that community.

There were several issues that arose out of this incident. The ministry official in Kelowna admitted that they were wrong in failing to consult neighbours before the clients moved in. They said that ministry officials normally expected the private contractors running the group homes to canvass neighbourhoods, but it didn't happen in that case. He said -- and I quote from a story that was in the paper at the time -- that you can bet that, in future, we'll make it a part of the contract. My question to the minister is: was there a policy in place that required them to advise the neighbourhoods before a group home with a mentally disordered offender opened up?

Hon. D. Streifel: In most cases, there's an attempt to canvass the communities. As I understand it, I think the member is correct that there was a slip-up in this case, and I understand there was an apology given. But it is the understanding of this minister and this ministry that in most circumstances where there could be sensitive issues, there is a move to canvass the communities.

S. Hawkins: Can the minister confirm that there is a policy in place right now? What is that policy, and can he make it available to us?

Hon. D. Streifel: I understand that there are guidelines in place, and I'll be pleased to supply those guidelines.

S. Hawkins: The second issue that arises is contracting-out for private group homes. I would like to ask the minister: what policy or standards of care does the ministry have in place for contracting-out for private group homes for the mentally disordered offender?

Hon. D. Streifel: There are standards of care for private and non-profit group homes and a provincial review team that monitors this.

S. Hawkins: Can the minister tell us who makes up this provincial review team?

[ Page 710 ]

Hon. D. Streifel: It's an external contracted oversight capacity. There are individuals that have long histories and experience in providing services for individuals with mental handicaps. They make up part of this team.

S. Hawkins: I wonder if the minister could make available to us what kinds of qualifications they're looking for in the people they hire. Apparently, they're now contracting out evaluators for their program people that set the standards for care. If we could get that information, I won't question him about that any further.

I wonder how often evaluations are made for these homes that house mentally disordered offenders.

Hon. D. Streifel: I'd be pleased to supply to the hon. member a copy of the contract for the provincial review team that reviews these homes once every three years.

S. Hawkins: I would be delighted to have a look at those reports. I'm sure that the constituents in Okanagan West would as well.

I would like to ask the minister who reviews these reports. Is there a process? Obviously, there was a problem in our constituency. The home was only set up for a couple of months before the problem arose. Does the minister feel it's appropriate to review every three years? Is there a policy in place that's going to have the review sooner than that? Can the minister tell me who reviews the reports that come in from the external review team?

Hon. D. Streifel: We can send in a provincial review team whenever there's a legitimate concern raised. The reports are reviewed by ministry management as they're delivered.

S. Hawkins: At the time that this problem arose, the public were advised that the ministry was reviewing its handling of the mentally challenged offender. The ministry admitted that this type of client fell between the cracks of the Ministry of Social Services, Mental Health and the Attorney General's office. I wonder what the status is of the review the ministry promised, Where is this review?

Hon. D. Streifel: We have a criminal justice project underway with the Ministry of Attorney General, federal Corrections and forensic services, working out strategies for mentally handicapped offenders, and the report is due shortly. The report will be delivered to the bodies involved: Attorney General, federal Corrections, forensic services and us. If the member would like a copy of the report, we can certainly provide it.

[10:45]

S. Hawkins: The member awaits that report with bated breath. How are the clients that are currently in the system without the recommendations of the report being dealt with right now?

Hon. D. Streifel: Currently there is a protocol for the mentally disordered that guides the programming for the individuals referred to, between the Attorney General, federal Corrections, forensic services and this ministry.

S. Hawkins: I wonder if the minister could provide us with that protocol.

Could the minister tell us how many mentally disordered and mentally challenged offenders are in the system right now?

Hon. D. Streifel: Yes, we'll supply that protocol.

There ares about 70 or 80 individuals under the Ministry of Social Services.

S. Hawkins: Can the minister tell us where they are placed? The other issue is cost. How much does it cost to look after this type of client, with the level of care that they require?

Hon. D. Streifel: In general terms, the individuals may be across the province. As well, in general terms, there are usually higher costs involved in servicing these individuals. But we don't break down the statistics in the manner that I think the member is seeking -- on a case-by-case or individual-by-individual basis.

S. Hawkins: I asked the minister what it costs because there were rumours flying around the constituency that it costs $10,000 a month to house one client. We would like to put facts and figures together. I wonder if the minister would get the information to us and let us know what the average cost of housing such a client would be, and if it couldn't be done in easier terms.

The other concern around this issue was lack of training of personnel looking after this type of client. I wonder if the ministry has done anything about training or setting standards of training, or putting some kind of policies in place so that we have the right kind of people looking after this kind of client, who requires quite considerable care.

Hon. D. Streifel: There is a recognition that it is a slightly higher cost to service these individuals, as 24-hour supervision is required in many cases. But the budget for these needs is not broken down in the manner the member is seeking. It would be very difficult to supply the exact dollar figure in this matter.

S. Hawkins: I understand that when the contract is contracted out for looking after these individuals, a dollar figure is placed on the care of each individual. This is the rumour that was running rampant in the constituency, so I don't understand why it would be hard to break it out. You would just look at the individual contracts and see what the contractor was willing to get in return for the care that was being provided. It would be nice to know how much each of these contracts was, so we had some kind of system of consistency and could get rid of some of the rumours that were running around that taxpayers were paying a lot of money looking after these clients.

Again, getting back to the concern about training for personnel and supervision, a lot of these clients do require 24-hour supervision. In this group home, in particular, baby monitors had been used to supervise these clients. It was a duplex: in one half, there were clients and caregivers; in the other half, there were mentally disordered offenders, and apparently a baby monitor was being used to monitor them. So I worry about the lack of supervision and the lack of training of personnel and the lack of caregivers who are looking after this type of client. I wonder if the ministry has put a program into place, or made recommendations that a program should be put into place, for looking after this kind of client.

[ Page 711 ]

Hon. D. Streifel: You know, the member raises some very serious community issues, but we do have the protocol in place, as I spoke about. If the member is interested in the contract of any particular group home, that's available -- it's on the public record. Of course, individual clients wouldn't be identified, but the budget for the group home is available for the member. If you make the request, we'll supply what we can.

S. Hawkins: I wonder, then, if I could get the answer to the second part of the question, with respect to the training and the lack of personnel caring for these clients.

Hon. D. Streifel: Training would be in the community service worker program, through the community college structure, as well as in-service training.

S. Hawkins: It's about as clear as mud.

Can the minister tell us how they ensure that the group homes contractors actually provide service providers that have the level of training he's referring to?

Hon. D. Streifel: We recognize that there's an ongoing need for training and in-service training. Increasingly, the prerequisite is that the individuals have the community service worker education through the community college structure. It's not a prerequisite at this time, but we do recognize that there is an increasing need for this kind of training, and it's under constant review.

S. Hawkins: Recognition for training is nice. I'm wondering if the ministry has a policy in place that is actually going to require that people who work in these homes have proper levels of training to look after this kind of client. It's a concern for not only the client that's being cared for but also people in the community who expect that we are providing tax dollars to go into services of this kind and that they are spent accordingly. I wonder if the minister can describe to the House the program that's required for these service providers.

Hon. D. Streifel: Well, again, within these contracts there is a budget available for in-service training. The individuals generally have a high level of maturity and a high level of experience in this field in dealing with individuals with mental handicaps. Again, there is the community service training available at the community college.

S. Hawkins: What training do these people get before they can be hired to look after this specific type of client?

Hon. D. Streifel: A contract with the society or the group that's providing this has a service-level requirement built into that contract, and they must find a way to deliver that. That's the process of delivering the expertise to these homes.

S. Hawkins: The ministry has the responsibility of setting standards for care when they're spending our dollars looking after clients that require help. I don't know if it's appropriate to say that every contract will just decide what level of care.... If the minister has the levels of care and what service is required, or what level of care is required for each type of client, could he supply that to us?

Hon. D. Streifel: The society has to have the capacity to fulfil a contract, and not each and every individual within the structure would have the same qualifications. The overall contract has to be fulfilled by the society and delivered on a contract basis, not on a by-individual basis.

S. Hawkins: I just think it's a little bit strange that there doesn't seem to be any coordinated effort to provide some kind of care that's standardized for these clients. I'm wondering if the minister can very briefly tell us: what is the minimum level of qualifications for service providers looking after these clients?

Hon. D. Streifel: The minimum requirement is the full delivery of the contract, based on -- to take the member back to the first questions she asked -- monitoring and the provincial review team and the guidelines and all the protocols that are in place. So the minimum is the delivery of the contract. It's delivered by the society on a contract basis, not on a.... I don't know how to say this, actually. Maybe I'm not getting the words out properly. The whole contract would operate as a team to deliver the services required to fulfil the contract within the group home structure. They wouldn't have the same level of expertise or status on each and every participant in that team; they would play and fulfil different functioning roles. So the bare minimum that the ministry would accept is the delivery of that contract, and that is monitored by the review team and the other groups we spoke about.

S. Hawkins: Maybe I wasn't clear. I would like to ask the minister, very specifically, about the minimum qualification level of personnel who are actually working in the home and caring for these clients. Do they require a diploma? Do they require a degree? What is the minimum level of training for those personnel?

[11:00]

Hon. D. Streifel: Again, I'm trying to explain the team that delivers these services. Some would cook; some would be in a psych nurse capacity. Others play different roles and functions within this structure.

I'm not trying to avoid what a minimum qualification is, because it really would depend on what function the member of the team fulfils. I don't know how else to say it, hon. member -- I'm sorry.

S. Hawkins: I wonder if the minister would agree that perhaps there isn't a standard of care for this type of client. Perhaps part of the review will try to develop some kind of protocol or strategy for this kind of client that seems to fall through the cracks and get lost between two or three different ministries. Is there money in the budget for training to get some of these people up to par for looking after this kind of client?

Hon. D. Streifel: As I said, in each contract there is money for training for individuals. I would assume that the training is an ongoing process, to meet different and varied needs.

