[ Page 6447 ]

The House resumed at 6:35 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. D. Miller: I call committee stage on Bill 50. In Committee A, we are doing the estimates of the Ministry for Children and Families.

POWER FOR JOBS DEVELOPMENT ACT

On the amendments to section 1.

G. Farrell-Collins: I have had a chance to peruse the amendment a little bit and compare it with the Utilities Commission Act. My understanding of the amendment to section 1. . . . There are three parts. Perhaps the minister can explain the rationale for the amendment -- the need to make it -- and why he is doing so.

Hon. D. Miller: They are really for clarification. It's the insertion of "government" into the definition of "development power rate" to clarify that the government as well as the utility can collect a development power rate for the sale of DSBs. The definition of "rate" in section 1 is imported from the Utilities Commission Act into this act and amended to include the government as well as a public utility.

I'll just go through them all if the member wishes. "Supply" is a term used in the bill but not defined. A new definition of "supply" is added to section 1 to clarify that a public utility can act as the delivery agent of the DSBs. I'll leave it at that.

G. Farrell-Collins: If I can just run this by the minister, my understanding is that because the DSBs belong to the government and not to the authority, for the government to sell the DSBs to the various consumers, it was required to be listed in the act as one of the people who are selling. Is that correct?

Second of all, supply. . . . I know it's new to the bill, obviously, but I'm trying to determine whether or not it's a commonly understood definition of supply or if it's something that's being done specifically for this act. In other cases, as previously indicated under "rate," the definition being used was from the Utilities Commission Act. I don't see in the Utilities Commission Act a definition of supply given. Perhaps the minister can explain why we need that for this bill specifically.

Hon. D. Miller: It's normal in developing statutes that there is a battery of lawyers and legal experts who tell you what every word means and how to construct it. Believe me, there's been lots of discussions I've been involved with over the years on these questions.

One school has it that the amendments are bringing more clarity. Really, without the bill being amended, it doesn't restrict. Notwithstanding that, you get the lawyers involved and their view is that for clarity in terms of government ownership, these changes ought to take place. With respect to "supply," again it is clarifying that a public utility can act as the wheeler -- the delivery agent -- of the power that is owned by government.

G. Farrell-Collins: It's my understanding, then, that given these amendments, the government intends to. . . . It does, obviously, have ownership of the downstream benefits. Its intent is to sell them directly to the consumer using the Hydro grid and to take the profits from those downstream benefits and not to put them through the authority -- through B.C. Hydro, the Crown corporation -- but rather to bring them directly into general revenue of government. Is that the case?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, I would anticipate that in any particular development project -- let's say it's Hydro that is the utility -- there would simply be an agreement between the government and Hydro with respect to the return to the Crown of the value of the power being marketed.

G. Farrell-Collins: The normal process now for any surpluses at B.C. Hydro -- in some cases, not even surpluses -- is that they return to the government through dividends. What I'm being led to believe now is that with the downstream benefits -- and maybe this is just new to me -- those revenues are not going to funnel through Hydro in the form of a revenue to B.C. Hydro and then turn into dividends back to the Crown. Rather, the government intends to use the transmission lines of B.C. Hydro and, in some cases -- here with the definition of supply -- to be able to raise or lower the costs of wheeling, and essentially set up a little mini-power authority with the government itself selling and wheeling power to industrial consumers in British Columbia, using the infrastructure of B.C. Hydro -- not having the revenues flow through B.C. Hydro, but rather directly to the ministry and to the Crown for general revenue. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes. The power does belong to the Crown, and therefore the benefit would accrue to the Crown. The price or the cost for utility, whether it was Hydro or even West Kootenay, for example, would be the wheeling tariff. In other words, they're charged. Now, we're in a process in British Columbia where we're evolving towards what will ultimately be, I think -- in my own view -- a different system than we have now. I'm not trying to prejudge where Jaccard is going, but the trend is towards a more open, more market-driven system. I don't want to get into that debate here, because it's not the purpose, but that has all kinds of implications. Primarily, though, the power belongs to the Crown, and therefore any benefit as a result of its sale will come back to the Crown.

G. Farrell-Collins: I don't intend to have that debate here; we've already had it in estimates, and I don't want to revisit that. I just want to get clarification of the need for these amendments and how it is going to be done. It seems to be the only reason it would be needed, in my opinion, given that the government isn't generally considered a supplier of power; rather, it would be the authority -- being B.C. Hydro -- that would be the supplier, or some other supplier as indicated in the act. If we're only dealing with downstream benefits and the sale of downstream benefits, if there were to be no power flowing through the authority, and if the government intends to do it directly, then there would be no need in this act for a definition or for consideration of the authority itself. It's clear under the act that in fact that's not the case. It's not just the downstream benefits; that comes in the later sections. It's also any surplus power that B.C. Hydro has.

If I can move down through the definitions list a little bit and look at the definition of "surplus electricity. . . ." That's the provision I'm referring to. It relates to the Columbia down-

[ Page 6448 ]

stream benefits in paragraph (b), but in paragraph (a), it deals with surpluses of power to a particular service area. I raised the issue on second reading of this bill. Since the minister's estimates were completed, it's come to our attention through a number of means that the Columbia Basin Trust is looking to develop a hydroelectric project at Keenleyside Dam, where they will be generating power which, if all past indications are accurate, will be relatively expensive. It would seem unlikely that they would be able to find a market for that power without some subsidization of the project itself. The project itself doesn't appear, anyways, to be economically viable.

[6:45]

It seems to me that what we're setting up here is a project that will generate expensive power. That project itself will be subsidized by the cash revenues from the Columbia downstream benefits through the Columbia Basin Trust, and the expensive power produced by that project will be purchased and resold, in effect -- although probably not the exact same power we purchased and resold -- at an even further subsidized rate. It seems to me that we're almost double-subsidizing the project at Keenleyside. Is that a correct analysis of what it is that's about to happen?

Hon. D. Miller: This bill doesn't deal with that issue. It is under the purview of another minister. I prefer not to get into any kind of discussion about what might come to pass. As we look at any proposals that might evolve as a result of this bill, it seems to me the obligation on the Crown is to ensure that we utilize the DSBs in a way that produces benefits -- quantifiable benefits -- for the people of British Columbia who own that power. That is something that I would expect we'll be tested on in future years. I don't really want to get into any extensive debate on an issue that's not part of the bill.

G. Farrell-Collins: With all due respect to the minister, I believe it does fall directly within the bill, when one looks at the definition of surplus electricity: paragraph (a) -- "surplus to the authority's requirement to supply (i) customers in the authority's service area. . ."; and then if we can go down to the bottom of that, paragraph (ii)(B) says: ". . .electricity in respect of which removal is permitted under the Utilities Commission Act that is either" -- in this case -- ". . .purchased by the authority from another source. . . ."

I'm not sure to whom the power at Keenleyside is intended to be sold, but I suspect, given that there's no market for power at that price, that it could only be sold to the authority at the direction of the government. The government would then resell that power to some consumer after it became part of Hydro's surplus. I raise that issue with the minister. Given the fact that the Keenleyside project has. . . . The government's own indication was that it was economically not viable, that this is the only likely scenario and that we'll end up with a double subsidy.

I won't engage in a long debate with the minister over that, other than to say that that's my impression, and I expect that it's likely what will happen in some form or other.

I want to come back, if I may pop up the list of definitions, to the definition of "development power rate." Before we adjourned, I had asked the minister a question with regard to paragraph (b) under the definition of development power rate: "a rate that is payable to a public utility or to a municipality or regional district by a business. . . ." I asked the question of the minister whether or not that municipality would be reimbursed for the cost. I'll come back -- maybe I didn't clarify it or speak clearly enough -- but I don't think the minister answered the question, perhaps not through any fault of his own.

My question is: in this scenario where a municipality would be required by an order of the Crown to supply power to an existing customer at a rate less than the current contract or the contract that was in existence at the time, would that municipality be compensated by the Crown for the reduction in revenue that they would receive as a result of that order by the Crown?

Hon. D. Miller: No. I said earlier, in response to the question you asked about this, that I didn't see that there would be any need for compensation of another utility, whether it's a municipally owned utility or any other. Their costs are presumably captured by a wheeling tariff -- in other words, what's the cost of going through that system? There's no other basis, that I can think of, for compensation.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'll revisit that at a later point in the bill -- I believe it's section 7(6) -- where we'll be discussing the provisions of the Municipal Act and the exemptions under 601 to 603.

C. Hansen: I was curious about the definition of "business" that we have here. There's reference to "calling"; we talk about "a trade, enterprise, calling or undertaking." Basically what that can boil down to is that a business could include an individual who is carrying on a calling, which, of course, invokes all kinds of images of the kind of programs you can watch on Sunday morning, of people who are trying to call on power -- but that's power with a capital P, of course. I was curious if the minister could explain why that particular word was used in the definition.

Hon. D. Miller: I presume that's standard language.

C. Hansen: In terms of anything else I've seen, I've never seen that word used in that kind of context. The minister's answer surprises me, because I've never seen it as standard language before. It doesn't seem to fit, unless there's some technical definition to the word "calling" that I'm not aware of.

Hon. D. Miller: Well, some suggest that that's what we're in. Some people claim it's a business; others claim that it's not. I wouldn't read too much into it.

Amendments approved.

Section 1 as amended approved.

On section 2.

G. Farrell-Collins: Section 2, "Purpose," talks about: "The purpose of this Act is to help ensure that British Colum-

[ Page 6449 ]

bia's electric power resources contribute to the creation and retention of jobs in British Columbia and to regional economic development." Can the minister tell me how the creation and retention is going to be determined? Who's going to determine whether or not it's a retention or a creation? Is that strictly in the purview of the minister? I know that at a later date there's advice given to the minister by the commissioner, but at the end of the day, I'm assuming, under this, that it's the minister's decision as to whether or not a particular project qualifies. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Miller: It's the government's decision. Cabinet will make any final decision, subject to the kind of analysis done -- as I indicated in response to an earlier question -- by Treasury Board and the like.

Not to put too fine a point on it, the bill very simply sets out a purpose which I think all British Columbians would support, which is to try to create new jobs, to retain jobs that might otherwise be lost if presumably there wasn't access to market power, and to use that in a way that recognizes that we have a very large province with defined regions and that it's important that development, to the degree that it's possible, be available in all parts of our province, not just confined to some.

C. Hansen: The minister, a few minutes ago when we were talking about section 1, mentioned the quantifiable benefits that will come out of this piece of legislation, and he also used the term that we will be tested on, in future years: the benefits that come out of this initiative. How does the minister propose that the public can look at the benefits? How should the public look at this program in the years to come and determine whether or not the government has met its objective?

Hon. D. Miller: Well, I've never done a thing that wasn't subject to a heck of a lot of public scrutiny or scrutiny of the opposition, and I assume that will continue both in the House, in terms of defined processes, whether they be the estimates process or the like, and in the normal public discourse that does take place. So I don't think there is any difficulty holding governments accountable in our society. There's ample opportunity.

C. Hansen: Will the minister make a commitment that not only will we have the press releases that come out as power is allocated under this legislation but, in addition, there will be an ongoing process of public monitoring -- that the reports tabled by the administrator will include an ongoing evaluation of jobs created that can be substantiated by an outside party and by the opposition in this chamber?

Hon. D. Miller: Any arrangements that are entered into by an individual ministry on behalf of the government are subject to scrutiny. I would fully expect that. . . . You know, there's nothing to hide.

The purpose is one that I say I think the members opposite actually support, which is to use a power entitlement to try to stimulate the economy and create more jobs. Obviously I think we would be rather proud of any projects that we can develop under this piece of legislation and would want to let all British Columbians know what we're doing. So I don't think there would be any difficulty.

C. Hansen: Forgive me for being somewhat skeptical, but I guess what we have seen over this past year was press release after press release where the government claimed to have created X number of jobs as a result of whatever the initiative of the day or whatever the press release of the day happened to have been.

This is not by way of a question but just a request to the minister, and I'll leave it at that. As these reports are filed I would certainly ask, in terms of public accountability, that the administrator include in his reports an ongoing adjudication, an ongoing report, on how many jobs are actually created by these initiatives, rather than how many are simply claimed at the time that a particular project is announced.

Hon. D. Miller: Very well. Look, we could argue about job statistics till the cows come home -- and probably do, weekly. We want to avoid that kind of thing.

The primary thing that I as the minister responsible think of is to employ these resources well, in a way that contributes to the quality of life and adds new jobs in our province. That's our mandate. I'm sure it's one that the opposition supports.

G. Farrell-Collins: Just for the record, I think both sides agree that the surplus power should be used in a way that produces greater economic activity and economic growth in British Columbia and that it benefits all people. We will disagree on what the best process is to do that, and we did that at length in the estimates process. I think we're right and the minister is wrong, and he probably thinks the other way. I guess time will show who was right.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

G. Farrell-Collins: Section 3 talks about when the government can apply this rate. Certainly in the past -- I think it was 1995 -- there was an internal report by B.C. Hydro that said that a two-tiered pricing structure would open the government to court challenges. It would seem to me that the government is moving ahead despite those internal warnings from B.C. Hydro. I would just raise that with the minister, and perhaps he would like to comment on how he intends to deal with the possible challenges that may arise as a result of what essentially is a two-tiered rate structure.

Hon. D. Miller: I referred earlier to the kinds of trends that are taking place across North America in energy markets. It's by no means exactly certain where this will wind up in terms of a North American context. But all utilities -- particularly in Canada, because we have a much stronger history of state-owned utilities than is the case in U.S. jurisdictions -- are grappling with the push to have a more market-based system. We have a process within British Columbia that ultimately may lead to change. In the interim I think it's important that anything that we do with respect to utilizing DSBs for development purposes meets the test required of trade agreements, and we will ensure to the best of our ability that that does happen.

[7:00]

[ Page 6450 ]

about whether or not Hydro has prepared itself for the upcoming changes that the minister talks about, many of which have already happened. That's a debate we had earlier, and we don't need to have it again.

I do want to ask about section 3, though. It talks about giving this new market rate power, cheap power, to customers of the authority or to other general customers around the province. It states that they can receive. . . . My reading of it is this: if an industrial customer has a plant or a mill or whatever it happens to be, and they choose to expand that mill or that plant in such a way that they increase the number of people employed at the plant, they can apply under this act not just for cheap power for the expansion but for cheap power for their entire operation, including the pre-existing portion of the operation, which may well have pre-existing long-term contracts for power. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Miller: Well, currently there is an opportunity, without the provision of this power, for industrial customers to achieve some of their load at different rates through the real-time pricing policy of Hydro. That's not that old. It started in February 1996, I believe. The bill contemplates the ability of businesses, if they can demonstrate that. . . . Typically, I use Highland Valley Copper as just an example. I'm a bit leery of using that again and again, because we have to deal with whatever reality emerges once the bill is passed. Presumably in some circumstances where businesses can demonstrate that, with the access to some portion of their load under market-based prices, they can prolong employment -- mining would appear to be the most logical area where that could happen -- then they indeed would be able to avail themselves.

The member is aware that we wanted to ensure that industrial customers, while they're waiting for the Jaccard process -- and they have been pushing for access to more market-based power -- had an opportunity to get that. We then go to the two primary segments of the bill that would provide, under the appropriate circumstances, market-based power to prolong employment and obviously to create new employment.

But I was going to suggest that while the issues around international trade tend to be somewhat complex, it does seem to me that as a general statement, a general view -- and I certainly took this position as a member of opposition in years past -- when British Columbia's interests are challenged by those outside our borders, notwithstanding the traditional role of opposition in government, there are times when it is not opportune, in my view, to play the opposition role if that might have a broader implication for the broader interest of British Columbians.

I'm being very diplomatic. I could get into the diplomatic corps with that kind of language, but I think the member appreciates what I'm saying. I'm saying that just as a positive statement. I think there are times when as British Columbians we need to recognize our common interest, regardless of whether we are members of the opposition or members of government.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'm extremely and continually mindful of that. History is full of examples of it, and I will let the minister know, for his information, that in fact I've turned down more than one request by American newspapers for interviews about the Premier. I felt it was inappropriate to express my rather strongly held views outside the boundaries of the province. I think members can and should be aware of that.

I will also say that just because the Premier has picked another enemy and that enemy happens to be outside the borders of British Columbia, that is no reason for the opposition not to continue to raise issues where we believe the government and the Premier have made policy decisions which are harmful to the interests of British Columbians. In fact, for us to forgo our responsibility of raising those issues in a meaningful way -- so as to steer government policy and the actions of the leader of the government in a direction that puts the interests of the public first and his political interest somewhere else down the line -- we would be remiss in our job. So I understand the minister's comments. I am mindful of them on a regular basis. I am also mindful of the long-term role of the opposition with regard to policy development of the government. However, I do appreciate his comments.

The question that I asked, and I don't believe it was. . . . I think the minister sort of sidestepped it -- probably not deliberately, but he did. I will try to state it again, perhaps more clearly, if I can. Under this act, if a business -- say, an industrial customer -- chooses to expand their operation in some way so as to create new jobs, they could apply for cheap power for their entire operation, not just the expansion. That's one understanding. The minister says that they can do something like that now, in that they can apply for this market-based surplus power under the new program, as of March 1996. While I don't disagree with the minister that that's the case, I believe this bill goes substantially further. This bill says that all the power the industrial consumer uses in their project -- in their plant, in their business -- could in fact be cheap power.

The question that arises from that is: would that mean that they could somehow enter into negotiations with the government to create, let's say, a 10 percent increase in their employment base and achieve a 50 percent reduction in their costs of power for their whole capacity of a new increase -- 110 percent capacity of what they had before? Is that a correct understanding?

Hon. D. Miller: No, there would have to be a specific application. If you separate the RTP issues. . . . It's an existing policy of Hydro; it's in place, and that gives them part of their base. But under the act, this would have to be a specific application to the government. In other words, company A would come forward and say: "We could create 100 jobs if we could get, over and above our base, so much power at market rates."

G. Farrell-Collins: With all due respect, I don't believe that's what the act says -- if the minister looks carefully at section 3:

"On application by any business and despite the rate charged by the authority for the supply of electricity to the business, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may order that surplus electricity be supplied to, and a development power rate applies to some or all of the supply of electricity to, that business if the application is consistent with the criteria prescribed under section 15 (2) (a). . . ."

Hon. D. Miller: I think the explanation I gave is correct, notwithstanding. . . . And I can understand how that could be read. It also deals with not just new enterprises or additions to enterprises but the retention of jobs of existing industries, as well. But the intent is very clear from government's point of 

[ Page 6451 ]

view, and that is that the company would come forward. . . . We would expect that a lot of this would be new. Notwithstanding that, to the extent that it's existing, people would come forward and say that they could add jobs over and above the base if they could have access to. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: Well, that's already underway. But if they could have access to market-based-priced power for those additional needs. . . .

G. Farrell-Collins: I hate to quibble with the minister, but I believe he has a fairly narrow interpretation of the bill. If that's what he wants to put on the record, that's fine. I believe the bill does two things, or maybe three. The first is that it provides cheap power to approved projects that intend to create additional employment. It also provides cheap power to consumers that have existing employment with no plans to increase the base of employment, if it is clear that they need that cheap power in order to continue to maintain that employment. The third option that I am saying arises is the scenario, whereby an employer that has no plans to downsize and is not directly in need of cheaper power for the existing project may apply under this program for cheap power on the basis of creating a certain number of new jobs, and apply for that cheap power not just to allow for increased capacity and increased production and employment amount, but for their entire project. An example I gave was a 10 percent increase in employment and applying for cheap power for the entire 110 percent of the new project, thereby reducing their costs dramatically. I think that is a scenario that could come to fruition as a result of this section. I just want to clarify if that's the case or if it's not the case.

Hon. D. Miller: I believe I have said a couple of times what the intent of this section is. It's on the record.

R. Neufeld: Under this section, I'm just wondering if it would be permissible for the authority to exchange hydro with a neighbouring province. I'm specifically thinking about the community of Fort Nelson, which is supplied by Alberta, and the distribution in the area is done by B.C. Hydro. We have had a plant closure and some difficulty with employment. So I'm just wondering if there is an ability to exchange hydro to Alberta so that they could get a lower rate in Fort Nelson to be able to reactivate the jobs that have been lost just recently in one of the plants -- some 200 jobs. Would that be a possibility?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, it may be a possibility. I certainly would have to know more about the circumstances. But in going back to some previous sections, particularly the "Purpose" section, the intent of the bill is to specifically recognize regional economic development so that there would be no part of the province that, in our view, would not be able to avail themselves of the power -- the DSBs.

