[The Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. M. Sihota: I call committee stage on Bill 11, and in Committee A, I call the estimates of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks.

The House in committee on Bill 11; M. Farnworth in the chair.

On the amendment to section 12 (continued).

G. Farrell-Collins: I have a few quick questions, picking up where the member for Richmond-Steveston left off. I am aware that, previous to this, there have been some back-and-forths between the minister, the Minister of Finance and the member on an amendment to section 12 that has been put forward by the government. It arises out of concern for about protection of privacy in information-sharing agreements. I have a couple of questions just to get the minister's comments for the record, if I may.

Just before we rose, the minister had talked to us about why it was necessary to have agreements with legal entities representing an aboriginal community. Perhaps he can give us some sort of clarification or determination parameters as to what he sees as being a legal entity representing an aboriginal community. What would that look like? What are those, and what role do they play in this act?

Hon. M. Sihota: It would be a band council -- that's a classic example -- or perhaps even a corporation or agency established by a band council to carry out a particular program that's publicly funded.

G. Farrell-Collins: I assume that the same requirements under the information and privacy act would be applying to those legal entities representing the aboriginal communities, in that the information that is shared back and forth would be subject to either similar or the same requirements of information and privacy as far as -- and in this case particularly -- protection of individual privacy is concerned.

Hon. M. Sihota: Yes.

G. Farrell-Collins: There was also comment back and forth on section 12(2)(c)(iii), "the government of a state of the United States, or an agency of that state," being one of the items for information-sharing. Can the minister advise for the record the need for that requirement? Second, what is the confidentiality of that information once it has been shared?

Hon. M. Sihota: It would be, let's say, an agency with a state -- just to pick an example, the state of California -- providing a benefit to an individual, let's say a program like social assistance in the United States. We discover that they're double-dipping. They've taken advantage of the coverage in the United States and of the coverage here in Canada. We would engage in information-sharing with regard to the fact that we know someone is doing that, and we would exchange that information between ourselves. Under the amendment we could not exchange that information with an outside agency. So if the person was taking unemployment insurance and taking benefits under Youth Works and taking benefits under California, and we discovered it, we could only exchange information between ourselves and not provide that information to the government of Canada.

G. Farrell-Collins: The second half of the question was what security would there be for protection of privacy of that information once it has been shared?

Hon. M. Sihota: The protections of the Freedom of Information Act, number one; number two, the provisions of this act contained in subsection 12(3). Those two items would provide that shield.

G. Farrell-Collins: I guess I'm more concerned with the information.... I understand the information that's here, that we would receive from those legal entities representing the aboriginal community in the one case or in this case a government of a state of the United States of America -- or, I assume, their federal government.... Once the information gets here, I would have been of the assumption that it would fall under the protection of privacy.

My question is: once that information is shared the other way -- i.e., it lands on the desk of an individual outside Canada, in the United States -- what guarantees do we have of security of that information and protection of the privacy of the information contained in it?

Hon. M. Sihota: In our agreements with them, we would ask them to comply with provisions similar to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, if they exist in that jurisdiction. If they don't exist in that jurisdiction, we'd probably put in a clause to that effect within the agreement.

G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you. And what guarantee, other than the agreement itself, would we have that that information was being protected in the case where they don't have a protection-of-information-and-privacy act in the state with which we're sharing that information?

Hon. M. Sihota: The only protection that you would have is the agreement. If there's an abuse or violation of that, then there would obviously be a civil remedy.

G. Farrell-Collins: Would that civil remedy take place here or in the state in which the information was made available?

Hon. M. Sihota: If you're asking me for legal advice, remember that you get what you pay for. I would suspect that it would depend on where the violation occurred. If the violation occurred down in the United States, and if an agency in the United States then forwarded that information, let's say, to a third party or agency either in Canada or the United States, since the release of that information was in that jurisdiction, the cause of action would seem to me to flow from within that jurisdiction.

G. Farrell-Collins: I wouldn't dare ask the minister for legal advice; I know he's not legally entitled to give it.

I do have another question about section 12(2)(c)(v): "a legal entity representing an aboriginal community." Could 

[ Page 852 ]

one read the subsections (2)(c)(iii) and (2)(c)(v) together, therefore implying or inferring that a legal entity representing an aboriginal community outside Canada would also be entitled to participate in an information-sharing agreement -- or is that not the intent? Is the intent strictly to restrict that to the domain of Canada?

[6:45]

Hon. M. Sihota: You can't read (2)(c)(iii) and (2)(c)(v) together; they are to be read separately. Again, in the process of doing that you asked for legal advice, or legal interpretation.

With regard to (2)(c)(v), it would be a legal entity representing an aboriginal community. It's not confined to any jurisdiction.

G. Farrell-Collins: So I'm to understand, putting the minister on the record, that section 12(2)(c)(v) could be a legal entity representing an aboriginal community outside the jurisdiction of Canada. Is that correct?

Hon. M. Sihota: It's possible but not probable.

G. Wilson: I have two proposed amendments sitting in front of me. I'm assuming that the amendment that was tabled by the minister is the one we're dealing with?

The Chair: That is correct, hon. member.

G. Wilson: My first comment is that this is a dramatic improvement on the original language of the bill. I congratulate the minister for recognizing the need to come in and make this amendment.

The question I have picks up on a question already asked by the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain. It has to do with the security of transferring information outside our own jurisdiction to the jurisdictions of the United States. The minister is suggesting that we're going to ask for or require within whatever arrangements are made that there be some kind of agreement to adhere to the same kind of restrictions that would apply under the Freedom of Information Act that we have in this province, and that's fair enough.

The problem is that most of that data is going to be electronically stored and transferred, and in this process, there are many ways in which that information can be illicitly tapped and used -- and maybe used for purposes quite beyond the expectation of the minister or anyone in this Legislature in terms of what we would imagine. I think we need a bit more of an assurance than simply that we're going to have some kind of signed agreement that this isn't going to happen at the other end. It may be out of due diligence in both parties, but nevertheless, because of the manner by which the information is collected, stored and transferred, access to that information is usually pretty simple. It's more simple, in fact, than it should be. Only now are we starting to recognize security issues through electronically stored data as a significant issue.

I wonder if the minister might want to suggest that prior to entering into such agreements, there would have to be satisfaction taken by this government that all necessary safeguards will be in place, and if the minister might tell us how we might get some level of security to make sure that those safeguards are indeed in place -- because, without a doubt, privacy issues are going to be the issue of the next decade.

Hon. M. Sihota: A couple of points. First, one way to do it is to have provisions and agreements that we sign with the probable jurisdictions that are highly punitive if the information is released, so we may want to develop a clause. I take the point on that one. I certainly think that's one thing we should look at. I understand the nature of the concern here, and that would be one option. A second option, of course, is that there could be some restrictions placed upon us in terms of the sharing of that information under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act here in British Columbia, and the privacy commissioner may have some comment on that. I think that answers your second question.

On your first point, I'm relieved to see that you think this is a great improvement, and I hope that you're on C-FAX in the morning saying that.

G. Wilson: I am as flattered as the minister was, suggesting that I follow his speeches. He perhaps follows mine. That's good, and if it means we get these kinds of amendments, that's even better.

I have one more question. Has the privacy commissioner had a chance to review this proposed amendment? If so, has there been comment with respect to its advisability, or lack of?

Hon. M. Sihota: No, we haven't shown him this one. We've had discussions by correspondence with him, dated July 19, I believe, with regard to the earlier one.

G. Farrell-Collins: On the amendment -- I could ask the question now or perhaps later, and I am glad the Minister of Finance is here. It's perhaps not particularly relevant just to this section, but there are a number of these bills, which we'll be dealing with probably this evening or tomorrow or soon, where there are these types of provisions, which I hope will be amended in a similar form to make them better. I give some credit to the Minister of Finance for taking a bit of a lead on that.

I'm wondering what sort of symmetry there's going to be between these information-sharing agreements. There's one in this ministry that deals with items and programs that will fall within the mandate of this minister. There are some in the Ministry of Finance that will deal within the purview of the Minister of Finance. There are going to be others in Women's Equality. There are going to be others that fall within the purview of the Minister of Social Services. I think the protection-of-privacy portion of these information-sharing agreements is critical and extremely important. I'm wondering, as we enter into a series of these information-sharing agreements, if the government has thought about whether there's going to be one ministry that's going to oversee them. Is it going to be the Attorney General's ministry or the Finance ministry that's going to oversee the negotiating of them, to make sure that there is some similar sense of protection, that each ministry is ensuring that that protection takes place in a similar manner so that we don't have one ministry doing one thing and another ministry doing something else and find that bits of information are leaking out in various places because there isn't a cohesive approach to this? Is there some way? Or has the government thought about centralizing those negotiations in one ministry, with one group of people developing a set of skills in that area?

Hon. M. Sihota: We have agreed with the privacy commissioner to do that, so that'll happen.

I'm glad to see that the hon. member took the time to give credit to the Minister of Finance for this. I hope he doesn't stop 

[ Page 853 ]

there. In fact, I know now that having done that once, he'll continue to give him all sorts of credit for the outstanding job that he's done as Finance minister and, in particular, stand up in this House and congratulate him for the fact that this province now has the highest credit rating in Canada, confirmed by Dominion Bond Rating Service and therefore putting to rest the concerns of the opposition, which were expressed in pure hyperbole during the course of question period at the beginning of this session. So he should give credit to the Minister of Finance. It's a good thing to do.

An Hon. Member: One answer too many.

G. Farrell-Collins: Yeah, one answer too many is probably correct.

The minister will note, if he checks with the Minister of Finance, that I did give him credit earlier when this issue came up in his legislation. The issue was raised by the member for Richmond-Steveston and to give it once again -- this is now a third time; I don't want to form a habit here -- the Minister of Finance did take that in the vein in which it was offered. I must say that as a result the people of British Columbia have far better protection of privacy in the Ministry of Finance and, I expect, in this ministry. If it makes the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour happy, I'll even give him some credit for including this amendment in his bill.

However, part of giving credit where credit is due is also giving non-credit where non-credit is due. I will ensure that I don't give the Minister of Finance credit for his ability to count, his ability to forecast revenues, his ability to change his....

Interjections.

G. Farrell-Collins: Well, hon. Chair, the comments were in order; I intend my comments to be in order, too.

I won't congratulate the Minister of Finance on the Dominion Bond Rating Service reaffirming the credit rating of the province, because attached to that rating was a warning which wasn't there last year. I hope the Minister of Finance listens to that warning.

Amendment approved.

Section 12 as amended approved.

Section 13 approved.

On section 14.

G. Wilson: I just have one quick question. The note that the Offence Act doesn't apply is, I think, consistent with most, or at least much, of the legislation that is tied in with Social Services. I wonder if the issue of admissible evidence without proof of signature is consistent, because that strikes me.... To be honest, I haven't had a chance to fully cross-reference all legislation dealing with Social Services, but I don't find it in that legislation that I have had a chance to look at.

Hon. M. Sihota: That's a regular provision that you'll see in other B.C. Benefits statutes.

G. Wilson: It's the notion that the Offence Act does not apply in these statutes. I know that does apply in other Social Services statutes. The B.C. Benefits statutes are brand-new. So the fact that it may apply there doesn't give me any comfort. In terms of existing legislation, I understand the Offence Act doesn't apply in some aspects of Social Services, but I have not found where documentation which is admissible without signature applies. If you just give me a reference, that's all I'd need.

Hon. M. Sihota: I'm not sure if I understand the question. Are you asking whether or not this appears in another statute outside a B.C. Benefits statute?

G. Wilson: Right.

Hon. M. Sihota: Off the top of my head, I don't know if I can answer that question, but there are provisions similar to this that do. It's an evidentiary matter and analogous. I won't say it's exactly the same kind of wording, but provisions with similar intent would appear in the statutes.... The Motor Vehicle Act might be one. That's a good one. It may even be in provisions of the Election Act or maybe under the Wills Act or the Vital Statistics Act dealing with marriage certificate provisions and those kinds of provisions. I can see that it would exist in some situations.

Section 14 approved.

On section 15.

C. Hansen: I've got a couple of brief questions for the minister on this section. One of them is a concern that is raised -- again, I know there is no magical answer to this question -- about the amount of money that a recipient or participant in this program is allowed to retain in terms of outside earnings while still collecting benefits. I know the number that has come up is 25 percent. This isn't meant to be a criticism. I just wonder if the minister could explain why 25 percent was arrived at, what kind of thought went into coming up with that number and the flexibility that might be there in the future. There certainly is criticism that it's not high enough. The other side of it is that, of course, you don't want to make it too high, to make it more lucrative than is necessary.

Hon. M. Sihota: I've heard that criticism, and I understand that criticism. Look, there was a whole process that led up to the 25 percent. You're right; there is this balance between making welfare more attractive than work or work more attractive than welfare. But I want the hon. member to know that as a government, we are revisiting that issue. Right now it is 25 percent. That's not to say that it won't change. There's no imminent plan to change. In other words, I'm not trying to say.... I'm not trying to be cute here and say we're going to change it tomorrow just to try to avoid the question that way.

I can assure the hon. member that that question is under active consideration by government, and I would hope that by late September we should be in a position to say whether or not we're going to stay with that provision or go to a different type of standard. But I understand the issues and I understand the criticism. I know that in my own constituency I've had many comments on that 25 percent provision and the hardship that imposes, and on the fact that you can provide good flexibility under the system that more closely mirrors the previous system and yet not tip the balance such that welfare becomes more attractive than work. It clearly is a corporate policy that government needs to revisit, and that's what we're doing.

[ Page 854 ]

[7:00]

C. Hansen: It's an issue that I think has much broader ramifications, hon. minister. There are all kinds of programs throughout government that have to assess the amount of clawback there is, or the amount that's been able to still provide the incentive to find work yet not become a disincentive to find work. The data that may come out of this could be very valuable to a whole range of policy-makers.

I was wondering if the minister would agree to share the information that comes back on that kind of research with the rest of us in the chamber who are interested in the subject. Certainly it's an area that, as we mentioned earlier, estimates down the road.... If you didn't mind us exploring this, and if the ministry was prepared to keep information on this subject.... It's an area that's of great interest, I think, to a wide range of people. I don't know if the minister wants to respond to that, but I've got another point.

Hon. M. Sihota: No, I don't have any problem with that. We can clearly do that through estimates. But I would encourage the hon. member to just deal with staff. Staff are constantly evaluating this issue within the different social ministries, and it's interrelated to a number of other policy issues -- for example, minimum wage. What changes we make there may have an impact on some of the changes we make here. This is an ongoing analysis within government. There is a lot of data out there already, and he can access that in estimates or simply by calling our respective deputies.

C. Hansen: I appreciate that.

I want to refer back to this document entitled "B.C. Benefits -- Youth Works Community Consultation." One of the issues raised by some of the stakeholders in the Youth Works program was the need for better communication among ministries and various providers of service. It goes on to say that a feedback system needs to be in place to ensure that there is follow-up for those clients falling between the cracks.

I think this is a concern for a lot of us -- that there are individuals who don't necessarily fit into these programs. Certainly these programs are going to create some real opportunities for many young British Columbians, but there are many that aren't going to fit in. My concern is that now that we're dealing with several ministries and several agencies in government, not just one, there is a greater possibility for individuals to be shuffled from office to office and, in the end, through a sense of frustration, just drop out, opt out, turn their backs on the assistance that might be there to help them make valuable contributions in their lives. My questions is: has the ministry looked at the kind of feedback system that is there to identify those falling between the cracks between your ministry and the Ministry of Social Services and perhaps other ministries that may be involved in the B.C. Benefits program?

Hon. M. Sihota: I think that in some ways the irony of it is the fact that we have amalgamated these ministries of Education, Post-Secondary Education, and Skills, Training and Labour. We have actually brought, just in the process of doing that, a lot of these programs under one umbrella, which really does reduce the potential for people falling between the cracks. It used to be that there were four ministers and four ministries doing the work that this one ministry is doing now. The way in which we designed the B.C. Benefits wheel, where a number of the programs.... Youth Works in particular and some of the disability programs are out of my ministry, and the others are out of Social Services. In a funny sort of way we've consolidated those now down to two ministries as opposed to five -- maybe six when you count Health. It's not an inappropriate concern. There will be still be people, even though it's under one ministry, who will fall in the gaps between programs, and we'll have to catch them somewhere.

My observation in the short time that I've had the privilege to be in this portfolio is that I just think there's better networking now than what my observation was in 1991, when I first had the chance to look at these issues from the cabinet perspective.

C. Hansen: My biggest concern is for those individuals that come into what is a training program and a job preparation program, which is what the whole program is designed for. But there are others between the ages of 19 and 25 who are unemployable and yet will be pushed into this stream. My question to the minister is: is it possible to set up a system that when people first come into the program there is feedback from those individuals, that somebody tries to contact them down the road just to see if they've been served by the program?

My concern is not for those who are the self-starters, as we discussed earlier, and it's not for those who will benefit from these programs and who will get the benefit of the training, get the benefit of job preparedness. My concern is for those who are not employable, for those who will come to this program because it's the only option and will get bumped from office to office to office and in the end be totally frustrated. They're probably the ones that genuinely need the help of our society more than others. My fear is that they will get lost somehow in this process.

Hon. M. Sihota: If they're not employable, then inasmuch as they're paid their living allowance under this legislation, they're not required to bump from program to program or go from door to door. If we make an assessment -- and there will be a percentage of young people that are simply not employable -- then they will be given their living allowance and will be exempt from the other half of that condition that I kept talking about. If they're not employable, they won't go from door to door; they just go through the first door. They're evaluated as not employable, and they're given their living allowance, and then they have the exemption that we just approved earlier on.

If they're employable, then they have the capacity to be bumped around from one program to the other. They're a different category, because the hon. member's question was with regard to those that are not employable. With regard to those that are employable, we do monitor their participation in the programs, the level of success, the frequency with which they come back and why it is that they come back.

In addition to that, one of things that I'll be doing -- because to me, quite honestly, it's the best test, not just listening to staff -- is dropping in on these programs from time to time, just like I'm going to be dropping into schools, colleges, universities, and casing it out myself. That's very useful. I also rely on the experiences of MLAs and what they have to say about what shows up at their constituency offices. Being from your riding, I don't think you'd have too many, given the demographics of your constituency, but I'd be interested in hearing what MLAs have to say.

There will be some problems here. I am the first one to know that. I just want to keep them to a minimum and then solve them as we find them. I find usually my best rule of determination is when I show up and kick the tires for the people that are in the programs.

[ Page 855 ]

C. Hansen: I have maybe one last question, and that's whether the names of those who come into the program and are given the Youth Works kit are recorded. Is there a process by which they can all be followed up on to see whether or not needs have been met through the program?

Hon. M. Sihota: They are registered; they're on income assistance. We can collect their names, and we can follow them through, subject to the concerns about privacy and freedom of information that we discussed in the earlier section. We have that capacity, and as I said in response to the member from North Vancouver-Lonsdale -- or from Delta North; I can't remember now which one -- the outcomes are very important. We're going to monitor outcomes here. In my mind, it's very critical in the constant evolution of this program that we monitor outcomes, so we're going to have to track these people as part of the accountability systems to me within the bureaucracy.

The Chair: Shall section 15...? The minister on the amendment.

Hon. M. Sihota: Thank you, hon. Chair. I see that you're mindful of the fact that we have an amendment. Just for the hon. members' information, it's the one that we handed out, and it just flows as a necessary consequence of the changes that we passed earlier on. This is an amendment to section 15 that flows from the amendment we made to section 12. By making the changes in section 12, we had to make a set of changes and deletions in section 15.

The Chair: Now that members have the amendment before them.... Just a minute. The amendment is on its way down to the hon. member -- and the hon. member has the amendment.

Amendment approved.

On section 15 as amended.

G. Wilson: I really appreciate the running commentary of what was taking place as the amendment came down.

The Chair: We aim to please.

G. Wilson: It's nice to keep everyone informed as to what really is going on. You do a fine job.

I have two very quick questions, and I'll put them both to the minister. If the minister can answer very briefly, then my concerns will have been addressed. Because there is so much of this bill that is to be prescribed by regulation -- and we've already gone through that -- one of the concerns I have is under (f) with respect to: "...prescribing rules for determining the income and assets of persons who apply for youth allowances or benefits and persons to or for whom they are provided." Throughout the entire bill, we're talking about this in terms of people who are making application for these benefits for dependents. I notice in the regulations that one of the things that is not covered specifically here is how we define dependents.

In (a) under this section, it says: "...excepting from the application of this Act, or any provision of this Act or the regulations, any group or category of youth and their dependants." That is what is provided for under these regulations. I'm assuming that in determining the income or assets for people who are applying, given that these regulations will also be prescribed to include dependents of people, "and their dependants" under (a) would cover virtually everything else within the prescription for these regulations.

Hon. M. Sihota: With respect to that running commentary, hon. Chair, I wish to call you the Jim Robson of the Legislature. I'm sure you'd like that, wouldn't you? There's a future for you.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: Well, he does the playoffs. This is the next closest thing, I guess.

One of the reasons I hesitated in responding.... I don't know if the hon. member was trying to make a link between section 15(2)(a) and (f). I don't necessarily make a link between (a) and (f). Subsection (2)(a) is a provision "excepting from the applications of this Act," whereas the other one is a prescriptive one. In either case, it does cover dependents. The word "persons" in (f) would cover dependents.

[7:15]

G. Wilson: The other question I have -- I don't necessarily think that's too great; nevertheless, I understand that -- is with respect to persons who administer youth allowances and benefits. I see they're under 15(2)(k), (l), (m), and (n). All through this there are regulations with respect to people who will administer the actual granting of dollars, the request for the granting and so on. I don't see -- maybe I've missed it, and if I have, maybe the minister can simply point it out to me -- anywhere here where the government may, by regulation, set standards or requirements for people running these programs. Is that going to be covered under different statutes, or is that something that would ordinarily be administered by some other act?

Hon. M. Sihota: I don't understand why that would have to be in regulations, because the act gives us the power, in a section that we passed earlier on, to enter into agreements with third parties to provide the programs. Within those agreements you would have your standards of expectation -- the skill level of the people they must employ to provide the training, the standards you expect the agency to adhere to in terms of, let's say, financial accountability. Those kinds of matters would be covered by the agreements which we have legislative authority to provide.

If one wants to argue that it's not covered by that -- and I think it is -- then the opening words: "Without limiting subsection (1), the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations as follows...." Section 15(1) is the broad provision that really allows us to do anything we want, but over the years, because of litigation, we've had to specify some of the stuff. It would fall into the purview of 15(1) in any event, but I suspect the better answer is on the agreement provision.

G. Wilson: Fair enough. It seems to me there's such explicit direction with respect to regulations that will come down on the administration of the dollars or the eligibility of the individuals -- all of those kinds of aspects of it -- but where this bill seems to be silent is on the actual qualifications, training and standards with respect to those people who will be getting these grants from the minister at the minister's discretion. It strikes me that that's an obvious omission that 

[ Page 856 ]

needed to be pointed out. Whether or not the minister has some other ideas as to how that's going to be seen remains to be seen as this program goes into effect.

The only other comment I would make.... It's just by way of a closing comment with respect to this, because my set of questions on this is over. The minister has repeatedly throughout this debate tonight indicated that one of the purposes of this bill is to make work more attractive than welfare. I can tell you that my office has received many phone calls over the course of this particular debate from people who are watching this on television. There are very few of them who don't already know that work is more favourable than welfare. That kind of comment is often not well received by people who are locked into the welfare system.

With that, hon. Chair, I've finished my questions.

C. Hansen: I've just got one last question for the minister. I appreciate the comments he made earlier about setting clear objectives for this program. Earlier this afternoon, he clarified the fact that we're talking about 13,000 training spaces, not 13,000 jobs. Given that there are clear objectives for this program, how many jobs are anticipated out of this program? Of the 13,000 that go through training, how many are anticipated to be gainfully employed, let's say, one year from now?