To try again, I suppose if you're cooking in the home, you have to be able to cook. If you're carrying on in the capacity of a psych nurse, then you would have those credentials with you. Those individuals all form the team that delivers the services which fulfil the contract that's reviewed by the pro-

[ Page 712 ]

cess of review. I would think that if the review was unfavourable, we would be reviewing the contracts and who has them, and looking for improvements.

S. Hawkins: I'm not talking about cooks in the home. I'm talking about the people who actually provide the kind of care this person needs to integrate. If they're in a group home, they're obviously being integrated into society at large in some way. I would argue that there are very few psych nurses trained at that level working at the home. Certainly in this home I'm talking about, at Lakeview Heights, the personnel didn't feel they had the training to work with this level of client. I'm talking specifically about the mentally challenged offender.

Are criminal-record checks done on all the employees who work with these people in group homes?

Hon. D. Streifel: Yes.

S. Hawkins: Could the minister could tell us when we can expect the report? We thought it was coming out at the end of March. That's the report with respect to the review of the ministry and of how the mentally disordered offender was going to be cared for and of which ministry was going to be responsible: the AG, Mental Health or Social Services.

Hon. D. Streifel: As I understand it, the report is due shortly. We will share the report with the hon. member.

S. Hawkins: I have one more question on the criminal-record checks. Who pays for these checks, and how much is doled out by what ministry? Does it come under the budget of Social Services?

Hon. D. Streifel: I would refer the member to an examination of the Ministry of Attorney General estimates for that answer.

M. Coell: Following on that line of questioning, the minister was not able to give an individual cost per client. Is there a global cost for those 80 to 90 individuals in care?

Hon. D. Streifel: Here are some numbers from the last few days: the community residential care budget for '96-97 is $194.54 million.

M. Coell: Obviously the minister doesn't have the number of dollars required to service those 90 clients we're talking about, so we'll move on to a different line of questions.

In June of this year the ministry announced that refugee claimants would be exempt from the residential requirement for income assistance. We have now had two months of this program, and I would like to know how many refugees have applied for exemption under the three-month provision.

Hon. D. Streifel: We don't have that available right here. If the member could ask a few other questions, we'll try to get that information to him as soon as it's available.

M. Coell: The other day I was questioning the minister about the possibility of an exemption for mentally ill and mentally handicapped Canadians. There are a number of people in my constituency who have had mentally ill children move back to the province and not be able to get on income assistance for three months. It seems to me that we have exempted a group of new Canadians, and I think the number would probably be similar to the number of mentally ill or mentally handicapped Canadians. I would like that number, as well as the cost of the refugee applicants. I don't think we're talking about a lot of money, but we're talking about three groups of people that are obviously in need and that we could probably accommodate. If the minister can get that information for me in the next few minutes, that would be greatly appreciated.

In April the government renewed its support for first nations in a program in Burnaby. It gave $84,000 to the First Nations Circle of Wellness to provide services to first nations peoples. Could the minister outline how that program is going and tell us how much of the $84,000 has been spent? I imagine it is a six-month program.

Hon. D. Streifel: Unfortunately, we don't have the answer to that question. I don't know if we can get it during these processes, but we will supply for the hon. member what is available.

I'd like to point out again that we are serving all children in British Columbia. There is no three-month residence requirement for children.

M. Coell: In my question I was referring to mentally handicapped adolescents and adults. They may be mentally ill or mentally handicapped, but they would be adults. That's the group of people that I'm concerned about. I think there's a small group of those people who are falling through the cracks in the ministry.

The Liberal caucus is very supportive of the $84,000 Burnaby project. When the program is completed, I'd be interested in how the ministry is going to assess its effectiveness and whether the program could be expanded into other areas.

Hon. D. Streifel: Yes, the program will be reviewed or assessed, and we'd be pleased to keep the member informed of the process and the success.

M. Coell: In April, again this year, the Ministry of Social Services announced support for a program in Prince Rupert: renewal of contracts of $720,000 for continued support of the Prince Rupert Community Enrichment Society in the delivery of services to help build strong families. I just wonder whether the minister can give me an update on this program. Was it a success? Is it being reviewed at this point? How much of the $720,000 has been spent? I realize there are three questions. I should probably only be asking one question at a time.

Hon. D. Streifel: I believe we canvassed this yesterday. I thought the member for Saanich North and the Islands asked those questions; one of the members did. It's an ongoing project supporting families. It is monitored as part of the contract.

L. Stephens: Hon. Chair, I have a few questions that I'd like to ask the minister around the report of the office of the child, youth and family advocate. There are a number of recommendations and initiatives in here that refer specifically to Social Services, some of them around the Gove report. I know you've talked about the Gove report, and there's only one question I really wanted to ask on that. Gove talked about some of the grave concerns around Ministry of Social Services staff who register complaints. I'd like to know if the ministry has dealt with the internal difficulties around their question-

[ Page 713 ]

ing policy or dealt with bringing to the ministry's attention practices that perhaps should be improved on behalf of children and youth. I wonder if the minister would comment on some of the initiatives that the ministry is taking to empower staff to in fact bring forward recommendations that they think will be helpful in providing that service to children and youth.

Hon. D. Streifel: We do have a very active suggestion program, and there are awards available to individuals for the suggestions that are used. We very strenuously encourage our employees to participate in this. In fact, we publish the results of the suggestion program, and I think the participation level is remarkable. I really thank our employees that participate in this. If we don't tap the best minds of those that support us on a day-to-day basis, we will never progress. I'm very complimentary of this program. My compliments and thanks to the folks that participate.

[11:15]

L. Stephens: Those are very worthwhile initiatives in any organization: to involve the staff in coming forward with ways in which to make the operation run more smoothly and run much better. But what was identified here was the fact that many of the staff felt there would be retribution if they were to point out some of the negative aspects of ministry policy and some of the ramifications of that policy. Staff felt it was very difficult for them to bring forward what they believed to be policies that weren't being dealt with in a way that was of benefit to children, and they were therefore reluctant to do so.

I wonder if the minister could comment on that aspect of the changes that are being made. Does the ministry encourage staff to come forward with proposals on what they see as clearly not working? What kind of comfort is the ministry giving to these individuals that there won't, in fact, be retribution delivered to them if they do?

Hon. D. Streifel: I would like to think that there is no retribution within this program, and I would encourage the hon. member that if she has -- I won't even suggest hard evidence -- but some strong suggestion that there is this concern.... I would give my assurance as minister that I would not tolerate it. We should not hide from good ideas. We should not hide from constructive criticism if we're going to improve this ministry. If we're going to continue to respond to the needs of British Columbians, we have to be able to look at ourselves positively and also critically. This minister would not tolerate retribution in these circumstances. When we deal through the proper channels, and employees come forward in good faith with suggestions and ideas, I would encourage that. I would suggest to the hon. member that she could help us out. If she brings forward some circumstances, I'd certainly look into them.

L. Stephens: I hear what the minister is saying. What I would like is a concrete example of a policy that the ministry has in writing that assures staff that there won't be this kind of retribution. I'm sure the minister knows that that was in the Gove recommendations as very clearly one area of great concern to the individuals who work for Social Services.

It was also in the child, youth and family advocate's report. When the child advocate went out around the province and held public hearings, it came again to their attention -- not just a number of incidents but fairly widely held views by ministry staff -- that this problem hadn't been rectified. There needs to be a stronger initiative on the minister's behalf to make it clear that, in fact, what he feels and what he believes should happen is happening in the ministry. So I would encourage the minister to be more clear, or perhaps make sure that his staff does understand what his goals and objectives are.

There's also, I understand, supposed to be a Child and Family Review Board established in the Social Services ministry. My understanding is that this particular group is supposed to concern itself with the internal administration review process into the violation of rights of children and youth in care. I wonder if the minister could tell the committee what status that particular review board has at the moment? We'll start there.

Hon. D. Streifel: We did canvass this yesterday. The board is up and running; six of the 15 members have been appointed and it is functioning. There's not a backlog situation, so we are in place with that.

On the former point -- the one addressed in the preamble to this question -- I believe that within the master collective agreement with the government workers there is a clause that protects whistle-blowers. That's fairly powerful, contained as it is within the collective agreement structure. I'm not sure that any assurance from the minister, or any other written policy, would be as enforceable as a clause in a collective agreement. The reason for this is that there is a process to deal with violations of a collective agreement, up to a quasi-judicial process called arbitration. In fact, with my labour background, I support free collective bargaining and the clauses that are in there. Along with that, I give my personal assurances that I wouldn't find it acceptable if we were to have intimidation -- or retribution, as the member described it -- for circumstances where individuals come forward in good faith, through the process, to tell us why we're good or how we could be better, or why we're bad and why we should be better. I think it's very important that we respect the relationship that we have with our workers, and this minister respects it very deeply.

L. Stephens: I agree with the minister. Certainly we support whistle-blowers' protection as well. I think it's absolutely critical to some of the areas of work in the province, and this is certainly one of them.

I wonder if many workers are aware that this is something that they have access to. Again, I press this point because it comes up so frequently. It has come up in so many studies that have been done on social services across a wide spectrum of groups. I would again urge the minister to look into this to see whether, in fact, at the line-worker level this message is getting across and whether people feel comfortable and safe in coming forward with suggestions that they think the ministry should be aware of. I'm sure, in most instances -- in fact, probably all instances -- these individuals are very concerned about the service that they're providing and the health and safety of the children and the youth.

I'd like to ask a little bit -- perhaps this has been covered, and if it has, I apologize -- around children with fetal alcohol syndrome: ADHD, NAS, FAS and FAE. Is there a policy now around ministry staff having clear guidelines and a consistent response to inquiries from families of children in care?

It has come to my attention over the last couple of years that people who have adopted children through the Ministry of Social Services have later found out that the children suffer from any of these illnesses or combinations thereof. First, it's been very difficult for them to access information from the 

[ Page 714 ]

ministry and, second, to ask the ministry to provide some kind of resources or some kind of help for these parents to deal with the serious medical problems of children and youth.

I wonder if the minister could expand a bit on what new services are available to the children with these medical problems, and also to the families.