G. Farrell-Collins: Just before the member for Peace River North rose, the minister made a comment that his explanation of section 3 stands on the record. I submit it's an ambiguous explanation. I don't know who the final arbiter will be. I suppose it will be the minister sitting in his office someday, determining whether or not that is the case. I suspect he'll get questions and applications about that very quickly, if he doesn't already have them sitting on his desk.

I do want to comment a little bit on the comments by the member for Peace River North, because I think that's an example of where there really is potential for the government if they could do deals or if they could open up the market to market-based power more readily where a project like that could have continued. Certainly nothing in this bill precludes that. It seems to me that the definition of surplus electricity in the definitions section under paragraphs (a) and (b) includes surplus power purchased by the authority from another source. I think that the authority could purchase the power from a utility in Alberta and transfer it thorough to Fort Nelson and allow that project to go ahead.

[7:15]

On section 4.

C. Hansen: I read this section carefully; I read it many times. I was just wondering if the minister could give us an explanation as to why this particular section is necessary in this legislation.

Hon. D. Miller: It's really a link between the administrator and cabinet with respect to orders that the government might proceed with under the act; but also to be clear -- and I want this to be absolutely clear -- that cabinet may act on its own volition. The power, as I said, is a public resource. It's not absolutely necessary to have the administrator say, "This must be done," or to give a report saying it should be done.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

On section 6.

G. Farrell-Collins: I come back to sections 6(3) and 7(6). Both deal with a municipality or regional district supplying customers within its own boundaries. It indicates that orders can be made in that regard also. Perhaps the best way for us to debate this is going to be on section 7(6)(b), with the exceptions under the Municipal Act. I'll just wait until we move to the next section, then.

C. Hansen: I just want to ask the minister. . . . In my reading of the language in this bill, it doesn't set up a requirement that the rate at which a public utility sells or resells power not coming from B.C. Hydro but through some other body. . . . It does state that it has to be "a development power rate," but it doesn't say it has to be a specified development power rate. I'm wondering if the minister. . . . Am I right in my reading that another body could be forced to provide a development power rate but that there's nothing in here that says what that specific rate must be? The government, in this legislation, has not given itself the power to specify what that rate must be, providing it is a developmental power rate.

Hon. D. Miller: The power would be DSBs, at a rate determined. Any other authority than B.C. Hydro, obviously, B.C. Hydro being a Crown. . . . This section would allow that power to flow through those other utilities -- West Kootenay Power, for example. But the rate and the power would not be theirs. It would be only to the extent that there's a wholesale transmission or wheeling tariff to go through the system. The power would be DSBs. It would simply go through their system.

C. Hansen: I guess, in terms of the language, I could understand if it said that the public utility supplies some-

[ Page 6452 ]

where all the electricity to that business at a specified development power rate or, alternatively, at a development power rate specified by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, for example. But what we have here is somewhat open-ended, in that my read of it is that as long as they're charging a development power rate, there is nowhere else in this legislation that gives the Crown the ability to impose what that rate must be.

Hon. D. Miller: Here you get into the. . . . I bet if you get three or four lawyers, you might have them arguing for days on this. All I can tell you is what the reason for the section is. . .and, hopefully, rely on those drafters with the legal experience who put these things together to say they're right. But it is fairly straightforward.

Section 6 approved.

On section 7.

Hon. D. Miller: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 7, in the proposed section 7 by deleting "Neither the authority nor any other public utility is" and substituting "The government, the authority and any public utility are not".]

On section 7 as amended.

G. Farrell-Collins: I come to that section on municipalities, which I referred to a couple of times previously. Section 7(6)(b) omits. . . . I'll read the section: "If there is any conflict or inconsistency between. . .sections 601 to 603 of the Municipal Act, or any bylaw made under those sections, the order made under section 6 (1) and (2) prevails." Essentially, it's saying that those sections of the Municipal Act don't apply whenever the government doesn't want them to apply to a particular order.

Again I come back to my earlier suggestion. Perhaps I'm just wrong, but it seems to me that the municipalities would be supplying power to the various industrial users and that there would be, obviously, some revenue. I assume that the municipalities get some revenue for providing power, for wheeling it through their area. It appears that the government is able to make a deal or an order with respect to that. There'd be no compensation paid to the utility. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Miller: The bill is an enabling bill. Again, there's nothing nefarious with respect to the relationship with the municipality that may have a utility. It's simply the kind of legislative device that's required in order to enable the DSBs to flow to a project if it happens to be in an area supplied by a municipal utility. The Municipal Act does deal with the process whereby municipalities determine these things. So it really is a technical kind of clause in terms of enabling the power to flow.

G. Farrell-Collins: The problem that arises, I suppose, is if the municipality has one or two large industrial customers and relies upon the revenue from the sales to those industrial customers, and the government comes in under this bill and essentially strips them of that customer by supplying them in whole or in part with cheap power, whether there's an expansion or not -- probably the latter, where there's no expansion but just an order made to supply cheap power to that industrial consumer. . . . It would put the municipality in a situation where they would possibly be without a significant amount of revenue, with no way to make it up.

I suggest that if that were to happen under a recommendation of the job protection commissioner, that would probably have been part of the whole process. There would probably be municipal tax issues brought into discussions also, as is usual with the job protection commissioner.

So the question arises there: what happens to the revenues of the municipality if the government comes in, makes a determination without going to the job protection commissioner, and the municipality is left hanging? Certainly it wouldn't be the first time the government has done something that dramatically has affected the revenues of the municipality.

The other example would be the railway tax bill that the government brought in, which gave significant tax relief to the major railways in British Columbia. To many municipal communities, that was a significant drop in their revenues and put them in a very difficult spot. I see the same thing potentially happening here, where the government, by an arbitrary decision, undercuts significantly the revenues of the municipality, without any consultation with the municipality and no compensation to the municipality.

Hon. D. Miller: I don't think that would be the case at all. Again we're dealing in a hypothetical sense, because there really only is one that's municipal; the other is another system. But who knows what the future might bring?

There are lots of considerations for the future. I know that the member and, it seems to me, other members of his party have said: "Let's not do this. Let's just let the marketplace do it. Let's go forward, deregulate the system and let the marketplace determine everything." Surely if we were to do that, given at least current market-based costs of power, utilities or municipalities might in fact incur a loss. Would they be able to compete? I'm not saying they wouldn't. But they may not be able to for reasons of scale -- and others. There are lots of things that may happen as a result of moving forward on a market base.

Secondly, if the prospect of government working with a particular business or industry within a municipality to expand the number of jobs were contemplated, I would be certain that the municipality would be knocking on the door. At least, that's been my experience in dealing with municipalities where jobs are threatened or where there are opportunities for new jobs. They're pretty vociferous in terms of pounding on the door, saying: "Please give this industry everything they want."

I don't see that there would be any loss to the municipality. If an addition to a business were not going to take place because they could not access market-based power, then that municipality would be the poorer. If, under our arrangement, we can bring that power, then the municipality would be better off with respect to new jobs and the economic and taxation values those bring. I just don't see the member's point.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'm not concerned so much with an expansion of a business where the current revenue base of the municipality continues to exist and this is merely a topping-up. In fact, I expect they'd be enthusiastic about that scenario.

The scenario I envision in my hypothetical suggestion to the minister is one where the scenario under section 3 that I 

[ Page 6453 ]

highlighted -- two of the three scenarios I highlighted under section 3, rather -- is of a current project receiving cheap power without expansion for its entire supply, or the second scenario whereby, making a modest expansion, they would then receive cheap power for their entire project. In either of those cases, the municipality would be at a disadvantage. I put that on the record, and the minister can do with it as he pleases.

But it does raise another issue -- actually, the minister raised it -- and that's under section 7(1). I was going to raise it anyway, so the minister need not take blame for that. Section 7(1) says: "If there is a conflict between the rates of the authority and an order made under section 3 or 6, the order prevails." The minister is right. There has been dramatic change taking place in the energy market in North America -- remarkable change and fairly rapid change, actually. There's a situation now, or a situation could arise, where prices could fall even further. The government could go in right now and strike a deal or issue an order under this bill, then set a certain rate for power and find out, five or ten years down the road, that the market may change dramatically -- where there's even some big technological breakthrough, and suddenly it's: "Oh no, this happened before!" All of a sudden there's dramatically cheaper power, even cheaper than what exists in the market right now.

It certainly doesn't even need to be that dramatic. We could have a situation where the minister goes in and issues an order under this bill and comes up with a figure of 1.5 kilowatt-hour or something like that figure -- 1.5 cents, rather. Then, when Mr. Jaccard has finished his review and all things are said and done in three, four or five years, we could find out that there's power at 1 cent that's available.

Given section 7(1), we would now have those very businesses, which the minister enticed to expand or enticed to develop, existing in a market where they can't take advantage of the new market power whereas they thought they were getting a good deal three or four years before.

I guess the question is: could that section not be worded in such a way -- if the intent of the minister really is to offer this cheap power as an incentive to increase jobs -- as to do it for the long term and write it in such a way that, if there's a conflict between the rates of the authority and an order, the lesser of the two amounts would apply?

[7:30]

It's too wild to contemplate, Madam Chair, with all due respect, in debating a very simple bill that's simply an enabling bill to allow us to use power -- which belongs to all the people in a way -- to create jobs and save jobs in the province. I can't bite on that. It's too much for me to fathom at this late date in the month of July.

G. Farrell-Collins: I would suspect that's part of the problem and has been part of the government's problem in managing B.C. Hydro over the last six years. I bet that if I were to have asked a similar question about the possibility of Hydro power decreasing in value and cost three years ago, I would have had a different minister, who's now the Premier, stand up and give the same kind of comment about how difficult it is to fathom that power would actually drop in value.

I suspect that's exactly what he thought when he failed to close the Bonneville power deal, which now -- according to he himself -- has reduced the value of the downstream benefits from $5 billion to $2 billion in today's market. I suspect that it was far beyond the then minister's ability to fathom that hydro rates would actually drop to the level that they have. My comment is that they have dropped that far -- so far.

They may go back up again. I doubt it, but even without any dramatic technological change -- just the fact that the market continues to go through fairly rigorous and fairly rapid change -- we may end up in a situation where, three months from now, the minister could issue an order at 1.8 cents. We could find that two or three years from now, let's say, Mr. Jaccard makes a recommendation, or the pressure is such from around North America, that we do need to open our market. So we do that, and find that the market rate declines to 1.2 cents.

We would have a substantial problem for that organization -- that calling, if you want to put it that way, that the minister has -- in that they would be locked into an order that was designed to entice them and is in fact penalizing them and making them unable to take advantage of the current market rates that exist at the time.

It's not difficult to fathom. It doesn't require any scientific revolution to take place, just the natural evolution of the hydro market as it has done over the last little while. If the minister finds that that's a scenario he doesn't want to envisage, then that's fine, and we'll perhaps have to deal with it two or three years down the road.

Section 7 as amended approved.

Section 8 approved.

On section 9.

G. Farrell-Collins: This is part 3. This is the role of the Power for Jobs administrator -- a wonderful name. It's an interesting section, because it has all these wonderful things this administrator will be able to do. They'll be able to analyze things and look at the market. They'll be able to look at the applications, analyze them and determine whether they're successful and whether they should or should not have access to the cheap power.

Then the administrator will make a recommendation to the minister, and the minister will do what he damn well pleases. That's essentially what it is. In fact, given our comments earlier that the minister intends this person to be likely somebody internal with the ministry -- so it appeared anyway, in the earlier sections -- it appears that long before the recommendations even come forward, it'll be clear what it is that the government is hoping to do.

In section 9(1), it says that if the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council determines that surplus electricity may be made available under this act, the minister may notify the adminis-

[ Page 6454 ]

trator of what it is that the minister is thinking of doing. He may not; he doesn't have to. I guess the question is: why have an administrator? Why bother to set up this structure, hire somebody and give them the job of being the administrator when at the end of the day, the minister is going to do exactly what he wants?

Why not just do it internally in the ministry? Why create this office, this title and this individual to give the bill some sense of credibility that there's going to be some independent, logical and rational evaluation to this? Why not just do what the government intends to do anyway, which is to make its own decisions based on whatever political or other criteria it feels are necessary?

That's the problem with this bill, I suspect. We have hundreds of millions of dollars in assets -- hundreds of millions of dollars -- that can be used as one of the largest political slush funds in the history of British Columbia. There is no control. There is no third-party verification, and there's no analysis to be done of the various projects in any meaningful or independent way. I suspect, as I said in second reading, that what's likely to happen is that the Premier and ministers and MLAs are going to go around to all their ridings and tell them: "Hey, we should get an application for this Jobs for Power project. We'll get cheap power. We'll build a smelter here, and we'll build one there. We'll open a mine here. Jobs for everybody; a chicken in every pot." It's going to turn into a huge political slush fund.

Instead of having the market itself determine the best locations for these projects -- which project should be able to compete and which can compete against each other -- and ending up making our industries more efficient and more able to compete on the open market, we're going to have political decisions being made in ridings for partisan reasons -- projects that may not, in the long run, be economically viable on their own. My concern is that this will be used as a political tool, as opposed to an economic development tool. At the end of the day, we'll end up with all sorts of projects around the province that aren't there for any reason, other than the fact that somebody got access to the minister or somebody in some riding had more clout than somebody in another region of the province. I think that's unfortunate, and it puts us in a long-term economic disadvantage when decisions are made for reasons that aren't necessarily rational, but rather are political.

Hon. D. Miller: If it weren't July 28 and late in the summer, and if I hadn't tolerated a lot of nonsense so far this year, I might be tempted to rise and take offence at language like "political slush fund" and "someone getting to the minister." I'll just consider the source, and hopefully we can move on from this lunacy.

G. Farrell-Collins: I didn't intend it to mean that it was an outside person getting to the minister. If the minister took it that way, I apologize to him. I meant within the normal. . . .

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: I suspect that we are getting towards the end. I'm attempting to offer the minister an explanation and a clarification of my comments. There was no insult intended. What I'm trying to say is that in the normal process of a minister being in cabinet, MLAs will come to the minister and lobby on behalf of their constituents. When I said "someone getting to the minister," that was what I meant. I meant that there will be internal lobbying within the party, within the caucus. That was the intent. If the minister took offence to that, then I suggest that he's being overly sensitive. If he interpreted it another way, I want to clarify for him exactly what it was that I meant.

Section 9 approved.

On section 10.

G. Farrell-Collins: Section 10 talks about some of the considerations the administrator needs to take in making decisions. Section 10 says: "In carrying out the mandate under section 9, the administrator is to give due consideration to economic, environmental and societal interests including, without limitation, (a) any new employment relationships that may be established as a result of this Act."

Could the minister tell me exactly what that means?

Hon. D. Miller: It means new employment.

G. Farrell-Collins: So really, what it should say is "any new employment that may be established as a result of this act." Is that correct?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, but "relationships" does not detract from the meaning of the intent of the section.

Sections 10 and 11 approved.

On section 12.

G. Farrell-Collins: Section 12 and section 11 sort of work together, but my question deals with section 12. Section 11 says that the administrator shall not divulge any of the information that's given to him in performing his duties, and he or she will keep that confidential. That's just to protect third-party interests. Obviously a great deal of internal information will go to the administrator when applying for this, and it's to make sure that it doesn't get out to their competitors, etc. That makes sense.

I think the intent of section 12 is to make sure that it's not obtained through frivolous civil legal action designed to do nothing but get that information. There have been cases where that's happened. The unsuccessful bidder will launch a suit against their competitor for whatever reason, and then ask for, in this case, the administrator to come and testify and end up divulging that in the courts in a way that's not available through freedom of information or some other source. I understand that that's what the intent of section 12 is.

But there are scenarios, I believe, where in fact a court could determine that it was in the public's interest that information that had been given to the administrator should be made available to the courts. I'm wondering if the minister has considered that scenario. As it reads right now, there would be no way for the court to do that. I suspect that the court in itself may determine at some time that this information is necessary and that it is in the public interest to come forward in some suit -- maybe even in a very limited way. As it is now, there's no provision for the court to make that order.

Hon. D. Miller: Again, the member is correct with respect to the intent of sections 11 and 12. I can only assume that from a legal point of view, the wording is sufficient to deal with, fundamentally, the issue around confidentiality or the propriety of information.

[ Page 6455 ]

G. Farrell-Collins: I noted the presence of the Attorney General, and perhaps he can help us with this one. The way it's worded now, it says that the administrator can't be called to testify or produce evidence -- can't be called, I suppose, by one of the two parties in the civil case. The scenario I raise is that when the judge in the case decides that they need that information for what may be a completely unrelated issue, my argument is that this section is unduly limiting in that it doesn't provide the opportunity for the court to order that information to be made public if it's in the public interest. I suspect that there are scenarios where that's the case.

Hon. D. Miller: Again, the two sections taken together do deal with any potentiality with respect to court proceedings. Section 11 talks about: ". . .required by a court proceeding relating to this Act. . . ." I'm not certain what more I can offer.

Section 12 approved.

On section 13.

G. Farrell-Collins: This comes back to what is still, in my mind, a very unclear proposal by the government as to what the actual role and position of the administrator is going to be and how that job is going to look. It would seem to me that it would make more sense for the administrator to be presenting his recommendations as many others do. The B.C. Utilities Commission sends its annual reports to the Legislature; B.C. Hydro sends annual reports to the Legislature; the job protection commissioner sends annual reports to the Legislature. In this case, it goes to cabinet; it goes to the minister. Is it the intent of the government to table that annual report in the Legislature on an annual basis, also?

Hon. D. Miller: Certainly the wording does not require a public report. Yet I did say, in response to earlier questions, that to the degree that there weren't confidentiality issues, we would want the achievements or the jobs created or extended or prolonged as a result of this act to be conveyed to the public in an open manner. The details would be -- I would think quite properly -- the subject of estimates debate in the Ministry of Employment and Investment, as the issues around the Job Protection Commission or investments that are made out of the industrial incentive fund are now -- those kinds of things. I want to have full public accountability on these questions. To the extent that Hansard is something that conveys intent, I'll say now that in the estimates of this ministry, any activity of the administrator is open to be canvassed in a full way.

[7:45]

Title approved.

Hon. D. Miller: Madam Chair, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 50, Power for Jobs Development Act, reported complete with amendments.

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

Hon. D. Miller: With leave of the House now, hon. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 50, Power for Jobs Development Act, read a third time and passed.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 47.

FORESTS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1997

On section 1.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'd like to move the amendment to section 1 standing in my name in Orders of the Day.

[SECTION 1 (b), in the proposed definition of "Forests Appeals Commission" by adding "or commission" after "Forest Appeals Commission".]

T. Nebbeling: Just a quick question for explanation. Up to now the Forest Appeals Commission was the only authority, but now we are adding a commission, as well. Can the minister explain why that is happening?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Let me explain. The amendment to section 1 corrects a drafting oversight, by defining the term "commission" in the Forest Act definitions. The inclusion of this term is needed as both the "Forest Appeals Commission" and "commission" are terms referred to in the proposed appeal provisions of the act, but through an oversight commission was not defined.

T. Nebbeling: Just to be sure that I understand it fully, the Forest Appeals Commission has certain authority. The commission has identical authority, no less and no more.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, that is correct. It's the same body. It's just referred to in different ways in different parts of the act.

Amendment approved.

On section 1 as amended.

T. Nebbeling: There is a new line in it as well that is in section 8(a) saying: ". . .if it is a licence to cut in the form of a master agreement. . . ." I've never heard of a master agreement before. Can the minister explain what that particular expression means?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I believe the member is now onto section 8.

T. Nebbeling: Are we still on 1?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes. So we would go to section 2 next, and we will pick up the amendment when we get to section 8.