Hon. M. Sihota: The member for Delta North tried to define the standard that I should seek. He said 50 percent wasn't good enough; 60 percent wasn't good enough; 95 percent may be good enough. That was the way he defined it. So I guess that's one measurement.

Obviously we want to create a situation where, in a perfect world, 100 percent of the people trained would be hired; obviously we can't achieve that standard. We want to do the maximum possible. I don't know what the right number will be. I can't crystal-ball for you the number of people that will actually be hired through these programs. It won't be zero, and it won't be 100 percent. Our objective, obviously, has to be to maximize the number of people that go through the process of training and end up employed, and even more perfectly, go through the training, end up employed and never reapply again. That's going to be the challenge of this: to maximize those numbers. So that's why, from my point of view, as we embark on this new approach, I want some solid monitoring so that I can assess the success of the program.

You know, the funny thing is that if the numbers aren't particularly high, I don't think society would accept us rolling back the clock and going back to the way that it was. I suspect society would say: "Well, do a better job of what you are doing." Clearly -- and I take this point because it is intuitive -- we have to have a relationship, for example, with the Ministry of Employment and Investment; we have to have a clear relationship with the private sector in terms of relevance; we have to be sharper in our forecasting of where the niches are going to be in the work that we do in the public sector. We have a component within my ministry that does the forecasting.

This gets into a very broad debate, and we should have it during estimates. But let me just say that one of the things that I am going to be doing, one of the things that I have already said I am going to do, is to make sure that there is far greater participation with business and labour and our institutions -- vocational and technical colleges and universities -- in that forecasting work. And the more successful we are on that side of it, I suspect, the more successful we will be on this side of it in terms of providing opportunities to young people.

Finally, let me say this: remember that we're also taking another approach from a fiscal point of view. We're saying that all the savings that have accrued as a result of the changes that we have made -- from the three-month residency requirement, from the reduction in rates -- are now being plowed back into the system so that we can fund these kinds of programs. This is where the money comes for these programs; this isn't new money. It's basically taking an existing pot of money and rejigging it in a way that has never been done in Canada before.

It may be that the public will say: "Okay, look, you try to do it" -- as I think the public would ask us to do -- "within the context of the envelope you have. Don't put any new money in. Try to make better use of the money that you've got." It may turn out that we have to add to our pot to do this. If we have to do that -- to go back on an earlier point that I made -- then I am really looking towards the devolution of those dollars from the federal government that would accrue to the province, and to taking advantage of those dollars, which are in the tax system in any event, as opposed to trying to raise revenue outside the system. So that's the approach we're going to take on this. We'll measure success, we'll report on success and we'll debate success; I've been here long enough to know that there will be tremendous latitude from the opposition at the beginning of our mandate and very little toward the end. I know I have some time to try to make this work.

This is uncharted water for us, but to go back to my experience as Environment minister, so was land use planning, and it worked because we put a lot of thought into it. We're putting in the same kind of thought and bringing together much of the same team in order to transplant that same success into these programs.

The Chair: Before I recognize the member for Vancouver-Quilchena, I would like to make the point that members have had considerable latitude on this particular section. I'd like to encourage members to tighten it up a bit. We are in committee stage, and this particular section does deal with regulations.

C. Hansen: As I said, I don't want to prolong this, but I would like to put it on the record that I have a very real concern, in response to the minister's answer to my last question. There is an enormous thrust within government for the accountability of programs and the meeting of specific objectives for programs. In a program like this, certainly the ultimate goal is to put young British Columbians back to work -- to give them the skills they need to go back to work. My fear is that when we start measuring the success of this program down the road, we're going to be looking not at the number of young British Columbians who are in jobs but rather at the number who are no longer dependent on the state. My fear in relation to this whole program is that unless there is the specific objective of looking at the jobs that are there in the end and the number of young British Columbians who find those careers and jobs as a result of the training that's provided.... If that's not what we're trying to attain, then we're going to fall back on consoling ourselves that there are fewer young British Columbians on welfare. My fear is that not enough of them are going to be in the labour force. Many of them are not going to be dependent on the state, but they are going to be dependent on the street.

Hon. M. Sihota: I don't measure success by the number of young people out on the street; that's not my measurement.

[ Page 857 ]

K. Whittred: I will be very brief and to the point. I am concerned about section 15(2)(n), which gives the minister the regulatory power to designate "categories of persons who, despite their age, are considered to be youth...." I am curious. What is a "category of person"? My interpretation of this is that it would give regulatory power to designate any age group: for example, unemployed 50-year-olds who have lost their jobs due to the regulations of this act. Is that a correct interpretation?

Hon. M. Sihota: The intent of this provision is twofold. It is there to allow a spouse who is younger than 19 years of age to receive a youth allowance and benefits; that may make sense from a relationship point of view. It will also be used to make employability programs available to 18-year-old handicapped people who receive a disability allowance under the Disability Benefits Program Act.

Section 15 as amended approved.

Sections 16 to 18 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved.

On the title.

V. Anderson: I can't resist rising on this to say, as I said earlier in the debate, that I think it's misworded. It's not Youth Works, it's youth training -- youth education -- and if I might quote the Premier, a little earlier he said this was about entitlement to training. So if this was "Youth Entitlement to Training," rather than the misleading title it has, it would agree with what the Premier said.

The Chair: I think debating the title is a first for my time in the chair.

[7:30]

Title approved.

Hon. M. Sihota: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved on division.

The House resumed; G. Brewin in the chair.

Bill 11, BC Benefits (Youth Works) Act, reported complete with amendments.

Deputy Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. M. Sihota: With leave of the House now, hon. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 11, BC Benefits (Youth Works) Act, read a third time and passed.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I call Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 13.

The House in committee on Bill 13; G. Brewin in the chair.

On section 1.

L. Stephens: As we talked about in second reading debate, we have a number of concerns around this particular bill, and as we go through the bill we will be addressing all of them.

In section 1, I would like the minister to talk about the child care grants. There are three kinds. The bill sets out a means of payment. Would the minister just elaborate on what that is and what those three kinds of grants are?

Hon. S. Hammell: When we talk about grants, we talk about grants to organizations as opposed to our subsidy program, which is to individuals. We have grants such as the emergency repair, replacement and relocation grants and the facilities and equipment grants. We have the child care support program and Child Care Inform, which operates through a contribution agreement, and the infant toddler incentive grants. Those are a number of them. I don't know whether the member wants any other information.

L. Stephens: Section 1(d) says: "... develop or operate a program that in any other way promotes the purpose of this Act." Could the minister elaborate on what that may be?

Hon. S. Hammell: If you take this section and think about section 1(a), where it says "facilitate the operation of a child care setting," we are talking about something like an infant toddler incentive grant where the actual child care setting is enhanced by a grant. Improving the quality of child care has more to do with emergency repair, where you have money to keep the quality of the operation up. Another one would be the facilities and equipment grants. Section 1(c), "access to affordable," is the child care subsidy program. The last section allows for additions to the program and for future expansions that perhaps would not be covered by those first three pieces.

L. Stephens: "Child care setting" is very broad. It says that " 'child care setting' means any setting in which child care is provided...." It includes a licensed facility and the child's own home. Again, "any setting" is very broad. I wonder if the minister could clarify this particular wording.

Hon. S. Hammell: Just before I move to that, when you look at section 1(d), you think of the future and you think of possible grants to programs that might direct us in the future, such as the strategic initiatives that are shared with the federal government. When we talk about a day care setting, we will define through regulation what that setting is. We are talking about a family, a group setting, in-home or out of school or preschool.

L. Stephens: That's one of the problems with this bill: the regulations, the power to make regulations and the fact that by the time this bill is passed and the regulations are forthcoming, it will be too late to debate them.

Could the minister tell the committee where the ministry is going around some of those initiatives that she has spoken of? Looking down the road, is the ministry looking to change 

[ Page 858 ]

the way day care or child care is implemented in the province, and are there some new regulations or new licensing procedures around child care?

Hon. S. Hammell: There are not. Basically, the regulations you have are existing regulations that are found in the regulations of the GAIN Act. I think there's one new regulation which is to help with a registry, to enable a registry of non-licensed facilities to be set up.

L. Stephens: I think that's down in section 13, and we'll get to that and talk about that particular subsection.

Still on section 1, "parent" is defined as including "a person with whom a child resides and who stands in place of the child's father or mother." That, again, is very broad. I would like the minister to clarify what group of people would encompass that -- standing in the place of a child's father or mother. I can understand a step-parent or a grandparent. Perhaps there are other categories that the minister is referring to here.

Hon. S. Hammell: This is, as you have said, the parent, the legal guardian, the foster parent or any person who stands in place of the parent but is neither the parent nor the legal guardian. An example of that could be a brother, a sister, an uncle, or, in fact, someone who is standing in place of the parent of that child for the purposes of the subsidy.

L. Stephens: There's a lot of concern around safety of children, particularly in the school setting and also in day care centres. Is it the minister's intention...? Is she thinking of perhaps some kind of security process around these people who would be standing in the place of a parent, and whether or not there would be some kind of assurance that those individuals would be properly acknowledged as having access to a day care centre, for instance, and delivering children to and picking them up from a centre?

That safety issue is extremely important for parents. There have been incidents where people have simply walked into a day care centre and said, "I'm here to pick up Johnny," and the child is given. In some cases, it has been quite tragic, so I wonder if the minister is going to be making some recommendations or regulations around the security of children in that regard.

Hon. S. Hammell: I think your question is a good one. We are concerned about the safety of children. One of the purposes of the act is involved with the well-being and the safety of children. As we know from the last government, a criminal-records check act was brought in to address the exact concern that you're raising. That legislation is on the books, and therefore, through the Attorney General's office, people who work with children and are subsidized or paid by the government have to go through the criminal-records check. I think your question is very appropriate, and yes, we have made moves to make sure that our children are as safe as we can hope. Our intention here is a broad definition. All children are not in the traditional nuclear family, and there are situations where you do need that child to have someone stand in as the parent. Our intention is to make that definition broad.

L. Stephens: I am aware of the criminal-records check, and that applies to people who are working with the children -- the day care, the service providers. What I'm concerned about is someone -- anyone -- coming into a day care centre and saying: "I am Uncle So-and-So, and I'm here to pick up Johnny." What kind of security will the minister be requesting from day care centre operators around this issue? Is that a concern for this minister, and if it is, what is she prepared to do about it?

Hon. S. Hammell: What you raise is part of the licensing function of the day care, to have policies and procedures around that kind of activity, the same as the school system does.

[7:45]

L. Stephens: My understanding of the licensing process is that it's the process whereby the facility is given guidelines as to how many washrooms they may have, how many children they may service, fire protection and all of those kinds of issues. It's around the physical plant. The licensing procedures through continuing care are around the physical plant of the actual centre. It has nothing to do with the policies and practice of the operators of the centre. My question is: is the minister requiring the individual who is going to operate this centre to implement some kind of safety procedures for individuals who purport to be standing in the place of a parent to have the proper identification?

Hon. S. Hammell: I think I need to hear your question again. The parent as defined here includes a person with whom a child resides and who stands in place of that child's father or mother. It is not a temporary person. That child has some status in terms of our program.

L. Stephens: Again, I will just say that this is a very broad definition. The minister herself referred to brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, grandparents, whoever it may be -- that individual standing in the place of a parent. I have no objections to that. What I am asking is whether or not the ministry is concerned about the safety of children and whether or not the ministry is cognizant of individuals coming to a day care centre and saying: "I am so-and-so, and I'm here to pick up this child." Specifically what I'm asking is: are there guidelines for day care centre personnel to have on record authorized individuals who have the ability to pick up these children from day care centres?

The minister raised the point about the schools. I know that in some of the schools in the U.S., and perhaps here in Canada, if you go to a school, particularly an elementary school, you must go to the office and receive a tag, and you must wear that tag while you are on the premises. If you don't, they call the police. So what I'm asking is: is the minister thinking of requiring the same level of security for individuals who are picking up children from day care centres?

Hon. S. Hammell: I don't want to appear evasive. The act we are debating deals with subsidies and grants and the provision of the council. The act that your concern falls under is the licensing act under health care, and the regulations under that are where that concern is rightfully brought forward. There are regulations. My understanding is that the Ministry of Health has been reviewing those regulations, and what I will do is get further information for you.

L. Stephens: One last comment on this. We are talking about the definition of a parent and those who are standing in the place of that parent. What I would like is a commitment, if you like, from the minister to discuss with the Ministry of Health, or whoever is responsible, ways to make that kind of security available to children in day care centres. I would like 

[ Page 859 ]

to have some assurance from the minister that, in fact, she's aware that this has been a problem in other jurisdictions and that she is prepared to do whatever she can to make sure that through her interministry protocols she will look into this matter and perhaps provide the member with a response at some time.

Hon. S. Hammell: I think it is an excellent suggestion, and certainly I would be delighted to follow it up.

I. Waddell: I wonder if the minister would just ask her officials to look into one matter for me, under "child care setting" in this bill. I should say that the definition of child care "means the care and supervision of a child in a child care setting," and then you go on to child care setting and it "means any setting in which child care is provided, including a facility licensed under the Community Care Facility Act to provide child care...." If you look under the Community Care Facility Act, which is chapter 57 of RSBC, 1979, the act applies to not only child care but child-minding; that is, you drop your kid at the local plaza, at a ski hill or at a resort. It's a bit different from child care as we think of it. I wonder if the minister would ask her officials to look into whether it would apply to that particular version of child care called child-minding, and of course, whether that would open it up for grants and so on.

Hon. S. Hammell: Under child-minding.... That is the definition through the licensing. What we are talking about here in terms of our child care setting is that it encompasses all the child care settings that subsidies and grants are provided for, which includes licensed, licence not required and in-home care, but it does not include the minding.

M. Coell: The first definition in the act, child care, means "the care and supervision of a child in a child care setting, other than..." -- and you have a couple of examples. I wonder if you could clarify for me whether, in a YMCA, church or municipal program that is sponsored by those groups but run by the child's parent, the child would be able to receive funding if the parent was the sole provider of the day care for a group of other children but sponsored under one of those three areas. I'm thinking of the YMCA, municipal government or a church group.

Hon. S. Hammell: The only situation where the parent is not eligible is if it is in the parent's own home. So in some other facilities, though run or even owned by the parent, that parent would be eligible for a subsidy.

I'd just like to mention to the member who asked about child-minding that we would be delighted to get to you and discuss it with you.

M. Coell: Item (d) is: "... develop or operate a program that in any other way promotes the purpose of this Act." I wonder if the minister could give me a couple of examples of what they're looking for in (d).

Hon. S. Hammell: We have at this time several of what we've termed strategic initiatives that we're developing with the federal government, and when we announced the child care act, that was mentioned at that time. There's $32 million that has been dedicated to innovative and new ways of providing child care, which is funded by both the federal and provincial governments. In fact, they're cost-shared: $16 million from each jurisdiction.

We have a number of pilot projects that are exploring some new ways of delivering and informing the community around child care. One of the initiatives is the child support program, where, in 34 communities, information, training and referrals are found in one place. All the information that you need to know around child care is found in this one central place, and those 34 settings, where this has been set up, serve 140 communities throughout the province. So that is one example. There is another strategic initiative that's sort of like one-stop shopping. There are four projects -- at least four this year -- that are found throughout the area where people can go and get a lot of information around child care. There are also some initiatives around the integration of special needs children into regular day care settings.

What we are really pleased about is the fact that the federal and provincial governments have partnered around this area and are doing some very innovative -- I don't want to use the term "experimenting" -- pilot projects. Between the two jurisdictions, we are right out there on the edge trying to figure out how child care can be provided in settings that meet the needs of families.

M. Coell: Would the ministry look favourably on applications from regional districts or municipal governments -- I'm thinking of parks programs or, in regional districts, possibly health programs -- that would get young parents involved in child care?

Hon. S. Hammell: Yes. I would say very interested. Most of us talk about the future being with partners, and clearly we had hoped the federal government would maintain its commitment of $630 million throughout the country to then extend some of these pilots that we have. Unfortunately, they couldn't see their way to do that. We do have this small amount of money that we are using to blaze some new trails, but certainly we would be very interested in any partners that we could engage.

G. Wilson: The "child care grant means a payment made to..." -- and it lists the facilities. I'm wondering if that would include those organizations that are currently supported by the new supported child care program, or the former day care subsidy program, that are dealing specifically with children with special needs.

Hon. S. Hammell: Yes.

G. Wilson: Am I to understand that those organizations that have seen their funding removed recently with the passage of this act will see that funding returned?

Hon. S. Hammell: I'm not aware of any facilities that have had their funding removed. What we talk about here is infant toddler grants, emergency repair grants or facilities grants, so that is not operational money. I'd be quite happy to follow up on your concern, but I'm not aware of what you mean.

[8:00]

G. Wilson: In order to move this debate along, perhaps the minister might note a letter of July 8, 1996, sent to her attention by the Powell River Association for Community Living, that deals directly with this, and a similar Supported Child Care Service letter dated July 3, also to this minister's 

[ Page 860 ]

attention, with respect to the supported child care program budgets and the difficulty with respect to special needs day care. I think the minister will recognize that both of those organizations are now in some jeopardy.

Hon. S. Hammell: What you're referring to is the subsidy program and the move from the large developmental centres to supported child care, which is an integrated system with the local neighbourhood child care settings. There is no reduction of money; there's a shifting around of money from one system to another as the programs are moved through the community. This is the consequence of a long process of consultation with the communities, and it's being phased in over quite a long period of time. Having heard your reference to the letter, I will follow up with you.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

L. Stephens: Under the purposes section, subsection 2(c) does talk about improved access to child care, including child care for children with special needs. The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast was just speaking about that. My riding has received a letter as well. The Langley Developmental Preschool is trying to provide an integrated program for child care spaces for children with special needs as well as other children, and has also been denied funding for these spaces. I wonder if the minister would clarify what it says here in her legislation and what is, in fact, happening in the communities.

Hon. S. Hammell: In the past, special needs day care -- in fact, child care itself -- was in the Ministry of Social Services. It was transferred to the Ministry of Women's Equality, but through that process.... When it was with the Ministry of Social Services, there was a process started around the special needs support or child care program that addressed the needs of children with special disabilities.

A long community process was taken on. A report was presented to government, and government responded to the report. They have set up regional advisory groups that are slowly, over a period of four or five years, moving from the larger institutions to a more integrated system. This has been done in consultation with the community in a very sensitive, slow process of changing from one system to another. But change is coming, and what you are hearing is some concern for that change that is on its way.

Some communities have made that change very smoothly. In Kelowna, we have a system where a large centre has totally altered the way it now delivers services, including neighbourhood day care and special needs child care, along with a referral program that we were just talking about earlier. So change is coming, and what you are hearing is the initial reaction to that change.

L. Stephens: I hear what the minister is saying, but I know in areas around the province.... I know better the one that we have in Langley, the Langley Developmental Preschool. When it was under that old regime, it did have special need students that were on stretchers. So there was a wide range then, and also they provided services to children that were not special needs children. They were integrated. Instead of a cluster of portables on a school ground that they were operating from, what they wanted to do, and what they're now proposing and have been raising money to do, is provide their own freestanding facility in order to serve the child care needs of the people of Langley.

They've gone a fair distance in making the arrangements that they have to make in order to get the money together for the matching grants that the ministry was offering. They've made application; it has been two years since they've made application. Their proposals have been accepted. It's the funding that they are looking for, and they have been told that they won't receive that funding now. Yet they have provided all of the information and the assurances that the ministry needs around including inclusive child care with special needs students.

Again, I would just ask the minister to comment on what kind of facility she is talking about when she wants children with special needs.... Is she talking about numbers? Does she want facilities that have no more than 50 children or ten children? What is it exactly that people in the communities have to do in order to get funding for integrated child care centres?

Hon. S. Hammell: One of the reasons the community gave for arguing that we should move to this new system was to address a waiting list. They felt that by reconfiguring the programs we could meet the needs of a larger number of children. That was one of the driving motives.

What I'm hearing you talk about when you mention your specific example is a mixture of capital needs. You need some money for capital, for a new operating facility....

Interjection.

Hon. S. Hammell: Okay. Maybe what you could do is describe it again.

L. Stephens: The particular facility that I am speaking of has its own fundraising operations in order to provide the capital money. They are really looking for assurances to receive the subsidy and the funding based on the number of children that they have under their care -- and to be able to expand the spaces. If the minister could just comment around.... You know, we're not talking capital here; we are just talking about subsidy grants to groups that are integrated and what they need to do to access those funds.

Hon. S. Hammell: Forgive my confusion. Perhaps we can deal with this again at another time.

The subsidy follows the child. If the family qualifies for a subsidy, there is one for the child. What I feel you must be talking about is a grant of some kind. All the grant programs are oversubscribed, so that particular grant may be in a queue; it may be being looked at. I'd be quite happy to talk about that particular grant at a later date.

L. Stephens: I will speak with the minister on this particular subject at a later date, and we can move along here.

One last question on the purposes. Subsection 2(d) states: "...provide financial help to families with limited incomes who need child care." I wonder if the minister could perhaps talk about whether this is in relation to the B.C. bonus and the guidelines around incomes of families.

Hon. S. Hammell: That is correct.

G. Wilson: I just want to very briefly drop back to subsection 2(c): "...improve access to child care, including child care for children with special needs...." We're not 

[ Page 861 ]

talking about a grant here; we're talking about day care subsidy programs -- people who are on subsidy and who have received letters saying that they are no longer eligible. That's what we're talking about. We're talking about children who require early intervention because they have special needs, and who have been told that they will no longer be able to attend that facility. That's what we're talking about. We're talking about people who have been instructed that integrated day care, or child care for children with special needs and other children, will no longer be continuing. That's what we're talking about.

That seems to fly right in the face of what this section says, where we're supposed to be improving access to child care. These people have received correspondence from this ministry, so something isn't working here. Either the people in the field aren't aware of what this act is intending to mean, or this act says it's supposed to do something that isn't being done, or there's been a terrible mistake and those letters shouldn't have been sent, or whatever it is. But clearly, the intent of section 2.... It says: "...improve access to child care, including child care for children with special needs...." And we have people who have received notice that they are on a day care subsidy program which they will no longer be eligible for. Something doesn't match here.

Hon. S. Hammell: The day care subsidy program follows the child and is based on need. We had a special needs program that is moving from the larger special needs development facilities to an integrated system throughout the area, so a neighbourhood day care would also integrate into it a child with special needs.

I think I understand what you're talking about now, and excuse me for not having picked up on it earlier. Children with special needs will be treated almost the same way as all the other children, and their subsidy will also be based on need, on level of income. If you have a person who has a significant income or an income level where other people pay for their day care, so might the person with the special needs child. If the child needs support, as do other children, because their income is limited, then they will get that support.

G. Wilson: In the intent of this legislation, what it implies is that there's going to be improved access for these special needs children. But by treating them all equally, many of them go on a waiting list, and the waiting list implies that somewhere down the road it's going to be their turn to get in. The trouble is that these children need early intervention; these are children who need entry now.

[8:15]

With respect to the loss of subsidy, which is an inequity this bill is apparently supposed to solve, I'm not comforted by what the minister just told me in response to my question on this section. It sounds to me as if now there's going to have to be some additional assessment made with respect to the level of income of parents, as to whether or not that subsidy is going to continue to apply.

So on three counts this is quite misleading: (1) it doesn't improve the access, it impedes access; (2) it doesn't look like it's going to provide early intervention for children with special needs, which is required, because we've just got evidence to the effect that that isn't going to happen; and (3) the parents who have been on the day care subsidy program are now, it would appear, going to have to go through another process of adjudication to see whether or not they are going to be able to get those dollars. That's what I'm hearing the minister say.