Hon. D. Streifel: The policy is that foster parents and adopting parents must be fully informed. We try to put these folks in touch with support groups and give them access. As a matter of fact, the ministry has funded some research at UVic on fetal alcohol syndrome.

L. Stephens: When the minister says that the families must be informed, is there a process, a pamphlet, a written letter or some kind of written communication that clearly sets out what the responsibilities of the ministry are, what kind of services are available and where they may be accessed and whether or not families can, in fact, access services other than social services or health care? There was no consistency of response.

I wonder if the minister would also comment on interministerial protocols around this particular issue to help parents through the maze. It's very much a maze for individuals trying to work their way through the health system, the social services system and perhaps the justice system. Is there any kind of clear, concise information provided to these parents to help them provide better care for their children?

Hon. D. Streifel: Simply, the answer is yes. We like to think the information is clear and concise. Sometimes it's subject to interpretation, and we're always willing to improve if there are suggestions. A written form goes to the foster parents that includes the information the member is suggesting -- contacts with other ministries and information on access to other agencies. I offer to the member for Langley, if there's advice coming forward, that I'd be pleased to listen to it on this very serious issue.

L. Stephens: I have just one other comment and question left. It's around integrated case management principles and whether the ministry is making more of an effort to use integrated case management principles. If so, what is the policy? What procedures is the ministry implementing in that regard?

Hon. D. Streifel: A lot of this is work that's flowing from the office of the transition commissioner. The transition commissioner has a subproject. We have a risk management, multidiscipline.... If the member asks me the question again, I'll figure out the last part of the answer. But basically, hon. member, it's under the office of the transition commissioner with the subproject that she's working on.

L. Stephens: The direction that government appears to be going is to reorganize the delivery system of social services in this province. The Social Services ministry has some systemic barriers and serious systemic service-delivery problems that Gove, the child and youth commissioner, and the transition commissioner identified to implement those child programs. It's clear that the ministry has made some effort to address some of these systemic service-delivery problems.

I wonder if the minister would care to comment on whether in fact the integrated case management principles that the staff has around teen mothers and youth in care.... In planning services for them, a lot of young people feel that they're not listened to, that their concerns are not addressed and that they have no say over their futures and how their futures are planned if they are children in care. Those difficulties still remain. I wonder if the minister would care to comment on any progress that the ministry has made around addressing these systemic service-delivery problems for children in care around planning their futures.

Hon. D. Streifel: The Child, Family and Community Service Act of 1994 has as one of its guiding principles that the child's views should be taken into account when decisions relating to a child are made. If the child feels that this hasn't happened, there is a Child and Family Review Board process available.

[11:30]

To expand slightly on a couple of the previous questions the member was getting at, many of the recommendations in the Gove report identified needed changes to child protection case practice, planning and management. These recommendations are also at the heart of the new Child, Family and Community Service Act, and they are reflected in policy. A case management subproject continues to work on the implementation of the act to introduce opportunities for improved field practices. A new risk management model will be a key part of the ministry's new approach to case management. The new approach to case management will be incorporated into an integrated case management model development through the office of the OTC, and this approach will allow professionals in different ministries to share information more effectively to ensure the safety and well-being of children. That would be the risk management model as a multidisciplinary component.

That's what I attempted to get out the first time I tried to answer this question, but I didn't quite have all the information. I hope this helps the hon. member.

L. Stephens: Yes, it does. However, when we talk about systemic difficulty in the service delivery of social services, it is very severe and it's sort of engraved in stone. Yes, there is new legislation now that speaks to some of these issues, and there is policy that the ministry has brought forward that does as well. Now we have the Child and Family Review Board that attempts to deal with these issues, too, and the office of the transition commissioner. I am sure the minister knows from long experience in other organizations that it is very difficult to shift a mind-set, an attitude. I wonder if the minister could share with the committee some of the ways that the shift is happening in Social Services -- aside from reorganizing the ministry functions, the new legislation and all of these other things that are in place.

It comes down to attitude. I wonder if the minister would like to comment on the attitude of the Ministry of Social Services and whether or not, in fact, it is looking to make some substantive changes in the way they deliver service and provide safety and health to children.

Hon. D. Streifel: To answer directly, there are processes that we're undertaking to ensure that we move through this change. There's training, there's interaction and communication with other ministries, and an understanding that the implementation of the act will take two years. Again, I would like to compliment the workers in this ministry, those that support us and support British Columbians on a day-by-day basis. There has been tremendous change in the last couple of 

[ Page 715 ]

years within the ministry. I believe completely that our field staff, our workers in the offices and in the ministry itself, have responded to this change in a professional and dedicated manner. They say that that's what they want to do. They want to serve British Columbians to the best of their capacities and are accepting many of these changes just with that spirit.

As you can see by some of the legislation we've introduced this week and last week, the member is correct: the ministry is changing, and changing dramatically. We will need the support of our field staff as we go through and manage these changes. We will need their input on an ongoing basis. I have no doubt that with their dedication to British Columbians and to children, they will deliver that input in the best possible manner, so we will be able to complete these changes and make our province and our communities a little bit better.

L. Stephens: Just one final question. Could the minister share with the committee what kind of public accountability is going to be around these new policies, review boards and legislation? Are there going to be some public reports? Is the review board going to publish an annual report on the findings of this internal administration review process? What kind of public accountability will there be to demonstrate the changes that the Social Services ministry is going to be enacting? I think it's important. I think people want to have a mechanism where they can look at what the ministry has said they are going to do and what, in fact, they have done. I wonder if the minister would comment on that, aside from the annual report of the Ministry of Social Services itself. What kind of an accountability mechanism is there for ordinary people to access and find out whether their concerns are being heard and something is being done about it?

Hon. D. Streifel: The mandate of the audit and review division has been restored by this government, particularly in the area of protective practice audits, and they will be delivering an annual report. As well, the review board will be delivering an annual report. I understand that I will be sharing the audit review division report with the Liberal opposition. I think it would demonstrate very clearly that we are moving forward, we are making changes, we are responding to the criticisms and expanding on those areas that we work at and that we deliver very well. Again, my compliments to the folks that are doing it for us. I get to stand up here and speak in the Legislature. Those folks out there in the communities, on an office-by-office basis, are the ones that are delivering this on behalf of British Columbians. I thank them again.

I. Chong: My question to the minister pertains to the community support services in the area of services for children with mental handicaps or special needs. In our estimates, approximately $59 million is provided in this area. What amount is allocated or available on a per-child basis per year?

Hon. D. Streifel: Again, it's very difficult to break that budget down on a per-child basis. That budget supports about 3,000 families with children with special needs. It would really be determined by the needs of the child involved, so it could vary from child to child. I don't believe there's necessarily an amount per child; it's a global budget, and the children who are served are served for their own needs.

I. Chong: I guess what I'm looking for is perhaps not something as specific in that area. If I had a child who had a severe mental handicap or special needs, what amount could I expect the ministry to provide, in terms of a maximum, for the community support services in my area? That's generally what I'm looking for. Is it $1,000 a month? Is it $1,500 a month? What maximum will you permit a person who comes to your ministry looking for this kind of assistance?

Hon. D. Streifel: As I understand, there is no maximum per child. It's based on a child's needs. I have some information here that I'd like to read into the record:

"This program" -- it's the $58.97 million that is allocated under the program for children with mental handicaps or special needs -- "provides funds to community agencies to deliver a home-based program which assists and supports parents of approximately 1,900 developmentally delayed infants with support totalling $5.79 million. It provides respite care for families having children with special needs. Approximately 600 children are assisted under this program, which has a budget allocation of $4.69 million.

"A further $5 million has been allocated for at-home respite care to assist families caring for approximately 2,580 children with severe disabilities. It provides family support services such as counselling, life skills training and homemakers for approximately 1,365 children per month. This program has $15.29 million for 1996-97.

"This budget also provides child-specific training and demonstration of behaviourial management techniques for families and caregivers of approximately 425 children with autism. The budget for this is $2.91 million. It assists families with support services such as counselling, life skills training and homemakers for about 1,365 children per month. The budget for this is $15.29 million."

I hope that helps the member opposite.

I. Chong: It certainly does help a little. But what I'm looking at in particular is whether this funding, as I've heard you detail, is solely for community support services. This is not direct payments, then, to families? Can I get that confirmation?

Hon. D. Streifel: The member is correct. It's not income support programs; it's community support programs.

I. Chong: I would like to move momentarily away from this and into another area of community support services, and that is institutional care. I notice in the '96-97 estimates that there is a decrease to the $13.5 million, and I understand that is due in part to the closure of Glendale Lodge. I recognize the funds have been reallocated to other existing programs, because the overall budget hasn't changed very much.

Would the minister be able to confirm whether any of these funds have been redirected, then, to families who are attempting to reintegrate previously institutionalized children? If so, what kind of amount has been allocated for that program?

Hon. D. Streifel: The answer, simply, is yes. Money has been reallocated to service in the community. I would point out that Woodlands and Glendale were adult facilities, and this money has come back into the community -- I think it's $12.97 million in this budget -- to provide placements in the community from Woodlands and Glendale Lodge. The total number of residents being placed from January 1, 1996, to closure is 88.

I. Chong: I would like to move on to ask what the annual cost is to have a severely handicapped child in an institution.

Hon. D. Streifel: There are no children in Woodlands or Glendale; there are none. They are in Sunny Hill and Queen Alexandra pediatric extended-care wards, and we are working to move them from those facilities.

[11:45]

[ Page 716 ]

I. Chong: I guess I didn't make myself clear, and I apologize to the minister. I recognize that Glendale and Woodlands did not have children institutionalized, and I do recognize that they are at the Queen Alexandra Hospital, which is in my riding. That was the intent of my question -- to find out what the ministry provides in terms of funding, or the annual cost to have a child institutionalized in a facility such as that.

Hon. D. Streifel: We fund the community placements for these children; the Ministry of Health funds the hospital itself.

I. Chong: I may get back to that, as I was given a figure from someone in my constituency. Now I'd like to know if the minister could tell us what amount is available, per child, to associate families or foster care homes for those children who are severely handicapped or require special needs -- not just the regular foster care children.