[ Page 6456 ]

T. Nebbeling: Sorry. The amendment passed, but there are still a number of questions on section 1 that I would like to ask. Section 1, paragraph (a) says: "In the definition of 'small business forest enterprise revenue' by repealing paragraphs (b) and (c) and substituting the following: (b) timber sale licences granted under section 21. . . ." What is the authority given under that particular section and to whom?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Let me give the explanation here. This amendment adds timber sale licences granted under section 23(1)(f) to the list of timber sale licences that generate small business revenue. This is a new type of small business licence added in section 4 of this bill. It makes a housekeeping amendment by clarifying only timber sale licences granted under section 24(2) that have an allowable annual cut. . . . I guess you refer here to subsection (c)(ii) of the definition. And it adds a reference to forest licences granted to small business enterprises to the list of agreements that generate small business revenue in subsection (d) of the definition.

T. Nebbeling: Do these so-called small business licences have to go through a public process, or is it at the discretion of the district manager or the regional manager?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: You know, what happens is that consequential amendments sometimes happen before you actually discuss the real amendment. In section 23, we'll be discussing the types of licences that we've added to the list, so the types of licence that you are talking about here are direct-award-type licences.

T. Nebbeling: Licences "that have an allowable annual cut of 10,000 m3 or less. . . ." If I read this section right, it allows the district manager or the regional manager to increase the cut tenfold. Am I correct, or is that a wrong interpretation?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The provision you're talking about is an existing provision, and there's no change to it. This just puts it in this section of the bill, I guess.

T. Nebbeling: The point I was trying to make is that if this becomes a small business licence. . . . If the licence initially is 10,000 cubic metres, and then in the same section, they would have an opportunity by a decision made by the district or the regional manager to increase it ten times, would the cut not be sufficient in size that it would merit a whole public process?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As I understand, it just references this type of licence. I'll explain to you what happened with this licence. These are all existing licences, and nobody is going to get a new one of these. So in order to get rid of some of these long-term licences, we said that on a one-time basis: "We can give you up to ten times what your cut is on a non-replaceable licence." So it basically took the licence out by saying: "We'll give you up to ten times your cut -- ten years of cut. You take it, and that takes the licence away." So it got a bunch of those licences off the books.

Section 1 as amended approved.

On section 2.

T. Nebbeling: Can the minister give me some clarification of this section? On the surface it looks quite clear what the intent is; however, I was wondering if, the way it is written, this would not allow major licensees to tap into forest licences under the small business forest enterprise program. I use as an example what we saw happen last week in Langley. A log mill got shut down -- 135 people laid off -- and then the following day the announcement was made that the mill would reopen as an added-value manufacturing plant, a secondary manufacturing plant, with fewer workers. Suddenly it would, in my opinion, qualify under this section for small business forest enterprise plan timber. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Not in the case that you gave. They would have to be registered and qualified under the small business forest enterprise program. So they would have to be registered in the program to qualify for sales.

I'll give a little more explanation of this section. This amendment will give government more flexibility in making the undersold volumes available to the small business licensees. These licences will provide government managers with a less costly, more efficient vehicle for selling small business forest enterprise program wood -- undersold volumes -- by shifting planning and development responsibilities to small business registrants. So basically we want to be able to designate the categories of licences that would qualify, because they're then able to do some of what we call the engineering of the wood -- the planning and development of the sales -- themselves.

T. Nebbeling: Just to be sure. . . . I was never going to talk about section 2, but because of what happened in the Fraser Valley, I thought: "Hey, is this maybe a way for a major licensee holder to actually change the character of his mill and thereby become part of the small business enterprise program?" That way, with a majority partner, they can tap into what you just described as the two million backlog that is still out there -- the initial 3.1 million backlog. So if that is not possible, then I am obviously content.

[8:00]

T. Nebbeling: Then the question I have is: would the minister disallow a company. . . ? Even if it would comply under the rules by having a majority partner in that secondary manufacturing plant that they are opening, would the minister restrict major licence holders from tapping into that kind of opportunity? It could be the tool for a major licensee holder or a mill owner to say, "Okay, we'll shut the mill down, we'll bring in a partner -- who becomes the majority partner with 51 percent -- and with our 49 percent, we have the ability to tap into more timber than normally would be available to us." I see the minister has the authority here, and that is one of the situations where I would ask the minister to consider exercising his authority so that it truly goes to the small business enterprise program members that have been there -- clearly those who this whole backlog was targeted for.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I guess I would tell the member that the intent is clear: we want bona fide small business registrants to be able to qualify for this wood. But if there is some kind of reformulation of a business out there -- some new 

[ Page 6457 ]

partnership that is structured and they then qualify -- I can't disqualify them. If they are qualified as a small operation, then they would be eligible were I to do this. But to make the connection between a sale coming available and somebody else going through a corporate restructuring -- to spin off a piece to qualify. . . . We wouldn't connect those two processes; certainly in my office we wouldn't.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

T. Nebbeling: Through the whole document, we see from time to time the authority of district managers being delegated to forest officers. If the minister at this point can clarify for me: when do these forest officers actually become qualified to act as a district manager because of the delegation of power? If I ask that question once, then I don't have to ask it every time it comes up. It comes up a number of times. Once, and that's it.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This amendment allows district managers to take a bit of the workload that is on their shoulders and delegate it down to officers that we call forest officers, which is defined in the act as "a person employed by the Ministry of Forests who is designated by name or title to be a forest officer by the minister, the chief forester or a regional manager." So any of those three can actually designate who these forest officers are.

T. Nebbeling: I understand that the authority is with the district manager and maybe the regional manager as well, but I'm looking more for the qualifications for forest officers. Maybe the minister can explain exactly what a qualified forest officer is, who then indeed would have the ability to act as a district manager to relieve the workload of the district manager.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Typically, what we expect is that the delegation would go to the operations manager. There is a job description. People compete for those positions. So it's actually the 2-I-C below the district manager. But the qualifications they would have would normally be a technical degree or perhaps an RPF or a full forestry degree.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

J. Wilson: In section 4, paragraph (a), could the minister tell me the time difference between. . . ? I believe this is in reference to any small business sale. Or is there a. . . ? Paragraph (a) is with regard to the decision to remove wood that is in danger. Is this subject to wood that is going up in the bid process?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This refers to direct sales. A direct sale can be made, in the new wording -- which is paragraph (a), section 23(1)(c)(i) -- if it is "in danger, as a result of insect infestation, fire, disease or windthrow, of being significantly reduced in value, lost or destroyed." The old wording was: ". . .timber, in the opinion of the regional manager or district manager, is in imminent danger of being lost or destroyed and must be removed expeditiously to prevent that loss. . . ." So it basically says that if it's in danger as a result. . . . The new amendment more accurately reflects the circumstances under which salvage timber becomes available and will help the ministry with issuing timber sale licences.

J. Wilson: I see that in section 4, section 23(3), we have raised the volume that can go up for direct sale without being advertised. I'm wondering if the same thing applies to paragraph (a), section 23(1), whether or not there is a limit on the volume and whether it can be put up without going through the bid process.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This is the larger sales. There is no limit, as there is at present.

Just to clarify the difference between this language and the language we had before, this one says if it's in danger, as opposed to imminent danger. That's the difference here. So it's the same as it is now, except in the salvage program for these larger direct sales it says that they can be made if it's in danger, not imminent danger. Imminent is a much more immediate situation, so the current practice in the field is more in line with this wording that we're proposing here; that has become the practice. It's known that you. . . . Particularly with beetle stuff or windthrow, you could argue that it's not imminently in danger; but if it's in danger, it allows you to go about the salvage program on a more orderly basis.

J. Wilson: My question is: whether it's in imminent danger or in danger, will it be put up. . . ? We realize that it may be in danger, but will it be put up for bid? Or will it simply be awarded without going through the channels that are used to put these up for the public?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This will be used in circumstances where there isn't time to advertise and put it to competitive bid, so this is the direct award. Typically these are smaller-type sales, but I'm told that there is no size restriction in this section.

J. Wilson: What is the loss in the picture here -- the time frame? What's the difference in the time frame if the district manager awards a direct sale to someone, or he takes the other road and he advertises? This is a direct sale, but it's advertised. What is the difference in time from the one being. . . ? My question is: how much longer would it take to advertise that sale versus not advertising it?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: While it could be longer, it could be as short as the difference between six weeks and three months. But that's the difference between getting to a situation because of a season -- seasonal changes or weather, or in the case of a beetle flight. . . . This would be used where that's the only way to get it out.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

T. Nebbeling: This section doesn't have a lot of concern in particular, but it needs some good explanation. Can the minister explain: does this apply to existing tree farm licences, or would this. . . ? It must be an existing tree farm licence, of course. How would the introduction of new higher-level plans or other values into the operation of a tree farm licence be incorporated without it having a dramatic impact on the existing licence? I'm looking in particular at subsection 35.1(2), where "the chief forester determines that a management plan 

[ Page 6458 ]

for a tree farm licence does not satisfactorily provide for an inventory of the forest, recreation and cultural heritage resources. . ." -- or other values that the chief forester can determine. How does this demand get introduced into an existing tree farm licence?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The power is there now. The power was introduced when the Forest Practices Code came into being, along with a number of other provisions dealing with inventory. This amendment -- it's truly housekeeping -- just changes it to the Forest Act from the Forest Practices Code act, because most of the governance of tree farm licences is in the Forest Act.

[8:15]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This section just enables the chief forester to request a TFL-holder to produce inventory information, if the management plan doesn't provide for those inventories. When you speak of higher-level plans and the effects that that might have on dislocating operations, that would be governed under the Forest Practices Code, which deals with higher-level plans.

T. Nebbeling: Maybe the minister can tell me: is there an ongoing analysis of tree farm licences by the chief forester to identify whether indeed the tree farm licence does comply to the satisfaction of the forest manager with these various issues that we've been discussing, be they cultural or be they recreational?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This information is used as part of the determination, every five years, that the chief forester makes of the AAC and the tree farm licence. In the development of the management plans, they have to produce certain information. This would be where this information would be used; it would be used in the lead-up to the AAC determination.

T. Nebbeling: The main objective of Bill 47 is to reduce some of the bureaucracy and paperwork, in order to get a more streamlined process so that licences and cutting permits can be issued. Does this clause not create additional paperwork, especially because, from time to time, we do get new values incorporated in the whole process? One of them is the economic value that a district manager has to use now in order to look at what the impact will be of all the other so-called higher-level plans. . .or other economic impacts of the cut in a tree farm licence.

If indeed the chief forester determines that more land has to be set aside from the supply area, does that not require that a whole new plan be created, including the district manager's commitment to create an economic analysis? Considering that what we are trying to do with this whole reanalysis of the Forest Practices Code is to get rid of paperwork, I have a feeling that here is a way that will create more paperwork. That was really the point I was trying to make.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: No, this truly is housekeeping, in the sense that it just transfers it to another act. There should be no more paperwork -- or no less -- associated with this.

Sections 5 to 7 inclusive approved.

On section 8.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I move the amendment standing in my name in Orders of the Day.

[SECTION 8 (a), by deleting the proposed section 51 (2) and substituting the following:

(2) A licence to cut entered into under this Act

(a) if it is a licence to cut in the form of a master agreement must

(i) be for a term not exceeding 3 years, and

(ii) provide that the district manager, or a forest officer authorized by the district manager, is to issue, subject to the licence, this Act and the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act, cutting permits that authorize the licence holder to harvest Crown timber from specified areas of land within the area or areas of land specified in the licence,

(b) subject to section 104, must require payment of stumpage, and

(c) may include other terms and conditions, consistent with this Act and the regulations and the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act, and the regulations and standards made under that Act, determined by the regional manager or district manager or by a forest officer authorized by either of them. , and.]

T. Nebbeling: Can the minister quickly explain the switch in wording, where the master agreement was mentioned in section 51(2)(a) before and now is mentioned in (b)? That is really the only difference, but the reason for it. . . ?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It was simply a drafting error.

Amendment approved.

Section 8 as amended approved.

Sections 9 and 10 approved.

On section 11.

J. Wilson: In paragraph (b), section 78(1)(d), what would this entail, with regard to a small business licence being revoked? Could the minister perhaps give me a rundown on this section and explain it to me?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As it stands now, there's no disqualification, or there's a permanent disqualification. What this section does is it introduces much needed flexibility into these sections, to allow for a temporary disqualification and to place conditions before a disqualification is lifted. They correct a non-intended result of the existing section -- that is, that disqualifications can only be permanent -- which was identified by legal counsel and an appeal board.

J. Wilson: I believe, then, that the flexibility that the minister is referring to would be flexibility in the hands of the 

[ Page 6459 ]

district manager or regional manager, which would allow them to impose whatever riders they felt necessary on the suspension of a licence. Is there a set of guidelines in place for them to base a decision on?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The reason for putting conditions on would be so that he wouldn't get into the same difficulty again. For example, if he's not logging properly, there may be a requirement that he get an RPF to sign some aspect of his cutting plan. The purpose was to take corrective action, saying that we'll get rid of your disqualifications if you abide by these rules.

Section 11 approved.

On section 12.

T. Nebbeling: This section is quite similar to the previous section, for different groupings. In the past, whenever companies would not fulfil their financial commitments to the government by not paying the stumpage, I believe certain programs were in place to give these operations a chance to get through a slow period. With this particular section I get the feeling that things are toughened up a little bit more than in the past. What concerns me is that if indeed the enforcement happens, we're going to see serious layoffs. Once a company has its rights removed by the minister, the guys in the field will be the first ones to feel the consequences of that.

Can the minister maybe give me a bit of a quick overview of why these regulations, in a sense, have been toughened up; and, if indeed -- how would I say it? -- licences are taken back or suspended, how the plan works then with the people who work in the field -- the enforcers?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: What this does is allow us to separate the reasons -- there may be code reasons for disallowing, or money reasons. It allows us to separate them out, so that the ministry can strengthen or expand its leverage with respect to certain reasons.

T. Nebbeling: Subsection 81(6)(b) says the regional manager or district manager may be able to make arrangements to deal with a violation. Are there guidelines? Or is this purely a judgment call by these two authorities? Are there indeed guidelines that are concrete, so that rather than it becoming a guessing game, there's something in place that says, under these circumstances, the regional manager or district manager can help the show to move on, without the ultimate -- and that's closing down an operation?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This would apply. That section refers to a situation where somebody hasn't made an economic plan or repayment plan, so that the regional managers have the authority to work out a repayment plan with somebody.

J. Wilson: Would the minister be willing to define what they mean by "arm's length" or "not at arm's length" here?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The customary definition of arm's length is someone who isn't. . . . Someone who isn't at arm's length is a spouse or brother or someone close. This is a provision that we use now in the small business program; it's already there and being used. What this does is. . . . This is the one that refers to the major licences -- right? So this extends that same provision from the small business program to major licences.

[8:30]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Section 12, section 81(6) states: "defined in the Income Tax Act. . . ." So I guess it's a long-established practice which has been challenged, defended and defined through law around the Income Tax Act. We just use that act, so it's not that we're defining it.

J. Wilson: I realize that the minister is using the Income Tax Act. I'm not a tax accountant; I'm not familiar with the Income Tax Act; I don't have a copy of the Income Tax Act. So does the minister have a list of people not at arm's length or considered to be not at arm's length, which they have taken from the Income Tax Act, so that they could perhaps clarify who is and who isn't?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We don't have it with us here. But I just want to assure the member that we're not changing this provision with respect to the small business licensees. We're applying this same provision to major licensees. We could get a copy of that definition and provide it to you, yeah.

Section 12 approved.

On section 13.

T. Nebbeling: In this particular section, first of all, is this toughened up in order to stop the poaching of timber? Or is this just a strengthening of the whole scaling system and the enforcement of it?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As you may recall, the auditor general made a report. In that report, he recommends strengthening the control of the marketing and transport. So this amendment will require truckers who transport unscaled logs to ensure that they're properly marked. Truckers who fail to do so could be issued a ticket.

T. Nebbeling: Just for clarification, section 13, paragraph (b) says: ". . .repealing subsection (3) and substituting the following: '(3) A person must not remove or transport timber from Crown land or from private land unless the timber has been conspicuously marked in the prescribed manner with a timber mark.' " What was that section in total? Was this not always a requirement to begin with?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The previous provision didn't have "transport" in it. It simply read that timber has to be "conspicuously marked in the prescribed manner." But this adds, as I understand, transporting logs. So it says the person transporting needs to know that there is a timber mark on that. It holds the transporter liable for ensuring that there is proper marking.

T. Nebbeling: So who's ultimately responsible or held responsible that indeed this strengthening of the marking is happening? What are the checks and balances now in place, which obviously were not there in the past, to make sure that this marking is happening and that a transport is being done under the new compliances?

[ Page 6460 ]

In the past, there have been many rules and regulations already applying to this particular part of the industry. What I'm looking for is: what is now so different that we can feel comfortable that there will be better enforcement of the marking and transportation of the product, so that indeed this will become part of the fight against log poaching, which I still believe is a serious problem?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The controls that are presently in place. . . . We look at the cutblock. They've got to be marked; there are some checks that go on there. There are impromptu roadblocks. Then there is, of course, the check-scaling. That's the system now. This is the addition of the trucker being responsible for ensuring that the load is properly marked, so there's another opportunity on the road to pick it up. You know, if he's trucking it without it having been properly marked, then we can hold the trucker responsible; that's the only addition here.

T. Nebbeling: It was subject to the auditor general's critique. One of the criticisms was that a substantial portion of the timber was either marked incorrectly or went sideways. Can the minister explain how, with these persons, the guidelines have been created so that the. . . ? How is enforcement guaranteed under this new section, especially with the transport portion? Who does the monitoring of the conditions being upheld? Are there penalties in place today to deal with the violators of the enforced rules and regulations when it comes to the marking and the transportation of products with the marks?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There's a timber marking and transport regulation in place now. As of last week, cabinet approved it. So there are penalties in place. Tickets can be given out or the timber can be seized at roadblocks. So we've got provisions in place now as per the recommendations of the auditor general.

Sections 13 and 14 approved.

On section 15.

T. Nebbeling: Just quickly on this section, I get a feeling, if I read it right, that there's a conflict between the person who gives the suspension, which is the manager, and the person who can reverse his or her decision, which is the regional manager or the district manager. How does this process work? Does the district manager converse with the regional manager? Is it the regional manager who actually applies a suspension? And in order to reverse that decision, does it go the same route, or are there other parties that become involved in dealing with that particular problem?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Let me go back to the explanation here. These amendments protect the rights of the holder of scaled timber by providing for a suspension before a cancellation and by providing that a suspension must be rescinded if the problem has been remedied. So the person doing it will be either the regional manager or the district manager.

Sections 15 to 18 inclusive approved.

On section 19.

T. Nebbeling: Maybe the minister can give me a quick overview of exactly what happens in this section. We're removing some references. At the same time, the chief forester has been given some discretion to specify the manner of doing things. I don't get a good picture of this one.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Again, we call this a housekeeping amendment. What it provides for is cost recovery if the government scales timber but allows small amounts to be waived. It also recognizes that the scaling fee that used to be levied was eliminated in 1994.

T. Nebbeling: Under subsection (2), a person whose timber is scaled by a person who is not an employee of the government must pay charges to the government. Can the minister tell me: are there private organizations doing scaling that would qualify under this section? Would it give the government the authority to look for a payment? How does this section work, and who would "a person" be?

[R. Kasper in the chair.]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The wording in subsection (2) is basically what we have now. The raw data is provided; the government does the computation. We do bill people for that now. What this section does is allow us to waive this for small sales, so the operative section is subsection (3).

Section 19 approved.

On section 20.

T. Nebbeling: Can the minister give me an explanation for when and why this section would apply? That's the first part.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This would apply when someone has something scaled -- the private sector scales it -- and a person who might have an interest in that timber wishes a second scale. They can ask for, in effect, a check scale on that particular timber.

T. Nebbeling: That's the thing that I don't understand. When would somebody be justified in asking for a second scale? Is that to question the first scale, if it has been underscaled or overscaled? Or is it another party that may be interested in the timber and is willing to go with a higher grade? I don't understand that section.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It would typically be a trucker, for example, who is paid by a certain scale. If he wants to make sure that the scale is correct, he could apply to have a second scale done.