Hon. S. Hammell: The day care subsidy program is not a universal program. It is not and has never been, except for those people who have special needs children who have gotten into one of the developmental facilities.

There are a couple of things wrong with that, as identified by the community that went through the consultative process, that the government responded to in its reports. I can make those reports available. Part of their concern was the fact that there was a long waiting list, and though some people were able to access care and have early intervention with special needs children, not everyone was able to. They recommended, and it was concurred with by the government, that the subsidy to children with special needs should mirror that in the regular community, with one exception: it was recognized that those parents had extra problems that needed to be dealt with in their home, and there was an extra grant allotted to them to be directed at that need.

For example, many times children require more specialized equipment; sometimes there has to be some serious renovation around the house and that type of thing. What is happening is that all families will be treated equally, at first blush, whether they have regular children or special needs children. If their income requires a subsidy, they will get a subsidy. Those people with special care children get an additional subsidy because they have special needs and extra demands.

L. Stephens: I have one final question on special needs, and it's going back a bit to grants. I'd like to know whether or not the minister is going to request that, in order to receive special needs funding, there be demands for integration of facilities. Will funding depend on the number of special needs spaces that are available in that particular facility?

Hon. S. Hammell: As I mentioned before, there are a number of regional committees. Those committees are defining and guiding how the integrated system is then implemented in the local area. Given that the conditions that exist in Kelowna may not be the same as in Langley, you may have to modify exactly how the integration is finally constructed. It will largely depend on the special needs community, along with the regional community, as they describe that process.

L. Stephens: I was thinking of the facility grants -- whether in fact a group, a non-profit society or a day care centre, would receive a facility grant if they were not providing X number of spaces or a percentage of spaces for special needs children. That's really what I'm asking: are there rules as to what kind of grant funding groups can access, in relation to the number of spaces that they may or may not be providing for special needs children?

Hon. S. Hammell: It would depend on the application and how much money we have, but there is not a criterion that demands that the facility be integrated.

M. Coell: Hon. Chair, the bill is going to open up a number of new child care settings. Is the ministry putting aside a certain number for special needs children? If so, is there a mechanism that would secure that there would always be a certain number of settings available for special needs children?

Hon. S. Hammell: We are not setting aside a particular number for special needs children, but we will always be creating spaces for special needs children. That is largely 

[ Page 862 ]

driven by the community and how their plan is being implemented in the community. I know that in my community that plan is different than even next door in another community. So it all depends on what is going on at the regional level.

K. Whittred: I'd like to follow up on something I think I heard you say about these special needs children. I thought I heard you say, with this new approach to special needs care, that they were being moved out of what was called.... I think you called them developmental facilities. My question really is on the special needs children who are now being placed in integrated day care settings. Were they previously in developmental centres? In other words, their parents may, in fact, have been at home and it wasn't quite the same as day care. I'm thinking of, for example, hearing children of deaf parents, who need very early intervention or, alternatively, deaf children of hearing parents. That's something I'm familiar with. So my question is, after all of that: were the special needs children previously in a day care centre as we understand it or in a developmental facility of some sort?

Hon. S. Hammell: The move is from the large developmental centres to the neighbourhood or smaller and more integrated settings for special needs children, with a support system around that move and a support system around the special needs of the individual child. That move will be guided by the community and through the regional committees that are set up to guide that move over a number of years. So if your question is whether these children are from those centres, and whether those children are to be integrated into the local community, the answer is yes. What shape that takes will largely depend on the community.

K. Whittred: I'm really trying to figure out if with special needs we are gaining or losing on spaces. Are they coming from day care centre to day care centre -- I understand that part -- or are they coming from a type of developmental preschool to a day care centre, which would mean we're actually losing day care spaces?

Hon. S. Hammell: Right now, there's a waiting list. In fact, some children who need special care -- special needs children -- are not getting any type of early intervention. Maybe I could give you the example of Kelowna. Kelowna has a large centre that has altered the way it's doing things. Some of the care there remains special needs care, as they've changed their model. Some are now neighbourhood children. So you've switched one type of child for another, and special needs children are out in the community now. So you are changing your model and moving children from one model to another. By moving from the large centre you are able to include more special needs children in a variety of different settings.

G. Wilson: Before we move off that, the minister has intrigued me by saying that with the introduction of this bill, somehow there's going to be a greater degree of community control over how this thing works. At the moment, that's not what's happening, certainly not in the communities I'm familiar with on the Sunshine Coast, and in others who've communicated with me.

The vast number of parents whom I've had a chance to meet and know through the B.C. Association for Community Living and other organizations require or ask that there be early intervention and that their children not be subjected to long waiting lists because of the need for early intervention. They want them in facilities where they can interact with other children. They don't want them to be shifted to all kinds of different things in the community.

I think that the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale hit the nail right on the head: the net number of spaces isn't going to increase for these special needs kids. It may not decrease, but it surely isn't going to increase. In fact, there is potential, as the member correctly pointed out, that they may decrease if the community prioritizes these waiting lists and forces these special needs kids into a situation where the parent simply is going to get frustrated and say: "Forget it. I'm not going to do that." That's the problem we're trying to get at. I'm not sure this act does anything to solve that problem; if anything, it might compound it. That's what we're trying to convince the minister.

Hon. S. Hammell: The comfort I can give you is that this change has been driven by the community. The concern is that there is a more effective and efficient use of the money allotted to special needs children through this change in the model.

M. Coell: Following that line of questioning, would the ministry be closing some facilities that would be dealing only with special needs children? I'm thinking of six or eight children who might be using a day care. Would that be closed out and those children offered other day care settings?

Hon. S. Hammell: The ministry won't be closing facilities. The community, in the end, will decide how they reconfigure. I'll go back to the example in Kelowna. What they did was take the facility and change the use. They did not close down the facility. They altered the use of it and the way they delivered the child care.

M. Coell: I'll word my question a little better. I realize it wasn't understandable for the minister. Would the ministry withdraw funding to an organization that was running a day care for only special needs children even if they were...? I'm thinking of the six or eight children at this point.

[8:30]

Hon. S. Hammell: No.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

L. Stephens: I have a few questions about the Provincial Child Care Council and its being formalized in the legislation. There exists now an advisory Provincial Child Care Council. I believe it has been in operation since '92 or '93. It does provide for per diems and reasonable travel expenses. That is the norm now. I wonder if the minister could talk about how often this council meets, what its mandate specifically is, and whether or not the council is made up of a broad representation of the community at large. I'm thinking here specifically of particular interest groups.

Hon. S. Hammell: The Provincial Child Care Council meets four times a year. They are an advisory committee, and they are to give advice to the minister on child care. They are from around the province. Let me give you some examples. They're from upper Vancouver Island, South Okanagan, Skeena, the coast, Garibaldi, Peace River, the upper Fraser Valley, south-central Cariboo, southern Vancouver Island, the 

[ Page 863 ]

Kootenays, the lower mainland and Prince George. So they cover the full range of the province. Let me give you some of their backgrounds: a child care consultant with the regional child care support program -- family day care; the manager of children's and special needs services of the Penticton and District Community Resources Society -- special needs; and an early childhood education instructor at Northwest Community College. She's done staff training and atypical care. The one I like is the full-time mother with four teenagers. So the council is made up of people who have a commitment and an interest in child care.

L. Stephens: Is there an effort made by the ministry to include on that council different sectors, if I could use that term? Educators, business and labour are three examples that I can think of at the moment, and whatever other kinds of groups there are. There are many of them. Has the minister, in fact, made an effort to include as broad a perspective as is possible from different groups and different sectors of society?

Hon. S. Hammell: Yes, but perhaps not in quite the way the question is intended. There is always a direct link to child care. They may own their own business or be an educator in the area or an employee of a child care centre. They run a wide variety of occupations, but within the general area of child care. They have some direct link to the child care field.

L. Stephens: Just to be clear, I would presume that these individuals have a direct link to child care. But what I'm asking is: are there women who are business and professional women, and so bring that perspective? Are there women, say, in industry and trades who bring the perspective of the needs of women in these different areas -- this is what I'm asking -- so that the minister gets a broad representation of the needs of women and their needs for child care -- shift workers, for instance, perhaps fishers and agricultural workers, people who have different child care needs? Is that part of what this child care council brings?

Hon. S. Hammell: Yes, and let me give you a couple of examples. There is a person who is an executive assistant of the Interior Indian Friendship Society, whose particular interest is in aboriginal child care. There's another person, and she happens to be one of the two co-chairs. She is on the BCGEU provincial executive's child care committee, and she's a union person who is interested in atypical child care. So there is quite a variety of people on this committee, and their task is to reflect to the minister the needs of child care, as they see it.

M. Coell: I wonder if the minister could explain the criteria for getting on that board, and how the minister chooses the people to be on that board.

Hon. S. Hammell: The positions on this advisory council were advertised throughout the province when they were originally to be selected. We had over 300 applications and from those, 17 people were chosen -- again, depending on what they could contribute to the discussion.

M. Coell: I wonder if the minister could tell me what the average tenure of service on the board is and is expected to be.

Hon. S. Hammell: Two years.

L. Stephens: I have further questions on this section, on the two-year tenure. Will the minister have the sole discretion to appoint members to that board now? That's the first question. The second one is: will the minister be replacing board members? I'm thinking that every second year half of the board could be replaced in order to provide for continuity and to keep refreshing the board. Is that an option the minister has?

Hon. S. Hammell: Do I have sole discretion? Yes. Am I going to rotate people off? Yes.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

L. Stephens: I would just like to ask the minister for a little clarification here. We talk about accountability and measuring results. I wonder if the minister would tell the committee what the ministry has in place around those issues of accountability for the child care subsidies and the grants.

Hon. S. Hammell: All our programs are submitted to evaluation, so we have accountability built into not only our regular programs but also our pilot programs with the feds.

L. Stephens: Are those evaluations available to the general public, or are they communicated in an annual or separate report? Could the minister answer both of those questions: are they available and in what manner?

Hon. S. Hammell: They are communicated in the annual report.

K. Whittred: I have just one question. In section 4 it says that the minister may, subject to regulations, pay child care subsidies, and that the minister has sole discretion to pay child care grants. I wonder if you could explain what parameters the minister is subject to, if any, in the dispensation of grants.

Hon. S. Hammell: This section has to do with where you take your programs to get permission, or who you are accountable to. When you talk about the subsidy program, that subsidizes people. Because it is subject to regulations, it is perused by cabinet and is based on a bill that has been to the Legislature. The sole discretion for grants is again built around the frame of legislation, but is subject to the votes in the House and to estimates.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

L. Stephens: My understanding of the information and verification section is that the majority of it is taken from the GAIN Act. This refers to means-testing, for want of another word -- or whatever it is being called now -- but it's certainly qualification for subsidies.

The last subsection, 5(4), says: "For the purpose of auditing child care subsidies, the minister may direct child care providers to supply the minister with information about any child care they provide that is subsidized under this Act." I wonder if the minister could explain what the parameters are around that direct request to child care providers to supply the minister with information -- what kind of information and how often that is required.

[ Page 864 ]

Hon. S. Hammell: This section establishes the authority for the minister to require child care providers to provide any information about any subsidized child care they provide for the purposes of auditing child care subsidies.

L. Stephens: So the minister is saying that when the ministry pays child care subsidies to children, they will audit the facility to make sure that, in fact, the children receiving those subsidies are attending that facility, and how many there are -- all the details around children who receive the subsidy in that particular facility. Is that a correct understanding?

Hon. S. Hammell: Yes. The hours of care, the number of children -- precisely what you've said.

Sections 5 and 6 approved.

On section 7.

L. Stephens: I have a number of questions around this one, particularly subsection (2): "Subject to the regulations, the minister may enter into an agreement, or may accept any right assigned, for the repayment of a child care subsidy." So it appears that the minister is.... It says here: "...may enter into an agreement, or may accept any right assigned...." So that would be an obligation on the part of this individual, I'm thinking. Is the ministry now getting into almost a banking situation, where you take collateral, if you will, for potential overpayments or repayments? Would the minister perhaps clarify that particular subsection (2)?

[8:45]

Hon. S. Hammell: This is exactly as it existed in the GAIN Act. It means that we may assume the right to any money that is to be assigned to somebody. So if they were going to inherit a fortune, or receive an income tax return.... This is where the person has been overpaid or there is some need to pay back.

L. Stephens: Yes, I know that it is an attempt on the part of the ministry to recover any overpayments or repayments. But I am troubled with the words "any right assigned." That says to me that someone could sign their boat or house to the ministry as collateral. The minister did just say inheritance or anything like that is what could happen.

What I'd like to know as well is in the same section. It goes down to section 7(5) and says: "The minister's decision about the amount a person is liable to repay under subsection (1) or under an agreement entered into under subsection (2)" -- which is the one that we were speaking of -- "is not open to appeal under section 6(3)." That's the section that talks about the proposed BC Benefits (Appeals) Act that we haven't gotten to yet in this House.

This is sort of a hypothetical question, and maybe the minister can tell me whether I'm on the right track here. Assuming that someone overpays, and the minister has in fact an agreement and a right has been assigned, there is no appeal to that if that individual should default. There is no appeal. I'd like to know, if those people who made that assignment found out that in fact what they had done was not in their best interests, and there is no appeal, if the minister could comment on what recourse they may have. I'm sure the minister is aware that there are individuals in the low-income area who aren't as sophisticated and knowledgable about legal documents -- as I would presume one of these would be; it certainly has legal language. So I would like to know what kind of provisions there are to safeguard the rights of individuals when they do enter into these kinds of agreements.

Hon. S. Hammell: The example I think we would agree on is that the right would be to receive cash through, say, an income tax return or maintenance that is coming. But it is not the right.... Any right assigned does not refer to property, because it refers to repayment. It is a repayment system. It is entered into voluntarily. It says: "...may enter into an agreement, or may accept any right assigned...." Although the person, because it's a voluntary agreement, does not have an appeal, they still do have the right to attend the courts or go to a judicial review.

L. Stephens: I think all of us know that individuals or families who have access to subsidized day care aren't likely to have the wherewithal to go to the courts. This section really does trouble me, even though I agree that when there are overpayments made there is a need for the ministry to recover them. I'm looking primarily at the safeguards of the rights of the individuals who may enter into those kinds of agreements, and what kind of rights may be assigned -- because they're not specified. Those rights that can be assigned are not specified, and it would give me a lot of comfort if the minister would tell this committee what those rights assigned may be. The minister has already said they do not include real property, so I wonder if the minister would give us a list of what rights would be eligible to be assigned.

Hon. S. Hammell: The power to specify the rights is in the regulations, and those regulations as they are directed to this particular act are being developed.

L. Stephens: I will ask the question about the regulations now instead of waiting to the end. When would those regulations be available?

Hon. S. Hammell: Most of the regulations are available now, because most of them exist under the GAIN Act, and they're in the library and on the Net. So most of these are in existence. There are a few -- this one and another one that I referred to -- that are being worked on. We hope to have those finished very quickly.

Sections 7 and 8 approved.

On section 9.

L. Stephens: This particular section dealing with agreements has caused a great deal of anxiety with this side of the House. The same provisions in this particular bill were also in Bill 11, which was debated at some length, and in Bill 4. The opposition has the same objections to this particular section in all three of these bills, and that is that the protection of privacy doesn't appear to be here.

I have an amendment standing in my name that I would like to move, and I will read it:

[SECTION 9, by deleting the proposed subsections 2(c) and (3) and substituting the following:

(3) In this section, "information-sharing agreement" includes a data-matching agreement, but does not include an agreement to share

(a) information obtained by the minister for the purposes of another Act administered by the minister, or
(b) information obtained by the minister pursuant to an agreement under this section, except an agreement with the government of Canada relating to child care.

[ Page 865 ]

(4) With the prior approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, the Provincial minister may, for the purposes set out in sub-paragraph (5), enter into an information-sharing agreement with any of the following:

(a) the government of Canada or an agency of that government;
(b) the government of a province or other jurisdiction in Canada or an agency of that province or other jurisdiction;
(c) a public body as defined in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

(5) An information-sharing agreement may be entered into for the purposes of the administration of this Act, the federal Act or an Act of another jurisdiction in Canada relating to child care.

(6) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may prescribe terms and conditions that are to be included in information agreements entered into by the minister.]

I would ask the Minister of Women's Equality to adopt this amendment.

The Chair: What is your point of order, member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast?

G. Wilson: It's customary when amendments are passed forward that copies be given to other members who are participating in the debate.

The Chair: It turns out that there are two amendments, and the Chair was not aware of the second one. We'll have to sort out how we do this. We have one amendment on the floor at the present time. We can discuss that amendment. That would be the procedure for the moment.

On the amendment.

Hon. A. Petter: While I appreciate the sentiment of the amendment, I say on behalf of the government side that I don't think we can support this amendment, for a very simple reason. That is that we have been working in a fairly cooperative way with the opposition to try to deal with some of these concerns. I know the minister has an amendment that she's prepared to bring forward that is consistent with the way the matter was dealt with, with respect to the last piece of legislation. I think it's important to deal with it on a consistent basis, and I think the best way to do so, therefore, would be to defeat this well-intentioned amendment and then allow the minister to bring forward her amendment, which I think deals with the same substantive concerns but in a way that's consistent with the way we've handled this in the previous legislation.

L. Stephens: I am prepared to withdraw my amendment. The one that the minister has brought forward appears to address my concerns, and we will debate the minister's amendment.

The Chair: Thank you very much for doing that, hon. member. That one is now withdrawn. I accept that. The hon. minister wishes to present her amendment.

Hon. S. Hammell: I move the amendment to section 9 that is in the hands of the Clerk.

[SECTION 9, by deleting the proposed subsection (3) and substituting the following subsections:

(3) An information-sharing agreement may only be entered into under subsection (2) for the purposes of the administration of

(a) this Act
(b) the Income Tax Act or the Income Tax Act (Canada), or
(c) a social benefit program operated by a government, agency, public body or legal entity referred to in subsection (2)(c).

(4) In this section, "information-sharing agreement" includes a data-matching agreement but does not include an agreement to share

(a) information obtained by the minister for the purposes of another Act administered by the minister, or
(b) information obtained by the minister pursuant to an agreement under this section.]

On the amendment.

Hon. A. Petter: Since I'm somewhat responsible in a way for these various amendments, perhaps I can address this one. This one is exactly the same in its approach and, I think, in its wording -- if I had a chance to look at it closely, I think I could confirm that -- as the one that was dealt with under the previous bill we discussed. I think it deals with some of the concerns we've talked about in these various bills, about narrowing and defining the use of these agreements to ensure that there is no abuse and no abridgment of privacy.

Also, of course, we have an understanding with the privacy commissioner that, before such agreements are brought forward and signed, they will be vetted by the privacy commissioner. I know that that same understanding will apply equally with respect to agreements signed under this legislation as with other legislation we've already debated. I think, in essence, that is what this amendment then achieves. Given that we found our way to support previous amendments, I hope members of the opposition could join with the government in supporting this one.

G. Wilson: As was commented earlier under Bill 11, this definitely improves that one section. However, there is still a concern that was flagged, and I think it should be flagged again here and in every other bill in which this amendment will be introduced -- my guess is we're going to do it -- and that has to do with the transference through electronic process into jurisdictions outside Canada of material that is electronically gathered. In that information exchange, it isn't enough simply to have some level of agreement that may have been made between this government and the government of the United States, as an example. We are going to have to have ways in which we will protect against that information being accessed through that exchange process.

It may be well intentioned by the two governing authorities -- the one sending, the other receiving information. However, I know that this particular minister, the Minister of Finance, is fully aware -- because I know of his interest in and work with the Internet and other computer services -- that the access to that information is becoming more and more accessible, and the opportunity to regulate against it is becoming more and more problematic. This is an enormously important concern, and while this amendment greatly improves it, I still think we need to have government aware of the fact that a simple agreement isn't going to be enough. There have to be ways to stop people logging in and getting information that they're not eligible for.

[9:00]

Hon. S. Hammell: We have agreed to make provisions in the agreements, signed with other jurisdictions, that all agreements observe the regulations of our privacy legislation.

G. Wilson: I'm not trying to get into protracted debate on this. I know what we've agreed to, because we've been 

[ Page 866 ]

through this before, and I've heard this explained before. The problem is that a simple agreement isn't necessarily going to do it, because people who wish to access it for illicit use can do it -- without even our knowledge that they've got it, half the time.

What I'm saying is that once you store and transfer this data electronically, we have to have ways of protecting it. Under the discussion of Bill 11 -- which I know we can't get into here -- there was some discussion with respect to agreements on penalties for people who access and use that information illicitly. That's something that would be well worth pursuing. There has to be some way of dealing with what is going to become an increasingly problematic issue.

Amendment approved.

Section 9 as amended approved.

Section 10 approved.

On section 11.

L. Stephens: I just have a couple of comments to make on this section. It talks about other provisions relating to offences: "Section 5 of the Offence Act does not apply to this Act or the regulations." My understanding is that that particular act deals with the penalty section and that subsection 11(2), the time limit, says: "...12 months after the facts on which the information is based first came to the minister's attention." That is there because the penalties section speaks of six months, as opposed to 12 months. My understanding is that this is why this particular statement is there -- that 12 months is the time period for laying an information for an offence under this act.

[T. Stevenson in the chair.]

Hon. S. Hammell: This subsection does extend the time limit for laying the information to 12 months from the standard six months established in the Offence Act. This subsection allows sufficient time for investigation, which will usually include a forensic accounting of the charges before laying of an information.

Sections 11 and 12 approved.

On section 13.

Hon. S. Hammell: We have an amendment. I would like to move the amendment that is in the hands of the Clerk.

[SECTION 13, in the proposed subsection (2)(m) by deleting "sections 7(4)(b), 8(2) and 9(3)" and substituting "sections 7(4)(b) and 8(2)".]

Amendment approved.

Section 13 as amended approved.

Sections 14 to 16 inclusive approved.

On the title.

K. Whittred: I learned from my colleague that it is possible to debate the title. I am new to this and, I guess, somewhat naïve, because last night I actually thought that there was a relationship between the title and the contents of a bill. Today, after my briefing, I learned that that is not so. Therefore I suggest that the title of this bill should be something to the effect of "BC Benefits (on the Allocation of Child Care Subsidies)." I believe that that would be a more apt title than to actually call it a child care act.

Title approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 13, BC Benefits (Child Care) Act, reported complete with amendments.

The Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. J. MacPhail: By leave, now.

Leave granted.

Bill 13, BC Benefits (Child Care) Act, read a third time and passed.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 14.

Hon. D. Streifel: It's a great pleasure for me to rise today for second reading of Bill 14, the BC Benefits (Income Assistance) Act. I understand that I might be in for a bit of a ride tonight, but I think I can accept that.

This bill is the cornerstone of the legislative framework for implementing B.C. Benefits, this government's strategy for renewing the social safety net. Complementing the BC Benefits (Youth Works) Act, this bill focuses on adults 25 and older, providing basic income support and new opportunities to move towards self-sufficiency. It retains the overall structure of the Guaranteed Available Income for Need -- or GAIN -- Act and many of its provisions. So I'll focus on those areas where we are introducing change. They are: strengthening provisions to prevent fraud and abuse, facilitating training for youth under 25, ending welfare for children who have left home, and facilitating new health and dental benefits to provide a fair share for working families, thus making work a better deal than welfare. Bill 14 also introduces various provisions, most of them technical in nature, to update and modernize the sections we're retaining from the GAIN Act, which dates back to the 1970s.

I'll begin by outlining those provisions which apply to fraud and abuse. In the last few years this government has implemented a zero tolerance policy on fraud and abuse. In fiscal '93-94 we established a prevention, compliance and enforcement unit in the Ministry of Social Services. Since then we've more than doubled the number of fraud investigations -- from 32 in 1994 to 65 today. In March of this year we completed an early-detection pilot project. It tested highly cost-effective methods of preventing fraud before it has a 

[ Page 867 ]

chance to occur. These methods will now be applied throughout the province. Over the last few years we've also signed information-sharing agreements with governments and agencies in other jurisdictions to eliminate double-dipping.