Hon. D. Streifel: For the children coming from Queen Alexandra and Sunny Hill, the associate family program is $2.1 million.

I. Chong: Is the minister able to break down the $2.1 million as a per-child amount? Is it $20,000 or $25,000 a year -- something to that extent? I'm just looking for an estimate.

Hon. D. Streifel: It actually seems unusual to stand up and say that we do have an approximate per-child amount of $40,000 to $50,000.

I. Chong: I should make it quite clear why I'm raising this. I'm raising these questions on behalf of a constituent of mine who in fact has a severely handicapped child and is attempting to receive appropriate funding. The $40,000 to $50,000 is an amount that I was not previously aware of as being available. Could the minister advise whether this amount is exclusive or includes reimbursement for all devices that may be required to care for this child, or is there another unlimited sum available for medical devices required?

Hon. D. Streifel: No, medical devices are not included in that.

I. Chong: Then my next question. I'm looking for the amount of support that is available -- not to the associate or foster care family but in fact to the natural parents -- if in fact a person who was once institutionalized is reunited with their natural parents, whether the program continues and provides that same range of funding, in the $40,000 to $50,000 range?

Hon. D. Streifel: The $58 million budget that I read out is the budget that covers the services the member is looking for, for the natural families.

I. Chong: What I am trying to determine here is that natural parents who do provide full-time care for their children who have severe mental handicaps or special needs may, in fact, be discriminated against. The natural parents' form of care goes beyond just raising a child and beyond parental responsibility. I'm concerned that we have in place programs that provide for institutionalization of children requiring these special needs, and that there is no program in place -- unless the minister can provide me with that assurance -- that attempts to reintegrate these children back into their families and make it so that the natural parents are able to care for them in the same way that the foster care families do.

Hon. D. Streifel: I did read out the breakdown in this $58 million budget that covers respite care and other forms of support. That's the support within that expenditure where we do support natural families, to help them raise their children. I think the program works. It's a very broadly based program. We supply this $58 million to help families raise their children.

I. Chong: I can appreciate that information, but the statistics you gave us were of a more global nature than the programs. I'm trying to identify whether there are cost savings here. What I'm seeing is that natural parents are being asked, essentially, to ensure that the necessary funding for their child to be placed in a foster care or institutionalized care versus being taken care of at home.... This, of course, results in a higher cost to taxpayers. What I gather from your answers is that it would be beneficial -- and I hate to use that word -- for natural parents to give up their children to institutions or to foster care families, because the available funding would be much greater than for the natural parent who decides to devote their time and energy to taking care of the severely handicapped child or the one with special needs. I was trying to get a determination of the dollars available per child on an annual basis.

Hon. D. Streifel: The budget is almost $59 million, but I think the expenditure is not the important part of the discussion here. We recognize that it's very difficult for families in some circumstances to raise their children in this manner. That's why this program provides almost $59 million and assists approximately 1,900 developmentally delayed infants. As I said earlier, it provides respite care, family support services, life skills training and counselling, homemaking provisions, child-specific training and demonstration of behavioral management techniques. It also assists families with support services such as counselling, life skills training and homemakers for about 1,365 children. Many families under any circumstances couldn't give up their children. We like to think that we are able to supply support that's needed for these families to raise their children themselves, so they don't have to institutionalize them. This is why this budget and these programs are there.

I. Chong: Well, I can agree somewhat that I am not talking about just the expenditure side; I am looking at the service side of this. What I've heard from a constituent of mine, which has caused me great concern, is that oftentimes natural parents can provide more assistance to their own children. With a severely handicapped child and one with special needs, it goes beyond just parental responsibility, and they certainly regret having to institutionalize their child or give that child up for foster care. But what this particular natural parent found at the ministry -- and I'm sure you'll find if you look back through your cases that she has been through this ministry a number of times looking for assistance -- is that the funding available to a natural parent is far less than that available to a foster care home or to a child in institutional care. I'm wondering whether this ministry would look at a program that provides for reintegration so that the cost benefits can be realized. The child receives better service at home, is less disruptive and less stressed. At the same time there are taxpayer savings which can address more children who require this kind of service.

[ Page 717 ]

Hon. D. Streifel: I thank the member for her input on this very serious issue and for bringing the support of the Liberal caucus on this very important issue. Her comments and remarks will be considered.

M. Coell: I move that we 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 moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.

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

The committee met at 10:16 a.m.

On vote 27: minister's office, $399,564.

Hon. P. Ramsey: It's customary, at the start of estimates, to recap some of the past achievements that the government, through this ministry, has accomplished and to highlight some of the new initiatives that we intend to be working under in the coming year.

I'm delighted to do so today, not only because I believe we have substantial progress to report on this ministry's environmental record -- and I think the people of the province recognize those accomplishments -- but also because the credit for those accomplishments can be shared so widely with those who responded to our government's leadership on environmental issues. Truly, the progress we made has been made in partnership with many across this province.

As I did in the special warrants debate, I also want to pay tribute to those who preceded me in this position: the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville and the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin. I think they have really demonstrated leadership in making some historic changes to the Environment, Lands and Parks portfolio. After a month in the job -- and it has only been a month -- I'm really looking forward to the challenge of carrying on their good work in many areas. They have set some very clear directions and some very high standards that have made British Columbia recognized as an environmental leader, not only in this country, but really throughout the world. They've set some high standards, and they've achieved many positive changes over the past four and a half years.

In preparing for these estimates, I was reflecting on how much we, as legislators, are constantly looking not to where we are, but to where we want to be. We chose to get into this life because we wanted to make a difference. Whether our interests are education, health services or job creation -- whatever our particular interests -- we wanted, as members of this legislature, to leave this province better off than we found it. I think nowhere is that clearer than on environmental issues -- nowhere. We will be judged as legislators on environmental issues, not by what we've inherited, but by what we leave to our children and to our children's children.

Last week I met with a very well-known Liberal, actually: Iona Campagnolo, former president of the federal Liberal Party, who is now acting chair of the Fraser Basin Management Board. I've known Ms. Campagnolo for some years, because she served as chancellor of the University of Northern British Columbia, an institution I'm well acquainted with and have been working hard to get up and running. Ms. Campagnolo sometimes uses a phrase that a Haida chief passed on to her, and I want to use it today. The phrase is: "Our first responsibility as humans walking on this earth is to become good ancestors." I think that is really our role as we look at what we do in the area of Environment, Lands and Parks: our first responsibility is to be good ancestors.

Now, that sounds relatively straightforward, except that we live in a society which values consumerism and the moment above all. I was reminded, when driving around Prince George on the weekend, that there are other views. There is, for instance, the bumper sticker that says: "He who has the most toys when he dies wins." I think that's sort of a catchphrase for the alternative version: that we are measured by what we personally accumulate or by our own individual success.

I think that in Environment our goal is the other. It is to look at what we do to become good ancestors and to protect and pass on this rich and natural diversity that we enjoy so much as British Columbians. I heard all new members refer to this in their initial speeches; every part of this province's geography has been praised in the main chamber over the past several weeks. We need to work to ensure that we pass on air, water and land resources that are healthy and safe to our children and their children, and we need to work to ensure that we have sustainable social, economic and recreational benefits for all British Columbians.

So that's our goal, and I submit that in the last four and a half years we have taken some giant steps towards changing the way we manage British Columbia's natural resources. For example, the whole area of land use planning in B.C. has changed drastically. Area by area across this province, we are putting the future on a more secure and certain footing, both for resource development and for the protection of natural areas.

We've increased the size of the provincial park system by more than one half, and we have created some 200 new parks, protected areas and park expansions. We've set the forest industry -- a vital component of the economy in my part of the province particularly -- and our forests, on which they depend, on the road to a sustainable future. I don't think we've achieved the goal yet, but we're on the road through the Forest Practices Code and the reinvestment in the land that Forest Renewal represents. We've put the pulp industry on notice that chlorine discharge is unacceptable, and that part of the industry is responding.

[ Page 718 ]

So we've begun measures that are needed by industry, by land developers and by local governments to clean up our rivers and protect our salmon streams, and the interest has just been enormous. During my short stay as Minister of Education, I had the opportunity to tour many elementary schools, and the interest of our children in a sustainable fish resource and in participating in making sure that we have habitat that supports fish was amazing. I doubt there's a school or two in the lower mainland that has not raised some salmon fry as a project and released them into a stream and helped the students understand that marvellous cycle.

On another area, we've taken some of the strongest measures in Canada for cleaner transportation and breathable air, measures that are now going to be adopted across the country. So we set the standard, and now it's becoming a national standard.

All these initiatives, taken together, represent a real across-the-board response to address these challenges. Many of them were long, long overdue and were demanded by people across this province with a wide range of political beliefs. I believe that we are therefore starting to become good ancestors and that future generations of British Columbians will be glad that this government has been moving forward with our Forest Practices Code, with investment in forest renewal and with doing the protected areas we need. They're going to be thankful that we're taking the steps we must take to ensure clean air and clean water. It is a record that we can be proud of.

I want to touch on a few highlights of initiatives that have been carried out by this ministry since the last time estimates were debated in these halls -- just a few, because the list is quite long. We put in place new clean air standards to protect human health and minimize the impact of emissions from motor vehicles. As I said, they're now recognized as national standards as well.

We've implemented further strategies and continue to lead the way in Canada and North America for recycling common but environmentally harmful materials: used paint, tires, batteries, engine oil -- and recently even initiatives in the area of pharmaceuticals, a small portion of the waste stream, but one which can be quite harmful.

We've taken significant steps to provide better protection for fish and wildlife. We've launched a major new strategy for conservation of the grizzly bear, to ensure its survival not just on the basketball court but across the landscape of British Columbia. We have announced a five-year program to support community involvement in improving urban stream habitat. Both municipal governments and, of course, community groups have benefited from that initiative.

We legislated a permanent ban on bulk water exports and large-scale diversions. Add that to the expanded system of protected areas in B.C., both through the Commonwealth and the lower mainland nature legacies and through the nature legacy of B.C.'s acquisition, the Okanagan, and I think we have merited some of the praise that this government has received.