[8:45]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Let me explain a little more clearly what the section is about. This section sets out the circumstances under which timber can be scaled for a second time. When the second scale replaces the first, then who is responsible for paying the scale charges? The current provision is deficient, because it only allows for a second scale to replace 

[ Page 6461 ]

the first on the basis of a difference in volume. The amendment expands the replacement criteria to allow a scale to be replaced on the basis of a difference in value as well. This will avoid the current situation where a scale with numerous grading errors, which may underestimate the value of the timber, cannot be replaced by a second scale because the volume did not vary between the first and second scale.

T. Nebbeling: You expect me to understand all that? I think it is a tool to deal with the conflict. The one question that still is outstanding then: if indeed that conflict arises, who is responsible for that additional cost of the second scaling?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Currently the government pays it. Under this section, government continues to pay for the second scale.

Section 20 approved.

On section 21.

T. Nebbeling: Section 21: " '. . .a regional manager or forest officer authorized by the regional manager,' and substituting 'an employee of the ministry identified in the policies and procedures referred to in subsection (1) (b).' " Why is this change made? What is the purpose of this change to take the authority away from one party and put it into the jurisdiction of the minister?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This section allows for us to identify in the appraisal manual who the particular officers are who can determine stumpage.

T. Nebbeling: The determination of the appraisal of the stumpage is going to be guided by policies and procedures referred to in subsection (1)(b). I don't have (1)(b). Can the minister give me the intent of subsection (1)(b)?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Subsection (1)(b) reads: ". . . in accordance with the policies and procedures approved for the forest region by the minister." That is the appraisal manual; "policies and procedures approved for the forest region" is the appraisal manual. I approve what goes into the appraisal manual.

T. Nebbeling: What is the purpose of replacing that regional manager or that forest officer authorized by the regional manager with an employee of the ministry? We are taking it out of the region, from people who are directly knowledgable of what happens in the region -- what the type of stands are, the quality of the stands -- to an employee of the ministry who may be here in Victoria.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As I understand it, the Forest Act reads: "the regional manager or district manager." In fact, other people make these determinations in Victoria, and so what this change does is make it possible to designate by title who the personnel are who can make these determinations. We do that in the appraisal manual.

T. Nebbeling: I understand that the minister has the appraisal manual produced over here. I just do not understand, if section 105 has identified the regional manager or an individual authorized by this regional manager and forest officer. . . . Is the minister saying that that particular position was never involved with the determination of the stumpage? And if so, why was the section authorized in the first place, allocating that responsibility to the regional manager or the forest officer?

And secondly, to give the complete picture, could this have anything to do with how stumpage, because of its local uniqueness, is sometimes determined on a local level? You take the interior or the northwest, where we have a lot of decadent timber -- the stumpage does not really reflect the value that that timber has. Is this one of these areas where the regional manager has not been able to authorize that authority to look at that stumpage and had to deal with the fact that an employee of the ministry in Victoria was making the decisions? Or could that be the scenario for the future?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As I understand what happened in the past, the regional managers and whoever else was in the legislation had to designate people every year, including officials in Victoria, and give them the authority to make stumpage. Both before this amendment and after this amendment, people in the regions and in Victoria have been involved in determining stumpage. Nothing changes there. All it does is. . . . Rather than have a very formal, elaborate process every year of people in the region, for example, designating positions in Victoria, a simple description in the appraisal manual will be made that will designate people.

Sections 21 to 25 inclusive approved.

On section 26.

T. Nebbeling: This particular section could, I believe, create considerable upheaval in certain areas where forest roads have been used for many other purposes besides logging trucks. In particular, I'm talking about areas where recreation use is part of the forest road, and other uses as well. Is there any consideration by the minister in this section. . . ? It allows other uses to come into an area, like ". . .sand pits, gravel pits, rock quarries or other quarries that are adjacent to the road covered by the road permit and provide materials for the construction, modification or maintenance of the road." What happens if there are conflicting uses in that area that have been approved in the past by the Ministry of Forests for use of these roads, such as recreation in the summer and snowmobile operators, cross-country operators in the winter? Has that been considered in this?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This is a streamlining amendment. It used to be that to put in a road and gravel it, you had to have both a special use permit and a road permit. This says that under your road permit you can mine gravel to put on the road; you don't need a special use permit. So it doesn't have anything to do with the ultimate use of the road.

T. Nebbeling: I happen to know of a number of situations where these issues are becoming a real conflict. If no permits are now required and once a permit for a pit or a rock quarry has been given, there is no further control over how these new operations conflict with existing uses. I was actually trying to see how the minister foresees. . . . On roads that are under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Forests, how is the minister going to deal with it when these kinds of conflicts arise? Is the minister setting a trap for himself?

[ Page 6462 ]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This doesn't give the district manager any more or less discretion. When issuing the road permit, he just has to take into account the various uses. He is still constrained in making the decisions the way he was before. But he doesn't have to do it twice; he does it once with the road permit.

[9:00]

On section 27.

T. Nebbeling: This actually specifies the Forest Appeals Commission as the appeal body for an appeal as to the location of a right-of-way across private land. Can the minister explain this one for me? What authority does the Forest Appeals Commission have in mandating -- or is it negotiating -- a right-of-way?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There's no change in the effect of this. It replaces a reference to an appeal board with a reference to the Forest Appeals Commission. So in this case, the appeal board -- small "a", small "b" -- really is the Forest Appeals Commission. That is the body.

T. Nebbeling: So the appeal body always was the Forest Appeals Commission, as I understand it.

Section 27 approved.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I move the amendment, standing in my name on the order paper, that adds section 27.1.

[SECTION 27.1, by adding the following section:

27.1 Section 129 is amended by deleting "section 136" and substituting "section 128".]

T. Nebbeling: If I can call this a good-faith section I will support it, because I really don't know. . . .

Section 27.1 approved.

Section 28 approved.

On section 29.

T. Nebbeling: Can the minister first of all explain what need there is to eliminate the reference to woodlot licences? What difference is made by removing it?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This section deals with the removal of the woodlot licence review. It will ensure that all licence holders are provided the same remedy to dispute the amount of timber the government has determined can be harvested under the licence. The way the act reads now, a woodlot licensee can appeal a determination, and this says that they have the same rights as other licensees. This right of appeal, to our knowledge, has never been used, and it brings equity to all licence holders.

T. Nebbeling: In the past, were there certain considerations, rights or exemptions given to woodlot licences that by becoming equal with other licences, they no longer have the privilege of this?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes. Their avenue of appeal now would be the same as other licence holders, and that would be to ask for a judicial review. For the member's information, the B.C. woodlot association, I'm told, was contacted by the officials. The woodlot association doesn't have any objection to this provision.

T. Nebbeling: I appreciate that, because I haven't spoken to anybody on this one. A woodlot licence is traditionally a small licence, I believe. They now have the right to go through the same process of appeal as other licence holders have. Considering the size of woodlot licences or the size of the timber that can be harvested from a woodlot licence, is it fair that woodlot licence operators have to now comply with costly processes that in the past were not necessary and justifiably so because of the small size of the woodlot licence itself?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It's the intent, through policy, to continue to do more upfront work so that there's a better decision made, so that the need to appeal wouldn't be there. Yes, it is more costly to go to a judicial review. Since this has never been used, it's not a practical route for them, anyway. There are more than 500 woodlot licences, and many of them have been renewed two and three times. There have been 1,500 or so transactions, and there's never been a need to appeal. The work is being done. We want to put the work on the front end, and then there isn't a need for a costly appeal procedure of any kind.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

Section 29 approved.

On section 30.

T. Nebbeling: On this section, which on the surface looks quite innocent and has the label of housekeeping -- which always makes me suspicious -- can the minister give me an understanding of the last paragraph, where it says: ". . .and adds the ability to make regulations that require disclosure of facts and law relating to a review"? Who does this apply to? I find it rather vague -- "regulations that require disclosure." Which regulations are these?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This section requires that there's full disclosure of information so that a party to an appeal has to know that there's full information as they go into a review process.

[ Page 6463 ]

T. Nebbeling: We keep referring, in this section, to "the person." Can the minister tell me who "the person" represents?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The person would be a party to an appeal.

T. Nebbeling: Is it the appellant, or is it the representative of, for example, the Forest Appeals Commission?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: In most cases it would be a licensee, but it could be a subcontractor who might challenge it.

T. Nebbeling: In section 30, paragraph (a), section 144(1), you have stricken out "written requests for review" and are substituting "by request for review." Does this mean that somebody now can just receive a phone call, saying, "For these reasons we request from you the following information," and that's all based on the regulations? Why is that written request being removed and being made a request for review, which in my opinion can only lead to people being denied their request? What is the logic behind that?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, now it's apparently split between the act and the regulations; the requirements are both in the act and in the regulations. What this does is allow it to be put in the regulations as opposed to in both.

T. Nebbeling: So under the act there is still a requirement that the request is done in written form, whereas under the regulations the request can be made in any other form, either through a personal visit or a discussion with the authority that has the right to request a review.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I guess the only reason that "written" is being taken out of here -- and this is not what I'm told; this is what I've gathered reading it and talking to the officials -- is that a request for a review could be made initially by telephone or in person, to be followed up by a written request. Why anybody would do that, I don't know, except maybe somebody wants to say: "You told me on the phone or in person such-and-such."

[9:15]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The period hasn't changed. It was 21 days -- three weeks. That stays. What this does is allow somebody to notify an official verbally that they would like to initiate a review. Then at some later point, when they're into the review, they have to provide things in writing. This saves them from needing to deliver a written request for a review.

T. Nebbeling: Just as a little editorial on this one, I find it confusing that this now says, "You can let us know by phone call that you will apply for a review," and that that has to be done within three weeks. Then later you can provide that same request in writing. I could see a scenario where the person who received the phone call may deny that a phone call was made, and thereby the 21 days may not have been met.

In my opinion, the only way we can prove that indeed a request for a review had been made is through a registered letter, so that the applicant for a review has some solid ground under his feet when making the argument that indeed the request was made in time.

I am afraid that the way it is now, this particular section could in the future cause trouble by parties claiming they have not had a phone call for a review, because there is no written proof of that review request in the time frame that is dictated. I don't know if the minister wants to reconsider or find out if there are other reasons for going this way, but to me it doesn't make any sense and can only cause conflict down the road.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: What this allows us to do is to put it into the regulations so we don't have to change the act every time we want to change the content of the request for review. In the regulation we could and would specify that if in exceptional circumstances it was not possible, for example, to provide a written review, we could say that they could provide that request in some form. It could be a telephone message; it could be their own. . . . I don't know. They can have their own proof that they phoned, or whatever.

The point is that rather than have it in legislation -- God knows why it was in legislation the first time -- we want to put into regulation the content and procedure of requests for review so that we can change them, so that people aren't bound by the letter of the law to one or the other type of review procedure.

Section 30 approved.

On section 31.

T. Nebbeling: Just a quick question. Can the minister explain or give me a definition of a minor amendment and an example of what the minister would consider a minor amendment?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We think. . . . This isn't section 31 you're talking about.

T. Nebbeling: Yes, section 31.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Can the member please refer to the subsection?

T. Nebbeling: I'm looking at section 31, the explanatory notes: ". . .makes minor amendments to the provision setting out powers of persons conducting reviews under the act, for harmonization with the corresponding provisions of the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act." So it is the intro that gives me the intent of the substitutes: that it will give some authority of minor amendments to parties.

[ Page 6464 ]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I can give two examples. Section 145(1)(a), "the request for review and a review of ministry files," would be one minor amendment. The other one, for example, would be in section 145(3), where it's adding the ability to prescribe a time by which a review decision must be made or it allows the parties to the review to agree to another time.

T. Nebbeling: So that would be under the substitute section, particularly subsection (3). That would really be the only one, because it is telling that. That is exactly the situation that I feared was not covered by section 30, because of the act saying "written request" and under the regulations "request for review," without the form of how the request would be made. So over here, would the person actually have the authority to waive? I find it very confusing, because subsection 145(3) says: "A written decision must be served on the person who requested the review within (a) the prescribed period after the request for review was received by the person. . . ." The party can agree to another period by the person who requested the review from the government. So this whole written request for review and request for review. . . . I find it really causes confusion and doesn't make it clear in any way, shape or form.

So I still ask the minister if he would consider an amendment to deal with this so that it is a written review with no exceptions to avoid confusion, because section 31 is the only potential minor amendment that is being described in this section that has to do with a written decision or when it should be sent.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Let me explain that section 145, as it is written currently -- before the amendment here -- says that the person responsible for conducting a review may decide the matter based on an oral hearing and then decide the matter without an oral hearing, based on some written explanation. What we've done is we've reordered the process to make it clearer, suggesting that we expect that the oral hearing could be well along in the process. So this particular amendment, as it reads, says: "The person responsible for conducting a review. . .may decide. . . ." And then the series starts with the request for a review and a review of the ministry's file. Then secondly, there's a request for a review of the ministry's files and any other communication with persons conducting a review, and finally, an oral hearing. The oral hearing appeared as the first item. This basically says you've got to go through the review of the files, the request for review and then any other information, and then finally to the oral hearing.

Section 31 approved.

On section 32.

T. Nebbeling: This is another section where certain rights are being taken away from holders -- in this particular case, from a tree farm licence holder -- to appeal to the Forest Appeals Commission the chief forester's determination of the allowable cut. Having talked in section 23 or section 24 about the added conditions that the chief forester can put upon the tree farm licence holder, such as recognition of other values that will lead to reduction of harvestable areas, the economic. . . . No, forget about the economic conditions.

Considering that the chief forester has some really strong and consequently very imposing powers to reduce the supply area of a tree farm licence, thereby reducing the annual allowable cut, it is really not very clear to me why the tree farm licence holder cannot go to the Forest Appeals Commission but is forced to go and challenge the government in the courts through the chief forester.

Can the minister explain why, when most of the licence holders have the right to appeal to the Forest Appeals Commission, at least in the first place, that right is not given to tree farm licence holders?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As it stands now, the TFL holder and the woodlot licence holders are the two categories that are able to appeal to the Forest Appeals Commission. The point we're making here and the reason we're removing this is to put them in the same position as other licence holders who don't have that appeal right at the present time.

The court is the proper forum for such an appeal, because the court will not attempt to substitute its judgment for that of the chief forester's -- that is, the technical judgment -- but will ensure that the chief forester made the decision fairly and will send it back to the chief forester for a new decision if it finds that the decision-making process was flawed.

The court can't second-guess a highly technical process such as a chief forester would make -- only if he was flawed in administrative fairness. There has been only one appeal -- only one appeal, ever -- and I understand that that ended up in court anyway, eventually. Most appeals go directly to court now.

[9:30]

Then the minister states that in order to have a fair hearing based on technical merits, the court seems to be the right body. I put it to the minister that the Forest Appeals Commission truly should be the body to look at cases exactly like that. I would expect a hands-off relation with the chief forester, and at the same time, I would expect a considerable amount of knowledge about the forest industry and the consequences of decisions made by the chief forester to be part of the makeup and the ability of the Forest Appeals Commission.

So I can only see that what we do here is, first of all, force the company to go into an arena where the process will most likely be considerably more lengthy, because the courts today are always fully booked. Secondly, there will be tremendous costs associated with having to go to the Supreme Court of British Columbia. I do not understand where the level of fairness is in treating a company like that. For me, it doesn't matter if it's a tree farm licence holder with a licence of 25 years and extensions, a woodlot licence holder or a small lot holder through the small business forest plan. In my opinion, they are all equal as to the right to appeal decisions made by the chief forester. I do not understand why this cost-creator, time-delayer has been imposed by the minister at this point.

We are talking about Bill 47, which is a bill that we are trying to use to eliminate time and red tape that is imposed on the forest industry. And what do we see? In our new approach we now see how companies have to deal with issues related to their tree farm licence or wood licence that will be much more 

[ Page 6465 ]

expensive. So where is the savings that the Forest Practices Code was going to deliver on this issue? I can't see it. I think there are extra costs. Where is the time-saving that the review of the Forest Practices Code was going to deliver? This is going to add much more time. Again, this is one of the sections where I think the minister should reconsider the decision, because I don't think it will really be an incorporation into this act of this direction that reflects the intent of the bill, and that was to reduce cost and time to the companies.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I can see the member makes an interesting point. Let me respond this way. One of the requirements for an effective administrative review is that the reviewer be as qualified or more qualified to make decisions than the original decision-maker. So other administrative reviewers. . . . There are people in the hierarchy -- from district manager to regional manager to chief forester, for example -- who have considerable experience and a broader experience. In the case of the chief forester -- and since this only applies to AAC determinations, and it may take months and months -- there's no way that there's any other body that could replicate those qualifications.

I'm told that going to a judicial review, which isn't the same thing as a long, expensive court case. . . . But just getting a judicial review of a decision can often be easier and quicker than going to the appeals commission. In any event, it would take the same information to be developed to get to an appeals commission as to a judge for judicial review, so there's no additional cost. It's basically that the same information has to be produced. It really does eliminate one possible step, as well. If it went to the appeals commission, then the appeal might be from that to the court for judicial review. Since the practice has been for people to go to a judicial review, they still have that right of appeal. So we're just putting all licensees on the same footing: big, little -- different types of licences.

T. Nebbeling: There was a day when review of an annual allowable cut was a fairly simple thing to achieve and to come up with a number. In order to determine the annual allowable cut, the chief forester today incorporates a large number of other issues that are not timber values but are other values: water, riparian areas, soil quality, wildlife, protected-areas strategy and the spotted owl in certain areas now, with the potential increases in the list of endangered species, like the marbled murrelet. Those will all have a tremendous impact on the annual allowable cut. All these values, all these higher-level plans, will become part of the determination of the chief forester to come up with an annual allowable cut.

It is not just a technical evaluation any longer. There are a lot of new values to be considered by the chief forester. For that reason the Forest Appeals Commission, which as a body is, hopefully, totally aware and at a level of knowledge on these issues with the chief forester. . . . The evaluation of their decision to send it to the Supreme Court, with all the negative consequences I've just described, for me makes it an even more difficult direction to accept. Under the code, when a logger or a small operator under the small forest business plan gets land allocated, none of these issues are really having a lot of impact.

The tree farm licence is where it is happening. Again, we add a lot of cost to the system, we add a lot of time to the system, and that truly is in violation of the bill.

Sections 32 to 34 inclusive approved.

On section 35.

J. Wilson: I notice that we are taking basically the same powers as the Supreme Court in the commission, except when we get to evidence. It says in 148.6(1): "The commission may admit as evidence in an appeal, whether or not given or proven under oath. . . ." This would seem to be quite a step apart from what would be done in the Supreme Court. Although the commission is relying on all of the powers of the Supreme Court in order to carry out their mandate, could the minister explain to me why they would not require evidence to be given under oath in a hearing?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The explanation is that administrative appeals and administrative tribunals are not courts; they're somewhat less formal than courts. This is a section that appears in every other piece of legislation that deals with an administrative tribunal.

Sections 35 to 41 inclusive approved.

On section 42.

T. Nebbeling: This particular section, which requires the district manager to consider the economic impacts of decisions made on cutblocks and harvesting rights, is, in my opinion, one of the very important sections.

In the past in debate with the minister -- myself and my colleagues -- we so often talked about the fact that we recognized so many values that are related to the forest industry. We're not going to repeat them again, because we have said it many times. But the one thing that was always a failing, in my opinion, was the fact that the impact of all the government initiatives on the workforce and the workers in the forests was really not a factor that was often considered, whereas considerations for all the other values were up front and definitely over time recognized as important decision factors for the district managers and others involved in the handling of permits.

To me, this one is very important. What I would like to ask the minister, first of all, is: at what stage will the forest district manager make his determination -- if indeed the economic value should be part of the determination -- on the licence? If it is a question for the district to decide, what kind of guidelines is he or she -- if there are female district managers; I don't know, I've never met one -- as district manager using to come to that determination?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This is a section that deals with the preamble. There is a later section that deals with the economic test, adding the economic criteria. What this does is make it clear in the preamble -- which governs the whole code -- that economic values and social needs are factors in managing the forests. The present wording doesn't clearly require that economic values be balanced along with spiritual, ecological and recreational values. This change makes it clear that economic values must be balanced, as well.

T. Nebbeling: I'm aware that this is the preamble and that it comes back later on. However, even when I look at the section later, there's still a number of questions that I would have expected to be part of the preamble. These are not only balancing the economic and productive spiritual, ecological and recreational values of forests to meet the economic, social and cultural needs of people and communities, including first nations. I had also hoped that there would have been -- 

[ Page 6466 ]

rather than being part of a mixed bag of objectives -- a statement in the preamble that the economic consideration is a stand-alone issue. Because that is really, truly the only consideration that applies to people.