The BC Benefits (Income Assistance) Act maintains provisions from the GAIN Act, allowing us to continue and expand these initiatives. It also enhances the ministry's ability to verify eligibility, giving the minister clear authority to request and confirm information from applicants themselves and from third parties. Where it's determined that serious fraud may have occurred, this new bill gives the government more time to pursue charges. Under the GAIN Act we could only pursue charges in connection with offences that occurred within the previous 18 months. Bill 14 removes that restriction, and while it maintains the requirement that charges proceed in a timely fashion, it increases the time allowed for an investigation from six months to 12.

How am I doing?

G. Farrell-Collins: Well, you're sticking to the script.

Hon. D. Streifel: Thank you very much to the members opposite.

In the area of income assistance abuse, Bill 14 maintains GAIN Act provisions while refusing or reducing benefits to individuals who refuse to seek or accept work, quit their jobs without cause, fail to draw upon available income or assets or dispose of assets for the purpose of receiving income assistance. Under the current law the length of refusal or amount of benefit reduction is left entirely to the discretion of financial assistance workers. Bill 14 changes that. It allows the ministry to write regulations setting out specific sanctions for each of the categories I mentioned. This will greatly improve standards of fairness and consistency.

One of the main principles behind B.C. Benefits is the belief that British Columbians want to work and value the independence that a job brings. Consistent with this, the BC Benefits (Income Assistance) Act gives the ministry authority to direct youth under 25 to job search, work preparation and training programs under Youth Works. This is a key component of government's commitment to ensure our young people have the opportunities they need to realize their full potential. Giving them an early chance to get into the workforce greatly improves their odds of achieving long-term independence.

Teenagers, too, need appropriate support when they can't live with their families. Right now, approximately 2,200 teens 18 and younger are living on their own and receiving income assistance. Bill 14 puts an end to that. Through consequential amendments to the Child, Family and Community Service Act, it ensures that children will get the support they need from the arm of government that specializes in protecting children at risk -- because children need care, not welfare. Under this new legislation, our first step will be to encourage and assist them to return to their families as long as they can do that safely. Children who are unable to return home will be able to enter into agreements with the director of child, family and community service giving them access to residential, educational and other support services. These agreements will also set out clear expectations for the children to ensure, for example, that they go to school. As with the Youth Works initiative, this approach will help lay the groundwork for long-term self-sufficiency.

[9:15]

I think that we all agree that traditional North American welfare programs, those designed in the post-World War II era, have often had the unintended consequence of fostering dependence on government support. Now, nowhere has this paradox been more apparent than in the case of single-parent families. Before B.C. Benefits taking into account all existing credits, a single parent with two children received $1,417 a month in welfare. Before B.C. Benefits, with a minimum-wage job, that same single parent took home $1,262 a month -- $150 to $5 less than the family would have received on welfare. Under B.C. Benefits that disincentive disappears.

First of all, parents who leave welfare for full-time work will qualify for transition benefits of up to $150 a month for one year, to help with the cost of child care and transportation. Second, with our new family bonus, parents with dependent children who leave welfare for work will, in effect, continue to receive the child support portion of their income assistance benefits. Third, through our new Healthy Kids program, they will also receive basic dental and optical coverage for their children. The bill before us now includes technical provisions supporting the Healthy Kids program. These initiatives provide a fair share for low-income working families, making work a better deal than welfare.

That brings me to a couple of relatively minor provisions proposed under Bill 14 to modernize B.C.'s income assistance legislation. Recognizing the scope and effectiveness of British Columbia's Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, we will not include a stand-alone section on client confidentiality. Instead, the BC Benefits (Income Assistance) Act will rely on the freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy provisions guaranteeing income assistance recipients the same level of privacy protection afforded to all other British Columbians. One final technical provision that is worth pointing out is that section 25 allows the ministry to write regulations to guide the transition from the GAIN Act to the BC Benefits (Income Assistance) Act.

In conclusion, Bill 14 will replace the Guaranteed Available Income for Need Act. In conjunction with other B.C. Benefits legislation, it creates the framework needed to implement major social safety net renewal. Nowhere else in Canada is government taking such a comprehensive, compassionate, cost-effective approach. Keeping our social safety net strong and affordable is a major challenge, especially with the federal government abandoning its historic commitments. But we're meeting that challenge by tightening up the system and reinvesting savings in significant new initiatives, helping more people in more ways than ever before.

The B.C. Benefits legislative framework will allow government to tailor benefits and programs to better meet the needs of children, youth, families, people with disabilities and those requiring child care assistance. More specifically, Bill 14 modernizes and updates the GAIN Act; clarifies and strengthens the ministry's capacity to detect, prevent and deter fraud; ends welfare for children living away from home without legal guardians; and facilitates the changes needed to make work a better deal than welfare.

I'd like to end where Bill 14 begins, with the following statement: "...British Columbians are committed to preserving a social safety net that is responsive to changing social and 

[ Page 868 ]

economic circumstances...." Bill 14 represents a major legislative step in honouring that commitment. I move that Bill 14 be read a second time now.

M. Coell: I'm pleased to rise to comment on the principle of this bill. As the minister said, it makes some minor changes to GAIN, and those minor changes, in principle, the opposition supports. The changes that deal with fraud, training, youth, and helping people to get off welfare and find work are positive. We do have a number of issues we want to raise as we go through this bill in committee stage, because, as is sometimes usual with this government, they may have a half-decent idea, but they make a lot of mistakes when it comes to putting it in place. We wish to point out some areas in which we feel that the sections of this bill could be improved.

I would like to say that in some respects, these bills have been put forward as a group -- an umbrella, as has been said by the government -- but it is really only half of what is needed to solve the problems of people who are on income assistance. The three bills we are debating and discussing tonight are only half of what is needed. What we need is a government that will create the jobs that are promised in these bills, and especially in this bill. What we're hoping to see is that the other half of these bills come forward as legislation -- things that will show us that jobs will actually be there for the people who are encouraged to leave welfare, through training and assistance from government.

The management of this new bill is very important, and it's an area we will spend some time on. But as I said, we find this to be acceptable legislation. It is a replacement for GAIN, which served this province for many years and under changing circumstances. The areas that have been brought forward by the government will be seen with approval by the opposition, but I impress upon you again that we view this as only half the solution for what you're trying to accomplish. You are not creating the jobs; you're not creating the atmosphere in this province that will let those jobs grow. At the same time, we will be looking very closely in the coming hours at the management of this bill.

G. Wilson: It has been said that we judge our society not by the way that the wealthy or even the middle class live, but by the way we treat those who, for reasons beyond their own control, need our assistance to be able to allow them to live a life with relative dignity -- and to recognize that there will always be among us those who are less fortunate. The mark of a society is often tested by the manner in which we approach those people and make those people feel as though they are a contributing part of our society. I guess there are many ways in which we can approach this.

When we look at these bills, as I have said before in discussion on Bill 11 and Bill 13, and now on Bill 14, we have to deal with them as a unit, because clearly we can't see any of them independently. They need to be treated together.

I guess there are many ways in which we can approach the whole aspect of income assistance. It's a difficult task, because our communities -- our society generally, but our communities more specifically -- have people living within them who demand our help and need our support. What we have to recognize as we look at the proposition in front of us now -- the replacement of GAIN with this new act, this BC Benefits (Income Assistance) Act -- is that we have to ask ourselves whether we are focused on the individual who will be the recipient and providing them the maximum opportunity and benefit, or whether we are simply looking at expediting government's role with respect to the trustee or guardianship role that they may determine to take upon themselves. We really have to address that issue in principle, and that's what this bill begs us to do tonight.

It won't be enough for us to simply say that it replaces GAIN with another system. What it does is change the whole approach to those people who, for reasons beyond their own control, need our help. The mark of Canada and Canadian society has always been that we have an available social safety net that, at its best, tries to make sure that those people who are in need are dealt with fairly and compassionately. At its worst, it has often stigmatized those people. It has stamped on their foreheads that somehow, because they are poor and in need, because they have a disability or because somehow these people find themselves requiring themselves to go before people with government authority, in the areas of social services and employment.... They then have to plead their case, in order to get income, and take a means test to show that, in fact, they really do need this money.

Hon. Speaker, there's no question that we have seen welfare fraud in British Columbia, and there's no doubt that this government has moved swiftly with a program that they believe has been effective against it. Most of us would say that frauds within society need to be treated as that and dealt with in that manner. But if we look at the facts and statistics involved here, it is a relatively small percentage of the people who find themselves on income assistance. So I caution, when we start to draft legislation that takes as its primary assumption that those people on income assistance somehow are more likely to be fraudulent -- and that seems to be where we're headed....

The mark of a good government is that it deals compassionately with those people, and we have to recognize that that compassion is there. As I said before, the debt that this government is now trying to deal with was not created by the people that this bill is enacted to deal with. The poor among us did not create our debt. Those people who need income assistance are not responsible for the rising deficits on an annual basis and the debt. But they certainly are those that are most easy to target, to point fingers at and to blame, because they are the least able to defend themselves.

So we have to be very careful when we start to become pragmatic and look at the bottom line of a ledger and say: "In order for us to cut this amount of money or that amount of money, we're going to put in these kinds of regulations that will be restrictive on this segment of people or on that segment of people." We're going to say that if you're aged 19 to 25, somehow you're now a class of people, and we're going to put on all kinds of restrictions and regulations with respect to how you may proceed -- or if you're under 19, somehow you're in a different class. If you're a young person who has had to escape an abusive situation -- goodness knows, we hear more and more of these cases every day -- somehow we're going to allow the arm of government -- I think that was what the minister said -- to come forward and deal with those people.

Hon. Speaker, check the record. The record of this government dealing with those young people has not been that great; the record of governments in general dealing with those people has not been that great. The youth among our society.... Those young people need more than simply the paternalistic arm of government coming out and sweeping them into some new or different or more creative program, with all the language that might make it politically saleable in society. What they need, and what we need to provide, is a society that provides a compassionate place for those people 

[ Page 869 ]

to find themselves. We need to make sure that we give organizations within those communities core funding to allow those community-based organizations, which deal with those people, the opportunity to take those people in and the opportunity to make sure that those people are dealt with in a fair and compassionate way. I don't have confidence, frankly, that this government has done that within Bill 14.

You know, hon. Speaker, I heard the minister say that this bill -- and he said it repeatedly in his opening remarks -- makes work a better deal than welfare. Just who does this minister think is sitting on welfare thinking that it's a better deal than going to work? Who out there would think that the minister would say that this bill is going to make work a better deal than welfare? Do you think those people that sit on welfare don't want work? How patronizing that statement is -- that this bill is going to make work a better deal than welfare.

I don't know anybody who thinks that work is not a better deal, but I do know a lot of people who are sitting on welfare and can't get gainful employment, can't find work. Yet where in all of this legislation -- Bill 11, Bill 13 and Bill 14; and we'll deal with the appeals act, which is coming up -- is there any move to try and deal with the inequities that exist in the economy? Where is there any legislation that says that we are going to remove those restrictions that prohibit investment, which creates wealth, from coming into the province? Through that wealth creation in the private sector, we start to develop and generate a greater degree of opportunity for our young people. Where is that in this legislation? It isn't there. Where does it say that we, for once in Canada, are going to stand up and start to protect Canadian investors investing in Canada, to knock down the free trade barriers that exist between our provinces, so we can more equitably share the wealth and stop the continentalization of our economy? This minister is shaking his head. He forgets the impact of NAFTA and FTA and the fact that they are having a negative impact on our economy. Where is there any movement to try and deal with the real root causes, the systemic causes, that create unemployment and the movement of people away from gainful employment onto the welfare rolls because they can't get work?

[9:30]

Our fishers out there, who move toward the so-called review of the process -- is that going to deal with those people and those families, who will very quickly find themselves right in the very rolls that are now going to be determined by this bill?

An Hon. Member: It's the Liberals.

G. Wilson: I hear the member opposite say: "It's the Liberals."

Interjection.

G. Wilson: It's the federal Liberals. Well, in the case of the fishery it is, and that's a fact.

But this government has an opportunity now to put in place a new economic paradigm, and to move forward to remove the restrictions on investment. We tried to explain -- or at least we did in this party, the PDA, during the last election -- the negative impact that corporate capital tax has on small business, the single largest employer in British Columbia. The fact that that is through triple-net leases handed down to small business... and the opportunities that may be there for people to get needful employment are diminished by the fact that people find it more difficult to make profit. This government has done nothing to address that issue.

We raised the issue of the problem associated with a greater degree of investment shifting south of the border as a result of two trade agreements, the FTA and NAFTA. We raised that matter and said what we must do is to start to take control of the provincial economy, to collect our taxes provincially, to invest in our programs and to make sure that we can secure those capital investments in our regions -- in the north, in the interior, in the Kootenays, in North Island and on the north coast -- so that we can expand the opportunities for investment and job creation within the communities where people are going to be on welfare or under this new BC Benefits (Income Assistance) Act.

What this does is put more power in the hands of government; what it does is give government greater intrusive powers into the lives of individuals. It does little or nothing to give hope to those people who are seeking gainful employment. What this bill does is simply segregate one group against another. Each will now have its own set of legislation to deal specifically with the direction this government thinks is in their best interest, not what they or the community believe is in their interest.

I will tell you why that is a bad thing. The reason that's a bad thing is that we are becoming more and more, as a society, dependent on the government to do for us that which we should be doing for ourselves. Our communities are taking less and less responsibility for those who live within the community and who need our help and assistance. They point the finger to government, and they say: "Well, let the government do for them what needs to be done. But don't put up my taxes, and certainly don't go after my income level, and make sure that I am all right, Jack." When the debt rises, when the situation gets tough, the first group that is going to be blamed is those people who sit on the welfare rolls.

Instead of standing up and defending the poor and those people who, for reasons beyond their own ability, cannot look after themselves, what we are dealing with here is a much more effective way of weeding out those we don't want, including those we do, and segregating segments of our population to be dealt with in a different manner. If you are 22 and unemployed, or if you are 44 and unemployed, or if you're a single individual without dependents, that's one thing. But if you have dependents, that's another thing entirely, and it matters little whether you are 22 or 44. You still have to pay rent, you still have to eat food, you still have to try to work within our society and try to better yourself and those who are dependent upon you. This government has not addressed those issues.

When we look at this new implementation of B.C. Benefits and the whole packet of acts that have come forward, I think it's incredible that the government seems to have failed to recognize the mandate that it has with respect to the provision of investment opportunities in the province. Now, let's not say that everything that's in this little packet is all bad; I don't think it is. We'll come to debate a bill that I think is a good piece of legislation; it deals with people with disabilities. With respect to its provisions, I think the act that they put in place there does address a segment of the population that up until now has not received the level of attention it requires. But this bill -- Bill 14 -- is a strange departure from the ideological base out of which this party evolved. There are many people on the front lines of combatting poverty 

[ Page 870 ]

-- trying to deal with those who have to experience the effects of poverty on a day-to-day basis -- who really wonder exactly what's going on. To them it doesn't seem that there's a whole lot of difference between the people on that side in government and the people on this side in the official opposition. In terms of their approach and direction on this, they're virtually the same.

In committee stage on Bill 13, I said that I wasn't going to read from something that.... I won't read the whole thing, and I won't get into the details of the act. But let me talk about another group called Ontario Works, which is kind of like Youth Works. It's kind of the same sort of thing. The rhetoric, the announcement and the early debate in that Legislative Assembly is absolutely amazing in its parallels. It's the same political rhetoric and has the same direction that we saw before; yet we have heard that this is not the same approach.

When we deal with the principle of this bill -- and I'm not going to push on for too much longer -- I hope that at some point we have an opportunity in this Legislature or in some other process to really debate what government's role is with respect to wealth creation and the well-being of citizens. Bigger government, more intrusive government and more paternalistic government is not the way to go. What we do need is government that recognizes that there are larger continental forces at work right now that we must deal with. We cannot and must not allow the bigger picture to be lost because we sit in a provincial legislative assembly. We cannot forget the fact that rulings such as the GATT rulings on our landing of fish impacted on the number of people in our processing industries, many of whom are now on welfare. We cannot forget that after the movements that were made in respect to the fishers in our communities, many of them are going to end up on welfare. With the change in the nature of harvesting of our primary lumber sector, many of those people who traditionally had employment there found themselves unemployed and now sit on welfare.

The root causes of this problem are far greater than this government can solve with this bill, but surely to goodness we must start to recognize them. Surely we have to say that sooner or later somebody has to stand up and fight for and protect British Columbians, as the growing continentalization occurs and as the impact of the agreements of FTA and NAFTA are felt more and more deeply in our communities. It isn't going to be through makeshift make-work programs, or even possible training programs, unless there's a job at the end of it -- a long-term, well-paying, good job. The way you get that is by removing the restrictions and barriers to investment, and allowing people to invest in our communities, to do well by our communities and to do well by our resources.

We need tenure reform in the forest sector, so that we can get more of our timber into value-added production. Tenure reform will help us get more fibre into value-added mills, and that can create long-term, well-paying jobs. We also need more research-and-development dollars in order to put in place all kinds of new opportunities for British Columbians, through the development of technologies that will address environmental degradation on an ongoing basis. There is a huge amount to be done there. Alternative energy sources -- we need to invest in research and development programs that say we will make a commitment to get off a fossil-fuel-based economy, so that we can create new and better opportunities for people who will start to develop those new sectors of the economy. We need to look to a vision of 2020 that will say that we are not going to sit by and simply put a makeshift piece of work together that will allow us an opportunity to pick those people who we're now going to determine will not get income assistance and those people who will, without recognizing that we should be looking at the broader, bigger picture -- the picture that creates and generates wealth, that really addresses the problems that the youth of this country see. They don't see hope for new jobs, because nobody is talking about them; nobody is moving toward them. We're becoming more and more dependent on foreign powers to do it for us.

It's interesting that in this debate.... I suppose it's the nature of this House, at this time of night in particular, for many people to be less than enamoured with the fact that I'd be prepared to take on this government this forcefully on this bill. There are those who simply shake their heads, some that I notice laugh and chuckle, and some who think that this is kind of a joke. That's too bad. I'll tell you why that's too bad.

Interjection.

G. Wilson: The minister says I'm the joke. That's not exactly parliamentary, but nevertheless....

When we see -- as I do and as I'm sure this minister does -- and hear the questions that we have heard with respect to children and the effect on children in this province, when we see the hardship and the suffering that are going on among people in the communities in British Columbia, in my community and in others like it, I tell you, it's not a joke. They don't need a large paternalistic hand of government to come down and say, "We will now take the children under our care," because it's got a pretty lousy record of children in their care. Neither do we need the notion that somehow the minister will start to dictate how we should proceed on these matters without including a comprehensive involvement of community and community-based organizations.

Ten years from now, when we look back upon this bill and we start to see whether or not we've really addressed the issue, my guess is that we will find ourselves really not much better off than we were back in the 1960s. In preparing for this debate tonight, I was going to get into a long and detailed discussion of it, and go back through Hansard materials of past debates, and look at past legislation. But in comparing the argument and the rhetoric that we see today, whether it comes from Ontario, British Columbia or the federal government, and having looked at some of the discussion from Parliament.... Not much has changed, you know that? Except that there are a whole lot more poor people now than there were then and a whole lot more working poor now than there were then. You know what? The gap is getting greater, not smaller. The opportunities for these people to be able to make ends meet are becoming more and more difficult. It's becoming more and more difficult because we do not address the systemic problems within our economy. We are attempting to continue to put some kind of solution to these problems that doesn't address the cause. The cause lies within the elements in our society that restrict the entrepreneurial spirit, the opportunities that should be available to British Columbians to move forward and to make our economy grow and succeed.

One of the matters I'm currently working on that I think will have great relevance as we get the data is the impact of NAFTA and FTA, specifically in British Columbia on employment levels. I see the minister shaking his head and worrying about.... You know, it used to be that the members opposite were quite concerned about NAFTA, but they seem to think it's an irrelevant fact in our lives today. As I gather this information for a variety of purposes, the early data is pretty damning. It has had a very significant impact, not only on British Columbia but right across Canada. It will continue to have an impact, because as we look at the continentalization 

[ Page 871 ]

of our economy, the harmonization of our social programs.... The greater the degree to which we start to develop information-sharing with our neighbours to the south, and the more our society becomes blended into that organization, the more we will suffer in the province of British Columbia. I, for one, think it's a shame that when we've had an opportunity, to use the minister's quote, to modernize the welfare system, we have entirely missed the boat on the causes of unemployment in the first place.

[9:45]

We heard the minister and the Premier stand up today in question period, I believe it was.... In fact, on a number of occasions he's told us we have the lowest per capita debt, the strongest economy, all of these wonderful things -- how brilliant this government has been with their economic strategy. The question is: if that's so, then why are there so many people in need of this legislation? Why are there so many people who still can't make ends meet? Why are there a growing number of people who find themselves redundant in the workplace and being pushed out of work as mechanization and new technologies take over? Why is it that we see very little investment and new opportunities in British Columbia with respect to research and development? Why is it we don't seem to have a viable fishing industry anymore? Why is it that we have to put a forest renewal program in place in order to make it a priority to rehire forest workers in make-work projects? All of those questions are questions that this government has to answer, and it doesn't answer them with this kind of legislation. It misses the boat.

From time to time it may not be a popular thing to stand up and take issue with these matters in the broader context -- and I know, given the hour, that people certainly want to try to get home to their families, and I'm sympathetic about that, for sure -- but we are charged in this House with doing more than putting in place legislation for tomorrow. We are charged in this House with at least providing some vision of a future -- of what this society is going to be for those people who will take over from us.

Sadly, I think this misses the mark. Sadly, there is no vision in this document. What it is is a measure to be able to go after those who are fraudulent. They're going to have great success at detecting fraud before it occurs, is what the minister said. I'm not sure how you detect fraud before fraud happens; however, he said that's what it's going to do. It's going to remove welfare from those children who have left home and are on the street, because the government, in its paternalistic way, is going to take them under its arm. I challenge you to check out the record. It hasn't been that great. It's going to overhaul eligibility requirements for those people who will eventually be able to get income assistance. If you're between 19 and 25, you're going to take on a work training program. One hopes, with the blessing and goodwill of the minister, it's going to be one that will look toward your own vision, your own desire for the kind of career that you'd like to follow.

It's sad. It's a sad day when we have an opportunity to really modernize the system and put in place a community-based system that would provide core funding for those organizations that are on the front line and that are dealing with it -- End Legislated Poverty is one that I can think of -- where people who are actively involved in these programs might want to be able to come in and provide a greater degree of assistance and help. There are others within society, within our communities, that could benefit from that core funding, so that they can, within the community, take responsibility for the people in that community who need their help -- neighbour helping neighbour in a kinder and more gentle society, instead of everybody looking to the government to pick up the tab, everybody looking to the government, saying, "It's your responsibility," and government finding new and better ways to shirk it. That's what we're into here.

It's a sad day, and it's a particularly sad day, I would have to think, for anybody who would adhere to the philosophy and general direction that the members opposite have evolved from, because it certainly is a radical departure. The minister was right when he said that this is a radical change. It certainly is a radical change from what the philosophy and principles of that party opposite used to stand for, and it's a radical change from the social safety net that we have prized in this nation. It's one step further toward the harmonization of social programs, which is exactly what's called for in the FTA, the free trade agreement, and NAFTA. That's a sad, sad day. It's a sad day that the members opposite either don't realize it or simply don't care.

V. Anderson: I realize it's 9:50 at night, but I have to take a few minutes to comment on this. One of the realities of what we have here is a change in name and, in many ways, the downgrading of a function. That's a sad thing to say, because the GAIN Act had many inadequacies. Most of the inadequacies were not only in the act itself but, as I said before, in the regulations and in how this government has put those into practice.

Bill 14, the BC Benefits (Income Assistance) Act, has a change of name from GAIN. But a mule is still a mule, no matter what you call it, and that's what we've got here. When we discussed Youth Works in the bill the other day, I commented that there were 26 stages of regulations, from A to Z. In this bill, we have to go beyond that, because there are not enough letters in the alphabet. So they had to add some extra categories.

In our community, there are an increasing number of people at the food banks. In our community, there is an increase in children living in poverty. One-third of those on social welfare are children -- 130,000 children live in poverty -- and it's questionable that these changes will make any significant difference in their lives. It does not even give it as a purpose for this change they speak about. Although we appreciate some of the acts in B.C. Benefits that will make significant changes, this one will make no significant change. In fact, it will be status quo, and it may be less than that, depending on how it is carried out and how it is functioning.

We thought there was a great deal of hope in the Child, Family and Community Service Act, but so far there are no positive results. We thought there would be good results from the Gove report, but little has come about as a result of that. So what we're concerned about is not that we talk or say a lot. What will count is what we do. That is the important part of what we should be considering this evening.

The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I will call upon the minister, whose comments will close second reading debate.

Hon. D. Streifel: I thank the members opposite for their comments. Some of them were rather interesting and some of them were somewhat peculiar, taking us back through the debates of three federal elections and the ongoing debates on the federal process of NAFTA. I'm assuming that the hon. member was a federal Liberal in those days and supported it 

[ Page 872 ]

strenuously and aggressively. The mea culpas, hon. member, kind of fall on sour ears at this stage. With that, hon. Speaker, I move second reading.

Second reading of Bill 14 approved on the following division:

YEAS -- 60
Evans	Zirnhelt	Cashore
Boone	Hammell	Streifel
Ramsey	Kwan	Waddell
Calendino	Pullinger	Stevenson
Bowbrick	Goodacre	Giesbrecht
Walsh	Kasper	Orcherton
Hartley	Miller	G. Clark
Dosanjh	MacPhail	Sihota
Brewin	Randall	Sawicki
Lali	Doyle	Gillespie
Robertson	Farnworth	Smallwood
Conroy	McGregor	Janssen
Penner	Thorpe	van Dongen
Whittred	Anderson	Coell
Stephens	Plant	Farrell-Collins
Reid	Gingell	Dalton
J. Wilson	Reitsma	Hansen
C. Clark	Hawkins	Abbott
Jarvis	Chong	Masi
Krueger	Barisoff	Neufeld
NAYS -- 1
	G. Wilson

Bill 14, BC Benefits (Income Assistance) Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

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 10:01 p.m.

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

The committee met at 6:41 p.m.

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

C. Clark: Hon. Chair, before we leave water and fish habitat issues altogether, I want to ask the minister about the federal proposals for the salmon stream enhancement plan -- I guess that's how it's been referred to by the federal Minister of Transport in the media -- and their intention to spend some money on salmon enhancement in the province. I want to find out what the Ministry of Environment's involvement in that program has been.

Hon. P. Ramsey: We know precisely as much as the member does about this proposal: we read it in the media. If there is to be a program, it will obviously be among those items discussed under the MOU. We have no detail.

G. Campbell: I would just like to visit the Fraser Basin Management Board with the minister. I understand that this afternoon he said there would be no funding or resources available for it to extend beyond its February mandate. I must admit that I find that a little concerning -- more than concerning; I think it's not a very smart move. It is the only agency that I know of that brings together the federal government, the provincial government, local governments, aboriginal communities, industrial concerns and environmental communities up and down the Fraser Basin. It has an enormous impact on the province, and at a time when we are struggling with the transition that we're going through, throughout the province in terms of sustainability, it simply doesn't make any sense to me to put this aside. It was not meant to be a terminated program, a five-year program only.

I recognize that the province has always been the resistant partner in this, having been involved in it to begin with. I would just like to hear from the minister the rationale that is involved in deciding to put it aside and say, "Let's try to create something new," when we've just started with the board, which might have some public credibility beyond what governments do -- whether it's provincial, federal or municipal government -- and might be able to hold up a mirror to all of us in what we do and say: "Here's how we could do better. Here's how we could combine our resources better. Here's how we could better integrate our management systems, our environmental initiatives, as well as our economic initiatives." I'd like to hear a little from the minister on why we would not be saying we were going to proceed with that with the federal, provincial and local governments, and with aboriginal communities up and down the basin.

[6:45]

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm not sure there's anything particularly new in the announcement that the mandate of the board as it's currently constituted is coming to an end. The board has recognized this for some time, and has presented to me and to the public its draft basin plan, which it sees as the primary product of its work. The board has asked for public input to that plan and will be finalizing that plan. They hope, before the end of this calendar year, to hand it to both the partners in funding: the Fraser Basin Management Board and the population of the province.

Staff at the board and staff in this government are working on figuring out how we do a transition from the work of the board to follow-up work. There will be follow-up work, and the board chair and I met to discuss some of the initiatives that we feel should be carried on. Their staff and ours will be working on presenting proposals to all the funding partners -- municipal, federal and provincial -- on specific elements of their work that they feel should be carried on.

One of the pieces that I'm particularly interested in is some of the very preliminary work that the board carried out to bring stakeholders together around water management issues in the Nechako River -- a vital piece of work that the 

[ Page 873 ]

board did, and did, I think, very well -- at a time when the funding partners were not getting together. I think that their report card on the state of the Fraser Basin and their basin plan are valuable contributions to the ongoing work of ensuring we have a sustainable environment and economy in that basin.

I would say, though, that the board has recognized that its current work with the basin plan is coming to a point at which the next steps need to be considered. In its current form, we are not committing any funding beyond the end of this fiscal year. They will be bringing forward proposals for the province, the federal government and the municipal governments to consider for next steps.

G. Campbell: Instead of just talking about funding for a moment, maybe we can talk about some principles, because the principles upon which the board was established remain. They do not disappear after five years, and it seems to me that the first thing we should hear from the minister is whether or not he endorses the principles. The principle was to bring together the four levels of government or the four government agencies, once and for all; to bring industry together with economic and environmental interests; and to establish a publicly independent and publicly recognized board -- authority, if you want -- to look at how governments were doing.

I understand that the minister may be nervous about accountability, but accountability means how all governments are working. It was based on the idea that there is one taxpayer out there. They are spending at least hundreds of millions of municipal dollars a year on improving the water quality in the Fraser. Sometimes there are provincial dollars working at odds with that. There are federal dollars, and sometimes we don't know what they're doing or why they're doing it. One of the purposes of the management committee was to bring those groups together, sit them down at a table and say: "We do have some common interests here; let's get rid of the institutional boundaries that we have."

My second question to the minister would be: do you support that approach of erasing some of those boundaries that separate us, which fragment the resources we have in terms of sustaining, improving, maintaining and enhancing the quality of the Fraser River?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes.

G. Campbell: If we agree with that and see how we can bring this group together -- it's fantastic; we bring everybody together and we figure out how we're going to move forward -- then the question is: why would we disband the one agency that's starting to try to do that? The provincial government is not trying to do that. I don't think that's a problem, particularly; you have one jurisdiction. But no particular agency is trying to do it. What will happen, it seems to me, is that you will disband the Fraser Basin Management Board, which includes all of the communities throughout the basin, with representation from the local level of government. It includes representation from all aboriginal communities up and down and throughout the basin; it includes federal departments -- Environment and, I think, Fisheries and Oceans; I'm not sure anymore what it is -- and with us it includes Environment and Forests. Why wouldn't we maintain that, maintain our commitment to it and explain...? If the minister has concerns about what its performance has been like or something like that, then I think we should hear that and we can improve it. But it seems to me that to say now, after five years, that we're going to cut it off.... I will almost guarantee both the minister and the government that in five years we'll try and create another one. We have just started to build this organization. I may not like everything it does; I am sure the minister doesn't; I'm sure the federal government doesn't; but it seems to me we have to find a way that we can maintain this and pull this together so that we do maintain that integrative approach to management.

The minister mentions the Nechako get-together that they had for the first time. The Fraser Basin Management Board brought together people from Kitimat and Vanderhoof. They talked about their mutual concerns. They talked about areas, in fact, where they had agreement that we could move forward on. There was no agency that was doing that. I think it is arguable that there was probably no agency that could do it. The issue for me is: why would we discard this tool that we have just at a time when it is moving forward? I guess that is what I would like the minister to answer: why discard the tool unless you have something that you think will do a better job?

Hon. P. Ramsey: One thing I want to assure the member is that I do value the work that the board has done. I've expressed that both before I became minister in this portfolio and since. I think they have done a good job of pulling together the stakeholders that the member talks about and, I think, achieving some valuable work on behalf of the people of the province.

But I would say to the member that maybe at the time it was struck, it was the only such board that was doing this sort of intergovernmental, interagency work. I don't believe that is the case anymore. There are a variety of processes in place for land use planning, for urban planning. We've got the growth strategies act that's being implemented. There are a wide range of initiatives now in place for seizing some of the issues that the Fraser Basin Management Board has flagged and carrying them on. And that's as true in the Prince George area as it is in the lower mainland.

So I believe that the board itself recognizes that it is time to move on to next steps. That's what the chair has told me, and they are going to be working with us to design what those next steps are. There are a variety of issues that I think need to be addressed in an ongoing way -- in coordinating those levels of government and making sure that, as the member says, the needs of that single taxpayer who supports government are respected.

G. Campbell: The Fraser Basin Management Board carry goes from the source of the Fraser to the mouth of the Fraser. There are no agencies that cover all local governments from the source of the Fraser to the mouth of the Fraser. I'd like him to name them for me tonight so that I can get in touch with them; I am aware of none. I am aware of no agencies that bring together those local governments with aboriginal communities throughout the basin. I'm aware of no agencies that bring together those local governments with aboriginal communities and the provincial government, and I'm aware of none that bring together local governments with the aboriginal communities, the provincial government and the federal government. So I'd like the minister to announce to me, or at least explain to me, the agencies that are bringing all of those groups together all at once, which is what the Fraser Basin Management Board does.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I just wanted to confirm, with one of our government's representatives on the board, my understanding of the issues that I discussed with the chair and make sure I understood where the board was seeing this transition 

[ Page 874 ]

coming. I think the board itself feels that it has done a lot of the spadework that formed some of the links that were not there before. It also fielded a large number of issues. Now it's time for the agencies that actually have authority to enact legislation, draft regulations, administer various statutes, fund various activities and seize more directly some of the issues that it has been working on. It is working, as I say, at the board level with me and other partners to figure out what those next steps are, and staff are bringing forward options for our consideration. We don't want the work of the board to be dropped. We recognize that it has an ongoing role and that it has produced, I think, some good work that deserves ongoing activity, not the least of which is, of course, its main product: the Fraser River Action Plan, which it will be turning over to its partners for the work of implementation.

G. Campbell: Again, can you name the agencies that exist today, other than the Fraser Basin Management Board, which cover all the groups I mentioned and bring together all those groups? There are none, I would suggest. Therefore what we are doing is getting rid of the one organization that does do that.

I'd like to point out also that this is a draft work book. It is not a plan; it is the beginnings of a plan. It seems to me that one of the goals and objectives that the board has.... I met with the chair of the board and the executive director just last week, hon. Chair, and I can guarantee to you that they weren't saying to me: "Boy, the best thing that could happen to us is we'll close down funding for the Fraser Basin Management Board." They, in fact, were encouraging the continuation of long-term funding for the Fraser Basin Management Board so that it could carry out the principles, the goals and the objectives that were set for it when it started.

One of those principles was to make sure they audited government action. As soon as you remove the authority which.... And it takes some time to establish authority; I'm sure the minister recognizes that. The minister has now been a Minister of Education, a Minister of Health and a Minister of Environment. Just as he gets to be recognized as an authority in one portfolio, he's pushed into another one and has to start all over again. That's exactly how the Fraser Basin Management Board is going to feel, and it seems to me that one of the things we have to do is build on their successes.

Again, I'm not saying that everything they've done is perfect, but it certainly was a start. It certainly has been an initiative that has brought people together, and it seems to me what we're doing is getting rid of the initiative. We're getting rid of the opportunity to have an independent authority look at the actions of the provincial government, the federal government, local governments, industry and the environmental community, and come together as a communication link for all those groups for the public at large, basically as an independent auditor of the health of the Fraser Basin, which is a critical issue for all of us to face.

I have yet to hear a government stand up and say: "Gee, we're really blowing it in the Fraser River." Everyone announces how well they're doing; of course they're going to do that. You have to have an independent agency, which the public has some confidence in, that asks: "How well are they really doing?" We're about to gut that by removing the funding from the Fraser Basin Management Board.

Again, to the minister, the question is: what other organizations do you know that bring all those groups together for the entire Fraser Basin? I know of none, and I take from your last answer that you know of none. The second thing I would ask the minister is: why would we destroy a tool that we can build up and use that will work for all the people of British Columbia at a time when it's just beginning to work? I think the work plan is a good example of that -- just when they're starting to establish the kinds of goals, objectives and results that we're striving for as a provincial community.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Maybe a couple more go-rounds on this. I'm not sure we're getting closer together.

First, let's look at what the board is. It has brought people together. The board in and of itself has no authority to do much of anything for the Fraser Basin, and it recognizes that it has that major limitation. I think that while it feels that it has done a substantial job of bringing folks together and identifying the issues of concern to all the partners that have been involved in it, they feel that in its present form, it needs to move on. This is not me speaking alone; this is my advice from both the chair of the board and staff that have sat on the board. It would be lovely if the role continued, and many of the functions of the board are what it is going to be recommending to us and the other funding partners, on how we continue doing them, including the issue of auditing that the member raised. So it is planning to bring forward to its funding partners its recommendations on transition, and we intend to be examining them. Rather than lighting hair on fire and running down the street saying the world is ending, I think we ought to recognize that the board itself feels that it's time for a transition from what it is to the next steps.

[7:00]

The basin plan, which is in draft form.... I asked the chair of the board what her time line was for completing that, when I met with her last week, and I said: "Is it going to be next February, next March?" She said: "We hope to get it to you by the end of this calendar year." They see that this is a piece of work, a major product, that they're producing, which they expect to have out the door in that time frame.

They've also instructed their staff to look aggressively at the transition to the next steps. They don't see the present form and present structures as the long-term way in which these functions are carried out, and they're going to be recommending to us and the other partners the next steps. Funding for the board, in its present form, ends with this fiscal year. The ongoing work of doing right by the Fraser Basin is a task, I think, for all of us who value that very important part of our province, for a long, long time.

G. Campbell: I want to be sure that I understand what the minister is telling us. What I'm hearing the minister say tonight is that the chair of the Fraser Basin Management Board has come to you and said: "It's time for the province to stop funding the board; it's time for us to wrap it up."

Hon. P. Ramsey: When I met with the chair of the Fraser Basin Management Board -- and I'd met with other members; the former chair sits in our caucus, as you know -- the expectation of both of them was that the work of the board, in its present form, ended with this fiscal year and that the board would be bringing forward to us and other funding partners suggestions for how the work that the board has begun is carried on.

G. Campbell: That's exactly the opposite of what I was told by the chair of the Fraser Basin Management Board, so I suggest that we get in touch with her and get her to put it in writing so we can both read it at the same time.

[ Page 875 ]

I have been told by the chair of the Fraser Basin Management Board that they would like to carry on. I have been told by local governments that they would like to carry on -- they're even looking at additional funding for it. So I find the minister's characterization of it interesting. Maybe the government doesn't want to carry on, or maybe his staff don't want to carry it on, but I think the people who are involved with the Fraser Basin Management Board certainly do want to carry it on.

I'd just like to touch base quickly on a couple of the examples the minister used as to how we progressed. The Fraser Basin Management Board was never supposed to be an executive body; no one ever thought it was going to be an executive body. However, when we look at something like the growth strategies act, for example -- and this may be a way that we could fix it up -- that act starts to deal with some of the issues the Fraser Basin Management Board has raised. It certainly doesn't complete that. We as British Columbians are not close to completing the goals and objectives that were set by the board when it sat down to begin with.

But there is no question that a funding limit was put on the Fraser Basin Management Board when it was established. Initially, I believe, it was called the Fraser Basin Management Program Startup Committee, or SUC-up. We were all glad when SUC-up stopped and we got on with the Fraser Basin Management Board. But, having said that, there was no question that governments weren't going to commit for beyond five years in terms of funding. There was also no question that the need was going to go well beyond five years. So the issue was: can we see if we can make it work in the short term, and as we make it work, how do we reinforce that as we go through?

I agree with the minister that it doesn't sound like we're getting particularly close here. I think it is a shame that we are losing a vehicle for all of us that is one of the few non-partisan vehicles we have. It's non-partisan not just in political terms, but also in terms of levels of government, of the so-called environmental community versus the so-called economic interests of the basin and of big communities versus small communities. We are losing that. It seems to me that rather than the provincial government saying, "We'll put that on the back burner and see if we can sort of fritter away a few bucks," what we should be saying is: "How do we take the lead on it?" How does the Ministry of Environment, and the minister himself, take the lead to make sure that it is sustained as an organization and in terms of its principles, and that the auditing process, the independent authority that was established, is maintained throughout the decade ahead, at least, so that British Columbians can see how we are progressing?

I want to reiterate that this is about how we all are progressing -- not how one level of government or another is doing, not how the provincial government is doing, but how we are all doing in maintaining this incredibly valuable resource. That's what the board was put together to do. I believe they've started to do this, but I would say that this is just the beginning of that. I would certainly hope that the minister would take the leadership in ensuring that this carries on and continues, so we could include all levels of government, all communities and all interests in maintaining the quality of the Fraser Basin.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I think we've thrashed the issue rather thoroughly, hon. member. The only thing I would add is that the Ministry of Environment and our members on the board have been taking the lead in identifying how we carry on the next steps. The co-chairs of the transition committee are Mr. O'Riordan from my ministry and Mr. Sanders from Prince George. I think you know both people.

G. Campbell: Pardon me, hon. Chair, but one last question. Maybe the minister could tell us, for our edification, about the transition plans in place, and the principles and policies the ministry is taking forth to the Fraser Basin Management Board.

Hon. P. Ramsey: The principles that the transition team is working on aren't greatly different from those of the board: having an honest broker; making sure we've got coordination; making sure we have lack of duplication; making sure we have independent auditing; making sure we have accountability. They're looking at what mechanisms we use to carry on those principles into the future.

G. Campbell: Will it be a multi-jurisdictional organization? Are you thinking of federal, provincial, local governments, etc.? Or is that still up in the air?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Those are the things that the transition committee is looking at and will be recommending to this government and the other funding partners.

G. Campbell: Will the minister be informing the local level of government through the UBCM, etc., perhaps in September or October, how that may go through so that they can see how they can continue to plug in and make this work? Will the minister inform the members of the House how he intends to move forward and maintain that auditing, particularly auditing in the accountability processes that the people were endeavouring to establish through the Fraser Basin Management Board?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The board is planning a presentation workshop at the UBCM meeting in Penticton in September to inform them and get their input on how we do the transition measures.... You had another question there, but I forgot it.

G. Campbell: Would you endeavour to make sure that the members of the assembly are made aware of what you're intending to do and how you're intending to do it, so that we can keep abreast of this vital issue?

Hon. P. Ramsey: If the Leader of the Opposition wishes to tell me how he wants me to work with his caucus, I'd be pleased to do so, whether it's through the critic or elsewise.

C. Clark: On the same subject, and I just have one question and one comment to make about it. It seems as though the ministry has a sort of habit of saying: "This is going to be a priority for us, and we're going to change the way we go about doing it. We're in a period of transition, but we don't have any more money for it; in fact, we have less." That's what the ministry is doing with water licensing in terms of monitoring B.C. Hydro, and I'm sure we'll come across a few other issues tonight where that's happening. I wonder if there is any money set aside at all to carry on what the minister calls transitional work, or if there's any money set aside at all to carry on any initiatives that might be identified by this transition committee.

Hon. P. Ramsey: We have money in this year's budget, which I've already spoken to, for the work of the Fraser Basin Management Board. We're not debating '97-98 estimates.

[ Page 876 ]

G. Campbell: They come soon.

C. Clark: They are going to come soon, and we'll bring it up then. The minister can, quite correctly, avoid answering the question and be within the rules of avoiding the question. But it would certainly give some comfort to the communities out there -- to the local governments, to the aboriginal peoples, to all the people that depend on the Fraser Basin Management Board to do this -- if they knew that there were more than just vague promises in terms of carrying on the work.

We can talk about the work. This is something that the previous Minister of Environment was great at doing: talking about all the work they were going to do, talking about all the initiatives they were undertaking, and then not actually having anything come of it at the end. There were lots of announcements, there were lots of press releases, there were lots of hits in the media, but there was never any.... There was frequently a lack of actual activity on the ground, and I assume that's because there wasn't any money identified. Are the minister's comments about the new initiatives that might come out of this in the same vein as what the previous minister used to like to pursue in terms of promises?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm sure we can debate at length some of the initiatives of the previous minister and the way they're being carried out. As for the Fraser Basin Management Board and transition, as it brings forward options for our consideration, included in those, of course, will be options for funding.

J. van Dongen: I would just like to ask the minister a few questions about foreshore leases, through the Lands section of his ministry -- I assume it's the Lands section. The first question -- and I'm mainly coming from the perspective of aquaculture, because I run into that in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.... I'm wondering, first of all: is the Ministry of Environment the lead agency in terms of an application for a foreshore lease? I know that there are a number of agencies that get involved in the approval of such an application. But is the Ministry of Environment the lead agency?

Hon. P. Ramsey: All leases are granted and administered through this ministry. We are the lead agency.

J. van Dongen: Just to confirm this, I understand that there are a number of referrals made when an application comes in. Could the minister just summarize all of the players that have to get involved?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'd like just to say it depends on the application, but that wouldn't quite be fair. Most commonly, the players are the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, this Ministry of Environment, perhaps the federal Department of Environment, the Ministry of Forests and, depending on where it's located, regional districts, municipal governments and first nations governments. Very often, there's a public consultation initiated by a local ad. I may be missing a few. Oh -- Ag, Fish and Food, very often. So there is really a wide range.

J. van Dongen: Is there any sense of the amount of time it takes to process an application? Are there any targets for that in the ministry?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Depending on the nature of the application and the complexity of issues it's most commonly from six to 18 months -- half a year to a year and a half. Of course, on the issue of fish farms and leases, as you know, there's a moratorium on the approval of those applications.

J. van Dongen: Is any attempt made to explain to an applicant all the hoops that his application may have to go through and to give them some assessment at the outset of the likelihood of it making it through the whole system?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The applicants are indeed informed of the process and the complexities of it. Some -- I think the majority -- choose to proceed; some choose not to. We do attempt to keep applicants informed as the process goes along and to keep them advised as to where they are.

[7:15]

J. van Dongen: I guess the brave ones choose to proceed.

The technical aspects of an evaluation, particularly from the point of view of the environmental or biological issues, would be done by the Ministry of Environment, would they not?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Primarily by this ministry, but surely also by Ag, Fish and Food and by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

J. van Dongen: I guess the minister would recognize my concern. I mean, the concern is the amount of time and effort that a person could go through in making an application. I'm just wondering: how many applications, on average, would the ministry get for foreshore leases by fish farms and other users in a year? Could we just get a ballpark sense of that?

Hon. P. Ramsey: It's a substantial number. Ministry officials and one of our regional managers here are trying to quantify it for the entire coast. They issue probably in the area of 600 to 800 applications during a year.

J. van Dongen: Do most of those applicants then follow the process through to the end? If so, I'm interested in getting some sense of how many of those would be ultimately successful.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I've found that we don't have sufficient figures to provide the member with in the chamber tonight. We can surely provide that to him, probably in a couple of days or so. I am advised that a substantial number either are rejected at one point in the process or another.... or at the end of the day, when a licence is offered, they simply find the conditions unacceptable and say no at that point. You know, it is a multistage process. Therefore to say what the total "no" rate is would be cumulative over all those. I don't have that figure for the member.

J. van Dongen: Would it be safe to assume that the ministry does have an official starting point for every application, and that there is a record of every application as it goes through the system and, say, a reason that it discontinues? Do we have data on that?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes, there is a record of every application, its progress, and whether it's abandoned, granted, or whatever. In addition, of course, these leases are reviewed on a regular basis. That is all public information through the Crown land registry. I just asked if it was available on the Internet, and they said: "Not yet, but it will be."

[ Page 877 ]

J. van Dongen: Does the ministry ever survey or question in some manner the applicants about their feelings about the process -- in other words, do some kind of audit or customer survey, if you will?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The ministry does do regular client surveys and determines "customer satisfaction." I haven't done one recently in this particular program. We get lots of feedback on the process -- both praise and blame, of course -- from people who have gone through it. As a result of that, at times we work on modifying the process for particular client groups.

J. van Dongen: About a year ago, I had the opportunity to tour a fish farm operation one day, and on another day a series of shellfish operations. There were comments at that time about staffing levels really being pressed in the ministry. I'm wondering if the minister could comment on whether the senior staff feel that there's sufficient staff to process the applications in a reasonably timely manner.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Staff have given me the answer that staff should give a minister: "We could always use more resources. Go to Treasury Board and get them." That is entirely appropriate. I also inquired further as to whether there's really been any spike in time or anything. There doesn't appear to be. Surely, some of the issues get more complex, particularly, as under Delgamuukw, the law of the land requires increased aboriginal consultation. That does tend to have lengthened the process in some circumstances. But I wouldn't say that staffing is the major issue that senior staff are identifying for me.

J. van Dongen: On the issue of first nations referrals, what is the basis on which decisions are made with respect to, say, a position taken by an aboriginal band in terms of any of these applications? If there is any kind of concern or complaint filed, is that enough to veto an application? What would be a sufficient basis to veto an application?

Hon. P. Ramsey: First, simple opposition to a proposed lease or licence is not sufficient. If a treaty is in place, the terms of that treaty would govern. If a treaty is not in place, we would then look at the definition of aboriginal rights under the constitution and under court rulings. They have to be demonstrated before a lease would be denied on that basis.

J. van Dongen: The minister mentioned a treaty being in place. Would that refer to, say, an interim agreement that's in place that might refer to certain areas of lands? What is the role of interim agreements in these applications?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Interim agreements do not change the law, and it is the law that is looked at in terms of that.

As far as treaties are concerned, on the coast we would be referring largely to the Douglas treaties. There are a number of those in place that affect coastal operations. In the part of the province where I come from, in the north, we would be referring to Treaty 8. The terms of those treaties would have to be looked at when considering the granting of a lease.

J. van Dongen: I can assure the minister that I don't understand all the details of aboriginal law, either. But just to confirm: filing a simple complaint -- a band writing a letter, for example -- is not sufficient to overturn an application. If a band simply writes a letter and says that it has a problem with the application, what is the further test that the ministry would apply to determine the legality or otherwise of that position?

Hon. P. Ramsey: It is not sufficient for a first nation to simply assert that there is an aboriginal right which interferes with the granting of the lease. The ministry works with the first nation to ascertain to its satisfaction that such a right actually exists. It's a back-and-forth process with the first nation. If there is a lack of willingness to cooperate in the information-gathering that we require in order to determine that, we can move ahead and determine it for ourselves without that input. The only thing I would add is that if there is a demonstrated right, we also seek ways of mitigating infringement on that right by changing the terms of the lease.

J. van Dongen: So in the ministry's process of trying to evaluate whether there's a claim there, you're trying to establish some sort of minimum legal trigger point that says there is a claim by the aboriginal band, a right. Could the minister just confirm that?

Hon. P. Ramsey: We seek to ascertain whether the legal requirements -- not for a claim, but a right -- exist under the constitution and under court rulings, which are the current definitions of first nation rights.

J. van Dongen: So in terms of these 600 or 800 applications, say, in a year for some kind of foreshore lease, are there very often competing applications for the same location or the same area by different parties?

Hon. P. Ramsey: That situation does occur, though not often. In such circumstances, the ministry may choose to essentially have a competition for the lease, or it may to choose to figure out how it can move one applicant to another location.

[7:30]

J. van Dongen: Is there a great deal of variation in the lengths of the leases that are provided? Or is that fairly standard?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The typical foreshore lease is for a 30-year term. Licences are typically ten years, though there's some variation depending on the purpose. Leases are reviewed every five years. Each of them has a detailed management plan, and the conditions of granting the lease and performance are monitored as the lease is reviewed.

J. van Dongen: I just want to check with the minister about the terms "licence" and "lease." Are they two different terms? If so, what is the difference?

Hon. P. Ramsey: A lease confers an interest in land; a licence simply allows activity on that surface.

J. van Dongen: Just to check with the minister, first of all, is the moratorium on fish farms a moratorium on all finfish operations? Also, does it include shellfish-type operations?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The moratorium captures new applications for all finfish operations. It doesn't preclude the review and renewal of existing leases, and it doesn't capture any of the shellfish operations.

[ Page 878 ]

J. van Dongen: When an existing lease for a fish farm comes up for renewal, particularly at this point in time, what is the process for renewal? Do they have to go through the same comprehensive environmental review, and is there a possibility of some new conditions on those leases?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The ministry has struck with other agencies an interagency task force that deals specifically with renewals for fish farm leases. It's an expedited process; it's not like starting from square one with a new application. It does allow the agencies involved to make modifications or to attach conditions to existing leases, including a condition that the terms of lease are subject to the results of the environmental assessment.

J. van Dongen: So in terms of any of the existing leases or licences, the current holder would have, in effect, an opportunity of first refusal to renew that lease, subject to them meeting new environmental standards, if they're required.

Hon. P. Ramsey: That is correct.

J. van Dongen: On the 600 or 800 applications, could the minister give us some sense of the types of uses those applications were for? Are they mainly for fish farms and shellfish, or are they for a lot of other uses besides?

Hon. P. Ramsey: My head is full of enough information on different sorts of leases. I can't believe the variety: everything from log handling to marinas to rights-of-way to shellfish to private moorages to public moorages to B.C. Ferries operations -- the list goes on. We don't have a breakdown by numbers of each of them, hon. member, but there's no one "standard" sort of application.

J. van Dongen: In terms of applications for, say, a dock for a lodge, we do have a specific one that's come to our attention -- I'll be upfront with the minister about that. Are there any moratoriums right now on foreshore leases other than for finfish?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I don't think there's another moratorium in the sense of the moratorium on fish farm licences. There's a variety of ways we're seeking to modify some of the processes, including working with shellfish operators to be more proactive in offering licences and finding a way to expedite that particular part of the industry. There are, of course, substantial reserves of foreshore where leases are simply not going to be granted. But there isn't another moratorium in effect like the moratorium on salmon farm leases.

J. van Dongen: I know that the shellfish industry poses some pretty good opportunities for growth, but they've had obstacles in getting applications through the system. I think the other obstacle was water quality in areas like Baynes Sound. I wonder if the minister could just comment, first of all, on the water quality issues that they're facing in the various areas they're operating in. Has there been some progress made in the last year on some of those water quality issues?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I think the member may know more than I about the work on Baynes Sound, at least as far as bringing the stakeholders together is concerned -- the farmers, the regional district and the ministries involved. To try to seek solutions that deal with water quality issues is an ongoing effort. We're not at the end of it, by any means.

J. van Dongen: On the issue of the foreshore leases that the shellfish farmers need to work with, how is the ministry dealing with issues of the upland property owners? I know that was a problem that involves a fair bit of negotiation or mediation -- whatever. Is there progress being made on those issues, particularly in the main areas of shellfish farming?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'll try to put it in a nutshell, or an oyster shell. Foreshore owners do have riparian rights that need to be respected as we're granting foreshore leases, and the lessor must work out arrangements with those owners that respect those rights. We're trying to do some mediation and find some solutions in cases where solutions seem hard to find. But to pretend that is an easy issue to resolve.... I simply don't think it is. There are real rights that really need to be respected as we go on and grant leases.

J. van Dongen: So in terms of how a deal is effected, it's actually up to the applicant to try to make a deal with the upland property owner, and the ministry gets involved from a mediation perspective.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm not sure I have a great deal to add to the description I already gave. Yes, the lessee had better figure it out. We do become involved at times, but more generally.... I respect the member's interest in this line of questioning. I'm not sure that this sort of back-and-forth is really a very profitable use of this period. I would just offer the member a chance to be briefed by staff on the procedures by which leases are granted. I'm not sure I'm always conveying the exact information that the member requires, nor am I sure that the member is always getting the fullest detail of the information he is seeking. So we can pursue this line of questioning, but I would also suggest to the member that perhaps a thorough briefing by staff on how the ministry regulates and issues leases might provide him with the information in a more unfiltered format.

J. van Dongen: The minister beat me to the punch, because I was just about finished that line of questioning anyway. I'm sure it's a bit of a learning process for the minister too, and I commend him on how much he has learned about his ministry in the last month or so.

I just have one other quick area of questioning on a particular application. It's the Koeye River Lodge application, which I'm sure the minister and his staff are quite familiar with. It's a pretty comprehensive application. From reviewing the material, it certainly seems to me that these were responsible people looking to develop a business. They have made considerable investment in a lodge, which was to provide a recreational facility not only for British Columbians but also for people from outside the country and the province.

When the minister issued a letter of rejection -- I guess it was on July 5 -- it was sort of their last stand in terms of an application. In looking at it -- and I don't admit to having read every document in detail -- it seems to me that they have gone through a very comprehensive process, including submissions of their application to a whole list of third parties, including people like the Coast Guard, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and a number of others that I won't go into. Yet the application was rejected, and it really surprises me. I wonder if the minister could explain, in a little more detail than what's in the letter, what's behind the rejection.

[7:45]

Hon. P. Ramsey: By the time a decision on a licence reaches the minister's office, chances are that it is a matter of some dispute. This is clearly one of those cases.

[ Page 879 ]

It has a fairly long history. I thought, as I tried to work through it, that when the clock really started ticking was in early February of this year, when Koeye River Lodge reapplied for a foreshore dock licence for a much larger structure than in some of the preliminary discussions. That had to be re-referred to all agencies involved for approval, a process that usually takes 60 to 90 days. Well, 90 days after February, we know where we were. An election and cabinet reassignments intervened. So I found this on my desk shortly after I assumed office, having a fairly long history with clearly lots of controversy around it: first nations concerns, concerns about potential other uses of the area, some concerns about process -- a whole lot.

What really tipped the scale and led me to the decision to deny the licence was the clear advice from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans that it would not be well advised to license a dock and thus permit further pressure on the fisheries resource in that area. I received that advice very directly from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. At a time when I think all members of this chamber, and all British Columbians, are concerned about the pressure on this resource, I felt that that was advice that could not be ignored. Therefore I chose to deny the lease for the lodge owners.

J. van Dongen: Was the advice that was given by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans specific to this application? There is a reference to June 21. Was it in writing?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes, it was specific to this application; yes, it was in writing.

J. van Dongen: Isn't it true that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans had general concerns even prior to this application about the issuance of licences for lodges or for this type of recreational activity?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has said that a better regime for licensing lodge operations needs to be put in place. I think it's one of the matters that we will discuss with our federal counterparts, now that we have a memorandum of understanding to guide those discussions.

J. van Dongen: Isn't it true that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has other options for managing catch and fish stocks? Isn't that a fact? Is this a new way they're trying to open up in order to control fish stocks?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Look, one of the reasons why we've reached -- finally, I hope -- a memorandum of understanding with the federal government to start opening up broad discussions on fisheries is precisely because of the concern over the years that the federal government is going this way and the provincial government is going that way. We need to be working together to preserve fish stocks. When I get from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, specific to this application, a letter that says, "We think it would be very ill-advised, minister, if you grant this licence, because the fish stocks in this area are fully utilized," I think it's important that I take that advice very seriously.

J. van Dongen: But I think that on previous occasions when that kind of advice or representation was given by DFO to the Ministry of Environment, it was rejected. Could the minister confirm if that's true or not? That may have been by a previous minister, but it's my understanding that on previous occasions that advice was rejected.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Senior staff can't recall any such incidents. That doesn't mean that among the 800 or so per year, there might not have been one or two. But we can't recall any.

J. van Dongen: So could the minister just confirm with his staff that there was no letter expressing a general concern about foreshore leases, particularly with respect to lodges, from DFO to the ministry in the last year or so?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Staff advises that there was a letter to a previous minister, probably in January of this year, expressing a general concern about the proliferation of sport lodges and urging the government to impose a moratorium. We responded by saying: "We're not up for the moratorium, but we'll examine each issue on its merits, and we'll surely ask your advice on them." That happened in this case; we got their advice.

J. van Dongen: So the rejection of this particular application does not necessarily mean there's a moratorium on other similar applications.

Hon. P. Ramsey: That is accurate. There is no moratorium on dealing with these applications. I do accept, though, the point of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans that it is time to get on with a more comprehensive plan between our levels of government for managing fish stocks, and that includes management of the growth of the sport fishing industry.

J. van Dongen: There's one other aspect of this application that I found somewhat bothersome. I just want to ask the minister about that, hon. Chair -- the involvement of the local Indian band, the Heiltsuk Indian band. I gather that they had made representation to both the Ministry of Environment and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. As I understand it, there was a letter sometime in early February -- somewhere around there -- from the previous minister to the band, giving some degree of assurance that their interests would be looked after. I'm paraphrasing, because I have not read the letter, but I understand that such a letter was sent to the applicants.

Hon. P. Ramsey: As I said earlier in a more general discussion of how the ministry handles these leases, we do take respect for an aboriginal right seriously and attempt to evaluate it. I'm not quite sure what letter the member's referring to, but I assume this letter did no more than that: it said that we would assess and respect rights where they're determined. There was a fair bit of assessment done. At the end of the day, I don't believe that there was a "right" that would have been infringed. There was a fair bit of back-and-forth on the issue among a variety of consultants both to the band and to the ministry. At the end of the day, that was not a factor in my decision.

J. van Dongen: I'm not even sure if I have the letter here. But I'd like to ask the minister if he would ask his staff to check for the existence of such a letter and if I could maybe have a look at it sometime after this session, because I'd just like to check it out myself. I think it was in early February. In the interests of completely understanding this issue, I'd like to do that. If I could have the minister's assurance on that, I'd appreciate it.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes. Subject to the usual restrictions on protection of privacy, I'd be glad to provide that correspon-

[ Page 880 ]

dence to the member. February, you think -- we'll see what we can find. In any case, correspondence between this ministry and the Heiltsuk band council....

On the other issues, let me again offer the services of staff if the member really wants to review the whole operational manual for how we handle foreshore leases in this province.

J. van Dongen: I appreciate the minister's offer. I just have a few more questions; I won't prolong this. On the letter that I talked about, it may have been a letter that went to a member of the council or something like that. The band had also approached DFO, as I understand it, and the band had apparently made public statements that they were going to stop this dock because they were going to build a lodge themselves. That was part of the facts of the case as I understand it. I would be really concerned if a party like that would be able to do something through the back door that they couldn't do through the front door, if you will, because it's my understanding that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans had been involved in the process of reviewing that dock and that they had actually given approval for the installation of that dock. I'm wondering if the minister could check with his staff and confirm whether or not that's true and the documents that they have.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I have heard the same allegations. I have no written material that I ever reviewed in this process that said that the Heiltsuk were seeking to build a structure or lodge on that piece of private property that's now owned by Koeye River Lodge. The issue raised by the Heiltsuk, as I understand it, was that the location of the dock was unique and prime shellfish area, and that there was a traditional use that they wished to have continued. That was assessed by a number of agencies. At the end of the day, I didn't feel that the case had been proved, nor did my staff, and that was not the issue in the determination of whether the lease would be granted.

There's one other issue the member raised. Do you remember what it was, hon. member? I think we may have exhausted this talk.

J. van Dongen: I just have one other comment on this case. I will take up the minister's offer to review the whole thing with his staff, because I think it's important to make sure we're both working from the same set of facts.

[8:00]

There's a feeling by the applicants.... Again, at one point or other I've talked to all three of the principals involved in this application, and they sound credible to me. There's some feeling of bad faith on the part of the ministry because of what appear to have been assurances given to the Heiltsuk band and yet they're continuing to meet with them and to suggest that there was still a possibility of an approval. I just want to put that on the record as a concern, because I think it's one of the things that we need to canvass in reviewing this whole application.

I just have one other question, and this is on behalf of one of my colleagues who is interested in receiving a list of freshwater fish that are considered vulnerable in British Columbia. Is that kind of list available? If so, I'd appreciate it if the minister could provide it.

Hon. P. Ramsey: As for the list of threatened species, it's easily available. We recently did a state-of-the-environment report which tried to quantify the extent to which both aquatic and land wildlife are threatened. It's very easy to provide that. There are eight species that are under some threat.

Before we leave this issue of Koeye River Lodge, I want to put on the record that I believe the ministry has dealt fairly with this application and has not deviated from good public process on it. I recognize that the owners feel differently. My assessment, as minister, is that all facts were ascertained and brought both to senior staff and eventually to my office for decision. As I've said to the member, at the end of the day, it is a matter of judgment. It gave me no great joy to deny the lease, but I felt it was the appropriate thing to do.

J. Wilson: I sit back and observe federal Fisheries and the way they operate. They've basically removed themselves from any type of improvement or production of fish. They've shut down hatcheries all over. For example, we have a hatchery in Horsefly that has a capacity of five million fry. It's basically sitting idle today; it's not producing anything. I find it somewhat disturbing that this is the approach they take. I'm wondering if the minister has made any calculations as to how many lodges that hatchery alone would supply with fish, and the tax revenue that could be created from those lodges and factored back to the actual cost of operating one hatchery.

Hon. P. Ramsey: No, I don't think the ministry has any such calculations. I must say that probably all members in the chamber and the majority of British Columbians have the same sort of view of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans stewardship of the salmon resource in this province. They've managed to run the cod fisheries onto the reef on the east coast, and they seem determined to do the same thing for the salmon resource on the west coast. That's why I think that the opportunity we now have, with the understanding we've signed with the federal government to get on and work together to make sure we have a sustainable resource and a sustainable fishery, is so important. Am I pleased with the way that they've handled it to date? No. I think we could do a heck of a lot better.

R. Neufeld: Just a note -- the member for Abbotsford asked some questions about a fishing lodge licence that was turned down. The minister stood up and said: "I turned it down on recommendations from federal Fisheries and Oceans." He just stood up now and told us how terrible they were, so I don't know if we use recommendations from them whenever it fills the bill, and the rest of the time, we rail against them. It's an interesting play, all within half an hour. I'm not saying that I know anything about the application for the lodge, either. I'm just noting that in the record.

The Environmental Appeal Board. I notice that the furthest-north member that sits on that board is a person from Prince George. I was wondering if -- and apparently these are two-year terms; I don't know when they expire -- when they do expire, we could maybe encourage someone or appoint someone from north of Prince George, from the centre of British Columbia, to sit on the Environmental Appeal Board. Would that be possible?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I can't let that stuff on DFO go by, hon. member. I just need to tell you that when I find the DFO every now and again on the same side as this minister and this government on preserving the salmon resource, I do tend to listen very hard to what they have to say. Whether that's stuff that embarrasses this government -- and it has, for instance, around concerns on the Island Highway and some siltation in some of the salmon streams, as a result of the Island Highway 

[ Page 881 ]

construction -- or whether it's their advice on a particular dock application, I take that seriously. My comments to the member for Cariboo North, though, I think do reflect the general sense of this chamber and this province as to how they have, in general, managed allocation of the fishery on the west coast.

As for the Environmental Appeal Board, I'd be pleased to receive any nominations from the Peace River country that the member might wish to forward to my office. I don't remember precisely where we are in the reappointment process, but I think it is important that we have on that board people with a wide range of knowledge, both of environmental issues and licensing and surely of different areas of the province.

R. Neufeld: I appreciate that, and I'll see what I can find, because I do notice on some of the appeals.... I know I got involved in some of them with Treaty 8 and the use of herbicides and those kinds of things. They were major appeals through the appeal board. So I would hope that we can find someone from Fort St. John or Dawson Creek or Fort Nelson -- somewhere in that area -- that would sit on that board. I'll do what I can.

Just to touch briefly on a few areas in my constituency.... And I'm not interested in taking a lot of time. Parks -- they're the ones that have reduced service or are closed first. I just wonder if there is anything in the mill. I haven't heard anything, but could the minister confirm for me that we're going to maintain what we have today -- or hopefully, that maybe some added services are going to come, or some enlargements of some of the parks?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I've just confirmed with senior staff that we are asking Parks and other areas of the ministry to achieve some efficiencies, but there's no staffing reduction that we're aware of planned for the northeast area. But I must say that one of the major challenges I face as a new minister here is dealing with adding 50 percent to the land base for parks. The expectation is that by the turn of this century we will have doubled the land base for parks that we had a decade earlier. So this is a major challenge for the parks branch of the ministry, for me and for government -- to work on how we ensure that the values we are preserving are truly preserved and that the public has access to the resources that we have preserved for them and for their children.

R. Neufeld: You've partly answered my second question. There is an LRMP process going on in the northeast -- successful, I might say -- that's nearing completion of one stage. I've often wondered -- in fact, I've asked ministers before -- what kind of money is budgeted to specifically look after some of these areas. Some of the areas we're talking about in my constituency have been referred to as the Serengeti of the North. We're not talking about just setting aside Spatsizi or something and leaving it there; we're talking about areas that are used presently for big-game hunting and all kinds of things that go on around tourism, like fishing and those kinds of things. I wonder if the ministry is anticipating any increased cost in the constituency of Peace River North in relation to some of the set-asides and the large areas that I think, in the end, will be set aside.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I am surely anticipating increased demands on staff. Quite frankly, I don't have the solutions to it as we talk. I think this is a major challenge for this ministry. I'm going to be working with other ministries and agencies to see if we can find some solutions.

There has been no big increase -- no increase, period -- in parks department staffing levels, even though we have added 50 percent of the land base that we ask Parks to manage on our behalf. They're stretched -- no doubt about it. I wish I could simply go and ask Treasury Board for a few more buckets of money. I don't think that's on. I'm trying to figure out some strategies for dealing with this issue, because as we move towards doubling the land base in parks by the turn of the century, the challenge for Parks will obviously increase even more.

The member's right. I think we have a marvellous opportunity there in the northwest, if the LRMPs do work out successfully, to act on some of their advice on what areas we should either preserve or manage specially for a very significant and very important part of our province.

R. Neufeld: They are huge areas, and you're going to have difficulty manning them. In fact, conservation officers are experiencing all kinds of difficulties, as we speak, trying to get their job done, because of the size of the land. The Muskwa-Kechika area that was set aside for study is the size of Nova Scotia, and that's a third of my constituency. When we start talking about areas that huge, we're not talking about just walking around and having a look. These are areas that obviously are going to take lots of money.

I just hope, minister, that when we finish setting aside the other 3 percent that the government is anticipating setting aside, there is some money there to actually manage and look after those areas in a proper fashion. There are all kinds of other things that enter the picture: the work that has to go on in the areas that it will be allowed to continue in -- the oil and gas industry and the forest industry -- albeit under more stringent rules.

I had a commitment from the previous minister that he would not interfere with the LRMP process in the northeast, specifically the area that I represent, for different reasons. I won't go into that. I would like a commitment from this minister that we're going to let the process finish as it was started and was intended to finish, and that when they've finished doing what they're doing now, when they go to the public to discuss the issues and when they do the socioeconomic study.... These things are going to take some time but should be allowed to take place, so that we have a process that is, hopefully, driven from the bottom up. Could I just get that commitment from the minister?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Boy, I'm tempted to wrap this answer in all sorts of fancy rhetoric, but I don't think I'm going to.

R. Neufeld: I can, too, but....

Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes.

I think the LRMP process is a very good one, and I intend to honour that process and work with the results of it. As you know, we have acted on the results of at least a couple already -- in Kamloops and Kispiox -- and we intend to continue in that vein. I think it has been a very valuable process. Clearly, the consensus that seems to be near in the northeast reflects that I think we've got it right for land use planning through LRMPs.

On the larger issue of parks management, I share the member's concern. What we are able to do, in part because of some of the resources for inventory -- actually, through Forest Renewal B.C. -- is at least to get some inventory on what is in those areas, because we're looking at sensitive management 

[ Page 882 ]

or protection. We need that to implement the code in those areas. So we have been able to get some of the baseline data that we need to do effective parks management. Our challenge is going to be to find the resources to get staff to do the ongoing management based on the data that we have.

R. Neufeld: I do have some questions surrounding FRBC and access to Ministry of Environment funds for watershed inventory in the northeast. You brought it up, so I'll carry on with it. I'll maybe just preface this a little bit with the fact that I've had difficulty with both the Forests ministry and the Ministry of Environment putting together proposals to spend Forest Renewal funds in the northeast. It has been difficult. Slowly, it's coming around. I know how the process goes; it's proponent-driven. But there's also, from Forestry and the Ministry of Environment: "No staff. We can't do it."

I was amazed a year ago when I asked for the information, the inventory that Ministry of Environment had done on watersheds and fish habitat in the northeast. It was on about six pieces of paper, both sides. For most major rivers it didn't even state the fish that were unknown. So it was disturbing for me to find out that in that area we would have -- the whole area is used...not the whole area but a good part of it, for whatever reasons: oil and gas, timber, agriculture, forestry and those kinds of things -- that small an inventory, especially when I look at the rest of the province and I see the piles of it.

That's why I've been after the Minister of Environment to access some of these funds. Obviously, the government wants to access them for budgetary purposes. I'd like to see those dollars spent in the northeast -- at least the money that's raised there -- on some of these issues. Maybe the minister could tell me how many dollars they have requested from FRBC for this year or maybe longer -- I would imagine some of them are over a period of time -- for that kind of work, in watershed inventory and fish habitat and those kinds of things.

[8:15]

Hon. P. Ramsey: We canvassed various budgets within FRBC and contracts the Ministry of Environment administers on behalf of FRBC at some length earlier, so you might wish to refer to the Blues for general staffing issues, approval issues, and the like.

I'm not sure I have the information the member requires. The total budget this year for operational inventories will be.... The target is around $23 million for operational inventories. As for inventory in Omineca-Peace, which includes your area of the province and mine, hon. member, we had around 76 inventory projects, for a value of around $11.7 million. We don't have the breakdown with us tonight of how much of that is in the Peace and how much is in the Omineca, but we can surely provide that for you.

The only thing I would say is that this is going to be an ongoing process. I think it's going to take us a number of years before we have adequate inventories. Earlier, the critic for the official opposition and I discussed just how long it's going to take to do necessary assessment and restoration of watersheds that have been affected by logging practices in the past. I think we agree that it's going to take five or ten years before we even get good assessment and mitigation of some of the past practices, and then of the harm that has been done. Similarly, it's going to take a while with inventory. As we ramp up to full spending within FRBC, the principles of regional fairness are respected, and we'll be moving as fast as we can to make sure that six pages turns into 600.

R. Neufeld: I'll leave the amount. But could the minister get for me the amount that is going to be spent in Peace River North, in my constituency, through access to FRBC funds? I just note that Prince George-Omineca, which is more than half the province, contributes about 30 percent or more of the FRBC funds. I'm not saying we don't want the money, but $11.7 million is pretty slim compared to what's raised in FRBC.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I was only referring to one envelope of this operational inventory -- contracts to the minister by one ministry, the Ministry of the Environment. The total amount expended to date on those projects, provincially, has been $40.5 million. Of that, $11.7 million has been in Omineca-Peace.

R. Neufeld: I thank the minister for the $40 million and the $11 million.... I still that say that half the province, contributing over 30 percent -- in fact, 30 percent or 35 percent -- is pretty significant also. I just want to emphasize that we have to work somehow to access as many dollars as we can from that fund before that Minister of Finance siphons it off to help in other areas of budgetary problems in the province.

I'll briefly go on to a bit more about predator control. I want to ask the minister about the process of.... It's about MacKenzie fencing the dump and electrifying it, and the bear problem. Maybe I'm wrong, and the minister can correct me, but I've heard that the ministry is talking about recommending that other municipalities fence their dumps and electrify them so that we can start sending the bears from the dump into town to get the garbage out of the garbage cans firsthand, right at the house instead of at the dump.

C. Clark: Cut out the middleman.

An Hon. Member: It's fresher there.

R. Neufeld: The member mentions that it's fresher there. It's interesting.

It is an issue, and obviously in Vancouver.... I watched TV here the other night, and I saw a bear at the back door of somebody's house. I guess it's a little more common up north. If we do those things and continue to fence those dumps, I think we're going to find ourselves in some real trouble in some communities with bear attacks. I just wonder if the ministry put out a whole pamphlet on a bear watch. Maybe the minister could tell me if it is in fact true that we're looking at putting electric fences around dumps around the province.

Hon. P. Ramsey: The member and I can share bear stories some time.

I heard the Liberal critic say that we're cutting out the middleman and getting those bears right where the garbage is. Look, it is a serious issue, from the point of view of the danger to residents of the communities, and it's also a very serious issue for the bears. One of the large problems we have -- and, I'd say, one of the real challenges -- in managing bear populations is the extent to which we have bears habituated to living off McDonald's leftovers rather than their natural feed. That is a huge problem in the part of the province that you and I both come from.

Yes, we have been working with municipalities and regional districts to address the "garbage bear" problem, and part of that is making the garbage inaccessible to the bears, 

[ Page 883 ]

through electrification. We also recognize that if you do that, you do have a problem of the critters that have grown up loving their garbage; and at times, relocation won't be sufficient, and we may have to destroy them. But in the long term, we're seeking to diminish bear-human interaction, which doesn't work well for either species.

R. Neufeld: If we continue to require municipalities to fence their dumps and electrify them to keep the bears out, and if we keep shooting them at the rate that I understand they're being disposed of around Mackenzie -- some 50 or 60 bears -- I don't really think that's the right approach, either. You're not going to get the bears to quit coming to that garbage. I mean, ever since mankind started putting garbage out, that's been the problem. I've lived in the north for a long time, and it has been a problem. I think that the Northwest Territories is a good example -- with polar bears and the problems that they have. I think it's part of life. But thinking that you're going to keep shooting enough bears, that you're finally going to get rid of all the ones that like garbage in town, I don't know where it's going to end.

We all know that there are some bears -- the grizzlies, for instance -- that are becoming a little more scarce all the time, and I don't think we want any grizzly bears running around town, either. The black bears have become a lot more aggressive, and as we continue to close off what has historically been their area to feed in, I guess they are going to move into the communities. I have some real problems with that in the area where I come from. It may not be an issue in Victoria or Vancouver, because in Vancouver you haul your garbage up the province and dump it up there some place. But in small communities in the north, it's a problem. I think we should really think seriously before we carry on with making communities fence their dumps and electrify them.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I actually recognize that different parts of the province may view the bear issue differently. To one of my colleagues from Vancouver, I said: "You guys may have raccoons in your garbage, but we have bears. The only difference is that raccoons don't usually try to eat you." So there are some real differences.

As for the whole dump issue, we're working on a number of initiatives with municipalities and regional districts. There's no directive that says: "Go string the electric wire around your dump." We have been working with a variety of places to develop strategies to make sure that we're managing landfills appropriately in order to reduce bear usage of them, closing them down where we can. As you know, that's part of the whole waste reduction strategy: to close down unneeded and unused dumps.

Yes, we are looking at how we reduce bear-human interaction, and garbage is surely a large factor in that. So, you know, there is no directive here that says: "String the electric wire." We have developed a program that we think is effective in working with communities. The communities themselves are concerned about it. If the bears just stayed at the dump, that's fine, but in my experience they'll go anywhere -- both places. They may develop a taste for human refuse at the dump, but that won't keep them there. They may well trail into town to get it straight from the source. Once they're habituated, they'll go where they can find it. The other challenge, then, is to look at the whole issue of the handling of waste within urban and village boundaries, including our own handling of it in our homes. There are a lot of issues around this. If we're going to reduce bear-human interaction -- which, as I said earlier, I don't think does either of the species much good -- we need to address it in a systematic way.

[8:30]

R. Neufeld: I'll leave that and carry on a bit to Crown Lands. There has been a fair amount of development within Fort Nelson. I understand how Crown Lands works on a recovery basis, but we have some difficulty because the cost of land is getting pretty high in that community. Now, it may not be high in comparison to what you pay in Vancouver or Victoria, but it's a totally different part of the province, and you're trying to encourage people to move to the north, which is very difficult to do. When you advertise for people in Vancouver to come to the north and work in plants that are being built there, you can't get them. You get them from the east, and mostly from the far east -- eastern Canada. Those people come, but not people from Vancouver or the lower mainland.

In areas like that where the Crown owns so much land -- as far as you can see, it's all owned by the Crown, and Fort Nelson is 250 miles from any other place -- why can't a lot it be turned over to the community of Fort Nelson in order that it could be developed by the community itself? That way, they'd be able to direct it. Right now, if you have a piece of land that you're negotiating over in almost the centre of town, then you have to deal with Lands, Highways, the municipality and the regional district. It gets pretty convoluted, because, to be frank, each one wants a piece of the pie. In some ways it discourages development, and it also increases the cost of land. So I wonder if there's some way that the minister could look favourably at some of those communities. I'm sure Fort Nelson is not the only one in the province that would like to be master of its own destiny in terms of how the community is developed. This could be done in a little easier fashion than what happens now.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I think the issue of how Crown Lands works with municipalities to provide land and have it developed is really a multifaceted one; I'm not sure that I can do it credit in a brief response. I'll say only that Crown Lands is willing to try to sort out these issues. In the past, it has provided grants of land to municipalities. Some of them have not worked out very well, but we surely stand ready to seek solutions rather than present problems to municipalities. What I will say is: let's see if we can get some people working to find solutions for the Fort Nelson area.

R. Neufeld: If I were to go to the community of Fort Nelson and ask them to put a proposal to Lands about an area around Fort Nelson, you would look favourably at working with the community on trying to transfer that land over so that they can develop it as they see fit? Is that correct?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I think you're a little far down the road on what the solution might be. What I would suggest is that I ask Crown Lands to meet with the regional district to start doing the exploration of what the issues are, try to untangle some of them and see if we can get at least some options before us.

R. Neufeld: The other issue is agricultural leases. I think there have been very few agricultural leases transpiring in the last number of years -- probably five or eight years, maybe even longer. I think about 300 are coming due in this next year to year and a half.

[ Page 884 ]

Part of the problem that we're experiencing -- and I get farmers' groups coming to me all the time -- is the issue with the hardwood and the costing of it. What happens to the farmers, as I understand, is that the land is cruised, of course, to find out what timber values are there. They are quite aware of the softwood, and they don't find that a problem, because when they signed these leases -- some of them 15 years ago -- that was part of it; they understood it. Now, just in the past three years or so, the Ministry of Forests has come along and said: "Now we're going to have to cruise all the hardwood stands on your land and assess you for it."

There is some difficulty, because if they cut the timber down and just burn it, they still have to pay the stumpage. They can't get enough money out of it, depending on where they're at, to get someone interested to come take it, to even get it off their property. So you've got them in a bit of a catch-22. They can't just burn it; nobody will come get it. So what do they do with it?

When you go in and cruise someone's land -- let's say it's a section of land or something -- you do every part of it: creek bottoms, the whole works. If the farmer does want to pay for the timber value up front, that being the hardwoods at 50 cents a cubic metre, he has to pay for all of it. But he doesn't want to harvest all that stuff in the creeks and river bottoms; he would rather leave some of that. You put them in almost a position to take it all so that they can pay for it.

I've talked to the manager in Fort St. John quite a bit about it, and he knows that there's going to be a real difficulty coming with all these leases coming together at one time. Now, I would assume it would be a substantial amount of money just to forgo that stumpage revenue, but in the whole scope of things it may be part of what we have to look at seriously to deal with the situation. I just wonder if the ministry would, maybe from your level, get a little more involved in trying to deal with these issues so that people that really want to get their land in their own name, who have done the improvements to a certain point to get it, aren't faced with now spending up to $50,000 to $60,000 to get the leased land in their name.

Hon. P. Ramsey: We have one of these cross-ministry issues. I've tried to avoid doing this during this set of estimates. I would advise the member that I think what we are doing is administering the policy that is set by the Ministry of Forests. We do the lease stuff. The Ministry of Forests policy is to say the lease should recognize current stumpage figures for all the forestry values on the land, and we administer that. So it really is a Ministry of Forests policy that we are simply involved in because we do the agricultural leases.

I recognize the concern that this has raised. I think the member also recognizes that what used to be totally waste wood, whose only useful purpose was to be cut up and used for heating, does now have a commercial value, and probably an increasing commercial value. The Ministry of Forests has said 50 cents a cubic metre for that resource. I recognize the discontent, and I would urge the member to take it up with my colleague.

R. Neufeld: I intend to, and I guess what I'll get from the Minister of Forests is: "Well, you should talk to the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, because they're the ones that are really implementing the...." I know what you're doing; you're implementing a forest policy. But to start with, your land lease agreement with many of these older leases did not state anything about hardwoods, only softwoods.

Now what you've done, because the Ministry of Forests has come along in the last three years and said: "We want 50 cents a cubic metre for all hardwoods," regardless of where it's at.... It could be 100 miles from a plant. It's not economical to haul it to the plant, nobody will come get it, and you can't shove it over and burn it. You've put these people in a bit of a difficult position, and I think it's just a little bit too easy to say it's someone else's policy. It's government policy, and you sit at the cabinet table. You can deal with those things on a one-to-one basis a little bit easier than I can, standing here through your estimates, and then going to the Ministry of Forests estimates and trying to do the same things -- although I'll do it. I would appreciate it very much if the minister could see his way clear to deal with some of those issues.

Hon. P. Ramsey: First, staff advise me that the terms of the ag lease haven't changed at all. It refers to merchantable timber, and that phrase has not changed. What has changed is the Ministry of Forests definition of what is merchantable timber. That has resulted because of the increased commercial use of hardwoods in the Peace region.

I recognize that if it's not truly merchantable, this does present a real problem for those who are seeking renewal of ag leases. Far from wanting to duck the issue, what I am clearly saying is that I'm not seized of the solution for the problem. Maybe you and I and the Minister of Forests should sit down and have a beer in Prince George someday and see if we can work something out.

R. Neufeld: If you're buying, maybe I'll take you up on it. I'll leave that.

Again with Crown Lands, there is one other small issue, and I'll just bring it to the minister's attention so you know what's happening. There's a piece of property on a highway frontage -- the last highway frontage used to be 300 feet wide -- right close to Fort St. John. They've narrowed it down in places and in some places they haven't. There are some older people who have lived on this one piece of property for a long time; in fact, the lady's husband passed away. They thought their property went out as far as their neighbours, and it didn't. They had planted some spruce trees out front, and in his will he wanted his ashes buried under these spruce trees. So that's where they're buried, but they're buried on highway right-of-way.

The difficulty is -- and we know what happens when we talk about aboriginal burial sites and the difficulties that come with those types of things -- that the process is for Highways to close the highway right-of-way, that section. It then gets turned over to your ministry, and what happens is that you cost it at whatever the price of land happens to be going for in that particular area. I guess we'll ask this older senior lady to pay that amount of money for a piece of land that for the last 50 years she thought they owned.

I bring it to the minister's attention because it's a little bit more than just trying to figure out what the ground is worth. I think that maybe we should look at it a little carefully, simply because we don't require the land for the highway right-of-way. They're quite willing to close it, but the process used in your ministry -- and this is no one else's -- is that you take the land over, and you cost it out and try to recover that from the person. I bring that to your attention just so that you know.

Some other things -- and I know we're running short of time -- are the back-country recreation policy and the packer-and-guides issue. Can the minister briefly bring me up to date on where both of those are?

Hon. P. Ramsey: First, on the issue that you raised regarding highway right-of-way and Crown land, if you'll 

[ Page 885 ]

provide me the specifics of this in correspondence, I'll make sure that the regional director reviews it and see if we can find a solution that doesn't go through the usual tortuous channels. I'm not sure it's there, but let's at least make the attempt.

On back-country recreation, and guiding and packing regs, I'm trying to get up to speed, hon. member. We could do the back-and-forth here, but I would suggest that I will undertake to correspond with you and give you an update on where we are.

R. Neufeld: I appreciate that.

I want to go to well authorities and the approval process in Fort St. John through the Ministry of Environment. I have some significant assurances from past ministers and some people in the Prince George office that we will never again experience what we've experienced in the last three years with the approval of well authorities through the Ministry of Environment. Now we have a new minister, and I'm asking you the same as I did before about the LRMP process. All things being equal and if there's no real sensitive area -- and everybody understands that sensitive areas take a while.... But on the normal everyday well authorities, because of the shortness of the drilling season and because we can only work in the winter, we need those processed in a quicker manner. I'd just like to get the minister's approval that he will work closely with me if we reach that point where we get a real backlog again.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Staff advise me that I should give the single-word answer: yes.

R. Neufeld: Thank you, I appreciate that -- and guaranteed, I'll hold you to it. That's good -- no qualifications.

An Hon. Member: We heard it.

[8:45]

R. Neufeld: Yeah, you heard it here. I thank the minister very much for that.

One last thing: the Bennett Dam, and I'm not going to go on long about it, because you've talked about it quite a bit. I was listening intently to part of the discussion when I came in, and you talked about water licences being revisited. You also talked about studies on dams and flow-throughs and those kinds of things. You never mentioned the W.A.C. Bennett Dam, unless I missed it, but you did mention most of the ones on the Columbia system and some other ones. I just wonder if the W.A.C. Bennett Dam was left out for some reason or I just didn't hear.

And the water licences revisited -- that's an interesting one, because for a number of years we've sat here and talked about water licences for the W.A.C. Bennett Dam, how much they can draw the lake down and all those things. The minister is quite well aware of it because part of it affects where he lives. Is it that easy, that we're going to go into this...? It sounded to me in the responses you were giving to the Liberal critic that this was going to be kind of a little process where we're just going to go through this. I just want to say that it would amaze me if it's just a little process like that, after all the heartache we've gone through in the previous years in trying to deal with these things.

Hon. P. Ramsey: What the Liberal critic and I were discussing at some length is the fact that we have a substantial number of licences granted to B.C. Hydro, which have no provision at all for management of fish issues, nor any mitigation for damage to fish values as a result of the generation of hydroelectric power. W.A.C. Bennett Dam, and that licence, does have such a provision and does have the mitigation fund, which puts some $900,000 a year into restoration for it. So we're ahead of the game there. What we're looking at, largely, is some of the older licences in the southern part of the province that don't have such conditions.

Yes, it is going to be a very slow process, and no, it is not easy. One of the things the member and I discussed was how we do this without treading into the area of legal liability. I mean, the province has a contract with this power producer called B.C. Hydro, which is a deal: so much water, go produce the electricity. We need to work with them around those issues to make sure we're not treading into areas where we're talking to lawyers.

As I said before and I'll say one more time, because I don't think you were here for the discussion, Hydro has been working very closely with this ministry both on the electrical systems operation review, which was completed a couple of years ago, and now with us on reviewing, project by project, how we do right in managing that project both for hydroelectric and for fish. One has been completed to date on the Alouette, and we do now have a water management regime that respects fish values. We've got five or six more to go, and our time line for that is probably another five years. It is not going to be easy to figure out how we balance the competing interests of water for fish and water for generation of electricity.

R. Neufeld: We're almost to the level where they are going to do the drilling in the dam. The minister talked about habitat restoration on the river. I came in at the end of the conversation, but I assume he was talking about the Peace River after we've finished dumping the water. Are you talking about the $1 million that is spent yearly? Are you talking about going back to Hydro for X amount of dollars to restore habitat that was affected by the spill?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The $900,000 a year that Hydro spends is for its "normal operations." This spill has been well in excess of anything that's "normal," and it has caused extraordinary damage to the fish resources. We will be approaching Hydro to discuss with them funds for mitigating that damage.

R. Neufeld: Are we talking about the fish habitat or are we talking about downstream habitat? We're not talking about the fish as fish; we're talking about habitat further down. What happens once you hit the border and go to Alberta?

Hon. P. Ramsey: This is confirming my understanding. Yes, we're looking at the downstream habitat issues and a lot of scouring as a result of the level of spill that has gone on. It has involved a fair bit of damage to fish habitat, and we'll be looking at repairing some of the damage that has been done. As far as what happens in Alberta, some preliminary discussions have gone on, but I'm not sure that it has gone beyond the stage where people say: "Hey, we've got an issue here."

G. Campbell: This is a wide-ranging discussion tonight, hon. Chair. I just want to ask a couple of brief questions. We were talking earlier on about bears. I would just like to ask the minister what plans they have, or what activities he has been involved with in regard to providing a protected habitat for the Kermode bear -- the spirit bear.

[ Page 886 ]

Hon. P. Ramsey: Thank you for the question; you always learn something else. Pretty much the full range of the Kermode bear is captured by the area that's now the subject of an LRMP in the midcoast. That is going to be one of the prime wildlife conservation issues that that LRMP will have to deal with. Our ministry will be providing input to it about the resources required for that species.

G. Campbell: In terms of the direction you give to the midcoast LRMP, will it be specified that one of the goals and objectives will be to protect the habitat for the Kermode bear? Or will it simply be one of the issues that's dealt with, and we may get to it or we may not?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The ministry comes to the table, of course, as an expert and a technical resource for the players. We're going to be making the very strong case that the prime wildlife issues for that LRMP are the Kermode bear, the grizzly bear and salmon.

G. Campbell: Just briefly again to the minister, hon. Chair: is Princess Royal Island part of that particular LRMP, and is that one of the areas that you are specifically looking at? I know there has been some concern about the logging in the northern part of the island, what that may be doing to the fish habitat through that island and how that might work with that ecosystem. Is that part of what you're dealing with?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes, Princess Royal Island is part of that LRMP territory. I've just been informally advised by staff that their information is that the forest operators in the area do recognize that the habitat for the Kermode bear is going to have to be included in the results of the LRMP.

G. Campbell: When the minister says the forest operators in the area, is that the entire LRMP area or Princess Royal Island?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Princess Royal Island.

G. Campbell: Could the minister tell me the names of the operators who specifically have rights on Princess Royal Island?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I don't have a full list here for you. I could get it for you.

B. Penner: I've just got a few questions with respect to B.C. Parks. I wonder if the minister could just explain again, for the benefit of those present, the difference in the theory behind the different classifications of parks. I realize we have class A, B and C parks as well as recreation areas and also ecological reserves. Could the minister give us his overview, or his understanding, of why there are the four or five different categories under the Park Act?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I assure you that in order for me to answer that question, I'm trying to get briefed by these good folks. May I suggest that we simply provide you that information in writing rather than do the back-and-forth on it. I simply don't have the knowledge pounded into my head right now to deal adequately with that question.

B. Penner: I wonder if the minister could provide us with the full number of FTEs allotted to the ministry for the Parks subcomponent for the current year.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Three hundred and seventy-two FTEs are in the Parks department of the ministry.

B. Penner: I wonder if the minister could provide us some perspective with respect to that FTE allotment -- if you could give us, perhaps, the figures for the last two years so we could put that into perspective. What I'm interested in is whether that number is increasing or decreasing over time.

Hon. P. Ramsey: In '96-97 the FTE allotment is 372; in '94-95 -- three years ago -- the allotment was 379, so there's been a decrease of seven. What we did is increase the presence in districts from 254 to 292. We increased headquarters staff slightly from 71 to 80 and eliminated the regional layer of bureaucracy.

B. Penner: When the minister indicates a reduction at the regional level of bureaucracy, could you indicate the total number of people who were involved at that level previously?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'll give you the total breakdown. In '94-95: headquarters 71, regions 54, districts 254; in '96-97: headquarters 80, regions zero, districts 292.

B. Penner: I take it that in order to accommodate some of this reduction in staff as well, the ministry has pursued a practice of contracting out -- that is, contracting with private providers of services and staff in order to fulfil some of the mandate. Could the minister provide us with the ministry's thoughts as to whether the ministry has been satisfied with the performance they've received from their contractors to date ?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Parks informs me that they've been satisfied by the performance of park operators that are under contract. They are monitored regularly; there are clearly some stars and some that haven't done so well. We try to keep the stars and replace those that haven't done so well. The total staffing equivalent through those contracted arrangements might be quantified as around 200 FTEs.

B. Penner: As I recall, the significant privatization or contracting-out initiative in Parks began towards the late 1980s. Just for our interest, I'm wondering if the minister or his staff would be able to give us a rough estimate of what the total Parks FTE allotment was prior to the contracting-out or privatization initiative.

Hon. P. Ramsey: We are going back a long way now. Actually, it was probably the mid-eighties when that initiative took place under the previous administration. Prior to it, total Parks FTEs was in the area of 650 to 700.

B. Penner: Yes, that does ring a bell with me. It strikes my memory as being correct that it was around 700 FTEs at that time.

I'm just doing some rough mathematics, and it would appear that if we add them up now, the full-time-equivalents that are on contract -- that is, personnel acquired through contract, plus the total FTEs now -- the Parks component in terms of staffing for parks has actually decreased over the last few years. That being the case, I am interested in the level of service provided, given that this government should be credited, to a certain extent, for creating new parks. It's gone out around the province setting aside new lands designated as parks in whatever category. My concern -- and I hear it from 

[ Page 887 ]

people in the field -- is that this government has been ambitious in terms of creating and designating new parks, yet there has not seemed to be the same amount of commitment in terms of providing staff to monitor or regulate what goes on in those parks. I am just asking the minister for his comments.

[9:00]

Hon. P. Ramsey: This matter was raised earlier in estimates this evening. We had a fair bit of discussion about it. I'll try to recap very briefly.

I said to this committee that one of my main challenges as the new Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks is dealing with precisely the issue that you identified. By the turn of the century, we will have doubled the land base in parks that was there a decade before. Yet the resources of the ministry in Parks right now are pretty much the same as they were back in 1990. This has placed strains on the Parks department, and we intend to aggressively seek whatever options we can for funding for additional staff, to make sure we are preserving the resources that we have set aside and providing public access to them.

The one thing I would mention that we have been able to do successfully is acquire, through Forest Renewal B.C., funds to do some proper inventory of what the wildlife and other resources of the set-asides in the preserved areas -- parks -- are, since that data is required for this ministry and the Ministry of Forests to properly administer the Forest Practices Code for those values. So we have been able to get a fair bit of that data, and we are gradually going to be building up the database. The issue that I have -- and the member correctly identifies it -- is now that we have the data and we know what we are managing for, how do we get the managers to do the work?

B. Penner: Just to follow up on that, I'm wondering if the minister could clarify for me whether the expenditures provided from Forest Renewal B.C. funds count as expenditures under the B.C. Parks estimates component.

Hon. P. Ramsey: No, it does not. We administer contracts for FRBC to the tune of around $101 million in the '96-97 fiscal year. We had extensive discussion on this matter earlier in estimates, and I think if you refer to Hansard, you'll find a rather thorough discussion of these issues.

J. Wilson: Approximately a year ago or more, B.C. Rail sold a few million dollars in assets up and down the line. One of these was a parcel of land which came under some controversy, located in the community of Kersley. The community asked B.C. Rail to donate this section of land to the community as a protected area for recreation, a park. It's private land owned by B.C. Rail. I believe the reply was that they would do this if Lands would donate to them another piece of land equal in value to what they had to sell. Could the minister comment on this?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm tempted to ask members in the chamber to raise their hands if they know where Kersley is. You and I are the only ones.

I've just been advised by staff that while negotiations with B.C. Rail are slow, they are ongoing on this issue. We are pursuing a settlement and hopefully will have that in the not too distant future.

J. Wilson: Could the minister perhaps give me a time? I've been getting some pressure from the Kersley group, and I would like to be able to go back and say yes, we can expect something in a month, two months, three months or ten years -- whatever it takes.

Hon. P. Ramsey: In negotiations such as these, it's sometimes difficult to set precise time lines. I will say that staff thinks we may have a Christmas present for Kersley.

J. Wilson: This is unrelated to Lands. It's a request to the minister that deals with the issue we discussed earlier today on FRBC, money that somehow stayed with the ministry after contracts were issued. I would like the minister to provide me with a detailed breakdown of the expenditure of the $17 million -- how it was spent and what it was allotted to.

Hon. P. Ramsey: We can provide that information to the member.

J. Wilson: Now on a different point -- I'm just cleaning up here -- in your earlier discussion with the hon. member for Abbotsford, you described a lease and a licence. I interpreted from that description that a lease held more security than a licence.

Hon. P. Ramsey: The member's understanding is correct. A lease provides you with an interest in the land; a licence simply allows an activity on the land.

J. Wilson: When we use the terms "lease" and "licence," does the interpretation change as we go from a land base to a water base and from one ministry to another?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The answer is that they have the same application across ministries. These are terms that are generally known in land law. I think that answers the member's question.

J. Wilson: I may be wrong, but I have always been under the impression that in some cases a licence will give you more security on a land base than a lease.

Hon. P. Ramsey: That is news to my staff. If the member can provide me some information, I'll look into it.

J. Wilson: I have one final question. In Parks, FTEs have decreased. What happened there in terms of part-time employees?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The number of FTEs captures both part- and full-time employees in one figure. Staff don't have the breakdown of what the division between full- and part-time was, say, three years ago and what it is now. We don't have that information here, but we can get it for the hon. member.

B. Penner: Continuing on with Parks, I have some questions arising out of Estimates. I'd refer the minister to page 121 for his convenience. I'm curious about the items identified as "Recoveries" and the comparison between '95-96 and '96-97. There are parentheses around the figures in both cases, indicating to me, I guess, that there is a deficit position in terms of recoveries. I'm wondering if, to begin with, the minister can provide us with a description of what the recoveries include and, in any case, tell us why a recovery would be a negative in any year.

[ Page 888 ]

Hon. P. Ramsey: We may be caught up in -- what should I say? -- accounting procedures here. The positive numbers in the column are actually the expenditures for the year. The amount in brackets is income -- recoveries from another agency, in this case for E teams from Forest Renewal B.C. Therefore, because the money is flowing in, the bottom line is that expenditures are reduced by that amount.

B. Penner: My forte is not accounting, nor shall it ever be if I have my way. Still, I am curious about that. I wonder if you could describe the recoveries to us. You mentioned Forest Renewal B.C., but I believe the figure you mentioned earlier was greater than the $1 million which is indicated, for instance, under '95-96. I'm wondering if that item identified as recoveries includes the fees paid by visitors to parks for camping or if that's from some other source.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Let's see if I can put some of these pieces together. Park fees charged go under general revenue; they are not recoveries within this vote. The recoveries for this year, '96-97, are about $4.2 million. It includes $3.5 million for the environmental youth teams from Forest Renewal B.C. Incidentally, that's the only place in these estimates where an actual transfer of funds from Forest Renewal B.C. is captured in these figures. It also includes $200,000 from the Skagit environmental endowment fund. For filming within B.C. parks, it's $100,000, and miscellaneous is $300,000.

[9:15]

[P. Calendino in the chair.]

B. Penner: Just to clarify. That was $200,000 from the...?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The Skagit endowment fund.

B. Penner: For filming?

Hon. P. Ramsey: No, $100,000 for filming within parks.

I think I have the information the member requires. I'd also like to correct something. I think it's the first time I've had to do that, which is not bad, considering the length of time we've been going here. I was wrong on where park fees go. They are used to fund the private contractors who do the work in the parks; it doesn't go under general revenue.

As for the recoveries line on page 121, $4.22 million, I'll walk you through it as closely as I can. The largest amount, $3.5 million, is from Forest Renewal B.C. for funding environmental youth teams. The Premier and I will be reporting on that status of that work some time next week. From the Skagit endowment fund, there's $200,000, from filming within B.C. parks, $100,000 -- cheap at the price; we ought to charge more -- and miscellaneous, $300,000.

B. Penner: I'd like to thank the minister for that information. For the sake of clarification about the fees gathered by private contractors, I wonder if the minister could tell us whether, in all cases, any camping fees are now collected by private contractors, or if there are any parks in British Columbia where the fees are still collected by staff employees -- that is, people employed directly by the Ministry of Parks.

Hon. P. Ramsey: All campgrounds run on the contractor basis, and fees are collected by the contractors.

B. Penner: I don't know if I want to make myself a witness here, but I have had occasion to hike into back-country areas where park rangers do come along. I believe they are still directly employed by the ministry, and they do charge a fee, basically on the honour system, to stay and use the back-country services. I'm just curious about what happens to those dollars that are collected not by contractors, but by staff employees of the ministry, and whether those go into general revenue or whether they're put into a net of recoveries and so subtracted from the expenses of the ministry.

Hon. P. Ramsey: The staff advise me that the distinction you and I ought to draw is between campgrounds and back country. I've had the same experience. I'm a canoeist, and I knew very well that it was B.C. Parks staff that took my fees last time I went around the Bowron Lake circuit. So that's back country, and B.C. Parks staff collect the fees -- sometimes it's on an honour system and sometimes it's more controlled. Those moneys do go into general revenue.

B. Penner: I wonder if the minister could advise us as to the number of people working in B.C. parks, those FTEs, that are designated as park rangers. The distinction there, the importance of that, is that if a person is designated as a park ranger, then they are entitled to certain enforcement powers pursuant to the Park Act and the Offence Act.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Staff don't have that information with us tonight in the chamber. I'll be glad to provide it to the member.

B. Penner: With respect to that last question, I wonder if the minister or his staff could make a note of that now, in case I forget to follow up....

Hon. P. Ramsey: We're making notes of all the questions.

B. Penner: I appreciate that. I see from the response on the other side that it will be forthcoming, for the record.

One issue that I'd like to bring to the attention of the minister and his staff while I have their ear is my understanding that various statutes, and regulations pursuant to those statutes, require that an oath be sworn by any person who is to become a peace officer under the Offence Act and any other enforcement statutes in the province of British Columbia. I'm just wondering whether the minister.... I'm not asking specifically for an answer today about how many have and how many haven't. I just encourage the minister through this process to make sure that his staff check that all park rangers are, in fact, completing the necessary oaths so that they are, technically speaking, in a position to issue tickets and conduct enforcement action under the appropriate statutes.

At the risk of making myself a witness in these proceedings, I was a park ranger myself for a number of years and was somewhat shocked later to find out that I had not been put through the hoops, so to speak, in terms of completing the necessary oaths, and yet was out conducting enforcement action. It was only later in law school, when I was curious about where the enforcement powers came from, that I discovered what I think is a loophole. I would encourage the ministry and their staff to perhaps take some pre-emptive action, just in case some other sort finds out and is able to use this as a defence at a trial. I would encourage the minister to have his staff check on that.

I look forward to receiving the information from the minister as to the number of people classified as park rangers. Again, it was my experience dealing with members of the 

[ Page 889 ]

RCMP that they preferred dealing with persons designated as park rangers -- as compared to the private contractor staff -- precisely because the park rangers did have the added authority and firsthand knowledge of the parks system. Certainly I wouldn't want to see anything go off the rails in that regard.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I will ask the minister to check on that. The taking of those oaths should be part of the training process for park rangers, I would assume. But we will check on that -- and I promise not to convey the information the member has just given me to the Attorney General's ministry to review any tickets that the member might have issued while an employee of B.C. Parks.

B. Penner: I would like to thank the minister for that. I'm just wondering if the minister would like to cover any liability for staff, past or present. Actually, I won't ask for an answer to that question; it's a rhetorical one.

I'd like to confirm whether what I was perusing is the most recent annual report of B.C. Parks. I had it here a moment ago. I believe it's for '93-94. I just want to confirm whether or not this is in fact the most recent annual report available.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I've just discovered that it is the most recent one. We'll be seeing when we produce the next one.

B. Penner: I wonder when we can expect the most recent issue.

Hon. P. Ramsey: My understanding is that it is now ready for production in the communications department of the ministry, so we should have it in our hands shortly. I guess I will have to table it in the House and receive the plaudits of the chamber.

B. Penner: I'm sure we all look forward to that.

I'm interested in an entry in this annual report. Under "B.C. Parks and Enforcement," it mentiones the number of charges laid but doesn't indicate the number of convictions entered. I understand that with the ticket process, unless it has changed dramatically in the last couple of years.... If a person fails to dispute it within a certain period of time, then there is a deemed conviction under the Offence Act. I realize there could be some difficulties in tracking down that information, but I think it would be interesting to find out how many people are contesting the issued tickets and how many convictions then result. I wonder if the minister could see to it that his staff perhaps include in the upcoming annual report an entry of convictions registered or entered.

A whole new issue is how many people then actually pay those tickets, because I know it's difficult sometimes to encourage people to pay. In my time in Parks, there was always talk that perhaps they'd go to a system similar to the motor vehicle branch, where unpaid traffic fines are registered against a person's licence, and they're not able to renew their licence until such time as all outstanding fines are paid. Proposals were, I believe, floated in the 1980s to do that with Parks tickets, but then the correlation between the Parks tickets and the driver's licence isn't so clear. So I think it wasn't pursued to its conclusion at that time. I just wonder if the minister could brief us as to any thoughts he might have about stiffening up the enforcement process so that people convicted under Parks offences actually have to pay those fines.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I thank the member for his comments. Actually, I think the member and I ought to have dinner sometime and talk in some detail about Parks. I'd enjoy hearing about his experiences as an employee of B.C. Parks.

On the specifics that the member talks about, we don't have those figures with us. It would be interesting to me as well as to you to find out. As for a more effective collection mechanism for ensuring that tickets are actually paid, I think I need to do some further work with the ministry before I understand where we are in that process.

B. Penner: I realize, hon. Chair, that it's perhaps a bigger question; it might involve working with the Attorney General's ministry. I'd like to indicate to the minister, and he could certainly convey this to his colleague, that certainly I -- and I encourage all people on this side of the House -- support any measures that could be taken to try and increase the enforcement end of things, so people convicted of offences actually end up paying those fines. I would be loath to see the situation where the word gets out on the street that you don't actually have to pay Litter Act fines or offences under the Park Act. I would encourage the minister and his staff to take whatever steps are necessary to make sure that persons properly convicted actually end up having to pay those fines. Those are my questions.

B. Barisoff: I'm just wondering whether the hon. minister could indicate who is responsible for accidents in the lakes and parks, and the ones that are more out in the wilderness. Does the responsibility lie with the parks branch?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Within park boundaries, it is a B.C. Parks responsibility. If it is outside the boundaries, in most cases it's the Ministry of Forests. We do have a number of areas now where forest roads don't respect that bureaucratic division and go right on into the park, and that access issue is one we're trying to deal with.

B. Barisoff: The responsibility lies back and forth between Forests and Lands.

Carrying on, there's a question that I would just like to ask about.... I don't know if you're familiar with the Ashnola area, just outside Keremeos, where there are big alpine meadows. They transferred a portion of land over to the Okanagan University College. I'm just wondering why the parks branch didn't take hold of this land.

Hon. P. Ramsey: My understanding, through staff, is that at the time the land was available, Okanagan University College had some funds and we didn't, so they got it. They're using it for, essentially, an outdoor classroom. It has some covenants attached to it, and my understanding is that it's going to be used well by the students and staff of OUC.

B. Barisoff: I was led to believe that, going back to the original owner, there was actually a covenant put on that land that if it were to revert to anybody, it would have to revert to Parks and nobody else. Actually, I got a call from somebody that was trying to research it, and they were very concerned about the fact that it was supposed to go back to the parks branch if it went anywhere.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Staff understanding differs from that slightly. Rather than my being in the middle, I would simply encourage you, perhaps after we're done here tonight, to talk to staff about some of the details of how that property ended up in the hands of Okanagan University College.

[ Page 890 ]

B. Barisoff: Thank you very much, hon. minister, because I think it's quite important, being that those alpine meadows up there are probably one of the most beautiful parks of British Columbia. You know, it concerns the people that are around there. I appreciate the fact that you've given me that opportunity to meet with staff to talk about it.

[9:30]

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

L. Stephens: I just have a few questions, and they're really around air quality. I'm sure the minister is aware that the air quality in the Fraser Valley is deteriorating rapidly. The lower valley is bad enough, but the upper valley is really quite severe. I wonder if the minister would comment on what his ministry is doing to alleviate this problem, particularly for those of us in the Fraser Valley.

Hon. P. Ramsey: It's truly a multifaceted problem, as the member for Langley knows. I point to several initiatives that we are carrying through on, most significantly some of the regulations around automobile exhaust: the requirement that we get cleaner fuels and fewer emissions, the requirement that the car manufacturers provide the people of the province a chance to buy increasingly lower-emission, and then no-emission, vehicles. Clearly, one of the biggest problems we have on the lower mainland is transportation exhaust. It is the major source of much of the brown haze that we see as we go into the greater Vancouver area and then up the valley. So that's part of the solution. Obviously, getting AirCare back into operation after the strike is also an important component of making sure we're dealing well with those issues.

There are a number of other initiatives that I intend to pursue, including some exhaust controls on trucks, buses and other forms of mass transportation and commercial transport. Clearly, providing opportunities for mass transit is part of the solution as well. We did some work on that in the past term, as the member knows. There's lots more to be done. Very soon we'll be opening HOV lanes on some of the major corridors and requiring people to get away from the one person, one car syndrome that we seem to be plagued with in the lower mainland.

I must say, though, there are a range of other initiatives that we can talk about. We do have an overall greenhouse gas strategy, you know, and those gases also affect air quality. The member, the critic and I have been discussing at some length Burrard Thermal and some of its plans to reduce its level of emissions. There are a huge range of initiatives going on.

I think this is one of the biggest issues we're going to have on the lower mainland in the next several years. People are coming to our province and locating in the lower mainland because they value the quality of life. Clearly, the quality of air and water, and the scenery and the opportunities that surround them, are part of what they're here for. At the rate people are coming to our province -- some 37,000 immigrants a year, we expect -- we're creating a city the size of Regina, I think, about every couple of years in the Fraser Valley. As we look at that, I think there's lots of work for all levels of government to do.

I also think it's a matter of trying to change the way we as individual citizens respond to this issue. One of the things that surprised me most, as I watched the huge public concern around the Second Narrows Bridge repairs and the traffic congestion that caused, was that in spite of the fact that everybody was concerned about it, most of them were sitting there -- one person, one car -- complaining about it. They were not seeking other ways of transportation or what I think most people agree is part of the long-term solution, to get away from the one person, one car syndrome: buddy up, pair up, triple up, quadruple up, and use mass transit.

L. Stephens: Transit is the answer to some extent, and communities on the north side of the river have benefited from that program and the proposals of government. In fact, this is the government that brought mass transit to the north side of the river. The south side also needs some attention in that regard. The problems of transit, of course, are chicken-and-egg: which comes first, the people or the transit? This has been what has hampered those kinds of initiatives in the past: the ridership and the fact that it needs to be there, whether or not there are subsidies, and all of these kinds of things. That's a subject that I will talk with the Minister of Transportation about, but I did want the minister to be aware that it is really becoming a serious problem in the valley. I guess I've really noticed that, being here in the last couple of weeks. When I go home on the weekend now, it's a real problem. It's very much something that you get used to over time, but when you're away from it, you're just reminded of it again when you get home.

One other issue that I want to talk about is Money's Mushrooms. I know that the minister has received numerous letters in this regard. It is in Surrey, but it is a huge problem for residents of South Langley and Langley city. This facility has been there for 25 years, as the minister knows. There has been ongoing communication with various ministers on this subject from the city of Surrey, the Agricultural Land Commission and the GVRD, and it's getting to a point now where there needs to be some resolution. The GVRD, as the minister knows, has put forward a proposal to enforce the Waste Management Act, asking the minister to make some decisions in this regard. I wonder if the minister would care to comment on the status of this issue and on whether the ministry is pondering a solution to this -- if, in fact, one can be had from the ministry.

Hon. P. Ramsey: On the air issue, you may have seen a brochure the ministry put out trying to summarize some of the initiatives that we are taking: "Protecting the Air We Breathe: A British Columbia Action Plan for Cleaner Air." Many of the initiatives are ongoing, and I think we have some reasonable chance of making a difference there.

On the broad transit issue, I agree with the member that we need to do more. I also assert that part of the solution has to be in strategic regional planning, so that we are not requiring people to travel as much. We are in great danger of simply falling into the suburb sprawl throughout the lower mainland. We will rue the day if we continue to have the city hub and all the spokes going out to the suburbs, because it will cause ongoing issues of emissions that we may not be able to deal with in the long term. So I intend to be pursuing, with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and regional governments, more aggressive action on regional planning, because that has to be part of the solution to this. We can't simply provide more and more transit for people; we have to figure out how we can get the services and amenities that people wish to have closer to them.

The member is absolutely right, of course, on air quality. I'll give you today's read. As of 8 a.m. in downtown Vancouver, the index was 6. By the time you got out to Chilliwack, it was 26. That's the pattern. You and I know it from the data, and we know it in our lungs when we breathe.

[ Page 891 ]

Speaking of the air we breathe, the Money's Mushrooms issue the member refers to is indeed a long-running issue. There are two processes in place right now that as minister I need to respect and allow to run their course before I ask the ministry to consider any action under the Waste Management Act. One, of course, is the city of Surrey.... We have been informed late last week that the city of Surrey is going to be legally pursuing Money's under the zoning bylaw, as well as drafting a nuisance bylaw, which they also intend to use. That's part of what they're doing. They may also be involved with the greater Vancouver regional district as a plaintiff in the enforcement of the order.

Second, as you know, this has been taken to the Environmental Appeal Board. The ruling of that board has not yet come down. I've enquired of staff and they haven't reported back to me as to how soon we might expect it. I recognize the desire for a quick resolution -- "please do it" -- but there are a couple of processes in place that I think we need to respect. There has been an appeal to the Environmental Appeal Board. We need to hear what they have to say. We have given control of this bylaw and this issue to the greater Vancouver regional district and the municipality of Surrey. I think we need to respect that delegation until they've exhausted their avenues.

I recognize the seriousness of the issue for residents in the area. The member might wish to talk to her colleague from Abbotsford and perhaps her colleague from Cariboo North about how we make agriculture uses and residential uses more acceptable to one another.

L. Stephens: Yes, indeed. With communities like mine that are gradually evolving from agricultural communities to urban communities, urbanization is indeed one of our problems, and all the other things that go with it; water quality, air quality, transportation and quality of life.

I would like to just say to the minister that I understand what he is saying around the Money's issue and that the processes now in place need to really play out their course. What I am glad to hear, though, is that the minister is aware and understands the issue and that he is monitoring it. If that is the case, I am pleased to hear that. I will do the same and wait until things have played their course. But I can assure the minister that we really do need some resolution on this and that we will continue to find avenues that are appropriate to do that. And it may well be the Ministry of Environment in the end. I look forward to further discussions with the minister on this issue.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I am sure we will both be monitoring the issue.

With that, hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 9:44 p.m.

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