I know that sometimes environmentalists and those of us who work for environmental improvement are accused of spreading doom and gloom, saying the cup is always 20 percent empty rather than 80 percent full. But that's not always true. Environmentalists have recognized the positive nature of these achievements. For the second year in a row now, British Columbia has earned the highest rating in Canada, an A rating from the World Wildlife Fund for environmental performance. As you listen to people's reaction to our initiatives across this country, you will see that sort of reaction.

We're here at the start of a new parliament, debating estimates for this ministry for the first time in that parliament. During the last four years, the debate over environment has been at times rather acrimonious. At times, those who say that we've not been on the right track have been.... The loudest voices saying we've not been on the right track have been those from the opposition camp. I hope that as we start a new Legislature, we'll recognize many of our common goals in protecting the environment and that our debates will be about, perhaps, emphasis rather than questioning one another's motives. I think that those voices that say, "You shouldn't protect parks; you should mine the Tat; you don't need environmental regulations weakening the pulp mill effluent" -- all that stuff -- have been proven wrong. I don't think that is the vision that most British Columbians have. We need to not only solidify the environmental record we've built, but build on it for the next steps.

So I'll give a few highlights from the estimates we are about to begin to debate for the 1996-97 budget year. The ministry has received new funding of approximately $14.8 million for a variety of strategic issues that support the priorities of our government. They include, of course, the environmental youth teams -- this year expanded greatly. They are receiving $8.5 million for internships, eco-education and work crew programs. It is amazing. I doubt there is a member who will enter these debates that doesn't have such a project taking place in his or her home communities. If you talk to the youth serving on these teams, not only are they glad to have the work, but there is a commitment to improving the environment, which is truly wonderful to see.

[10:30]

We have received $2.5 million for the urban stream habitat program to protect and restore streams threatened or damaged by urban development in the Georgia Basin. B.C. Parks is receiving $2 million for sewage and water infrastructure at the Cypress Provincial Park.

LandData B.C. will be receiving a $1.9 million budget lift to implement our corporate catalogue of land-based information. I think it is important to realize just how intensively an information-driven process good environmental policy is. Through LandData B.C. we hope to be pulling together a mechanism which will provide access to that information and a way of distributing that information, both within government and across ministries for the people of British Columbia.

Crown Lands will be receiving a $1 million budget lift in each of the next five years for this ministry's share towards the acquisition and creation of the Burnaby Mountain protected area, a major initiative on the lower mainland.

The habitat conservation fund will receive a budget increase of about $400,000 to continue with the conservation initiatives -- highlighting, of course, the grizzly bear conservation strategy. At the same time we're doing that, our ministry is committed to becoming more efficient and effective. We're going to continue to streamline our activities and improve over-the-counter services to the public.

In closing, I think the public has told all of us who sit in these halls that they want to make sure that the environment remains a top priority. They feel that this government has had a very good record on environmental issues, and they wish to see that record continue. They don't wish to see back-stepping 

[ Page 719 ]

away from that. I'm committed to carrying out the solid work of this government, building on it, continuing to make progress and becoming, in time, a good ancestor.

C. Clark: I'll start by wishing the minister a happy birthday. Doing estimates on your birthday is a great public service, especially on a lovely sunny day like this one. I hope that today is a productive birthday for you, and I think it will be productive for us in the opposition as well.

I know that the minister comes to his ministry with the best intentions and a concern for the environment; I do, too. I come, as the minister knows, preceded by three generations of west coast fishermen. My grandfather was born at Clayoquot Sound. He's one of the few non-aboriginal people that have Clayoquot as their place of birth on their birth certificate. As a 30-year-old in British Columbia -- with, I hope, a fairly long future ahead of me -- I hope that what we do in this parliament will have some positive impacts for my future, my children's future and my grandchildren's future, when they decide to come along -- or when I decide they should come along, I should say.

The nice thing about the estimates process, for me, is that it's one of the rare opportunities we get in our system -- it's a once-a-year opportunity -- to be able to really explore issues in depth and in a fairly expansive and sometimes informal way. That's not something that our system accommodates very frequently. So I'm looking forward to debating a lot of the issues and really going into some depth, if the minister's prepared to do that, in a lot of areas.

My priorities as your critic for the environment will include fish, fish habitat, the nurturing of that resource, the preservation of that resource and hopefully the improvement of the habitat so that we can reverse some of the trend that's seen the resource decline significantly in British Columbia. Fishing, as I've said before in the House, isn't just an economic resource for us here, it's also part of the social fabric of our province. It used to be -- I think the Agriculture critic said this yesterday -- one of the three major industries in British Columbia. People used to refer to forestry, mining and fishing as the three major industries. But people don't refer to fishing so often as a major industry anymore, and that's a terribly sad thing. It's also a terrible thought to think that the only fish we may have left in the future will be fish that are grown in hatcheries, that don't have the same kind of genetic diversity we see out there now and that are genetically weaker than the wild fish stocks. That's a trend we really urgently need to reverse, and it's something I'd like to focus on with the minister in this estimates process.

A second area I'm particularly concerned about is the issue of air quality. One of the really urgent issues facing us in British Columbia, particularly in the lower mainland and the South Island, is managing growth -- the rate of urban growth that we've seen and the impact that has on our air quality. In many respects, despite some good intentions and some efforts in that regard, I think we are starting to fall behind, because our growth is so explosive. This is such a nice place to live; for so long our environment has been such a lovely part of our experience here that everybody's coming here. With all the positive things that does for our province, some of the negative impacts include the impact on our air quality. I think that is an area the government really needs to continue to focus on.

I should point out, too, that we know the government has made some announcements in that regard and has made some promises and some commitments; my concern here today will be to find out what's been done to follow up on those commitments. Not just that, but I'm interested in the ongoing measurement of success for the investment that's been made to fulfil those commitments. I think government will frequently announce things then will perhaps spend money on things, and then there's no measurement of success at the end. Measuring outcomes is really the important part of governing well, because that's the way we ensure that taxpayers' money is being well spent. With a finite pie there to spend, we need to ensure that every penny that does get allocated to the environment, amongst the community of interests represented in cabinet, is really spent as effectively as possible. So that's an area I'd like to explore as well.

In my view, I don't think enough attention was paid to environmental issues during the election. Perhaps some of the fault should be given to Liberal candidates; perhaps we didn't talk about our policy on the environment enough. That's something we will be highlighting during this process and over the next couple of years. We really do have an excellent environmental framework, which I hope the government will look at and take some suggestions from in some regard. We are more than happy and look forward to working cooperatively with the government.

We're also looking forward to holding them to account. I think that when British Columbians elected this new government, amongst their expectations were that we would improve air quality, improve the fish habitat and that we would indeed be better ancestors in the long run. That will be the test of this government, because that's the expectation the public now has of every government they elect. Our role on this side of the House will be to ensure that the government lives up to its commitments. So I'm looking forward to a productive debate over the next day or two.

The Chair: Do you have questions for the minister?

C. Clark: I do. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I thought I would start out with some fish habitat-related issues, focusing particularly on B.C. Hydro's impact on the environment and where the ministry is in relation to this government-owned corporation. Obviously, the control of water licences is under the minister's purview, and it's water licences that determine how B.C. Hydro behaves in terms of whether or not they take care of our fish resources. I'm curious if the minister can tell us at what level his ministry is interacting with B.C. Hydro and who in his ministry is responsible for doing that. Could we get a sense of what kinds of resources are dedicated to doing that on an ongoing basis and whether that would include for his ministry some kind of ongoing assessment of the impact that B.C. Hydro has on our environment, particularly on fish stocks and the preservation of fish habitat?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Before I respond to the question, I want to introduce to the members the staff who are here with me. You may have met some of them, but if you're going to be a critic for Environment, you're going to meet all of them: my deputy, John Allan; and just behind me to my left, Greg Koyl, who is assistant deputy minister for management services; Jim Walker, assistant deputy minister of fisheries, wildlife and habitat; Jon O'Riordan, assistant deputy minister of regional operations; Don Fast, executive director for environmental protection, at the far end; and Frank Edgell, who is assistant deputy minister of lands and water management. As you've discovered, this ministry used to be three ministries under some previous administrations; we have amalgamated them. There's probably some more work to do in amalgamation, but we do have a substantial number of senior personnel with us today.

[ Page 720 ]

First a general comment, then a specific.... I agree with the member opposite that the public is greatly concerned about fish and fish resources. While the first term of this government has been concerned -- I wouldn't say to the exclusion of other issues, but surely as one of its fundamental issues -- with land use, I think this term of government will have as one of its hallmarks concern with fish and water use.

If you just look around this Legislature at the murals down in the main rotunda, we have four areas of economic activity highlighted by the artists who constructed this building: forestry, mining, agriculture and fishing. It is part of our legacy here, and it's important that we continue that.

Your specific question was: how does this ministry relate to B.C. Hydro? The answer is: regularly. Mr. O'Riordan has the prime executive responsibility for ongoing work with B.C. Hydro. He is assisted by some 80 fish biologists within the ministry, several staff within the area of land and water management, and, of course, regional operations throughout the province. B.C. Hydro has recently been working with the ministry on a comprehensive examination of how they operate their electrical system to see what opportunities we have to manage it better for fisheries values.

C. Clark: I'd like to see if I can get a little more detail on that. We know from Greg McDade's report.... He noted in his report on Downton Lake that, in his estimate, only 7 percent of all the water licences that are issued to B.C. Hydro have any environmental conditions attached to them at all. So I'd like to ask if there's any thought being given in the ministry, as part of this discussion with B.C. Hydro, to attaching conditions or to changing the nature of water licences so that Hydro would be forced to live within some environmental and operational conditions that they haven't previously been asked to live within.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I think you're right, hon. member, that this is a concern. In the past we have licensed Hydro for use of water, and the licence has been given for generation of hydroelectric power and the economic benefit that flows from having some of the lowest-cost hydroelectric power of any jurisdiction in the world. The licences attached to them do not have, in many cases, sufficient protection for other values. We're engaged in a licence-by-licence review of these issues with B.C. Hydro and putting in place some better mechanisms.

[10:45]

The one thing we're furthest ahead on is the licence for the Alouette system, which now is starting to be managed for values other than the production of electricity. The member referred to one rather distressing incident that happened during a rather sensitive time: Hydro's drawdown of Downton Lake and some of the results of that on fish. More recently, of course, we've had the first of the work of Dr. Peter Ward, in a review of other Hydro systems, on the Cheakamus system. It showed, I think, some real problems. We have a licence that had flows, yet the terms of that licence itself were violated. What I can say, hon. member, is that we are reviewing these on a licence-by-licence basis. The view that this ministry is taking of those is that we do need to look very hard at the conditions attached to these licences to make sure that we're managing for fisheries values.

C. Clark: With respect to the minister, he didn't put it as strongly as perhaps I would have. With only 7 percent of the water licences out there having some conditions attached to them, and then out of that 7 percent, the one he identified -- the Cheakamus River, where they'd been violating their water licence for 32 of the 38 years they'd had it.... I think some really very fundamental questions need to be asked about the way water licences are granted and how they're enforced. Could the minister tell us why, with the water comptroller being situated in the Ministry of Environment, environmental issues haven't ever been part of that office's mandate when they were issuing water licences in the past?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The member and I could share phrases we might wish to use about Hydro's violation of a licence. I'm not sure who would have the stronger words at the end of the day. I think I used the word "enraged" when I first received the reports of Dr. Ward on the Cheakamus situation.

I think we need to recognize that the great majority of these licences were issued not last year or the year before or five years before or even ten years before that; they were issued, in many cases, 25 to 30 years ago, when perceptions of the importance of managing that water for fisheries values was not a broad public concern. The member and I share the view that it needs to be a public concern; I agree. Within the Ministry of Environment I am taking steps to ensure that the licensing branch is working closely with those who are concerned with habitat protection and enhancement. We need to move forward and look at these licences from decades ago -- from an era when our parents, quite frankly, said, "There's an abundance of fish; there's an abundance of water. We see no problem with diverting this water for hydroelectric use," with little respect for other values, and it was done. We have a different view now. As I say, Hydro is engaged in a comprehensive review of its system. We're working with them on a licence-by-licence basis to establish conditions for licences that will respect fish values in those drainages.

C. Clark: I wonder if the minister could outline for us or give us an indication of how many water licences have been issued or renewed over the last ten or 15 years, when environmental issues have been really at the forefront of public debate and fish have started to be considered a finite resource in British Columbia.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Good question. Jointly, we will find out a lot more about this. Since 1975 -- say over the last 20 years -- there have only been six Hydro licences issued, and all of them have contained clauses for fisheries management. Prior to that time -- and there are some 80 others, or maybe a total of 80 in the province -- those clauses were not included. This is the framework that we are working in; what happened 25 or 30 years ago is what we are dealing with now. I know that there are a lot of people with good will on all sides of this chamber, in the ministry and in Hydro who know that this has to change and who expect management for values of fish protection and conservation as well as for electrical generation.

C. Clark: I wonder if the minister could tell us if there is a specific schedule or timetable for the upgrading of water licences throughout the province. And if so, how it is being undertaken? Is it being undertaken by a committee that is travelling across the province to inspect different dams and water uses?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Much of the work that the ministry and Hydro are now engaged in grows out of a report that was completed not quite two years ago. An electrical system operating review was completed in 1994. It might be worth your while, and mine, to have a look at the report in detail. It is a 

[ Page 721 ]

public document, and it reviews all the issues around operating our public utility and its impact on other values. As a result of that work, the ministry is engaged, as I say, in a licence-by-licence review. The first of those to be undertaken was the Alouette system. The next is the Cheakamus, which is why that report came out and why it is obvious that we need to move forward on that one. There are, I think, around half a dozen more major drainages that need to be addressed. It is going to be about a five-year process, so I am sure that we will be receiving updates on the work that has been done as we go through estimates in coming years.

C. Clark: Can the minister tell us what regulatory tools his ministry has at its disposal to ensure that Hydro has a willingness to comply with requests to change its water licences? I understand from the minister's comments that many of these water licences haven't had to be reviewed every couple of years, so I suppose that, given Hydro's remarkably bad history as an environmental offender in this province, there may not necessarily be a willingness on its part to comply with the ministry's suggestions. Other than moral persuasion, does the ministry have any tools at its disposal to make Hydro comply?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Two major pieces of legislation enable us to regulate water usage. One, of course, is the Water Act. As I have said earlier in other venues, it is an act that deserves some review. It is, however, the piece of legislation that enables us to issue licences and establish contractual terms for the use of water in those licences; then, of course, we have the ability to enforce those terms. The second major piece of legislation is not provincial. The federal Fisheries Act enables the federal government to take action to ensure fisheries values. This is one of those areas of split jurisdiction, hon. member.

I wanted to correct one thing, though. While we may regret -- and I think that no one regrets them more strongly than I -- some of the environmental consequences of either inadequate licence provisions or failure to adhere to licences, I don't think we gain anything from demonizing B.C. Hydro. Actually, I'm very much aware, in my part of the province, of some of the good work that Hydro has done in environmental mitigation funds. In the area where I'm from, up around Williston Lake, they have spent over $10 million on environmental mitigation. That's not an insignificant contribution, which we as ratepayers obviously contribute to. On the Revelstoke facility they've contributed some $6 million; the Seven Mile facility, $1.8 million; Site 1, $5 million. So B.C. Hydro has not been without some attempts to do environmental mitigation.

The other thing I would say -- this is the real tough one, and we're going to have to grapple with this on all sides as we move forward in this debate.... We have said to B.C. Hydro that we wish them to produce electricity at a reasonable rate for the taxpayers of British Columbia, and we have said that the prime use of these rivers is going to be hydro production. That's what we have done. If you have ever visited Williston Lake and looked at the size of that thing behind Bennett Dam, and realized the other values that we gave up as a province for reasonable hydro rates; realized the vast timber resources, then and in the future, that we gave up; realized the really quite incredible change in the landscape as we created the largest, I think, dammed body of water in North America -- that's d-a-m-m-e-d -- I think you must realize that we made that decision as a province some time ago.

While we must, I submit, do more in the use of that water for fish protection, let us not lose sight of the fact that we have said these are not going to be natural rivers; we have given them for another purpose as well. So that is the balance that we have to work through here. Hydroelectric power is a relatively inexpensive, very clean form of producing energy. There are environmental consequences to making that decision, and while 20 or 30 years ago I don't think many people gave a second thought to those consequences, now in the nineties and on into the twenty-first century, as we recognize the value of our water resource and the value of our fisheries resource, we wish to give a higher value to those. That is our challenge, both as legislators and as those responsible for overseeing the laws of the province and the operation of public utilities: to get the balance right.

C. Clark: The minister is absolutely right about trying to find some balance. I could make the point that B.C. Hydro doesn't seem to be serving the purpose of just providing cheap power anymore; it seems to be serving the purpose of providing as much cash for the government revenues as possible, especially in tight budgetary times. But I will make that point to the minister responsible when his estimates come up.

I would ask again, though, when we talk about the regulatory tools that are available to the government to try and force Hydro to comply.... We need to recognize here too that Hydro is an incredibly powerful company. Even within the government, it's got a fairly big stick of its own that it wields quite regularly. I wonder what sticks, as regulatory tools, the ministry has to get Hydro to agree to change its water licences, because if those water licences aren't up for renewal, I doubt that Hydro is going to offer to come forward and say: "Gee, I'd like to change my licence." That hasn't been their practice in the past.

[11:00]

The minister mentioned the Water Act, but these licences were issued under the Water Act without any environmental conditions. I'm wondering what it is in the Water Act, or in the Fisheries Act -- which I think Hydro considers to be an inferior statute to its powers under the Water Act in many cases.... What tools within those statutes is the ministry going to use to try and get Hydro to change its water licences after the fact?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Several points, hon. Chair. First, I'd be pleased to be present as the member opposite engages the minister responsible for Hydro over dividends to the province and, of course, over the rate freeze that all consumers of hydroelectric power in British Columbia are going to be enjoying as a result of this government's action. It should be a fascinating debate and will probably have a more partisan edge to it than our exchanges this morning.

On regulatory tools and issues, let's get it straight here. Hydro recognizes that the world is changing. The electrical system operating review that I referred to was entered into voluntarily. They recognize that they need to be seen to be doing right not just in the production of electricity but in respect for other values, and they voluntarily entered into that.

We do have much power under the Water Act, and I invite the member to read it. It was an area of the ministry I was not totally familiar with when I stepped in, and I spent the first week on the job learning a whole lot about earth-filled dams and the Water Act as I grappled with what was happening at the Bennett Dam. We do have the ability to regulate a fair bit under the Water Act, and the water comptroller has a fair bit of authority under that act, so I'd invite the member to read it.

[ Page 722 ]

Second, contrary to what the member has said, the federal Fisheries Act is federal jurisdiction, and it supersedes provincial jurisdiction, so that is a real force to be reckoned with for Hydro and for other water users.

C. Clark: Is the minister saying that the water comptroller has the power to change these licences when he or she chooses to do so, based on new information that might have come forward about environmental damage that's being done? Or is he saying that we're going to have to count on Hydro doing this voluntarily, without the minister having any regulatory tools available to force them to do so?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I wanted to confirm with my officials what I believe is true under the Water Act. We do have the ability to issue licences and to change those licences. As we do it, of course, we have to make sure that we're acting in the public interest on sound reasons for making those changes, and it is obviously far preferable to work in a partnership arrangement where that is possible. Hydro voluntarily participated in the review of its electrical systems. It is participating very actively with the ministry in making sure that it has regulatory things in place, first on the Alouette system and on five others in the next five years, so we are respecting values other than the production of electricity.

C. Clark: How many licences have been changed in the last 15 years? Or, I should say, have any licences ever been changed in the last 15 years, post-issuance?

Hon. P. Ramsey: We are having a good discussion over on this side about which licences were retrofitted as we went along and which ones have actually resulted in subsequent changes in licence. I think it might be better if I just get you a list of them after this period is over, and you can take a look at it.

C. Clark: Thank you. I'd appreciate it, too, if the list included what kinds of changes were made. That would probably make it the most useful.

The minister mentioned that there is consideration being given to improving or changing the Water Act. I wonder if that includes an investigation, or if any investigation has been done, of the office of the water comptroller, because clearly there isn't an environmental priority in that office. Otherwise, we would have had some environmental conditions attached to more of the water licences that are out there. I wonder if the minister has identified why no environmental or operating conditions have been attached to the water licences other than the fact that B.C. Hydro is primarily responsible for producing power, not for environmental values. It seems to me that if anyone is going to bring those values to bear on the corporation, the only people we can count on to do that are the Ministry of Environment and the water comptroller.

Hon. P. Ramsey: First, I want to repeat something I said earlier; you may have missed it. Since 1975, six licences have been issued. They've all contained clauses to require management of water for fisheries values, as well as other values.

Now, I think what you and I both are debating here is how we go back and look at the things that were issued 20, 25, 35 years ago, in a way that doesn't expose the province to litigation for violation of a contract based on a public good. That is the big challenge that we have in front of us. It is a balancing act, as I say. I think we have gotten good cooperation from Hydro in the electrical system operating review. I intend to be moving forward, I hope, in a cooperative arrangement both with the minister responsible and with the corporation.

C. Clark: I guess, then, we should talk a little bit about enforcement. I wonder what methods the department uses to enforce those water licences, the 7 percent that do have some conditions attached. And if so, as part of that enforcement, have any charges ever been laid? How many charges have been laid against Hydro for violating their water licences?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The question is whether we have regulated and unilaterally imposed changes in a licence.

C. Clark: No, I'm asking about enforcing the water licences that do have environmental conditions attached to them. How do we go about doing that? Have any fines ever been levied against Hydro?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The answer I just received is that the collective memory on this side of the table can't remember a fine being imposed on Hydro. When a violation of a licence is detected, the first step is a thorough and frank discussion with Hydro on how we make it right. There may indeed be charges laid or fines levied at some point. As for the Downton Lake incident, we're still awaiting the final report on that. I think both you and I have seen the preliminary report. So there's more work to be done there before we assess whether a licence has been violated or whether further steps should be taken.

C. Clark: Well, how is enforcement normally undertaken? How are infractions normally identified by the department?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The regional operations in the Ministry of Environment are responsible for monitoring adherence to conditions. This is part of the normal duties of people involved in the Ministry of Environment. As you can see from the preliminary report on Downton Lake, there was even anticipation of potential problems there by ministry staff. So that's the mechanism for enforcing it.

I must say that I find the line of questioning interesting. It does imply a relationship between the ministry and Hydro which is one of cop and criminal, and I'm not sure that's entirely appropriate. We can get into a good philosophical discussion of how you regulate and how you work cooperatively with those you are regulating. Cop and criminal -- maybe, at the end of the day in clear violation situations -- is where you end up. But first, there's a lot of cooperative work and I hope a lot of partnership in identifying broad public issues that need to be addressed. That's what we've attempted to do and are doing, with the electrical systems operating review and with the review of specific licences in drainages where B.C. Hydro is producing electricity.

C. Clark: I'm not implying that B.C. Hydro, or every economic generator in the province that may have some impact on the environment, is a criminal. I would never suggest that. They -- the forest companies, mining companies and fishing companies -- are the engine of our province. Those are the people who provide the jobs in our province.

What I'm trying to point out to the minister, and what we've identified, is an area where the ministry hasn't really put enough focus and where, in some respects in the past, it's been quite negligent in terms of enforcing its duty. I've said 

[ Page 723 ]

this many times, and I'll say it again: if we can't count on the Ministry of Environment, in that community of interest that's represented in this province to be defending environmental interests and to be ensuring that corporate interests live up to environmental standards, then who can we count on? If we can't count on government agencies to be the leaders in environmental protection, it's really unfair to ask the private sector to live up to them. It's quite clear that the Ministry of Environment has spent a fair amount of time thinking about and looking at infractions on the part of companies in the private sector. That's part of its mandate, and it has done that quite thoroughly.

On the other hand, we have a government agency which has been allowed to run wild with little environmental concern whatsoever. I don't think the ministry has really been looking closely enough at Hydro's operations and at Hydro's impact on the environment. That's what I'm trying to point out here today. That's why I'm trying to find out which areas of the Ministry of Environment are looking at Hydro, how they're looking at Hydro and what statutory methods they have to enforce the regulations.

The minister mentioned Downton Lake, and we've both read Greg McDade's interim report. One of the things he says in it is that the Ministry of Environment biologist did say they should be taking some mitigative measures and that fish habitat was going to be terribly endangered, and the Ministry of Environment was completely ignored. The folks at Hydro said: "Well, we don't...." I don't know what they said, but they certainly ignored those environmental concerns and they certainly ignored the ministry. I wonder if the minister has identified why that occurred in that particular case and whether his ministry is doing anything to make sure that doesn't happen again.

[11:15]

Hon. P. Ramsey: I should point out that Mr. McDade was, of course, appointed by this government to audit the whole Downton Lake situation and to advise both us and Hydro how to avoid such circumstances in the future. We're determined to avoid such events in the future. Obviously, at the end of the day, when we receive the final report, there's a whole string of actions which may flow from it, both legal and otherwise, but it's early to talk about those right now. I don't have the final report in front of me; it hasn't been completed yet.

I think the important thing here is to recognize, first, that the Ministry of Environment did monitor; second, that we have appointed an auditor to find out what has gone wrong with adherence to the use of that water under the licence; and third, that we'll be looking at the results of that audit to assess what further action needs to be taken.

C. Clark: It's my concern that there seems to be a history with the environment and Hydro where the Ministry of Environment appoints auditors, does investigations and makes requests. We can identify some cases where the Ministry of Environment actually has been monitoring what Hydro has been doing and asking it to change its behaviour. What we see, on the other hand, is a consistent denial on Hydro's part of any requests from the Ministry of Environment. In light of their history, I am quite concerned that when the final report comes out and says -- which I think it will -- that we need very fundamental changes in the way Hydro operates and in the way the Ministry of Environment interrelates with Hydro, it's not going to have any impact at all, because that's been the history of the way the two organizations interrelate. Hydro clearly sees itself as above the requests of the Ministry of Environment. It's my concern that the Ministry of Environment should be playing a little bit more of a policing role with Hydro. I wonder if the minister or the minister's staff have.... The Downton Lake incident occurred at the end of May, if my timing is right.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Mid-May.

C. Clark: It occurred mid-May, and we're now in mid-July or late July. Hydro's operations are ongoing; they have lots of dams and reservoirs. I would be deeply concerned if no one in the ministry had started to identify what had happened, where the link in the chain of command went missing or if no one in the ministry had actually gone to interview the individual biologist from the ministry to find out from him or her where the problem was.

Hon. P. Ramsey: The member is asking for what Mr. McDade is engaged in, and I await his final report. B.C. Hydro, like other licensed water users, operates under the laws of this province and the federal government.

C. Clark: The minister is right: Hydro probably does operate under the laws of this province. They operate under different laws from the private sector, quite clearly, in many respects. They are not held to the same standard of environmental concern that much of the private sector is, and that's something that we on this side of the House are seeking to change.

McDade also referred to some studies that have been done. He referred to studies that were done on the water quality downstream of Downton Lake. In his report, which is dated in June, he referred to them as almost finished or on their way to being done. I wonder if the minister has had any report back from the studies that McDade referred to in his report -- the downstream water quality from Downton Lake.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Staff advise me that those reports should be finished later this summer.

C. Clark: I'll leave Hydro for a little while with a final question. Can the minister direct us to any studies that the ministry has done or is undertaking on the general impact that Hydro has had on the fish habitat in our province?

Hon. P. Ramsey: That's the report I referred to earlier. The most comprehensive one that has been done recently, the electrical system operation review -- ESOR, as it is affectionately known -- was completed slightly under two years ago.

The only thing I would say is that as we look at specific issues around Hydro and its operation -- I know the member has concerns both around Burrard Thermal and its impact on the Vancouver airshed as well as around their operations in hydroelectric facilities and fish -- I'd urge the member, if you have specific issues you wish to see addressed or wish to see information on, to flag them for me. I'll be glad to get staff to provide you the information.

If we're closing off Hydro, more or less, the only thing I want to say is that I think it is an unfair rap to say that Hydro gets special treatment. In my short time in this job, I would say that they've probably been the recipient of more sharp pokes from the minister and ministry than some other licensed users of water resources.

[ Page 724 ]

C. Clark: I think more of the poking has been coming from this side of the House, in a lot of respects. When the ministry does poke Hydro, they don't seem to be in a position to poke them very hard. They don't seem to be in a position to make them jump. That's something I'd flag for the minister that I think needs to be very seriously considered by his ministry. I think it's an issue about the long-term viability of one of the most important resources in this province.

One of the issues we raised during the election was decommissioning dams. I wonder what work is ongoing in the ministry to undertake the decommissioning of some of the dams in the province.

Hon. P. Ramsey: This is a fascinating issue, to look at whether we need all the 2,200 dams that we now have licensed in this province. Clearly we don't, and some of them can be decommissioned. I just learned that three have actually been decommissioned this spring. I asked staff to provide me a list of dams that have been decommissioned in the last five years, and I'll be glad to supply that to the member as well, as this is an ongoing issue for some major ones, actually. The ministry is actually working on proposals to bring forward to FRBC for funding, because in some cases there's a substantial cost to decommissioning -- both to decommission and then to do habitat restoration in a watershed which was formerly used for water storage.

C. Clark: When I said I was leaving Hydro, I guess I should have said I wanted to leave the issue of water licences with Hydro.

I have a smaller question. I discussed this in the briefing with the minister's staff. I know that Hydro provides some money for environmental mitigation to the ministry. I think it's about $3 million in the estimates. I wonder how that money is spent in the ministry and whether it's spent specifically on mitigating the environmental impacts that Hydro has, or if it is not dedicated to anything in particular.

Hon. P. Ramsey: The money is spent entirely on mitigation measures. It's managed in concert with public representatives for each of the areas for which a mitigation fund has been established: Williston, Revelstoke, Site 1, and others.

C. Clark: So it's entirely....

Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes.

C. Clark: I wanted to move on to Burrard Thermal, if we could, while we're on B.C. Hydro this morning. I imagine this is an issue I'll be taking up with other ministers as well. As the minister knows, Burrard Thermal is actually located in my constituency. One of the concerns that has frequently been expressed to me about Burrard Thermal is that as part of their upgrade, they needed to go through an environmental assessment process, and that process wasn't handled in the same manner that other environmental assessments normally are. The concern from the people in my community is that it was routed through the GVRD after the Minister of Environment had put a very specific framework on what it would be allowed to consider, which was fairly restrictive. The environmental assessment process didn't include issues like the transportation of hazardous goods. As the minister will know, they transport ammonia along a very windy, dangerous two-lane road -- dangerous for toxic chemicals, anyway -- in order to get to Burrard Thermal. It poses an enormous threat potentially to the people on the north shore of Burrard Inlet. I wonder if the minister could outline for us what consideration went into using a different process for this environmental assessment than for others?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm having some difficulty figuring out how this process differed from others. The GVRD was empowered to do some of the review work and as you know, there was a BCUC review of the entire project as well. They had to satisfy both BCUC and GVRD that they were doing it right. The environmental assessment office, which now exists for review of projects, didn't exist at the time. So I'm having a tough time figuring out exactly how the member feels that this process differed from others, given that the environmental review legislation was not in the shape it is in now, that GVRD had major responsibility for administration of the licence and that the BCUC had major responsibility for overseeing improvements to generation capacity. I'm trying to identify exactly what element the member feels was "different than" other reviews that might have been conducted under that sort of regime prior to the establishment of the environmental assessment office.

C. Clark: It's my understanding that when environmental assessments, even under the previous regime, were normally done, it was a fairly broad consideration of issues and that any environmental impacts from a given expansion of production would be considered. That would range from impact on the air quality, to increasing the amount of nitrous oxide that goes out, to the transport of dangerous goods. It's my understanding that in this environmental review process, only a small number of those issues were considered specifically and that a whole bunch of them were outside the purview of the consideration of the assessment.

[11:30]

Hon. P. Ramsey: We're getting into some technical aspects of regulation and administration of law. I'll try, and if I get it wrong, I will provide you some fuller information in writing. In short, I think the member has got hold of a real issue here. It's the issue of what happens to a project that has already been approved and permitted and now seeks actually to change how it does operations under that permit by installing equipment which will actually mitigate air emissions, and what happens to a brand-new project.

The piece of information I have -- I'm not sure this will give the member a great deal of comfort -- is that if Hydro at this point undertook to repower Burrard Thermal entirely, which I understand is one thing that it is considering, that would be subject to a thorough environmental review under current law. So, many of the issues that the member raises as not having received the attention that they deserve in past reviews -- this is really under a permit review -- would receive that comprehensive review under the Environmental Assessment Act, which is now in force in this province.

C. Clark: I take it, then, that the minister is saying -- and I want to be really clear for both our sakes, because I'm not a lawyer, either -- that if Burrard Thermal powered up and decided, once they retooled the plant, to go to full capacity, they would then have to go to a full environmental assessment. This assessment would include the transport of dangerous goods and its impact on the water and air -- all the environmental impacts that the repowering might have. If Burrard Thermal only said, "Well, we are going to retool and our capacity is going to be enlarged, but we are only applying 

[ Page 725 ]

for a limited use of that capacity or using a percentage of that capacity," would it still have to undergo a full environmental review covering every aspect?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I want to see if I can briefly review where we are with Burrard Thermal, what possible next steps Hydro is considering, and where environmental assessment fits in. I'll see if I can untangle some of these threads.

We did have a hearing conducted by BCUC. They issued a report, and that report contained a series of recommendations with respect to Burrard Thermal and air quality. Under that, the task force recommended that they do a NOx reduction plan by installing selective catalytic reduction in all six units. They gave them a time line for doing that -- I believe by the turn of the century, one a year. To date, I think just two units have been installed. It also required Hydro to produce an options plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. So several things that fell out of that review have a positive effect on environmental impacts of the unit. As the member rightly points out, that was under review by BCUC, a permit review. It did not capture that full range of terms of reference which a sort of greenfield assessment of a brand-new project would.

If B.C. Hydro at this point wished to repower Burrard Thermal by installing what's called combined-cycle gas turbines, and they're producing more than a 20-megawatt increase in their capacity, then they would fall under the Environmental Assessment Act because that 20 megawatts is a threshold. They would be subject to a comprehensive environmental review. The terms of reference for that review would be put together from a cross-ministry perspective. I would anticipate that many of the issues the member raises would be captured under that.

So, trying to untangle the various things that Hydro might do with Burrard Thermal and the various reviews and assessments that have been or might be done is a bit difficult. But I hope this explanation will assist the member, as I think we're probably going to continue to discuss how we make sure that Hydro is a good environmental citizen in her constituency and the province.

C. Clark: It's my understanding, too, that it's an application to the ministry that triggers the environmental assessment process. Can the minister tell us whether Hydro has put in an application to do the combined-cycle upgrade?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The application is actually made to the environmental assessment office. No such application has been received.

C. Clark: Can the minister tell us how long it normally takes from the application to the completion of the environmental assessment process? Making the assumption that B.C. Hydro would pass their environmental process because they were becoming such a great corporate citizen, how long would it be until they would actually get their combined- cycle, get it started and actually crank up their capacity in the plant?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The typical time line for such a review, after receipt of application, would be between 18 and 30 months.

C. Clark: We may return to Burrard Thermal, but I'd like to allow the member for Shuswap to ask a few questions.

G. Abbott: Based on the theory that a change is as good as a rest, I'd like to switch gears here and address aquatic plant management branch issues for a time. I thought the least we could do for the hon. minister on his birthday is provide him at least a brief respite from some of the issues raised by my hon. colleague. Could the minister briefly summarize the goals of the aquatic plant management branch for the next year and perhaps, if he could, for the broader term?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Actually, we should refer to it as a program, not a branch. It is one program of many run by regional operations within the ministry to control Eurasian milfoil. The goal of the program, as it has been in the past, is to work with local governments and control the spread of the plant.

G. Abbott: The aquatic plant management branch, of course, is concerned with non-native species, in particular with Eurasian water milfoil. Could the minister advise us whether the branch is concerned about other non-native aquatic species that may pose a threat in British Columbia, as well?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm advised that the other major plant issue is, of course, purple loosestrife -- again, an import to the province. What the ministry is concerned about.... As the member knows, a variety of imports have caused a variety of concerns here. I was recently reading a local newspaper in the Gulf Islands and watching them wage war on broom. We sometimes live with what other people have brought to this province.

G. Abbott: The principal concern with local government has been -- in some cases for close to 20 years -- the spread of Eurasian water milfoil. I've had a certain amount of personal experience with this as chair of the program at the Columbia-Shuswap regional district. What I would like the minister to advise on, given that I've been a bit out of touch with this in the last couple of years, is the spread of Eurasian water milfoil. Are there new infested waterways in British Columbia? Would the minister care to characterize the success which is currently being enjoyed with respect to control of the spread of Eurasian water milfoil?

Hon. P. Ramsey: About 80 lakes are affected to one degree or another by Eurasian milfoil. The ministry is unaware of any great spread that's occurring. I think that through the work we have undertaken with regional governments over the past years and the investments that both sides have made, we have maintained the status quo. Obviously there's going to be an ongoing bit of work for the ministry and for regional governments.

G. Abbott: Certainly I'm pleased to hear that the ministry feels they are making good progress in checking the spread of Eurasian water milfoil in the province. Looking at it from a slightly different perspective, milfoil was introduced into this province about 1970. Looking at it from perhaps a broader perspective, it's obviously the object of some concern that we have gone from a small infestation in Okanagan Lake in 1970 to very considerable infestations in a number of lakes -- overall, a spread to roughly 80 lakes -- over a period of 25 years. Again, the point I'm getting to here is: Eurasian milfoil does continue to pose a very considerable threat to recreational and environmental values in lakes in this province. I would like to ask the minister now whether he would share that assessment.

[ Page 726 ]

Hon. P. Ramsey: I know this is an issue for the member and for those in his riding. As he knows, it's really an issue of recreational use of lakes. Too often, I guess, it is spread by recreational boaters from one lake to another. As I said, we think we have the extent of the problem under control, and there is no obvious expansion of it right now. B.C. Environment continues to do research on developing and testing measures to control the plant. We spent some $4 million in the last decade and a half for research and development effort, and the work is ongoing. The challenge now, I submit, is to find mechanisms for ensuring that work continues.

[11:45]

G. Abbott: That's very good, and I think that much of the work that has been done over time by the ministry is very commendable. They have taken, I think, a very progressive view with respect to this. I do want to note for the record that the threat of Eurasian water milfoil is not simply from a recreational perspective. There are real and quantifiable effects posed by milfoil on protective works and irrigation systems and flood control systems, etc. -- a whole range of things where it's also involved.

I do want to address for a time here the general philosophy that underlies the ministry's approach to aquatic plant management. It appears to me -- and I would appreciate the minister confirming or correcting me on this -- that generally the ministry is looking at the devolution of overall responsibility in this area to regional government or other local authorities. Could the minister confirm or correct me on that point?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I wouldn't characterize it as devolution; I would characterize it as partnership, which I expect to be ongoing. It clearly requires a provincial perspective on management of the issue, and it clearly involves the participation of regional government in managing on a local or regional basis. The other thing I would thank the member for is the timely reminder that this is an issue for more than recreational boaters. I think he is quite accurate.

Noting the time, I would at this point move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:47 a.m.

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