I'm asking the minister if it has been considered. Rather than end economic. . . . Has there been discussion, some deliberation or some consideration given to the idea that it is the economic impact on the community that determines what's going to happen on the cutblock? Would that mean that some of the other values could be of lesser value, rather than as it is now -- just all equal?

[9:45]

I guess the point is that it is really about the balance, to make it clear. By not having "economic" in there, it wasn't clear that economics was to be considered in the decision. So it was necessary to put it in the preamble because it's often referred to. It not being there would suggest that economics was secondary to all the other values. So by adding this, we don't have just the productive value of the forest to guide interpretations of the code; it still has to be balanced. We can't override the protection of the forest resource because of an economic need. That balance has to be there, and it is that -- a balancing act that has to be done by the decision-maker.

Sections 42 to 44 inclusive approved.

On section 45.

T. Nebbeling: Can the minister explain this fairly comprehensive rundown of substitution for the previous sections 2(1) and (4) to (6)? What are we achieving here by making these changes? Can the minister highlight for me the changes that are in (1), (4), (5) and (6)?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Section 45, section 2 sets out the allowable uses of the private land in tree farm licences and woodlot licences and Crown land in provincial forests and wilderness areas. The amendment repeals and replaces subsections (1), (4), (5) and (6), and the new subsections expand the land that is covered by section 2 by including Crown land described in an agreement under the Range Act or in a woodlot licence.

They expand the permitted uses relating to range by including "related purposes" as a permissible use -- for example, a livestock corral -- and they ensure that the Ministry of Employment and Investment tenure holders will not be affected by the expansion of the land base. They are excluded from having to comply with requirements in section 2 regarding this additional land as long as they are acting under their authorizing legislation.

T. Nebbeling: The way I translate this is that this is almost a perfect way of looking at integrated resource use. If that is the purpose of this, then I certainly applaud this section the way it is written. However, as we talked about earlier on, by allowing all these various uses on Crown land in wilderness areas, we also, unfortunately, create a fair amount of conflict. Anybody who operates any of these functions on these lands often believes that their function -- be it recreation, wildlife, any other form of forest production or grazing for livestock -- is the best use for that land and that it should have preferential treatment over any of the others.

How is the minister dealing with the conflict of seeing all these various uses potentially happen on a land mass and often a number of different uses in one particular location? Are there any rules that dictate that the district manager will monitor it or make decisions if one doesn't work with the other? If there is a grazing licence in an area where there is also recreation, how do you deal with these conflicts?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The land use is essentially decided some other way, so having decided what the land use for the particular area is, this does allow for a special use permit. In the example as given, you've already decided that the area can be used for grazing, and you may need a corral for the range tenure holder to round up his cattle or to manage the cattle, so it allows for a certain use to made of these lands by way of a special use permit.

Section 45 approved.

On section 46.

T. Nebbeling: Does this section not take away a lot of the authority of the chief forester and put it in the hands of the ministry? In my opinion, that politicizes the whole management of this particular section. Is that the intent of the minister? Or are there other reasons for changing that authority from the chief forester to the ministry?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The chief forester has never used the powers he has had to create higher-level plans. In practice, because of the complexity of the higher-level plans and to ensure that the intent is clear, the direction has been given by the minister. So this is procedure that we've been using. All it does is say that higher-level plans really need to have senior-level determinations.

T. Nebbeling: When we talk about resource management zones, I believe that was part of the authority of the chief forester, and the higher-level plans that are incorporated in these management zones. . . . Again, I'm surprised to hear the minister say that the chief forester has really not been using this authority to work with the higher-level plans. A couple of sections ago we talked about exactly that, where the chief forester must have the authority to incorporate these high-level plans in other zones, such as tree farm licences, thereby having an impact on the annual allowable cut of these licences. Is the minister saying that when it comes to special management zones, the minister believes that the chief forester has not had input?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The chief forester essentially makes a lot of technical decisions. What the uses are -- the objectives in resource management zones -- is something that government has determined, and we are here providing the authority. At least. . . . I don't know what we're doing. We are saying that it's not the chief forester's responsibility to determine the use of the zones. It's not a technical determination. It really is a political or policy determination that should come from a senior level in government, because it involves the establishment of the objectives for the resource management zones.

T. Nebbeling: I still believe that the chief forester, who is a senior government official but is somehow separated from the political day-to-day business, would have been the person to deal with these special management plans. To now see government taking over that role is a little frightening to me, because we have seen too many examples where these plans have been in the process of being created and are often driven 

[ Page 6467 ]

by other considerations that the chief forester would use to come up with the special management plans. So I think this is not a very good section to push for.

Interjection.

T. Nebbeling: The member opposite is wrong in that. The chief forester is hired and put in a position to create the very best plan with all these values in mind. I hope the member for Alberni will listen. That's why the chief forester is there, and that's why he is a little bit separate from government. To take that away from the chief forester and put it in the hands of the government will politicize the whole process of the special management planning. I think that is wrong.

J. Wilson: Back to section 46. In the establishment of a resource management zone. . .in any way parallel or take the place of land use planning? Has it got that potential?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Essential to any land use plan is the designation of zones. You virtually can't have a land use plan without having some kind of zoning. It's very common. Zoning is the key tool for making land use plans.

J. Wilson: I must agree with the minister on that statement. By establishing a resource management zone -- allowing the ministries to do this -- does that enable the ministries to establish a resource management zone that would differ from a zone that has been established within a land use plan? Does it take precedence over zoning done by land use planning?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The resource management zones are the tools that we use to make the land use plan legally binding. They specify the objectives, and it's the objectives that we want the agencies to be held to when they do the detailed operational development of permitting, for example, within particular zones.

J. Wilson: In "Resource management zones and objectives," I don't see the words "land use planning" mentioned here. What we are talking about is Crown land and private land in a tree farm licence or woodlot licence, etc. If I hear the minister right, any resource management zone would have to be established by a land use planning process. That's not what I read here. What I read here is that the minister alone, or in conjunction with the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks, may establish a resource management zone that could apply either to an area where we have land use planning completed or to an area where no land use planning has occurred. Could the minister try and clarify that for me?

[10:00]

Sections 46 to 49 inclusive approved.

On section 50.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Hon. Chair, I move the amendment standing in my name in Orders of the Day.

[SECTION 50, in the proposed section 7.1 (8)

(a) by adding "of the chief forester" before "made under subsection (1) or (3),", and

(b) by adding "of the regional manager" before "made under subsection (2) or (3),".]

Amendment approved.

Section 50 as amended approved.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

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

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'd like to take this opportunity to say that the House will sit on Wednesday, if I could serve notice now. I like to be prompt. I would also move that the House do now adjourn.

Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:04 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 6:41 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY FOR
CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
(continued)

B. McKinnon: I think we will be talking about the implementation of Gove. I would like to start with No. 1: "The family group conference should not be used for children who are in need of protection." I'm working from "Gove Recommendations and Current Status, Ministry for Children and Families, March 1, 1997." This particular recommendation is 

[ Page 6468 ]

under consideration. It states: "This issue was referred to policy sub-project for consideration prior to implementation of section 20 [of the] Child, Family and Community Service Act. A draft policy is complete." It goes on and on.

"An amendment to section 20 has been proposed. . . ." I went and checked section 28, and it says: "Section 20(2), as re-enacted by the Supplement to the Child, Family and Community Service Act, is amended by striking out 'must' and substituting 'may.' "

Then I went into Bill 24, which is going to be coming up, because that is in Bill 24. And section 20(2) says: "If a director concludes after an investigation that a child needs protection, the director may" -- which is crossing out "must" -- "offer to refer the parent or, if the parent is unavailable, another family member to a family conference coordinator." I notice that there are no guidelines in this bill for what family members are allowed to take part in this or who can be picked and can step in for a parent. That was my first question.

Then I looked at this whole thing and this whole bill, and this is under the supplement part of the bill. The supplement part to the bill has no power whatsoever and does absolutely nothing. So my whole question is: what is the point of the amendment? It doesn't mean anything; a supplement does not mean anything. I checked into this part and found this to be true. My question to the minister is: what's the point of this amendment if it means absolutely nothing?

The Chair: The Chair would like to caution members that we're discussing the minister's estimates and not legislation.

[6:45]

The Chair: Member, you're speaking to legislation that is directly before the House. We're not here to do that.

B. McKinnon: I will ask my question when the bill is put before us tomorrow, and go on to No. 2.

Can I ask the minister why no guidelines are therefore going to be under consideration for what a family member is or who this family is that's going to represent the parent?

The Chair: The Chair has to caution members that we're here to discuss the estimates of the Ministry for Children and Families, not matters pertaining to legislation.

B. McKinnon: Well, I thought Gove was part of the ministry's. . . .

The Chair: Just for clarification, member, you can direct your questions in regard to, in this case, the Gove recommendations, but not to matters that are particular to legislation -- in a general sense.

B. McKinnon: So just for my clarification, then, any of the Gove recommendations that are under legislation cannot be discussed. Is that it?

The Chair: If they're in the current legislation before the House.

B. McKinnon: Then I'll move to recommendation No. 4. The status report from the ministry -- that's March 1, 1997 -- states that a draft policy is complete and is being considered. I don't remember receiving a copy of this policy. Will the policy be brought to the committee meeting on implementation of the Gove inquiry? Is it possible to receive a copy of that draft policy?

Hon. P. Priddy: I'm sorry, hon. member. Can the hon. member help me? Are you referring to No. 4? I'm sorry, I don't have a No. 4.

B. McKinnon: I'll read it to you.

Hon. P. Priddy: Okay.

B. McKinnon: Recommendation No. 4 says: "The ministry should engage in an educational program to tell professionals who provide services to children the circumstances under which a report of child protection should be made." The implementation in progress is the new "B.C. Handbook for Action on Child Abuse." I'm sorry, I should have mentioned that to you.

Hon. P. Priddy: Actually, I think we're sort of on the final draft and ready to go to the printers. The "B.C. Handbook for Action on Child Abuse and Neglect" had a fair bit of writing done by a committee of 212, so it needed a fair bit of work to make it simply readable and friendly. We would hope to have it at the printer by next month and out by the fall. Then we'll be doing training, too, to go with it.

B. McKinnon: Could I have the minister's assurance that we will receive a copy -- each one of us?

Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, every MLA plus every constituency office. . . . We have contracted with the Justice Institute to provide training, and we will be providing training to community agencies in every part of the province, as well.

B. McKinnon: I'm going to move on to No. 6. Since the minister doesn't have these in front of her, does she want me to read the different recommendations?

Hon. P. Priddy: No, I think I just misunderstood the last one. I'm fine.

B. McKinnon: Okay. On recommendation No. 6, can you give me an idea when this recommendation is expected to be completed or finished?

Hon. P. Priddy: There are actually two parts to No. 6. One is around the ministry's computerized information management system. That was completed in December of '96. On the caseload review with the BCGEU, which may be part of the one you're referring to in terms on the time line, we should start to get initial data in fairly. . . . Is it early fall -- October, November? The actual deadline for it is March 31, but we should have early information by November, probably.

B. McKinnon: When this is implemented, what sort of changes in structure and in policies are put in to ensure that caseworkers are using this program? Will all offices and all social workers have access to this program?

Hon. P. Priddy: If the question is about the computerized system, yes, all offices and workers will have access.

[ Page 6469 ]

B. McKinnon: On recommendation 7, which is that the full implementation of the risk assessment model be scheduled for June 1997, I'm just wondering if that is all completed now.

Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, the training is all complete. I am just trying to get you a total. As of July 1, 1,229 child protection social workers and 255 supervisors and acting supervisors have completed the risk assessment training.

B. McKinnon: Moving on to recommendation 10, with the new computer system, will a social worker be able to search records in B.C. to see if there were any previous cases or incidents when introducing a new case? Will they be able to backtrack and look at different cases? And just another question to do with that, too: will this eventually be across Canada, so that you can track children?

Hon. P. Priddy: The workers will have access to whatever is on the database, but I will tell you that it's historical data, and it will probably take a significant amount of time to get all of the data onto a new database. Some of it is historical data which in some cases may not have been collected, and we still have to get it onto a new database.

In terms of the reciprocity across the country, the directors of child protection are meeting here in September, I think, and that is one of the items on their agenda, actually -- the reciprocity of whether you can check across the country. But I think the member knows that while there's some information you can check, there's some information that simply is not available.

B. McKinnon: Moving on to recommendation 12, under "Current Status," section (d) says: "In protection situations, case recording is required every three months. The recording is to be signed by both the social worker and the district supervisor. This review provides the vehicle for monitoring both compliance with policy and the quality of the assessments." I'd like to ask: because people tend to forget small details, should not the recording be done daily as each incident or interaction occurs? I agree that a report every three months is okay, but should they not be jotting down their thoughts when little things happen?

Hon. P. Priddy: The requirement is for workers to keep notes either on a daily basis or whenever they're having contact. The requirement is that they do a summary every three months, but once all the computers are up and running, even on a daily basis or whenever they have a contact in the family, they'll enter directly on the computer system, which they haven't had an ability to do before because we had no resources to do it with. But now we do, or will.

B. McKinnon: On recommendation 13 -- phase 2 of the clinical supervision that's being developed for delivery at the end of March -- is that now completed?

Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, it is. There are several areas to this, and that's just what we were having a discussion about. There's clinical supervision in the field under the supervision of child protection consultants; there's supervision through B.C. Children's Hospital and our contract there; there's supervision through an ability to teleconference on a weekly basis or twice-weekly basis, if someone in the field has a situation they're dealing with that's fairly complex and they want some clinical supervision -- they want to bring some people together in a teleconference. That's available for them as well. So that's B.C. Children's, clinical supervision in the field and teleconferencing with specialists that might be required. And, of course, we've doubled the number of child care consultants in the province.

B. McKinnon: According to this, recommendation 14 is completed: "All child care professionals and foster parents who make reports that children are in need of protection should be fully informed of the outcome of the investigation." I would just like to know which act initiated the change.

Hon. P. Priddy: The Child, Family and Community Service Act.

B. McKinnon: Moving on to recommendation 17, how will these audits be performed for "social workers who are responsible for case planning [that] must ensure that services are delivered and that service goals are attained"?

[7:00]

B. McKinnon: How will the offices to be audited be chosen? Will that be random with notice or by surprise? Will the results of these audits be released for the public?

Hon. P. Priddy: The deputy minister with the director of child protection -- as he has with the comptroller general -- will be developing an audit routine for the frequency and the standards for how the audit is done around the province. It is not set up yet. That information is available, as any other is, under freedom-of-information. . . .

B. McKinnon: Have you established what criteria will be examined for the audits?

Hon. P. Priddy: The practice standards that will be used for the audits will be finished by October 1. People have been working very hard on those.

B. McKinnon: Moving on to recommendation 18, I just want to know when this recommendation will be implemented.

Hon. P. Priddy: It is already practice to do this. I know that this has not happened consistently in all circumstances in the past. It is what we expect people to do. It is the standard of practice we expect in the field that people be provided with as much information as we have available around the background and circumstances of the child in their care. In point of fact, we have even worked to try and expand it. We were not allowed in the past, for instance, to share it with a teacher, but now we are actually allowed to do that if we think it's going to affect the child in their school setting. So we've actually been able to expand that some.

B. McKinnon: Moving on to recommendation 19, it states that it is completed and that adherence to this policy is being monitored. What I would like to ask is: what monitors are established, and how is this being done?

[ Page 6470 ]

Hon. P. Priddy: The file transfer policy, which the member refers to, will be part of the whole audit standards which will be finished in October. So it will also look at how the file has followed the child.

B. McKinnon: When this ministry file transfer policy is completed, could the minister provide us with a copy of it?

Hon. P. Priddy: The actual policy is completed, and yes, you may have a copy.

B. McKinnon: Moving on to recommendation 22, apprehension, full implementation of No. 22 was scheduled for June 1997. I would like to know: was this completed, and did we receive a copy of this model?

Hon. P. Priddy: If you are talking about the risk assessment model, yes, it's actually fairly widely available. I think your colleague has a copy right there.

B. McKinnon: I'm going to move right on to recommendation 28. I would like to know when this will be completed and what the structure will be like after completion of this recommendation.

Hon. P. Priddy: Member, if I might clarify: are you asking what the whole structure will look like or how individual social workers will be supervised?

B. McKinnon: Individually.

Hon. P. Priddy: Individually? Okay, that's what I thought you were asking about. One of the responsibilities the regional operating officers have had is to develop a plan for supervision in their own regions, but the issue of supervision is also one of the subjects of the workload reviews.

The Chair: Members, as interesting as this discussion is, it has become very apparent to me that all of this information is before a committee of the House, the Gove committee. So you might take that into consideration in pursuing these questions.

B. McKinnon: I'm just going through the recommendations to see what stage they are at. This was not done in the committee. We didn't go through individual recommendations at the committee stage.

The Chair: Member, that committee is still a committee of the House, so there is that opportunity to pursue it in that forum.

B. McKinnon: We haven't had a meeting for quite a while. I understand that this is part of the Ministry for Children and Families and one of the reasons it was formed, so these questions are quite legitimate.

I would like, then, hon. Chair, to move on to recommendation 32 and ask: is the child protection quality assurance plan fully implemented? If it is, what actions have been taken with the child protection quality assurance plan to reform practice standards and service designs, and how they have been reformed?

Hon. P. Priddy: We are still in part of the development of the audits -- I'm going to give you a few examples in a moment, if I might -- but it is on target. I'll give you just a couple of examples from child protection quality assurance.

All the new child protection staff who've come into the ministry as new staff have to complete the 20-week training program, and that's happening. All new child protection staff have BSWs; that's in place. That's around qualified and competent staff and, again, around quality assurance. Prior to being admitted to provide child protection services to children and families, all new staff have to successfully complete their probationary period, complete a comprehensive delegation test set by the director. Again, that's around quality assurance of the people who will be doing child protection and have delegation responsibility in the community. I don't know if you want any more or not.

B. McKinnon: No, that's fine.

Hon. P. Priddy: Okay, those are examples.

B. McKinnon: Moving on to recommendation 34, implementation and progress: how often will social workers and staff receive performance appraisals?

Hon. P. Priddy: Well, let me give you the most honest answer I can on this, hon. member. People know it never makes sense to me to do much else.

We have now done work with supervisors in conducting performance assessments. The rule of thumb is annually. I don't suppose it matters very much where you work, unless you're a politician and then it's every four years, perhaps, but otherwise it's annually. Our history of doing that -- and when I say our history, I'm just talking in general about the government's history of doing these services -- is not good. So there are lots of people who've not had annual. . . . We're beginning down that road, and we need to begin with the supervisors and the regional operating people, because they're the people who are going to need to push that through their staff throughout the regions. Our goal is annually, and that's the road we'll drive.

B. McKinnon: Moving right along to recommendation 39, implementation and progress: a paper on complaint mechanisms and administrative fairness has been forwarded to the children's commissioner. On that one, I just ask that we get a copy of that paper.

Hon. P. Priddy: Yes.

B. McKinnon: Recommendation 41: "Each district office should establish a fair process for receiving, investigating and responding to complaints about the delivery of child welfare. . . ." Is this process going to be the same for each office, or is everyone going to make up their own rules and regulations?

[7:15]

B. McKinnon: Recommendations 44 and 45 -- the question is the same: implementation and progress. I'm not sure that I should ask this -- whether it's legislation. I was going to ask: when will legislation come forward to implement these?

[ Page 6471 ]

Hon. P. Priddy: We have hired a contract person whose sole responsibility will be to report on this issue to the deputy minister, depending on the recommendation, in time for the legislative session next year. There had been no work done on it to date, and we felt that to suddenly say to people, "Here it is," with no consultation whatsoever, seemed perhaps unfair.

B. McKinnon: Moving on to recommendation 48, under "Implementation in Progress" it says: "New accountability mechanisms and standards are required." I just want to know what these standards and mechanisms are.

Hon. P. Priddy: The same piece of work will actually look at people other than social workers, so it will broaden the net.

B. McKinnon: Moving on to recommendation 55, under "Child Protection Service Workers," and "Timeframes," it says: "In progress. Treasury Board will review future initiatives." I just wonder if this meant that when the funds run out, the training for social workers also runs out.

Hon. P. Priddy: We have budgeted money for ongoing training. It's not as if there's a set amount of money and when it runs out, so does the training. We have continued to budget for training.

B. McKinnon: Moving on to recommendation No. 57, it says: "To be completed by March 1997." I would just like to know if it was completed.

Hon. P. Priddy: We wonder if "it's a mess" is not a substantive enough comment.

There are three things that are happening in this regard. One of them is that I've met with all of the directors of the schools of social work to look at how we can do some distance education with them. Secondly, the deputy has met with Glen Farrell from the Open Learning Agency around how we can use their resources, because they've had a lot of experience with distance education. There was a third piece. . . . We actually have someone working on a separate contract because this happens in little pieces. It's not consistent; it's not equal across the province; it's not always the same training. I mean, it's just been a real smorgasbord of what's happening. What we want is for this to be consistent and have equal access for our staff throughout the province. It has not been what you would call well-organized or coordinated, but we do have a piece of work going on around this. Actually, we're quite excited about it.

B. McKinnon: Recommendation No. 60 -- is it on target? You have different dates for different implementations, things going right up to January 1, 1998. I was just curious if this is on target. Or are you falling behind on this one?

Hon. P. Priddy: We are on target with most of it. We had hoped the handbook would be out a little bit earlier, and I've already spoken to that; but on the other issues we are on target.

B. McKinnon: Moving on to recommendation 64, continuing professional development for social workers, under "Implementation in Progress" you say: "A training philosophy and policy will be established in the early part of the new fiscal year." I would like to know what that training philosophy and policy is. Then it goes on to say: "The ministry continues to support professional development with dedicated resources in each region to meet local needs." I'd like to know what those dedicated resources are.

Hon. P. Priddy: The five-year strategic training plan is actually complete, and I'm happy to let you have a copy of it. But just really quickly -- I won't spend a lot of time on this. . . . Just an example of some of the ongoing training initiatives that happen now and will continue to happen are things such as training around aboriginal initiatives, the second level of supervisory training -- we did a first level of supervisory training -- some extra training around multidisciplinary practice, suicide prevention and the concentrated BSW program. Those are just some of the examples. There was one in there I really liked, and now I can't find it. But I'm happy, actually.

That's the one I wanted to mention: enhanced investigative interviewing. We are actually working with the RCMP to have them do additional training with our child protection social workers around doing an investigation. I mean, there's an investigation a child protection social worker would do, but you also want to make sure you get all the information that might be needed by someone else down the road. So the RCMP is working with us on this. That's one of the ones that I'm actually very pleased about. It's about $14 million on an ongoing basis.

B. McKinnon: Between recommendations 76 and 77. . . . Gove always mentioned aboriginal children. I would like the minister just to give me an idea of what the ministry is doing for aboriginal children.

Hon. P. Priddy: Let me just read a few, if you would be patient. I won't read the exhaustive list. One of the things we're doing is ensuring that our own social workers are trained not only in aboriginal issues but in aboriginal issues as they pertain to that particular community in which they will be working. Your colleague from Vancouver-Langara and I had this conversation, I think; it seems so long ago. It's very different around the province, and you can't just do an aboriginal "course" and then understand the huge diversity of aboriginal peoples we have in this province. So it's not only more training but also where aboriginal people are in the particular areas they'll be working in.

We have an aboriginal social worker training strategy. We have 12 agreements with aboriginal bands around the province who have now assumed their own responsibility for delivering child welfare. We have tried to do that in a really supportive way, certainly at least in the recent ones that we've been most involved with, because you want to make sure that people have the support and the resources to be able to do that kind of work. There are 12 of those agreements that have been signed so far, which, I think, we're very pleased about.

One of the things we're also doing around aboriginal children is working with urban aboriginal people, because I think it's a very different kind of situation for many people to be working in. So we have a number of initiatives for urban aboriginal child welfare organizations, not only to extend their authority for a greater range of services but also for some of those issues around recruiting aboriginal foster families and so on, because of the issues that we have talked about before. Anyway, that's just a sample of some of the things we've been doing.

B. McKinnon: Moving on to recommendation 96, "Implementation in Progress," toward the end it says: "As 

[ Page 6472 ]

well, the minister has proposed a jointly funded federal-provincial program to her federal counterparts to ensure that every child and youth has the ability to reach his or her full potential." I wonder if this has been implemented and if you could give me a little idea of what it is.

Hon. P. Priddy: It has not been implemented yet, but we have put the call out for proposals to all of the regions. I actually think they're almost all in. I'm expecting them in by the end of July or August 1. We told people we had very tight time lines on this, and we also gave people some framework around what kinds of initiatives we expected within this, because we didn't want to spread this. . . . I mean, we want to be able to focus this, so we asked people to look at issues of FAS and FAE. We asked people to look at the whole issue of lay visitors -- which is, of course, the one that I'm most excited and pleased about -- to support new parents who have just. . . . You know, we all come equipped with different skills, and some of us come home with them and some of us just haven't had that opportunity. So around lay visiting, FAS and enrichment programs for very young children who may need that kind of stimulation before school. . . . They've been asked to focus their proposals. They should be in in another week or so, and we hope to have those decisions made quite quickly.

B. McKinnon: I'm pleased to hear that.

Recommendation 97: "Community-Based Children's Centres." This is to do with the 20 regional operating agencies. Do you feel that this recommendation is now completed, or do you feel it's still in progress?

[7:30]

B. McKinnon: Moving on to recommendation 101, under "Implementation in Progress," it says: "This is a component of the contract reform project." I was just wondering if you could tell me what that is.

Hon. P. Priddy: I gather that there are some issues that we will visit tomorrow morning, or whenever it works for everybody. We will visit them when we put the legislation before the House. Actually, this is one that I think would be easier to talk about then, if you don't mind. I think it's a really important piece, but it is part of that piece.

B. McKinnon: This will be my last question on the Gove recommendations. Looking at recommendations 108 to 111, my question to the minister is: how long do you feel it will take to complete these recommendations?

Hon. P. Priddy: Sometimes I just put them in a pot and pick one. No, I don't; that's not true.

Let me start with 108. The larger organizations. . . . I want to speak to two of them, which I think are not immediate ones. But, for instance, 108: the organizational structures are in place, but cultural changes haven't happened yet. In ten months, you don't get cultural change; you don't even get a small revolution. But the organizational changes around 108 are in place, as they are around 109. As I say, the larger cultural change -- to actually be able not just to see a change on paper but to feel that change -- I think, takes longer, but certainly it's in place organizationally.

With 110 and 111, around guardianship, we think we're probably about three years away -- 110 and 111 are linked. I think it's about three years away for those two.

V. Anderson: Just to pick up on the last comment you made about guardianship: could you explain a little bit about the direction you're going with that discussion? What is the understanding you have? I realize it takes time to move into that. Is there any similarity between this and the guardianship program that's being discussed with adults? In the community, that's what people are kind of thinking about at the moment.

Hon. P. Priddy: They are two very different systems, and since I've worked in the adult one, I know that that's what comes to mind when people talk about guardianship.

But in terms of this one, what this means is that currently all of the guardianship for all of the children in the province is held, if you will, by the director of child protection. What we want to be able to do is move that out into the regions with regional operating officers and the staff in regions. But obviously in order to do that you need to be very sure of what you're doing. You need very qualified staff. So you have to do that carefully, with good training, in order that it works.

That's what that means: transferring it from an individual in Victoria into the regions, which are closer to home -- where those children are. But I think it does require some fairly specific and very intensive training to make sure it happens well.

V. Anderson: One aspect about that. . . . One of the things we've been very aware of, both in the ministry and in the field, has been the turnover of people. When you talk about guardianship of the area, how would the very rapid turnover that we have at the moment affect that? It's one thing for a person who is there for ten years. How does that work out with holidays and all those kinds of things? Just a little comment about that. . . .

Hon. P. Priddy: The guardianship in the regions will be delegated to longstanding staff. We're not talking about staff. . . . And you may want to talk a bit about that later. We're talking about longstanding staff in the field. What do you do if there's a change or if someone goes on holidays? We would do the same thing we'd have to do in Victoria. We now have one person responsible for the guardianship of all the children in the province, so obviously the responsible person in the region has trained someone who is a backup person who is able to do that job when they're not there.

V. Anderson: I think it's a very interesting development as we move into that area. One comment I want to raise. . . . In a number of sections -- recommendations 23, 25, 28, 33 -- they talk about training for supervision and a whole group of different points. Later on you get to more long-term training; they talk about three-day training courses. Then it talks about clinically, professionally trained people.

[ Page 6473 ]

Having gone through professional clinic programs, I fail to see how we can get professionally trained people in three-day programs. I could see refresher programs or yearly updates or a couple of things. But in the initial stage -- and particularly when it talks about supervisors who are trained -- what is the in-depth supervision training program, which takes time? Is there an in-house training program which is monitored as supervisors are? I can see in-house training programs going on through the year. What's the process that's in place at this moment?

Hon. P. Priddy: I think it's important to do a bit of the separation. We are talking here about people who already have bachelor of social work degrees. We're talking about people who, after their bachelor of social work degree. . . . At least, many of the new people have an additional five months of training before they go into the field and start any kind of full or partial responsibilities -- although they do that on their practicum part. In many cases, we're talking about people who have been working in this field for a very long time and are part of the concentrated degree program.

I'm not sure if we've used the term "intensive training for three days" and that's what. . . . Have we used that somewhere and that's what is bringing that one out, hon. member? I don't consider three days to necessarily be. . . . Well, I think you probably could. I mean, I think if you did a three-day course with the RCMP on investigation, you would probably, at the end of the three days, have a fair bit of information about your responsibilities as a social worker and what you could do in investigations. With supervisors, we provide a variety of levels for them to do that, so it's not just that they do one course and that's it. They do one and then they do another one. We're also working with the Justice Institute to look at how to deliver more of that kind of training around the province so people don't all have to "come to the coast" or go to the centre of the province; they can do that at home.

I think that the kind of training we're talking about are those kinds of training programs which I guess I, or the medical profession or others, would describe as ongoing or in-service, which you are mandated to do in order to keep up your qualifications or to keep up your skills.

V. Anderson: On recommendation 36 on the provincial child advocate, is anything happening in regard to recommendations about extending her authority, which it is my understanding she has requested? I know she now comes under the Attorney General, but when I asked him, he didn't know anything about it other than that he had the recommendations. What is the feeling of your ministry. . . ? What I'm asking is: what is the recommendation from your ministry to the Attorney General? It's important to children that these be there, and it would seem to me that the Attorney General would probably be dependent upon your advice, or take it very seriously.

[7:45]

V. Anderson: A brief moment on the area of apprehensions. In talking this last week to some of the advocacy groups for people on low incomes, when I asked them what major concern or interest they might like raised, I was interested that they came up with the concern about apprehensions at the moment -- there are really frightened, concerned, anxious, unaware people out there at the moment concerned about the processes of apprehension that are underway. I think part of it is probably driven by media reports, part of it is driven by very personal experiences where people are not yet into a new process, and part of it is driven by the history of inadequate processes that these people are still living with.

What I'm asking at this particular moment is: what are people doing, not only within the ministry but in the community at large and with groups like this who are affected, to try and overcome these apprehensions?

Hon. P. Priddy: I need to clarify the question. When you talk about apprehensions, are you using the term in both ways? Are you asking what are we doing to allay the fears of people out there who think the system is different and are worried that it is going to have a different kind of effect on them or a negative effect on them? Is that the tenor of the question? Am I understanding it correctly?

V. Anderson: That's part of the question. People have been very unhappy with the way the system was, and so far they have felt that the changes, the confusion and the uncertainty have made it worse rather than better. So it has become a greater priority for them. Whether that is true or fact, that is very much what people are facing out there at the moment. It's a very high concern, and it was their priority concern when I made contact.

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

Hon. P. Priddy: Several things are happening, hon. member. One of the things is that. . . . Although we have not been able to do that -- at least, I have not been able to do that much as the House has been sitting, but the deputy has done some of that. . . . The regional operating officers have met with literally thousands of people and organizations throughout this province -- we've counted -- to talk about not just the general structure of the ministry but about what they know are concerns for people who come. One of those is around the issue of apprehension.

One of the things that I think is very important. . . . I asked the foster care task force, which is doing its work to not just look at the safeguards -- I mean, I asked them to look at the safeguards and whether they are there, whether they are working, and all those kinds of things -- but also to ask or to look at whether there was a strong enough place for the voice of the birth parent, the natural parent -- pardon the phrase. Very often what I hear from the organizations that you're speaking of is that they're afraid that their voices will get lost if something happens with their children or their children are apprehended -- their children are lost and their voices are lost. That's why we've asked the task force to look very much at the voices of natural parents. As a matter of fact, there's a birth parent on that task force, which I think is particularly important.

While it may not feel. . . . Of course, part of it is media-driven -- and that's with the greatest of all respect to the media. But if you read about lots of that in the media, it becomes quite frightening to you. I understand that. But the other. . . .

Sorry, I had another piece and I've lost it. It will undoubtedly return sometime.

V. Anderson: Perhaps I'll put it in context a little bit, because they are related, even though it isn't the minister's direct responsibility. In the recent report of the B.C. Coalition 

[ Page 6474 ]

of People with Disabilities, they are talking about the atmosphere they are finding in the community at the moment. Let me read from just a couple of places, because this is what I'm hearing. It's in the context of this that people are also having to deal with the question of apprehension, because these people are in difficult, stressful circumstances. They're in poverty circumstances. Their impression is that the situation in. . . . Without quoting, let me just say that what they are saying is that the situation of uncertainty, fear and lack of confidence in the future -- in the terms in which they describe it -- is worse than it was ten years ago in all of these categories. Their finances, their services and their support systems are cut -- the ones they knew about -- and the fear is that there is going to be more and more of that. It's coming through Human Resources, through other ministries, but it's affecting the general climate. With the cutbacks in services, their situation becomes more intolerable and the threat of apprehensions becomes greater, because they're not able to cope.

I'm wondering if there could not be -- even for a short time -- a mechanism like a 1-800 line, because people have not had trust in the ministries or government. For some good reasons, as the minister knows, their experiences have not been good. Even as we have done with the children's Helpline, we can say that if you have questions about apprehension, here's somebody you can phone from anyplace who then can pick up your issue and follow it through. They can refer it back to your local office.

At the moment people have no confidence in their local offices. They have no history of confidence; they have no history of knowledge, and they know there's a flux of change and uncertainty. New people are coming in, and the processes are being put together, but in the meantime children's lives and the lives of families that care for those children are being disrupted.

We need some way of making a transition for these people over this change period. With all the will in the world, there is going to be continued disruption while all of this is taking place and people are coming in. While it's done on paper, it isn't practised in the community yet. So I'm wondering if there's a way of making a bridge so that people will know somewhere they can phone, where there's a voice that will hear their message and deal with it. They've tried to go through systems, they've come through our MLA offices, they've tried other systems, and at the moment they're still not getting through.

Hon. P. Priddy: Two things. One of them is that I know people are anxious because there is change. I also know our regional people have worked extremely hard. They may not have seen every single person in their regions, but as I said, they have seen thousands of people around the province.

I guess I appreciate the comments by the B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities. These are folks I've known for a very long time and worked with for a long time.

Maybe I have no objectivity because I'm the minister, but I don't think you can necessarily lift all those comments and sort of put them over here and say that because they've experienced service cutbacks and whatever that list was, that necessarily will mean all of that will happen over here. I understand that it creates an atmosphere of concern, and that's why we've taken such a large amount of time to meet with parents and organizations around the province.

Let me say three more things. One of them is: I don't know if that would work or not, but I'll look at your suggestion. Secondly, we do fund a 1-800 line for parents in crisis who can call that line. Thirdly, in our ministry we fund a client coordinator by the name of Janice Kennedy who spends all day, every day, talking to parents who call our ministry with exactly the kind of concerns that you've just talked about. She talks to them, and then she gets back to local. . . . She doesn't just sit and sort of listen; she talks to them and she tries to help, then she tries to get back to another office for them. She really tries to help work that out.

It's another resource that gets a huge amount of use in our ministry, as well. Maybe we need to tell more people about it, although they manage to find out because she's on the phone virtually eight and ten hours a day. But I'll give your consideration some thought.

V. Anderson: Let me use one illustration. I have the permission -- in fact, I have the desire -- of this family that it be raised. This is a family by the name of Stewart that we've been working with with the ministry for the last four years. We have been up and down all the levels of ministry, and they're still in the situation. Their daughter was apprehended when she about a year old. They've gone up and down in circumstances and through hell ever since. Their attempts to visit, when they were there, were incomprehensible in the way they were organized or disorganized. They attempted to deal with court cases when they were told on Monday that they were in court on Tuesday.

They did have legal aid for a time, and then Mr. Stewart got a job, so they no longer qualified for legal aid. He had to take time off from work in order to go to court and represent them without a lawyer. They have gone through those processes again and again, and they're in an appeal process about it again.

Each time we talk to somebody, it belongs to somebody else; it's another ministry and another person. It's gone through cycles again and again. They contacted us not too long ago and said: "We would like you to use our case as an example, because even if we lose out, we'd still like you to know."

This is typical of hundreds of people that we've talked about who have had similar circumstances over the past number of years. It's very important that that group of people, where families are being broken apart for a variety of reasons. . . . . I'm not able to say in the Stewarts' case what the final judgment should be, but the concern that I have is about the process.

For people like this, are you suggesting that this person with the telephone line is the person to go to in order to get that dealt with? Going to the ministers over the years has not helped us.

[8:00]

[ Page 6475 ]

V. Anderson: I'd be delighted to do that and would be pleased at that opportunity. I raised that because it's a sample of many other cases out there -- similar situations that need to be caught up in the new process. It's a carryover.

I want to ask a question regarding the new regulations that come under the act and their implications for grandparents being able to have opportunities to be a part of the care of the child. Up until the act came into being, grandparents didn't exist. Even if they wanted to, they were almost forbidden to even ask questions. That's been a very critical issue. There are many grandparents who are working on that at the present time.

Hon. P. Priddy: Well, 22 months ago I discovered that grandparents do exist; I got to be one. I don't really mean that flippantly. It does make you think differently about being one when you are one. The hon. member across the way, I think, has all granddaughters and takes them everywhere all summer.

Until the new act, you're quite right; there wasn't anything around grandparents. What I think needs to happen around grandparents. . . . I know that one of your members has tabled a private members' bill. I have talked with her about a small task force to begin work this fall to look at how we get information to grandparents about grandparents' rights, etc.

You can put all the words you want on paper -- and you ought to do that, because that's how you make them real, in part. But you make it real because there is cultural change; you make it real because people start to treat grandparents differently. Both the deputy and myself have talked to staff and made it really clear, and I've done it in interviews -- it says it in the act. . . . That's one thing, but it's how we include grandparents as potential caregivers for children. I, by the way, support the fact that there still have to be checks and that all those things still have to happen. Because you're a grandparent doesn't necessarily mean that you're the best person. We could all probably think of examples where that would be the case. But this, I think, is far more about a cultural change and a change in leadership -- about involving grandparents, looking at grandparents or family members first, as potential caregivers. We will, with your member and some other people, do some work on this in the fall; we've agreed to do that.

V. Anderson: Being a grandparent does make a difference; I can vouch for that, as well. But having met with a number of grandparents' organizations in both Vancouver and Victoria. . . . This is the reason they've come together -- very much so -- because they've been struggling with not being able to deal with this in their own families.

I'd like to ask the minister one final question. This comes from my experience dealing with the food banks. I chaired the food bank when it started in Vancouver and followed it over all these years -- to realize that a third of the persons who come to food banks are children. They're not adults, and they're not single adults. They're single parents and two-parent families, and a third of those people are children. I wonder if yet in the ministry -- with all the other things that it has to deal with in getting into a new process -- one has asked how it can reach out to those children who, at the moment, are having to go with their families to food banks for support. It's not only a food question. It's a health question; it's an educational question; it's a social involvement question. It comes back to something we were discussing the other day -- the whole poverty culture that's there and, when we've done all of the other processes, how they will relate to this particular culture. I raise it from the point of view of the children who are caught in the moment.

Hon. P. Priddy: We do not have a new piece of work ongoing on this one, but I think that if you look across government. . . . I mean, you and I both know there's no. . . . People talk about children who live in poverty. Children don't live in poverty; they live in poverty with their poor parents. Their parents don't go to Mexico while they live in poverty. So it is about poor families, not about poor children, although obviously it affects their health and their learning, as well. The only issues I would raise with you are issues that I know are making a difference for families who speak with me, like B.C. Benefits, the child benefit; school meal programs, which are now often breakfast programs, lunch programs; and immunization programs going on in schools. Those are all things that make a difference for children who live in poverty, both in terms of their health and their learning.

If you're asking if the ministry has a new plan yet in terms of reaching out to those children, no, we don't. But I don't think that this is a ministry. . . . I'm sorry; I don't want to say that this is not a ministry issue. This is everybody's issue -- every ministry across government -- because it's about jobs and employment and training and all of that. My commitment is to work not only with my colleagues in government but with people in the community on this one.

V. Anderson: I agree with you. I'll just make a comment. I think we should talk not about poor kids or poor families but about kids who live in poverty and families who live in poverty. Having grown up with. . . . At points I would have had all the characteristics of a poor kid, but I never considered myself poor. It was the other people who were having the problems, not me. So it's attitude, and I think it's important how we do that.

I'd like to change the topic completely for a moment to another one, if I could -- with the permission of my critic -- and deal briefly with the area of multiculturalism. As the minister is aware, all of the ministries are to report on their multicultural plans, and with the new ministry, there's no multicultural plan -- even in the report on the previous year that came out this last week. I'm wondering if the minister could share with us some elements of the multicultural plan of her ministry so that we could get a brief overview of it at this point.

Hon. P. Priddy: We are aware that there was not something referenced in the book. We have diversity guidelines for the ministry. I'm not sure who was here when we were having this discussion a couple of days ago, but there are diversity guidelines for our ministry. There are always two issues when you look at it for diversity. One you can sometimes do more about than the other, depending on whether you're in a hiring freeze or not. If you aren't hiring a lot of new people, then you don't have as much opportunity -- I mean, I was around when the employment equity guidelines were brought in and helped do that -- to change the face of your ministry, although you can do some targeted hiring. We talked the other night about the fact that we are doing some targeted hiring in the ministry for that very reason.

But what we can do -- and I think we can do it better in 20 regions than we can out of Victoria -- is target in regions the kind of multicultural supports that people in those communities need. I come from one of the Surrey ridings. My riding is 25 percent South Asian and primarily Punjabi-, 

[ Page 6476 ]

Hindi- and Urdu-speaking. So in my riding -- or south of the Fraser -- the issues around South Asians, although it's changing some, really need to be targeted. In Richmond it might look very different. It might look very different -- well, not actually in Merritt -- in Williams Lake, which actually has a fairly high multicultural population, as well.

We have said two things to people: firstly, around some targeting of staff. . .secondly, that programs, wherever possible, should be delivered by people who either have experience with that particular multicultural group or have chosen to come and work from that multicultural group. I have a lot of friends in the South Asian community -- I have to make this point -- who would say to me: "Don't hire me to work only with South Asian people, because that's the reverse of where we're trying to go." So I think we have to watch for that piece as well.

In all of our regions with all of our training, we're doing cross-cultural training to ensure that whatever the multicultural populations, our workers have as much training as possible to deliver those programs in ways that are culturally sensitive, culturally appropriate, wherever possible, with translators in languages that people can understand. It's terrifying to have somebody talk to you about an issue in your family and you're not understanding very well. So to be able to have people who speak that language available. . . .

We've got a significant way to go. There will certainly be a plan available from this ministry, and we will be working very hard on that because it's a particular commitment of mine.

V. Anderson: I appreciate that very much from the minister, and I realize that she has a lot of things to get up and going at this point. I also realize that as the minister, she does have a commitment to this, and I have seen that very much before.

Let me use one illustration that has come home to me quite often with regard to the apprehensions I was talking about before. When social workers go to homes to apprehend children and the police go with them, which is a necessity, having that happen is the worst thing to imagine for those young children who have come out of police states. When that happened in the country from which they came, they did not return home, and they often did not live very long after the apprehension had taken place.

There are critical issues like those that I think we have to take into account, issues that perhaps we don't reflect on because it's not our history or background. There's that one, and there's also a standard one I've discovered, which teachers and other professionals of all kinds are gradually learning. In many cultures, children do not look at adults directly in the face. It's part of their culture not to do that, and you're impolite if you do. When you're trying to talk with children and wanting them to look at you -- or if you look at them directly -- then you're building your own barriers between them.

It's that kind of understanding of where the children are and the experience of the background out of which they come. It's very emotional and very critical in how they can respond to things that are happening to them. It's that kind of thing, which in this Ministry for Children is quite a different thing than dealing with adults.

So much of our multicultural material and all that, apart from education, has been adult-oriented rather than child-oriented. I'm thinking that your ministry can give leadership as to how we deal with multiculturalism and with children in a different way than we deal with it with adults. I'm wondering if the minister could comment briefly on that.

[8:15]

While it's not the same thing, I will mention this just because I'm on my feet. Nobody asked, and I didn't have another opportunity. We fund a child care organization called Westcoast Child Care Resource Centre, and while it is not about the apprehension part, they have developed -- when we funded them to do this -- a huge library of multicultural resources for young children that can be used anywhere across the province. It recognizes their languages, their cultures, games, music -- all those things in their lives. I just have to mention it, because it is a great resource.

V. Anderson: I'm glad I gave you the opportunity to do that. Might I ask if the minister is aware whether they are using the multifaith calendar in her ministry? It gives the days and the special activities that are a part of this process.

Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, as matter of fact we do, and so does my constituency office. We've just purchased the wonderful new wall frieze that's about 20 feet long, which does the same kind of thing. I would recommend it to you, only because I had it for my constituency office. But yes, we do.

V. Anderson: I haven't seen the wall frieze yet, and I'd be interested to know more about it.

I have a couple of questions out of recommendation 71, going back to the other for a moment. There's a recommendation that the act should be amended to make it clear that if a parent gives care of the child to a relative or a friend and the ministry supports that arrangement, the caregiver should be able to give routine parental consent to all school and recreational activities and to normal medical checkups without consulting the parents. The note I have here from a previous briefing says that this section of the act will be brought into force when the budget permits implementation. I was curious to know why it was budget that was the deciding factor for implementation. This is recommendation 71, and these are notes as of November.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Hon. P. Priddy: Actually, I'm not certain I'm going to be able to answer why the November notes and why the money was an issue, except for one piece of it. What this is really about is section 8 of the act, the part about a child in the home of a relative, which is actually about money that will be transferred in the fall, I think, from MHR over to our ministry. That program has not yet come over to us, and there are dollars that are attached to being able to provide that support to a child in the home. We will be proclaiming that part of our act in the fall in what are called section 8 agreements, but I'm sorry, I can't. . . .

[ Page 6477 ]

The deputy has said to me, I'm sure correctly, on the November notes, that at that stage we didn't have money because we were still operating on somebody else's budget and somebody's else's non-money. We have put money in for these arrangements for the coming fiscal year, so we will be carrying those out.

V. Anderson: Recommendation 76 says that the act would be amended to direct appeals of provincial court decisions directly to the Court of Appeal of British Columbia. This was the recommendation of Judge Gove. The ministry, on the other hand, is saying that instead of going to the Court of Appeal of British Columbia, appeals from the court should proceed to the Supreme Court. Could you explain why it's the Supreme Court rather than the Court of Appeal?

Hon. P. Priddy: The reason -- and we did look at some of the background notes on this -- is that there did not seem to be a compelling reason to do so. There is no other kind of decision that misses that step or goes into that different process either in this province or in any other province. So the reason to do so did not seem to be a compelling one. We have gone over these recommendations in our decided actions with Judge Gove since these decisions were made.

V. Anderson: Recommendation 78: "The distinction in the best interests test. . .between 'cultural heritage' and 'cultural identity' should be eliminated by repealing [it]." That was Judge Gove's recommendation. The note beside it says: "The purpose of the wording of section 4 is to give special consideration to aboriginal children." Could the minister explain the distinction between cultural heritage and cultural identity?

Hon. P. Priddy: I'm simply going to give you some history. In 1994 this was the subject of some considerable hours of debate -- if we go back and look at Hansard -- in the Legislature around this. We have an extraordinarily high -- higher than we would want to have -- number of aboriginal children in care; it's about 30 percent. Aboriginal people are certainly not 30 percent of the population. The debate at the time was that because we had such a high number of aboriginal children in care, this accommodation should be made in order to recognize that.

V. Anderson: My first question about that is: does it apply equally to other people who would have a cultural heritage or a cultural identity? Is it limited only to aboriginal people, or is the same process available with the same import to persons of other cultural backgrounds and heritage?

Hon. P. Priddy: The answer is yes.

V. Anderson: Is the intention to give preference, which I can totally agree with and understand, to placing people in cultural locations where that's possible? But if that kind of placement isn't available, if the care and loving opportunity is there for the child from others who would take into consideration the heritage. . . .? Then what is the weight, if I'm asking for the best interests of the child, for long-term cultural heritage or for long-term care and love and support? What I guess I'm trying to ask is: does the concern to protect the cultural heritage, which I agree with, become an overriding concern even if it's not in the best interests of the child for love and care and support at this particular time?

Hon. P. Priddy: I'm not absolutely certain how to relate this to an estimates question, but let me try and then let me sit down. The legislation is very clear about this -- well, as clear as you can be about the future of children's lives. There are a variety of things that are taken into consideration in terms of when a child is placed. The act talks about the best interests of the child. They absolutely talk about the child's cultural heritage or cultural identity, but they also talk about other things which influence the best interests of the child: stability, continuing care, length of time of bonding, etc. So is it the only factor? No. Is it an important factor? Yes.

[8:30]

Hon. P. Priddy: No, it's not the only overriding factor, but I need to make it clear that we do have a responsibility under the legislation, particularly around aboriginal children, to make our best effort to link with family and so on. So I need to be very upfront about that, but there are a whole variety of other factors that include the best interests of the child, and those are taken into consideration, as well. So it certainly isn't that it is the only factor.

V. Anderson: I think it's important in estimates, because this is the time that. . . . It has to do with the recommendations from Judge Gove in this regard. To put it into another context, I voted in favour of homosexual families being able to adopt children, all other things being equal, where there are many people who did not feel that was the thing to happen. For them, the overriding factor was that a child should go into a two-parent family; it's the culture and background which should get priority. If we take the principle that it's the situation in which they go which has an overriding priority in a cultural event -- which is cultural as far as many are concerned -- rather than the best interests of the child, then there's a variety of contexts in which that can come to the fore. So I raise it in that context, because I think it's important that it's always the best interests of the child in the total picture, which is the overriding one. And if so, then that clarifies for me a lot of different circumstances that are important. The minister is nodding, so I'll accept that.

There's just one other comment I would like to ask about, and that is No. 79, which is the next one to that. The recommendation is: "The circumstances of emotional harm . . . should be amended to include 'likely to be' harmed by the parent's conduct." The minister has said that they will consider this recommendation following further experience. Could she just indicate briefly why that is the case?

Hon. P. Priddy: We are currently monitoring the way the courts are interpreting that section of the act. If there needs to be additional action taken on it, we will.

V. Anderson: In No. 88, the recommendation is that a section be added "that provides that caregivers, including foster parents, who have had custody of the child for six months or longer should receive a minimum of 72 hours' notice before the custody of the child is transferred to another caregiver." The ministry says that they're considering this.

My concern here in agreeing on the principle is that in so many cases I've heard about, there was not the opportunity 

[ Page 6478 ]

for the orientation of the child when a major dislocation was taking place in their life. I'm not so concerned about whether it's 72 hours or 24 hours. My concern is that there is some process in place where a child of any age has an opportunity. Even with our three-year-old grandchild, I discovered that regardless of what it is, if it's explained ahead of time, it's far different than trying to explain it after the fact when all the emotions. . . . That process and the opportunity to plan and make a break seem to be built in somehow, and if I understand rightly, the nature of this process was to make closure important, as well as transition.

Hon. P. Priddy: Our practice does outline the process for preparing children to move. I think 72 hours is probably fairly short. We would give people as much opportunity as possible. I think the only exception to this is if, for reasons of safety, you had to remove a child from a foster care placement.

V. Anderson: My final question -- and this time it is my final question; that's for my critic. I am reminded of one parent we were visiting, who said to his children: "This is the last time I'm going to tell you to go to bed."

Has the ministry been doing some promotion of the UN Declaration of the Rights of the Child? I find that so many of these principles are covered in that context and that it gives a much wider multicultural and international context for people to see this rather than just a local parochial one.

Hon. P. Priddy: We actually have done some work. It has not been a major focus, hon. member; I would not suggest to you that it has been. Nevertheless, we have participated quite actively in a follow-up conference here in British Columbia on the human rights of the child. In both this legislation and our new adoption legislation last November, we ensured that not only did it meet the Hague convention but it met the UN Declaration of the Rights of the Child. We actually talked a lot about it at that time -- perhaps in a more narrow way around adoption.

We have not got a specific strategy about it at this stage. But I notice that when we go out and talk about what children's rights are. . . . Actually, children who I talk with when I go out or who come to the office will often talk when you ask: "What do you think rights of children are?" It's very interesting to see how children reflect what has already been written on it. You may have seen the new UN book on the rights of the child, with the foreword by Peter Gzowski. I don't know if you have that, but it's quite a good one to get. It came out about four months ago.

G. Abbott: I have just a few questions for the minister, primarily of an explanatory nature. I'll just preface the first question with a brief comment. There is currently a controversy in an area near Salmon Arm about the introduction of a transition house for troubled youth. It's alternatively referred to as an assessment and as a treatment centre. At any rate, this has opened quite recently in a semi-rural area near the district of Salmon Arm. A number of the neighbours, as one might expect, are concerned about it. I wonder if the minister could advise me: are there guidelines or rules which govern, from the ministry's perspective, the placement of such facilities in communities?

Hon. P. Priddy: I think two things probably guide this. One of them is that a number of municipalities have bylaws about it. I'm not saying whether I support the bylaws, but a number of municipalities, not all, have bylaws. They are not about whether it's a house for teens or a transition house or whatever, but about facilities that are not what people would call a typical family home. I have no idea what a typical family home is anymore, but I'll use it for want of a different description. I'm told that we do expect our contractors to talk to neighbours and people in the neighbourhood.

We do want children or adults with mental handicaps or whoever in residential neighbourhoods where they're welcome. That's the whole point of being in a residential neighbourhood -- because you're then part of a community where you can contribute and learn about community, and people can also help you. So we do have an expectation that contractors will ask. It is set out in the contract. As I say, I don't know Salmon Arm's bylaws, but a number of municipalities have their own bylaws about it.

G. Abbott: You kind of anticipated my second question with respect to what would happen where local bylaws existed. The area in question is an electoral area of the Columbia-Shuswap regional district, which is adjacent to the district of Salmon Arm but not within it. There are no planning bylaws with respect to the area. So there would not be any local bylaw that would impinge on the ability of the contractors to locate a facility there. Having said that, the question is whether, from the ministry's perspective, there are requirements for them to consult prior to the introduction of it.

Hon. P. Priddy: I think I answered that question.

G. Abbott: As I understand it, the answer is that there is an obligation on the part of the contractor to consult with the neighbourhood prior to the introduction of the facility.

Hon. P. Priddy: I want to be clear, so we have to go back and check on one thing. We will do that for you. I'm not sure we can do that tonight, but we will do that for you, hon. member.

It is absolutely an expectation that we do that. Someone has said it's in the contract, and I'm not actually sure that that's accurate. That's what we want to check on.

[8:45]

I have to tell you just this little story -- I haven't told any stories today -- about this group home that opened on my street when I lived in Dartmouth. This little old man next door to the group home -- it was going to be a group home for mentally handicapped adults -- was watching all the renovations going on. He came over one day and said to the young people who were working on the house: "Huh, people moving in, eh?" They said yes, and he said: "Who?" They sort of 

[ Page 6479 ]

waited for a minute, but they'd been told, you know, to talk to the neighbours and so on. So they said: "It's a group home for mentally handicapped adults." He said: "Boy, that's a relief. I thought it was going to be a fraternity house."

I think that often it is about being able to tell people who will be there and how people will be supervised and so on. Very often, if you can do that ahead of time, you bring a lot of that down.

G. Abbott: I think I would concur with the minister that in fact that is a wise move and a wise strategy for contractors to take. My understanding from the objections I've heard from the neighbours and the treatment of the issue in the press is that advance consultation did not take place in this case. So I'll leave that for now, because I'm not close enough to the situation to know exactly what took place and when. But that certainly is one of the concerns that have been advanced to me by at least some of the neighbours -- that the consultation should have taken place in advance. There has been consultation subsequently, but I believe it was after the fact, rather than before.

The other concern I want to talk about briefly -- and this is a broader concern -- is with respect to what I guess might be termed the regionalization of what used to be the Ministry of Social Services but which is now the Ministry for Children and Families. The concern is rather like the concern that we've seen in the Shuswap around the amalgamation of the Shuswap with the North Okanagan in the regional health board. In this case, as I understand it, there has been a regionalization occur, drawing people from the Shuswap together with people from the North Okanagan in what's termed -- I'll make sure I get it right -- the regional community advisory committee, or something along that line. As I understand it, there are 24 members of an advisory committee that deal with Children and Families. Is that correct?

Hon. P. Priddy: In terms of your first question about regionalization, I'm not sure I caught all of the question. This is a brand-new ministry; it's not sort of Social Services reincarnated into different kinds of regions. It's an entirely different ministry with a much greater range of programs and, I think, a much broader kind of focus.

The advisory committee you speak of. . . . There may be 24. I have no idea how many people there are on it, but every one of the 20 regions is mandated to have an advisory committee made up of people from the community, including parents, youth. . . . So it's not just service providers, not just professionals and not just talking heads who go and talk with each other, but parents, youth, service providers, neighbours, people in the community. So I'm sure that that committee does exist. I couldn't speak to their number, but yes.

G. Abbott: What I'd like to do is relay to you the concerns that have been expressed to me by former social workers and other concerned community members in the Shuswap area. In the case of North Okanagan-Shuswap, in the process of regionalization -- or whatever it's termed in the ministry -- the advisory committee has been more heavily weighted on the North Okanagan end than on the Shuswap end. The particular concern that's been forwarded to me, which I want to relay to you, is that in the case of the current committee there are apparently 14 members from Vernon and one member from Salmon Arm, which is certainly not reflective of the population. Salmon Arm is about, I guess, 40 percent of the size of Vernon. There is a concern that if the advisory committee is weighted too heavily in terms of the North Okanagan, the resources that are allocated to the Shuswap may not be in proportion to what is needed. So I'll relay that to you, and perhaps you have comment on that.

Hon. P. Priddy: Only briefly. Two things: one, I don't know if anybody has relayed that to the regional operating officer -- I certainly hope they have -- and two, now that you have relayed it to us, we will certainly relay it to the regional operating officer, and we'll work to fix it.

G. Abbott: There was a home for troubled teens in Salmon Arm called the Kin House, which I think experienced some problems and has been closed pending the resolution of some legal issues surrounding one or two of the operators. I'm not fully aware of it. Could the minister advise me on what alternative there is for the placement of troubled teens in that area at this time with that particular facility closed?

Hon. P. Priddy: I'd rather, if I could, have my deputy call you on this one. There are some things that I think are happening, but before being absolutely clear and checking it out, I don't want to comment. So if I could, I'll have my deputy call you and give you that information.

G. Abbott: I think the final issue that, again. . . . This may just largely be a matter of relaying the concern to you. I appreciate that British Columbia is a very large province, and you're not going to have details on every region and subregion at your fingertips. The concern that has been relayed to me, particularly about the Salmon Arm-Shuswap area, is that the caseloads for social workers in that area have grown particularly heavy. One suggestion is that there are now about 60 per social worker in the Shuswap area. Now, I don't know whether that is correct, but I just want to relay to you that concern, and perhaps you can have some consideration of the issues that have been forwarded to me.

Hon. P. Priddy: I don't think there's any way that the caseload is one for 60, but we will check the caseload and let you know at the same time that the deputy calls you with the other information.

M. Coell: Following up on my colleague's questions regarding consultation, the member for Okanagan-Penticton asked me to ask a couple of questions from his area, as he's on the committee selecting the new conflict-of-interest commissioner this evening with some members of the government. The community consultation that the minister talks about, which is mandated in each one of the regions, is, I think, a very good idea. I'm just wondering whether the individual regions will have the ability to design the process for consultation in their community. Is there going to be a set mandate throughout the province on what that consultation process is to look like?

Hon. P. Priddy: No, what is mandated is that they must have one. What is mandated is that we have to see what it looks like and be sure that all of the components are there, but it may not look the same everywhere. I think one of the examples I may have used before -- and it may have been with one of your other colleagues -- is that in some places people have asked youth to actually sit on the advisory group. In some places youth have said: "That's not a very comfortable place for us to be. But there is another youth group out here. We do some other work in the community, and we're 

[ Page 6480 ]

happy to be a reference group for you." In Vancouver-Richmond, the multicultural reference group that's used by the health board is also providing advice to our regional operating officer.

So yes, it could look different. But the components must all be there. They must all have parents and multicultural and must address the aboriginal issues. It would be helpful if the population was reasonably distributed. So all of those pieces have to be there. Yes, they must have it. But everybody doesn't have to have two youth members, three parents and so on.

M. Coell: One of the concerns that the people in Okanagan-Penticton have addressed to their member is: if, in designing a vision for that area, that vision doesn't exactly meet the requirements of Victoria, will they have gone to the development of a vision and the process and everything like that, just to have it sent back to them and be told no, that's not how Victoria sees it?

Hon. P. Priddy: No, they will not. The reason I say that is that those regional operating plans have been done with Victoria. You're not sort of all the way down the road, then you send it to Victoria, and Victoria goes: "No, not quite what we wanted. Here you go; have it back."

The regional operating people, with the people in their communities, have been working with the deputy and the executive in this ministry for months and months on these operating plans and what the vision would look like. So at this stage it would seem to me almost impossible to have a plan sent back and have somebody say: "No, start all over again." There's lots of toing-and-froing about what the vision is. But absolutely not that, because these have been done in conjunction with people in Victoria.

M. Coell: I've got a number of areas that I wish to canvass now, mostly on child protection. The book that was put out, "Building the Ministry for Children and Families," has some very good points in it. One that I would like to spend some time with is the strengthening of child protection capacity.

We've spent a number of hours now looking at all the programs in the ministry and going through them in some detail. For me the most important part of the new ministry is child protection. I know that the minister probably has spent the better percentage of her time on child protection, the same as the deputy minister.

The question I have for the minister is. . . . The development of a new child protection quality assurance system is being implemented. It goes on to say: "Highly qualified specialized protection teams that have strong links to other services are being developed." Whether they have been developed, whether that quality assurance project is in place at this time and, if it's not, the time frame would be helpful.

Hon. P. Priddy: As people know, I'm very easy to get along with. We did actually canvass this with your colleague earlier, but I'm happy to do it again.

M. Coell: I think you'll find my questions quite different.

Hon. P. Priddy: Okay, all right. The first question was the same. So maybe I'd better get. . . . Can I get you to ask the question again, then?

M. Coell: The new child protection quality assurance system -- I am unaware of how that system has been put into place. The specialized teams -- I'm unaware of how they're working or if they're in place.

Hon. P. Priddy: Perhaps, then, two pieces, I think, because when your colleague canvassed it, she canvassed it on an individual basis. You might also want the sort of schematic, which I'll also give you a copy of, because we're happy to have you have that.

But I can sort of draw it in the air for you, partly. Under the director of child protection, who in Victoria is Ross Dawson for us, there is the sort of regional. . . . Then in each region we have a regional child protection manager. Under that regional child protection manager there are specialized child protection teams, who do both intake and investigation. We expect to see about three to five of those specialized child protection teams per region, about seven to nine protection workers per team and then, we hope, case assistants being able to support those teams. So that's sort of what it looks like, if you will.

[9:00]

M. Coell: I would be interesting in knowing which regions are up and running, and what the time frame is for completion of the project.

Hon. P. Priddy: The areas that have specialized teams in place. . . . Vancouver always has specialized intake, although they will be doing some more work around that. It's in place in Richmond and in Kelowna. We were just commenting to ourselves that -- for a variety of reasons -- and sometimes it's around school people -- there are a number of integrated services that have been in place in Kelowna for a period of time. It's just sort of interesting to see where they've already developed in the province.

I'm sorry, I may not have given the time line. It's September 1 for the rest to be in place, or during September.

M. Coell: I have seen the term "quality assurance system," a few places in documentation. Would the minister qualify for me what exactly that is? Is it the risk assessments? Is it all of the things we're doing? Quality assurance programs mean different things to different people. I'm just trying to get a handle on what this means to the minister.

Hon. P. Priddy: It's a bit like child care the other night -- right? -- I come out before you have the question out. It actually is an enormous range. So I think your analysis of that is correct. Let me give you some examples to provide you with some idea of the range of that.

When we talk about quality assurance, I guess the first thing you have to think of -- well, in any order you like -- is qualified and competent staff. So all of those issues around, you know. . . . New child protection workers have to have a BSW. All new child protection staff have to complete the 20-week training program, including classroom work, fieldwork and so on. All new workers at the end of the 20 weeks have to pass, with an 80 percent mark or better, a delegation test by the director of child protection. Those kinds of things have to do with qualified and competent staff.

[ Page 6481 ]

I'll just move on to the next page here. I was ahead of myself a bit. One of the things that's a large component to this, actually, hon. member -- and we have talked about it along the way -- is the whole issue of audits, both audits which involve, for instance, a review of all or a sampling of case files and case practice within a ministry field office, which is a systemic kind of audit; some self-audits that regions can do that can be done by supervisors, child protection workers and child protection consultants to know how they are handling individual cases. The in-depth case review is conducted by the deputy director of quality assurance where there are serious concerns regarding practice.

The requirement we have around review of all reportable circumstances. . . . All field offices have to report to the director all reportable circumstances, such as critical injuries, serious occurrences with children, missing children, attempted suicides, etc., immediately within, I think, 24 hours or less. Those are some of the individual issues within quality assurance. I also consider the risk assessment tool to be one of the quality assurance tools, if that gives you some sample of the range.

M. Coell: Thank you for that. That provides the breakdown that I was looking for.

Looking at the March statistics for children in care, we have approximately 6,000 children in care in the ministry, with varying levels of care from regular family care to the contracted care resource-safe places. That's a lot of children in your care, and most of those children would be dealing with child protection workers. I wonder if the minister can tell me how many child protection workers there were on staff this time last year and how many there are this year.

Hon. P. Priddy: I will soon be corrected if I'm wrong, which I might be. At the end of March 1997, we had 1,206 child protection social workers. I believe in March of 1996. . . . At the end of '96-97, there were 1,206; that's correct. At the beginning of '96-97, there were 908. There are 27 vacancies, which we are currently in the process of filling.

M. Coell: Can the minister tell me, of those people who were hired in that period, the 300, how many of them have BSWs or MSWs?

Hon. P. Priddy: I'm not sure that I can tell you about MSWs without doing some other work, but all child protection social workers hired after July 1996 have BSWs. I would need to do a bit of checking. It was actually 325 that were hired. We've had a bit of turnover, and that's why those are being replaced. But there were actually 325 bodies hired, and there still will be as we replace those people. What I can't tell you is that part between the end of March and the first of July, but from July on, everybody had a BSW.

M. Coell: Can the minister tell me what the turnover has been of child protection workers in the last year?

Hon. P. Priddy: This year it has been 6 percent, which tends to be typical. It was a bit higher last year. In our experience and in our research -- not only around child protection social workers but other employees, and not just in the ministry but in business in general -- the highest turnover tends to be in the first year of employment.

M. Coell: The minister, when we were talking about the quality assurance program, listed a number of teams of people that are in there -- the specialized child protection teams. Are they classified as child protection workers, and are they part of this number here -- part of the 1,206?

Hon. P. Priddy: The answer is yes, they are part of the number.

M. Coell: Can the minister tell me how many of those people have been hired at this point? I think there were two regions up and running and three in varying parts. Are those people, when they are hired, to be on top of the 206? Or would they be considered part of that 206 at this point, but vacancies?

[9:15]

M. Coell: The ministry, in conjunction with the unions involved, is having a number of projects to review caseloads, and this is an area of interest to myself. I believe there are ten projects that are going to help define what a caseload is in British Columbia, and I think it's important for us to get a handle on whether we've got the right amount of staff or not enough staff. Perhaps I could spend some time looking at those caseload reviews. Project 1 is a review of operation definitions of a case for case management and related purposes and to ensure consistency of application of case definitions. That's to be brought forward by September 1, I believe. I would be interested to know: who is doing that review? Is it staff, or have we hired outside consultants to do that review?

Hon. P. Priddy: The group is actually being co-chaired by John Shields, the president of BCGEU, and my deputy, Bob Plecas. It's being staffed by staff from my ministry and by Martin Orr, who's from the BCGEU, so we have staff from the union and staff from the ministry. We have hired a respected consultant by the name of Ted Semmens, who is actually going to design a tool to do the measurement. Once that tool is designed, it will be vetted by front-line staff, and then some pilot work will be done on it.

M. Coell: Will these ten reports be made public?

Hon. P. Priddy: They are part of our budget preparation for next year and will be used for that purpose. But once they've been used for budget preparation purposes, there's no reason they could not be public.

M. Coell: Does the minister have a total -- I don't need a breakdown cost per project -- cost of the ten projects?

Hon. P. Priddy: In order to be able to proceed with some of the work, I'm not sure it's sort of ten broken-out ones. I think some of those have been reduced -- you know, one or two have gone together. But other than the staffing costs -- of our own or GEU staff -- the total cost is $95,000.

[ Page 6482 ]

M. Coell: I would assume that that $95,000 is for the consultants who are working on each project. Can the minister inform me if the same consultant is doing all of the projects, or are there different consultants for each project?

Hon. P. Priddy: No, actually, the only contractor is the contractor who is helping to design the tool that will then be vetted by front-line staff. What will then happen with that is that those will be piloted in various offices to see how it works in a rural or urban office -- just some of the different varieties of offices and so on. That work will be done by both BCGEU staff and our staff together.

M. Coell: I wonder if the minister would comment for me. I realize that it is important that this be done in a timely manner and that the ministry and union are involved. Was there any thought to having this done independently so that it may not be seen to be two people with highly vested interests in this? Would you care to comment on that?

Hon. P. Priddy: The consultant who is being used is an independent consultant highly recommended by Treasury Board and highly supported by the union. If the question is: would you have done the whole thing outside without, you know, either GEU staff or ministry staff. . . ? I think what you want at the end. . . . I mean, you want the independent consultant, who's well-respected and well-recognized, to help design that tool. But the staff in the ministry are the people who we work with every day, and if we're going to be testing out how it works in offices and how different kinds of office equipment are used and how files are managed and so on, I think that in the end what we want is an agreement reached with our employees that we can both support. So the idea of having a well-respected independent consultant that the union and Treasury Board highly recommended and then having the rest of the front-line work done by staff who do that work every day for us was a good compromise, because we do need to be able to support this in the end.

M. Coell: I may be a little unaware of what the minister's last answer to my question was. I was under the understanding that the consultant is only designing a tool to measure caseloads and that he wasn't involved in all of the projects but just in that one project we're talking about. Is that correct?

Hon. P. Priddy: You're working off an original list of ten, as I was until recently. We've collapsed some of those projects, and that consultant is working off that collapsed list. His primary work is developing the tool, you're right. As we get further into doing the testing in the field with the staff and we find that we need additional assistance, then we will certainly go out and get it.

M. Coell: I for one think your front-line staff have very valuable input to put into this. I'm not suggesting that they don't in any way, and I think that the union and ministry have to be involved.

I'm interested in how you evaluate it. Once you finish this and come up with an average caseload of 30, then you ask: "How independent was this evaluation?" I think you need to take it one step further. Once it's completed, you have a review of the process done by the school of social work either at UVic or at UBC so that you get an independent view of it. I don't know whether you've considered that.

Hon. P. Priddy: Actually, member, I appreciate the point you're making. I'm not sure that going to the schools of social work isn't as vested. . .as we might find in another position. However, my commitment to you would be that. . . . I do appreciate your point that once you get that work done, you need to stand back and ask: "Okay, does somebody else who is independent need to have another look at this? Does Ted Semmens have to have a look?" You may be right, so we will certainly take that matter under active consideration. But I think we might have the same problem with a school of social work as we have with the others.

M. Coell: I agree with the minister's comments.

Now that I have an expanded version of the study, one area of the study and the time frame I'd like to canvass is the review of current distribution of cases within and across regions. We've dealt with a number of individual cases over the last year, and the problem cases have been throughout the province. There hasn't been just one area of B.C. where you have had problem cases. So I'm interested in the review of these cases. In doing this review -- and it's project 5 on my sheet -- will the teams be looking at the cases where we've had major problems -- fatalities, injuries of children, those sort of things -- as separate cases?

[9:30]

M. Coell: The project comes in a number of stages. Before you get to the next stage, you've got to find out. . . . You will really see a final report and implementation sometime in the spring of `98 for much of the work of the committee and the project. Has there been a commitment made to the union that if indeed -- and I think their case has been pretty clear -- they have too high a caseload in most areas, that will be addressed? Or are we just going to find that we've got a report that says: "We have too high a caseload"? What's going to be the outcome of this report? That may be for future estimates. The minister may want to tell me that, and I realize that.

Hon. P. Priddy: The member's right; it is a matter for future estimates, and it is a matter of future policy.

But I would comment that this is not a make-work project for anybody. It's important information. Aside from the caseload review, 20 social workers -- one from each region -- have come from around the province to meet in Victoria to go through policy books and so on. They have brought forth information or suggestions around case assistants, which we've actually already begun to take some action on. So our commitment to act on recommendations is a clear one. I couldn't stand here and say: "As soon as the report comes in, we'll be able to do all of these things right away." But it's not a make-work project; it's important work to do. You're right; it 

[ Page 6483 ]

is a matter for future estimates, and I couldn't possibly stand here and make that kind of commitment. But we've not done this to keep people busy.

M. Coell: I appreciate that. I was more concerned about a commitment made to the union in having them take part in this, which is very extensive. I would think that there must be an understanding that there will be an effort to address the problems identified in the project.

One other question. The project is going to identify standards of caseload and workload in other jurisdictions. I wonder if the minister could comment on what those other jurisdictions are. Are we looking at the United States as well as Canada, or just Canada?

Hon. P. Priddy: We're looking not only across Canada but across the United States. We want to look at best practices. We want to look at how other people handle workload, caseload, definitions, practices and so on. So it will be across North America.

M. Coell: That's going to be quite an undertaking in itself, because of the vast difference in delivery systems that we have between ourselves and especially the United States. I'm very pleased to see this going ahead. I have some reservations about the independence of it, but I think it's necessary to go and. . . . I'm pleased the union is actually working with the government on it, because I think there was a time there when the front-line staff felt that no one was listening. I think that this is a good example of allowing them to have some input.

The other area I'd like to spend some time on is the risk assessment model. Just a bit of background. Risk assessment has been a part of social work for many years. In many instances risk assessment was seen as commonsense protection of children, but there wasn't a risk assessment model that the ministry used. My recollection is that UBC actually taught risk assessment in its school some years back as part of a social work curriculum.

The assessment model and accompanying package are very in-depth. Firstly, could the minister tell me who was involved in the development of this package? What consultants did we use?

Hon. P. Priddy: There is a fairly extensive list of people who worked on it. Many were ministry workers, but there were external people as well. Some of the external people who were involved in this were: Dr. Richard Sullivan, the director of the school of social work at UBC, who you probably know; Dr. Diana English, an international expert in risk assessment; and Lynn Carter, who is in charge of the social services program at Langara. As well, we had working groups on risk assessment, on the actual design team and on the integration of the working group, and those were primarily ministry staff.

M. Coell: Could the minister tell me how much the project cost in terms of outside consultants?

Hon. P. Priddy: The other person I probably didn't list was Ross Dawson, who at that stage was not a staff person with our ministry, but he had experience in designing risk assessment models.

The cost of the entire project, including external consultants and printing -- we printed a significant number of copies -- was $260,000.

M. Coell: That cost included your own staff as well as outside consultants?

Hon. P. Priddy: You asked about external consultants, and the cost I gave was for the external consultants and printing. That does not include our own staff costs. I don't actually think we have a breakdown of staff costs.

M. Coell: The minister said that the 1,206 child protection workers have all been trained in the use of this tool. How long did that training take place -- over what period of time -- and when was it completed?

Hon. P. Priddy: We ran some pilot projects on the training last fall, just to sort of see how the training might be managed. We began the training in earnest right after Christmas in January, and as of July 1 the training was completed. Now, you know, there may be somebody who is just coming back from maternity leave, but people are finished the training.

M. Coell: I guess the next step is: how many people are using this tool in their day-to-day work? Are they being filled out at this time?

Hon. P. Priddy: There was a small exception; it may not matter. I cannot tell you that everybody is using it all of the time, because we simply don't know that at this stage. We will be out in the fall auditing this. The expectation is that everybody is doing this because this is good practice; this is what Gove said we should be doing. We know that this is good for children, and we know that this is a much more consistent -- along with people's professional judgment -- way to be assessing risk for children.

Our expectation is that people are doing that. We will be auditing in the fall to ensure that it is actually happening. I think there were two regions that got a little bit of a delay just because it took a little bit longer to get the training up and running. I think the director of child protection gave them a little bit of leeway on that. I don't know if you saw, but there was a press release in the paper last week, I think, that Ontario has adopted this very risk assessment model for child protection in their province.

M. Coell: I would be interested to know how long it takes to fill out the risk assessment tool. What is the average time a social worker takes in filling it out?

[9:45]

M. Coell: My understanding, from talking to a number of social workers, is that it could be upwards of six hours to do a risk assessment. I'm not saying that that's too long; whatever it takes is fine. I would be interested to know whether the team looking at caseloads is going to be looking at the risk assessment tool and the added time that it will place on staff.

[ Page 6484 ]

Hon. P. Priddy: The caseload review actually will be looking at all of the issues that are making a difference in or taking up time for social workers. So yes, this will be one of them. It does seem to me that five to six hours is long, and I think what the caseload review will look at is that a lot of what takes the time is what people would have to do regardless of whether they actually have to fill this out, which is the collecting of the information. It's talking to families; it's checking collaterals; it's doing all of those things which people would have to do regardless. The filling-out part comes after that. But five to six hours seems very long and perhaps is for somebody who's just beginning.

M. Coell: Has the minister gone back and looked at some of the cases that we've discussed -- some in the Legislature -- of abuse of children? And those children who are still alive -- have their social workers been instructed to do risk assessments on them now?

Hon. P. Priddy: I want to clarify the question. The deputy and I heard it differently, so I'm sure that I heard it correctly. [Laughter.] Your question is: for those children who are currently in our care, who we have talked about in other circumstances, have their social workers, who they currently have, been told to do risk. . . ? You're not asking whether risk assessments had been done before. You're asking whether they're told. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. P. Priddy: The answer is yes.

M. Coell: So a child like Chabasco Flanders would have a risk assessment done on him at this time.

Hon. P. Priddy: I think the member knows that it's difficult to discuss individual cases. Yes, he should have, but it is difficult to speak affirmatively to individual cases without checking. But yes, he should have. That's correct.

M. Coell: The risk assessment tool is in use. People have been trained; it is supposed to be in use. Will this tool be used by other members of the ministry -- not just child protection workers, but other social workers? And if not, is there a different tool that will be developed for them?

The Chair: Minister, noting the time.

Hon. P. Priddy: Thank you, hon. Chair, for pointing that out to me.

The only people who will be using it as a risk assessment tool are delegated child protection social workers. We will, however, be doing training with contracted agencies and other staff, because it is important that they understand what is in it and why, and why that information has to be collected. But only delegated child protection social workers will be using it.

Noting the time, I move that the committee rise, report significant progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 9:53 p.m.

Copyright © 1997: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada