[ Page 9305 ]

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

Prayers.

W. Hartley: Visiting us today we have some 51 people from Modesto, California. They're from the Big Valley Grace Community Church, and they're here for "Comparative Government and Local History of Interest to Adult Americans." Please welcome them.

E. Gillespie: Visiting us this morning are Hannah Wharton and her friend Timea Meszaros. Timea has just graduated from St. Andrew's Regional High School in Victoria, and Hannah has just registered as a provincial voter. They're here to learn more about the legislative process and to visit with you, hon. Speaker, as Hannah's MLA. Will the House please make them both welcome.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

THE FUTURE OF OUR COASTAL COMMUNITIES

European settlers came to British Columbia over 100 years ago to fish for salmon. They built communities. Sointula is an example in my riding of North Island. It's a Finnish community that was settled by fishermen to fish this resource -- people like Bruce Burrows, for instance, who has fished the resource all his life, and Chris Peterson. Alert Bay is another example. Chief William Cranmer, Pat Alfred and Craig Wadhams -- they and their families are all fishermen, and fish are what Alert Bay is all about. There's Mayor Hellberg in Port Hardy. Lately we've seen a lot of Mayor Hellberg on the news -- talking about fisheries issues, talking to the fishermen in Port Hardy and waiting to find out what the fishing plan is for this year and how it's going to affect our communities and their families. Campbell River, Quadra Island, Kyuquot on the west coast -- a fishing village of first nations people that haven't fished for two or three years because of the mismanagement of our fisheries.

You've got to go into those communities and talk to those people, and you've got to really see what's going on there -- and when you leave, you don't feel really good. There are some big, big problems in our coastal communities with the fishery. The fishery is a really important part of our B.C. economy; it's an important part of our communities. It's a way of life and a tradition throughout British Columbia that today is definitely threatened. There are a lot of reasons for that -- overfishing, overcapacity, American interception of our fish, bad logging practices over the last 50 years, urban sprawl, degradation of streams and water quality, pollution and general habitat destruction throughout British Columbia. Generally, there's been a lot of mismanagement of the resource, particularly over the last 25 years.

The Mifflin plan, when it was brought into British Columbia, really decimated our coastal communities. It was a low point in the history of our coastal communities, as a matter of fact. I can remember, on July 15, 1996, when our province signed the memorandum of understanding with Mifflin, at that time the minister of fish, food and agriculture.

On April 16, 1997, we had the Canada-British Columbia Agreement on the Management of Pacific Salmon Fisheries Issues, which was signed off by our Premier and by Prime Minister John Chrétien. The federal government is not living up to its commitments in regards to that agreement. They have not done a proper job of consulting with the stakeholders, nor have they done a proper job of consulting with the province of British Columbia on comanagement issues. Conservation was the starting point and focal point of that agreement. We have to understand that conservation is for nothing if we don't have a Pacific Salmon Treaty in British Columbia.

The fleet reductions as proposed by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans buyback plan are supposed to be voluntary, but it is not voluntary if fishermen on our coast have no other choices. If they're bankrupt, it's not a voluntary thing. It's basically a buyback of their boat, and they're left with absolutely nothing. We need a plan to save British Columbia, and we have to work cooperatively with the federal government. That has not happened at this time.

The number of dollars that they are proposing is insufficient. There are no details to the plan yet. One thing they talked about is $100 million for habitat restoration. What it looks like is that we're going to get $20 million a year put in a trust fund, and possibly the interest generated off that will be used to enhance habitat for salmon in British Columbia. That's totally, absolutely unacceptable. Last year British Columbia put over $150 million into habitat restoration through FRBC and lots of other initiatives. We obviously have to take a lot harder line on that, and hopefully our federal government counterparts will start listening to what we're talking about. They're doing all of this, and at the same time, they're continuing to cut money that they've been putting into habitat.

I also believe that there's a violation of the principles of equity, as were set out by the Strangway-Ruckelshaus report. Anderson is blatantly ignoring the recommendations of British Columbia and the agreement that was signed, and he is violating the Canada salmon agreement in many ways. The government has consistently provided recommendations and solutions to the federal government that will work for coastal communities and fishermen. They have again and again failed to listen to that.

We are also showing our commitment as a province. We have done a lot of different initiatives for salmon in this province: FRBC, for instance, as I said earlier, is putting $150 million a year into salmon habitat protection; Fisheries Renewal B.C.; the living-gene bank for steelhead, which is a great program; and the Community Fisheries Development Centre's habitat mapping and inventory program last year, which was started by the federal government -- and they walked away from it. The province came in, funded it and continued it. Those are examples of the kind of work that we have to do in British Columbia if we're going to have a strong fishery.

Three words sum it up: not good enough. The federal government's plan has all the right words, but it's the wrong plan. It's actually like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall.

[ Page 9306 ]

J. van Dongen: I thank for member for choosing a topic today that is both timely and important. When I consider the future of coastal communities, I want to focus on two thoughts that I've boiled down to two words. The two words are "expectations" and "solutions." Then I picked two more words to expand on these first two. The first one is "realistic" -- there is a need for realistic expectations. The second word is "jobs" -- the solution to the current crisis is jobs. Realistic expectations and real jobs: this is the future of coastal communities.

One of the sources of stress in our society and for the people of coastal communities is when outcomes do not match expectations or, to look at it another way, when expectations do not match likely outcomes. The government has a responsibility to help foster realistic expectations for our people. Government has a role in helping people cope with change, change that was uninvited and unexpected.

The latest study into the plight of one industry in our coastal communities is "Fishing for Money: Challenges and Opportunities in the B.C. Salmon Industry," a very good report commissioned by the federal and provincial governments. It addresses the issue of expectations on page 1, when it talks about the special status of salmon in B.C. being both a blessing and a curse. It states: "The curse may be that this special relationship has blinded us to the need for changes. Why, after all, should the salmon fishery be immune from the kinds of adjustments that agriculture, forestry and other extraction industries have undergone over the past decades?"

[10:15]

Government, by its decisions and actions, has the opportunity to influence the creation of jobs in coastal communities -- jobs in shellfish farming, tourism, the sports and recreational sector and finfish aquaculture. There are possibilities and there are options. Again, there are three very good studies that point the way: "The Economic Value of Salmon," done by a number of agencies in February 1996; "Economic Potential of the British Columbia Marine Aquaculture Industry, Phase 1 -- Shellfish," done in June 1997, with phase 2 due to be announced shortly; and the "Salmon Aquaculture Review," released last August.

The information is there; the opportunity is there. Government has to be part of the solution to create jobs by making the necessary policy decisions and then acting on them. We need to think creatively, and we need to break a few paradigms. The future of coastal communities and the future of rural communities are in our hands. Let us commit to fostering realistic expectations and real jobs for our people.

G. Robertson: As provincial government, we're standing up for British Columbia and the B.C. fishermen and communities. We're standing up against Ottawa's attempt to shut down our fisheries after years of mismanagement. We're standing up against Americans who want to keep stealing our fish -- and I'll use that word, because that's what they're doing -- even when they're endangered. We must work together to renew our fishery for the future. I believe that conservation is the key, but conservation alone is not enough.

We have a plan to renew the fishery so that salmon will be part of our children's futures and not just part of our past. Conservation must also be shared equally on both sides of the border. Fishermen in coastal communities are part of the solution to renewing the fishery. They have had a long-term interest in the fishery, and their survival depends upon it. B.C.'s proposal to renew our fish and our fishing communities through the Copes report was a commitment, and I think it was a great report. Legal action against the violation of the Pacific Salmon Treaty was important, and we should also have a call for joint monitoring of the fisheries and conservation efforts on both sides of the border.

In regard to the federal government, I believe that Ottawa should stand up for British Columbia and take tougher action on the Pacific Salmon Treaty, instead of making concessions to the Americans when they violate an international treaty and overfish our salmon stocks. I believe that Prime Minister Jean Chrétien should call on Clinton for joint monitoring of all catches and conservation. We need conservation on both sides of the border if we're going to have a successful plan in British Columbia. After years of mismanaging the west coast fishery the way they did on the east coast, Ottawa is trying to shut our fishery down forever, instead of providing funding to renew it to have a renewable future.

After years of quiet diplomacy, the Americans are more entrenched than ever in refusing to reach a fair agreement on the Pacific Salmon Treaty. The delay in announcing this year's fishing plan and compensation for the coho ban has created uncertainty and instability for fishermen in coastal communities up and down our province. The Alaskans are definitely playing politics instead of science. If they're so confident that their science is right and ours is wrong, they should agree to have an independent third party be the judge. Alaskans talk about conservation but won't agree to the same ban on coho as British Columbia fishermen.

In summation, we definitely need a commitment from the federal government to work together with the province, and we need a made-in-B.C. plan.

The Speaker: I recognize the member for Saanich North and the Islands. The member rises on what matter?

M. Coell: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

M. Coell: I have some guests from Pender Island in the precinct today. Russ Searle, who is a school board trustee from school district 64, is here with his daughters Linda and Maureen. They're in the House this morning, and would the House please make them welcome.

THE SILENT KILLERS

In our lifetime we have been faced with catastrophic environmental pollution such as atomic fallout, lead poisoning from things such as gasoline, arsenic poison from sprays, dental amalgams and sodium fluoride. No section of society is free from the drug menace. We live in a poisoned chemical

[ Page 9307 ]

Studies done by the World Health Organization and other quality sources say that mercury is so toxic that at certain levels, it drives people mad. Even the tiniest amounts are regarded as unsafe. At lower levels -- and no one knows how low they are -- mercury attacks the brain and the central nervous system, producing symptoms that include nervousness, irritability, lack of concentration, loss of memory and self-confidence, mood swings, anxiety, depression, fatigue and insomnia. Dr. Lars Friberg is the world's leading authority on mercury poisoning, and he states that there is no safe level.

When you look at all the current scientific evidence, it shows that there is chronic low-dose exposure to a toxic heavy metal that 80 to 85 percent of the industrial world have implanted in their teeth. It's time-released poisoning. Mercury is very dangerous. It is one of the most toxic metals known to man. The silver fillings in your mouth contain 50 percent mercury. That is something your dentist does not tell you. When old fillings are drilled out to make way for new, large amounts of mercury are released from the old fillings, often in large quantities. If amalgam were a new treatment discovered yesterday, what chance do you think it would stand of being ratified as being suitable and safe for dental use, given what we know about mercury today?

Concerned health practitioners in the United States and Canada are urging people to avoid aluminum-containing products, because aluminum affects our neural system. Researchers feel that aluminum is the major culprit in Alzheimer's disease, a disease of dementia, forgetfulness and senility. Autopsies show that people who were afflicted with Alzheimer's had accumulated six times as much aluminum in the brain as healthy people. Governments still allow its use in aluminum pots, beer and soft drink cans, utensils and the food wrap aluminum foil. Aluminum is also found in antacids, cake mixes, baking powder, toothpaste and anti-perspirants. Numerous cities add aluminum salt to drinking water to reduce the cloudiness of it, because it makes the water cosmetically pleasing.

Historically, fluoridation is mandated by government and rejected by citizens; their right to choose has been compromised. Fluoride is in your water and toothpaste not because it is beneficial but because someone decided you should be medicated. One of the several compounds most frequently used to add fluoride ions to the public water supply is sodium fluoride. Sodium fluoride is one of the most lethal forms of what are called halogen salts. Sodium fluoride is a compound that has many industrial uses, such as insecticide, particularly for roaches and ants.

Under the heading "Human toxicity," the Merck Index states: "Severe symptoms result from ingestion of 0.25 to 0.45 grams, and death results from ingestion of 4 grams. . . . Lethal symptoms consist of muscular weakness, tremors, convulsions, collapse, dyspnea, respiratory and cardiac failure and death. Chronic symptoms are mottling of tooth enamel and osteosclerosis." Osteosclerosis is one of the conditions that may be found in people who have subsisted for a number of years on water containing fluorides. Osteosclerosis is a disease of the spinal column in which the tissue between the vertebrae harden; it may also affect the joints and extremities.

Fluoride has been described by Dr. Charles Brusch, former director of the Massachusetts Medical Center in Cambridge as a "highly toxic protoplasmic poison that is 15 times stronger than arsenic." The U.S. Dispensary, a pharmaceutical magazine, states that "fluorides are violent poisons to all living tissue because of their precipitation of calcium. They cause a fall in blood pressure, respiratory failure and general paralysis. Continuous ingestion of non-fatal doses -- as in the water supply and fluoride in toothpaste -- causes permanent inhibition of growth."

In 1963 a group of Canadian scientists caused a furore by publishing a review article asking for more thorough research on the fluoride subject. They were concerned about the crucial roles of minerals such as calcium and magnesium. They feared the effect of fluoride on the solubility of bone mineral and the increased infusion of fluoride into all of our food products. Many of their contentions have since been borne out by other workers and have shown that food items processed with fluoridated water contain from 0.6 to 1 part per million of fluoride instead of the normal 0.2 to 0.3 parts per million. The presence of so much fluoride in our present-day food products calls for a critical examination of the baseline on which the fluoridation program was founded 20 years ago.

Fluoride is introduced into your body through tap water, some bottled waters, foods and beverages that are prepared or grown in fluoridated areas either as commercial products or in restaurants, some teas, toothpaste, mouth rinses, vitamin tablets and drops, fluoride treatments in dental offices and prescription medications. Many millions of people are being chronically poisoned by fluoride.

Japan, Belgium, West Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, France, Italy, and Norway have banned fluoride in their countries, as has the state of California. The California Safe Drinking Water Initiative reads: "The public water supply should be safe for all to drink. In order to protect the public health from increased risk of hip fracture, cancer, dental fluorosis and other harmful effects which have been linked to fluoride. . . . No fluoride or fluorine-containing substance may be added to public water systems. All laws to the contrary are hereby repealed."

The list seems endless of the damage that sodium fluoride does to the body, yet we use it and give it to our children without questioning. We as a society are too trusting. We must begin to question what we put into our bodies. Fluoride is contaminating our beverages and food at an ever-increasing rate. Fluoride accumulates in the body. Who is monitoring our total fluoride intake and accumulation?

When a dentist or physician writes a prescription for fluoride, they are required to base the dose on age, weight and total fluoride intake. Common sense tells us that it is impossible to add a prescription drug to public drinking water and expect everyone to consume that exact dose. The time has arrived now for a reckoning, a facing of the facts, unpalatable though they may be. A loss of face should never be as important as the saving of lives. I believe every citizen should have the freedom to choose a more scientific method for the administration of this drug or forgo the fluoride risk altogether.

The Speaker: Hon. member, your time is completed for this portion.

B. McKinnon: Sorry, hon. Speaker. Thank you.

W. Hartley: I am pleased to respond in some ways to the member's statement. It is a very serious subject. In many

[ Page 9308 ]

[10:30]

We're leaders in the development and adoption of technologies which reduce or eliminate the use of chemicals to control weed or insect pests. Today nearly all growers of apples, pears, peaches, apricots and cherries use integrated pest management techniques. The B.C. greenhouse industry is a world leader in integrated pest management, achieving a reduced use of chemicals in insect and weed control through a variety of innovative methods, including beneficial insects -- bugs eating bugs.

In fact, more than 76 hectares of B.C.-grown vegetables are under glass, producing high-quality, pesticide-free food. More than 90 percent of commercial greenhouses -- vegetable producers -- have integrated pest management programs, resulting in a reduction in pesticide use of more than 50 percent. A majority of field vegetables are grown using these techniques. Pesticide use on onions, carrots and potatoes has been significantly reduced. Farmers report savings of $250 per hectare when growing these vegetables without pesticides. Blueberry farmers report savings of some $200 per hectare.

Food quality and safety management are the hallmarks of B.C. agriculture, fish and food production. The Ministry of Agriculture and Food's Animal Health Centre in Abbotsford controls livestock, poultry and other animal diseases in B.C. The Animal Health Centre also developed new techniques for identifying fish diseases.

Agriculture programs in several post-secondary institutions provide courses on alternatives to pesticides. New B.C. companies produce beneficial insects and mites for use as biological control agents in integrated pest management programs, ranging from preventive and cultural measures to the use of biological, physical, behavioural and chemical controls.

We do have a great advantage in British Columbia over food producers in the United States, Mexico and other countries. For the sake of your health, buy B.C. food. More than 4,500 different B.C. food products are now identified with the "Buy B.C." logo. More than 250 grocery stores participate fully in the B.C. merchandising program. Hundreds of food service operations are registered as B.C. Cuisine members. "Buy B.C." means fresh, safe and local food products. "Buy B.C." means supporting British Columbians in the food industry who grow, catch, process, market, cook and serve your food -- safe, B.C.-grown food for healthy living.

B. McKinnon: I thank the member opposite for his remarks.

There have been numerous studies on animals to assess the effects of fluoride, which are too numerous to go into in the time available here today. Even the apologists for fluoridation do not dispute the fact that fluorides can cause brittleness and malformation of bones in children. Research from around the world was gathered, and the findings showed increases in some cancers, hip fractures, kidney damage, skeletal fluorosis, the aging process, tooth mottling, genetic damage to chromosomes and a decrease in fertility. The list of the damage that sodium fluoride does to the body seems to be endless, yet we use it and give it to our children without questioning. As I said before, we as a society are too trusting, and we must begin to question what we put into our bodies. Fluoride is contaminating so many of the things we put into it today.

The time has arrived now for a reckoning, a facing of the facts, unpalatable though they may be. A loss of face should never be as important as saving lives. I believe that every citizen should have the freedom to choose a more scientific method of administration of this drug or forgo the fluoride risk altogether.

Detractors from and supporters of fluoridation do not share equal standing on this issue. The promotion and publicity scale is tipped widely in favour of the promoters by means of their enormous financial backing and connections. Those who volunteer their time, energy and money believe that truth and common sense will eventually prevail and that we will regain the simple freedom of safe, unmedicated water.

If scientific evidence should go against fluoridation, would scientists have the courage to retract, especially when fluoridation has generated so much emotion? What would their retraction do to the public image of scientific prescience? This is the nub of fluoridation's biggest dilemma. Most of the basic concepts attending the launching of the fluoridation program some 20 years ago were based on prescience. At that time, there was almost no data regarding the comportment of fluoride in cases of specific illnesses.

In a society where our food is being genetically altered, our water is being poisoned, mercury used in the fillings for teeth is poisoning our mouths, the air we breathe is being polluted -- the list goes on and on -- too many people are of the opinion that fluoridation is beyond question. It has become fashionable to brand opponents of fluoridation as cranks or the misinformed. It also seems that it has become customary to give widespread publicity to scientific reports that support fluoridation and scarcely mention adverse findings. When are we as a people going to take responsibility for ourselves? When will we say to governments: "Enough is enough. Quit poisoning us"?

EMERGING TRENDS IN NORTHWEST BRITISH COLUMBIA

[ Page 9309 ]

Like other rural areas in Canada, northwest B.C. exhibits a special charm that attracts people seeking a life experience unavailable in an urban centre. They are discovering something that those of us fortunate enough to be born in the northwest have taken for granted. As these two groups of people work together, the strength of the community increases. There's a growing awareness that as northerners, we need to assert ourselves in order to exert some positive influence on the development of our communities. I look forward to the presence of the northern development commissioner to assist northern communities in this respect.

The bounty of nature is the calling card of the northwest. In addition to the wealth of timber and mineral resources, the northwest boasts a wide range of wilderness and recreation values that not only enhance the quality of life for those resident in the area but also provide economic and social values for everyone in the province, as well as the rest of the world. The spectacular ecosystems of northwestern B.C. represent some of the finest wilderness experiences on the face of the earth. While more people are learning to consider the northwest as their home, this area has been home to a large number of first nations for several thousand years. Prior to European contact this area was heavily travelled by trail and waterway as various first nations utilized the natural resources of their territories and traded with their neighbours. The sad legacy of colonialism is a tragedy that calls upon the concerted goodwill and compassion of us all to move beyond the errors of the past and to create a future that serves everyone.

Over the coming years first nations communities will become bigger players in the economy. As community capacity is enhanced, we will witness the complete transformation of life in first nations communities. As first nations communities improve their social and economic situation, the overall stability of the northwest will improve accordingly. First nations are a major component of the economy of northwest British Columbia, and their ability to prosper is essential to the future health of the region.

Thanks to the grandeur of its natural landscape, northwest B.C. is home to a rapidly growing tourism sector. A multitude of small operators in a wide variety of endeavours are providing services to our visitors. Everything from sightseeing to mountain-climbing and whitewater rafting is provided in locations throughout the area. As our transportation infrastructure improves, we will have more visitors coming our way each year. Also, as this industry develops, the community is becoming more aware of the wilderness values that make it possible for such an industry to develop and prosper. Land use planning provides a vital avenue for people to work out patterns of land use that protect a wide range of values.

The mainstay of the northwest economy is and will continue to be the forest industry. But the industry is changing. Innovative forest management that respects the need for other uses of the forest as well as the need for watershed protection and biodiversity is emerging as the way of the future. Our communities are developing an awareness of and a sensitivity to the need for healthy ecosystems. We realize that we live very close to intricate natural systems that are home to diverse populations of wildlife and equally diverse plant life. People realize the importance of protecting this environment. A sustainable forest industry is not only possible; it is in the process of being created.

Over time there will inevitably be adjustments to the way this industry operates. I can remember the days of small mills scattered throughout the area. In less than a generation they were all consolidated into a handful of huge mills. We are living in a dynamic world of rapid change. One of the changes we are facing here is a change in our understanding of natural systems and the need to adjust our relationships to these systems. The forest industry of the future will work within the confines of the ecosystem, and this will inevitably lead to changes in the practice of forestry. This need not mean less employment. With a greater emphasis on utilization and producing for value, our communities will continue to enjoy the stability this resource offers.

C. Hansen: As the member talked about first nations economic revival and about the new industries that we're seeing emerging in the northwest and the sustainability and stability of the forest sector, what struck me is that all of these things are so interrelated and clearly could not be treated in isolation from each other. But I think what's fundamental to the approach to economic sustainability in the northwest is the role that government should play in that process. It's not government's role to come in and create those jobs; it's government's role to create an environment in which the private sector can create those jobs.

I was in this member's riding earlier this year, in New Aiyansh. We met with some of the aboriginal leaders, who were desperately trying to get a mill reopened -- a sawmill that they had purchased several years ago. What struck me is that this isn't an issue of first nations economic development versus other economic development in British Columbia; the problems they were facing with that mill are the same kind of problems that every mill in this province is facing, in terms of forest policy and the availability of fibre. Hon. Speaker, I think it's important that we recognize that if we want to create sustainable communities in the northwest, whether they be aboriginal communities or any other community in the northwest, we have to create an economic climate that allows for that economic development to proceed in a bona fide and natural way -- not something that's forced or imposed by government.

[10:45]

[ Page 9310 ]

Clearly, hon. Speaker, the role of government should be to come in and ensure that there is a vital economy in those areas, and that government policy allows private sector companies to be successful, to create jobs and to create a climate in those communities that is going to allow for long-term sustainability. But for government to come in and try to pretend that it's going to run those enterprises is the wrong track to go down.

About a year ago I was in Vanderhoof, meeting with a group of logging contractors. It was interesting. We were talking about the problems with forest policy, the problems that the Forest Practices Code has created and the number of people that they had laid off because of this government's policies. As we got towards the end of the discussion, one man who ran a forest contracting company -- he was a big individual. . . . I asked him what he thought government had to do in order to create jobs. I thought he was going to say: "Get out of the way. Cut taxes" -- or whatever. He said something very important. He said: "What we need in this community is a better community centre." This is an interesting comment, I thought, coming from this burly logger. He said that he had an prospective employee he was trying to attract to come and live in Vanderhoof, and this prospective employee had come to Vanderhoof with his wife and kids and looked at the community -- at the hospital, the schools, the recreation facilities for the kids. In the end, he decided that it wasn't where he wanted to bring his family.

What was key for me, what was really driven home at that moment, was that if we want to have viable communities in the northwest -- if we want to have a vibrant economy, a long-term, sustainable economy -- it's more than just building the mills. It's more than just making sure that we have a viable rail system, which is vitally important, and transportation routes. What's also important is that we have quality health care, good education systems and good community services in these communities, so that they become attractive places to raise families.

It's clear today that in Vancouver we are becoming choked with congestion. Vancouver needs transit systems and those types of things, but we can't sustain the level of increased growth with the existing infrastructure that we have in the big city. Clearly, if we're going to drive this economy, it's going to be driven by the small communities, like the small communities in this member's riding. We have to make sure that they are viable communities, that they have community support and long-term jobs for the people who live there and want to live there in the future.

B. Goodacre: I thank the member for Vancouver-Quilchena for his comments.

The interesting thing about being a third-generation resident of the northwest is that when you live in a place like that you develop an attitude about the rest of the world. In our area, we don't see government as the big enemy; we don't see outside business as the big enemy. But we do see both of those large institutions as serious impediments to any serious work that we can do to create better communities.

The member raised the issue of Skeena Cellulose -- what he would like to characterize, I presume, as a ham-fisted effort to try and straighten out that thing. What many of us in the northwest we're so concerned about, when that thing went down, was the billion dollars that were bled out of that region by George Petty when he had Repap. That company was the scourge of the northwest. Not only did they take money out of our economy, to the tune of $1 billion in the short period they were there, they also ran the worst logging shows. They left messes in the area that you wouldn't believe. They left creditors hanging. Their payment schedules were the most deplorable in the industry, running far behind any other comparable employer in the area. Those are the kinds of problems our communities face every day. Because of its resources, our economy has been very attractive to outside interests who care little or nothing about our communities. Unfortunately, government is faced with the job of having to clean up every so often when an industry such as Repap makes a God-awful mess in the area that I live in. Thank God government is there when those situations arise.

But we're more concerned about avoiding those kinds of things in the future. We're trying to work with our first nations neighbours to create a future where our communities are secure and we have the necessary tools to create the future that we need for our areas. We're not large places; we're never going to be large places. A growth rate of 10 percent a year is going to leave us as a very, very small place at the end of my life.

The thing is that we know we're small places, and we want the larger places in the world to recognize that just because we're small doesn't mean we don't know how to run our own lives. That is the biggest message that we need to hear. As we work with the first nations people, in particular, we have a large job to do, from years and years of neglect.

I see that the red light is on, so I will sit down.

CHILDREN, OUR GREATEST GIFT

If we have not cared for our children, we have accomplished nothing.

If children are born drug-addicted, our care for them was not there.

If children have not food and clothing and shelter, our collective care for them was not there.

If children have not the dental and medical care, our care for them is not there.

If children do not have hearing and eye exams and needed treatment and supports, our care for them is not there.

If children do not have security and safety, our care for them is not there.

If 100,000 children in British Columbia live in various degrees of poverty, our care for them is not there.

If we continue to fail our children, our integrity as citizens is not there.

If as legislators our children are not our prime priority, our credibility as legislators is not there.

In truth, if we do not care for our children, we are found wanting.

It is time we admit this reality and change our ways.

Words are meaningless without actions that care.

Children are our most precious gifts.

For their sakes, may we have the grace to care as we ought.

We have debated many topics in this legislature. One of the things that we have debated on some occasions, although very seldom, is the care of our children. Very seldom within those discussions have we debated their care from the time that they are conceived until they are five years of age. Only

[ Page 9311 ]

Just a week ago I attended a conference in Vancouver which I'd seen advertised in the Vancouver Sun. The advertising caught my attention because it was entitled "Giving Young Children a Head Start." It was advertising a forum sponsored by the United Way, which brought together persons of many backgrounds who are concerned about the children of our community. The guest speaker was Dr. Clyde Hertzman from the UBC faculty of medicine. He spoke on early childhood development and action for a healthier community. The gist of what he said was that when a child is born, the child has unlimited potential in its brain and therefore in all of its personality as a person.

The development of that brain depends upon being nourished by love, by caring and by environmental, community and family experiences of all kinds. It is this potential, as it is nourished in the interactions of the environment and its relationships with others in the community, that brings that healthy child development into being. Without these stimuli the child will, in those first three to five years of life, fail to develop, fail to meet his or her potential. Even the first few months are extremely and vitally important. If the opportunities are missed in that period, they can never be recovered.

The reality is that across Canada and around the world -- and particularly, for the moment, in our province -- there are thousands of children who are not having even the minimum opportunity for a whole and happy life. Many of these children, when they grow up to more adult years, will be blamed for the mistakes they make, for the troubles they get into, for the disadvantages which they seem to have -- and it will not have been their fault. It will have been, in large part, our collective fault. For the children must be dependent on the adults, and if the adults fail, the children are the ones who suffer the most.

Both by this conference and the report, along with other groups who have been working quietly in our communities, we are being called on as a community at large to at last recognize that a priority in everything we do must be our children. It must be the children of our community -- especially those who we can support and must support, from the time of conception through to the time that they are ready to go to school. It is in that period of time that their future, in large part, is determined and decided. It is in that period of time that their potential is developed. It's in that time that they're given the base on which their whole life will depend. It is in that period of time that we must give to the children, who are our greatest gift, the greatest gift of all: full, healthy development in all of their being -- physically, mentally, socially and spiritually.

I bring this before us because, though we discussed a lot of things in this Legislature, children in their early years have been largely overlooked.

S. Orcherton: I thank the member for Vancouver-Langara for his thoughtful comments, and in particular, for offering me a copy of his presentation prior to private members' statements. I think that what the member is really talking about here is a collective solution to these issues, a solution that includes, as a priority, putting children and their health and welfare on the very top of the decision-making that goes on in British Columbia.

[11:00]

I think we've been doing that in the province of British Columbia. We have the highest minimum wage of any jurisdiction in Canada and of any jurisdiction in North America. We have a B.C. Benefits program, which has B.C. Healthy Kids. We have a dental and optical program for children, the same children the member talks about, that in fact offers assistance to 45 percent of B.C. families. We have a B.C. family bonus in place, offering $103 per child up to a maximum of five children, and 45 percent of British Columbia families are finding a great deal of support in that program.

We have a Children and Families early intervention program that all members should be proud of. We have child care unequalled in to any other jurisdiction in this country. In fact, we subsidize child care workers' wages in this province to an extreme amount, to put in place and really send a message that in British Columbia, a priority has to be placed on those who look after our children, be they families or be they child care workers. We have $200 million allocated in this regard. B.C. is one of the two provinces left in this country that continues to fund new social housing to provide safe places for families and children to live.

B.C. Benefits is a child-centred program in terms of all the programs and support that is offered in British Columbia. The highest welfare rates in Canada for families who have children are in British Columbia. B.C. family bonuses have reduced the poverty gap in our province by nearly 19 percent and by 25.5 percent for single-parent families. That's a tremendous record, and one that all members of the House should be feeling very proud about.

I think that there are a number of things that we've been doing to try to address this very, very serious issue, and I just want to encapsulate them. We have the B.C. Benefits program, child care subsidies, dental and optical care for children, health benefits, working-families supplements, job and training placement programs, literacy and educational support, nutritional school meals, child protection, early intervention, family resource centres, youth services networks and transition-to-work programs for parents. You should know that B.C. leads this country with programs that directly tackle child poverty.

We've done much in this province. There is still much to do, and we can do better. I wonder about this issue as a priority. I know that in this current sitting of the Legislature, there have been no questions from the members opposite to the Minister of Human Resources around poverty. I'd urge the hon. member for Vancouver-Langara to make this issue a priority in their caucus, to keep this issue in the focus of the people of British Columbia so that we can move forward to address child issues and make sure that children have the support they need to grow up to be healthy, participating British Columbians.

V. Anderson: I have difficulty at this point holding my temper and my disgust. My understanding is that these are non-partisan private members' statements. What I heard the

[ Page 9312 ]

I said nothing partisan in my introduction. I talked about the priority that we have to have, collectively as a Legislature, for the children in our province. It's the children that we must talk about. We have not given them priority, and we have not given the children, from age zero to age five, a priority in our educational system, our health system, our social system or any other system. When we talk about environmental concerns, fisheries concerns, forestry concerns, community concerns and transportation concerns. . . . Every one of those is a children's issue. That's the point I'm trying to express -- that in everything we do, we must ask: what is the priority that our children have, from zero to five years of age? That's our heritage, that's our responsibility, and that's our obligation. Talking around the picture does not get at the issue.

Hon. Speaker, we must -- all of us collectively -- affirm the fact that our first priority is the children in our families and in our communities, in the first five years of their lives. The rest of their life is already set out by then, and if we have failed them, as we have done continuously over the years. . . . There are hundreds of committee meetings taking place, but so far. . . . Those children are entering school, and school counsellors who used to deal with children in grades 6, 7 and 8 are now spending most of their time dealing with children in kindergarten and in grades 1, 2 and 3, because we have failed them and have not given them the privileges they should have before they get to school.

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. That concludes the private members' statements for today. I call the Government House Leader.

Hon. J. MacPhail: In this chamber, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry for Children and Families. In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
(continued)

C. Clark: I want to start again with foster care, if we can; I don't want to go over old ground at all. I do want to point out to the minister, though, that Delphine Charmley is joining us today in the gallery, and she's brought with her a few questions that she has, based on the estimates debate so far. As I said, I don't want to cover old ground, but I'd like to spend just a few minutes clarifying issues for her and, in particular, for the parents in Nanaimo.

There appears to be a difference between what the minister says is the policy with respect to special payments and service payments, and the actual practice in the Nanaimo region. I don't know whether this is a widespread problem or whether it's specific just to Nanaimo. But there's clearly a problem in that community in the way the policy is applied.

Delphine brought with her today a bucket -- it's a ten-kilo bucket -- of receipts. Those are all the receipts that she has to collect in order to demonstrate that she has exhausted the entire portion of her service payment before the folks in the Nanaimo office will allow her to access any of the special one-time-only payments. She says that that is their policy up there. She has the support of quite a number of foster parents who have written as well. They say they're facing the same problem.

Could the minister just clarify for us, first, that I'm correct in my interpretation of the policy and that indeed the service payment does not need to be exhausted before the one-time-only special payments can be accessed? If that's true, maybe the minister could shed some light on what's happening in Nanaimo specifically, because that doesn't appear to be the case.

Hon. L. Boone: We're just trying to figure out exactly what the question is. If the member is asking whether a foster parent has to use up all of the additional money that they get over and above, before they can get payment for special treatments for their foster child, then you're correct that they don't have to do that. They shouldn't have to do that. As to what's going on in Nanaimo, I can't answer that now, because the member has only just made me aware of that. But we will look into that and try and figure out why that difference is taking place there. We will certainly look into that.

C. Clark: I'll clarify that for the minister if she needs me to. The issue in Nanaimo appears to be that the office is demanding that the foster parents exhaust 100 percent of their service payment and demonstrate that they have exhausted that payment on the child's needs -- that they've used 100 percent of it for the child's needs. That's why Ms. Charmley brings in this bucket of receipts to show how she has to collect the receipts for the service portion of the payment before they are even considered to be eligible for the one-time-only special payments that are supposed to be over and above.

I know that the minister considers part of the service payment to be income. If that is the case, then certainly a parent shouldn't be expected to exhaust all of that on a child's needs before they can access the one-time-only payments. So what I'd ask the minister to do, then, is to perhaps put it in writing for the Nanaimo office, because there does appear to be a problem up there, to ensure that they're very clear on the policy and that their practice actually follows the policy.

Hon. L. Boone: We'll look into Nanaimo. We'll find out exactly what's going on there, and we'll make sure that they are following the policy.

C. Clark: I appreciate that. I know that Ms. Charmley appreciates it too. She also. . . . The foster parents up there had a meeting, and I think about 15 of them sat down and reviewed -- if you can imagine it -- the tapes of our estimates debates and came up with some questions.

[11:15]

[ Page 9313 ]

In fact, I think what's happened up in Nanaimo, from Ms. Charmley's perspective, is that she's forwarded these questions and hasn't received an answer. What she'd like is an answer in writing, so that they can all be clear about what the policies are. What I'll do is pass that over to the minister. I appreciate her offering to make sure that they get answered.

I want to move on to some general questions on foster care. We talked about the ministry's intention to adopt children -- to move children out of the foster care system into the adoption system or into adoptive placements. What I'd like to clarify or maybe point out for the minister is that the ministry's policy -- where the special payments are means-tested, based on foster care income -- appears, in many cases, to be forcing foster parents to choose between their adoptive children and their foster children. In Ms. Charmley's case. . . . She says that there are at least five other foster parents she's aware of that are quitting the system in the Nanaimo area.

The reason it's a problem is that if it's only because they're a foster parent that they might not be able to get the special needs adoptive assistance payments, and if they are going to have to choose between income from the foster care that they give and income to support their special needs children, they'd be likely to choose one or the other, not both.

I'd ask the minister to maybe clarify for us whether she sees that this is going to be an obstacle for her ministry in trying to move foster children into the adoptive places. The fact is that most children in the foster care system will be moving into placements in the same homes that they're in. I mean, I don't suspect that the majority of foster children who get adopted go into new homes outside the system. I suspect that in many cases it's the foster parent who chooses to take on that child for permanent placement after they've bonded and attached to the child. I'd ask the minister to comment on that.

Hon. L. Boone: I do want to thank you for making those questions available to me. I think that's a great way for us to get information so that we can reduce the amount of time that we go back and forth here and can really get to the nub of the matter and get information that is really pertinent. I will give you that commitment: we will get you the answers to those questions, and we'll get them to Nanaimo.

I was just talking to the director of child protection, and he indicates that, yes, there are a number of children that are adopted by their foster families. But there's also a fair number of them that will go to families outside the foster parent community. I don't believe that it's going to be a problem; however, that's not to say that it won't.

We will look into this. You're saying that there are some concerns out there. We'll review this whole policy and make sure that in fact parents are not being penalized or having impediments put in place for them.

But clearly it is an income-based test; that is what we have to do. The post-adoption assistance is based on income. We have to consider the income. Now, as we said, if that is not income -- if they are not in fact using that as income, and they're using it for other things -- that's an altogether different matter, and it wouldn't be their. . . . But in all fairness to everybody else out there who has to include all their income -- whether it be income they earn from babysitting, perhaps, or income they earn from working part-time in a store or what have you -- foster parents should have to too, if that is in fact deemed to be income for the post-adoption assistance, because it is an income-based test. We will look into that and make sure that it's not an impediment to getting children adopted, because that's clearly in the best interest of the child. We'll make sure it doesn't happen.

C. Clark: I'm really pleased to hear the minister saying she'll review the policy. To me, it is very much. . . . A good analogy might be a small business person. A small business person gets. . . . If you're a consultant, for example, you'll have overhead, costs, transportation needs and all those things that have to do with just keeping your business going. The system considers that the portion of your income that you apply to your overhead and to running your business can be written off. It's not your income.

My understanding from foster parents is that the service payment that they get isn't income, for the most part. In probably 99 percent of the cases, almost all of it is spent on supporting the children. Delphine Charmley talks about it as being basically a volunteer. She's happy to be a volunteer; don't get me wrong. But she isn't making extra money out of doing this. She's spending it all supporting the children who are in her home. I know she feels that this is a big impediment for her, and she knows other foster parents who do. So I appreciate the minister's undertaking to review the policy; it's a very good start.

Could the minister tell us how many special needs children are in the system that the ministry is hoping to adopt out?

Hon. L. Boone: Special needs children vary as to the severity of their special needs, from the mild to. . . . There are 93 from family care and 123 from contracted resources. Those are the numbers we are hopeful that we will be able to have adopted this year.

C. Clark: That's not 100 percent of the number of children the ministry intends to adopt out, is it? I wonder if the minister can confirm, just for my information, the number of children the ministry intends to adopt out, so I can get a percentage of the number that are special needs.

Hon. L. Boone: There are 240 children altogether.

C. Clark: All right. So that's actually very close to all of them being special needs children. If there's 93 and 123 out of 240, probably 90 percent of the children who the ministry is hoping to adopt out are special needs. Given those numbers, I would suggest that the review of this policy would be fairly urgent. Given those numbers, this impediment could be quite a problem for the ministry, particularly since the ministry is hoping to save a whole lot of money in its budget by adopting children out. I suspect that those savings won't be there if the ministry can't find ways to give parents incentives rather than disincentives to take children on.

We've talked about the number of children in care and the amount of money that's going to be spent per child for

[ Page 9314 ]

The way the debate has unfolded so far, it seems to have been suggested that the ministry is going to shorten the time these children are in care by helping the children cope better with their problems. That might be part of the equation, but it seems to me that the big part of the equation is the fact that there's a problem in their home. It's their family that needs to be able to cope better. I don't see, in the debate so far, a significant commitment on that side of the equation, which would make the minister able to actually take children out of care and put them back into their homes any sooner.

Hon. L. Boone: We're not anticipating that all children will be -- and I've said that earlier -- returned faster. We are estimating that it would work for about 900 of the children in care. We'll be introducing a number of new, different ways of dealing with this and introducing a new comprehensive planning process for children called Looking After Children. This will result in improved planning for children and greater involvement of parents, caregivers and other important persons in the children's life. We will be increasing the number of guardianship workers, who will be working more closely with children and the caregivers. So we are very hopeful that with better planning and better utilization of our resources, we will see a reduction. Clearly we're not going to be able to see a reduced time for all of the children in care, but we estimate that for about 900 of them, we would be able to see a reduction in the number of months.

C. Clark: If the minister is hoping to shorten the time in care for 900 children, can she tell us how much she expects the average stay to decrease for each of those children?

Hon. L. Boone: One and a half months. You already said that.

C. Clark: The reason I want to be clear about this is that the minister says she wants to reduce the amount of time that 900 children are in care by one and a half months each. I was operating on the assumption -- when I look at the budget numbers that the minister has given us in previous days -- that the only way to make those numbers work and to ensure that you still have enough money to support children in care, and don't end up with a really significant shortfall, is if you reduce the amount of time for every child in care by one and a half months. What the minister has just told me. . . .

I guess this is the easiest way to illustrate it statistically, although the faces will be different and we're talking about different individuals. But basically, if the ministry is expecting 1,000 new children in care, and they expect to save only one and a half months from each of those children that are coming into care, all the other children in care are going to be in care for the same amount of time. If that's the case, then the ministry is going to have a $17 million shortfall for the number of children in care, based on the numbers that the minister gave us last Friday. Could she confirm that?

Hon. L. Boone: Last Friday, if you remember correctly, I stated that that wasn't the only way we were going to save some dollars. We were also going to be reducing the number of children that are coming into care, and we're doing that through a number of different ways, such as supervision orders now -- so that we do not actually have to take a child into care -- more resources and more social workers there to actually do some more work. So the rate of admission into care will actually be reduced.

[11:30]

C. Clark: I'm going to have to spend a little time crunching the numbers on that, because they clearly don't add up. If the ministry's hanging its hopes on making all these savings in the children-in-care budget. . . . What we're looking at here is a $17 million shortfall for this government in the amount of money that will be available for children in care based on the growth in the number of children that is predicted over the next year. That's what we're looking at. That is why I was so curious about where the ministry would be making those savings. The minister said this a number of times: "Well, we'll be shifting 115 children into foster homes, and that will save $6.33 million; supervision orders reducing the number of children coming into care will save $1.35 million; more guardianship workers means better planning for 942 children in care and, at one and half months less, will save $1.3 million." That doesn't add up to $17 million.

The only way you're going to save the rest of that money is if you shorten the stay for every child in care. I have to admit that when I looked at the estimates and the debates in the Blues, that seemed to be where the minister was going with this. They were hanging their hopes that they were somehow magically going to cut off one and a half months from the stay of every child in care. If they're not going to do it for every child, and they're only going to do it for 10 percent of the children, where is the rest of those savings going to come from? I'd have to crunch the numbers, but that's still got to be a $15 million shortfall.

Hon. L. Boone: For the record, we'll read this in: $8.97 million reduction in contracted resource expenditures. New guardianship workers will enable us to return children more quickly to parents and, for children in care who are continuing-custody wards, to locate relatives who can assume guardianship and provide safe and permanent care for them. The guardianship workers will also assist in making adoption plans for as many children in care as possible, to the tune of $2.65 million. We will increase the number of specialized level-1-to-3 foster homes and reduce the number of contracted resource beds. The admission rate for zero-to-ten-year-olds is lower than for older children, and these younger children

[ Page 9315 ]

C. Clark: I appreciate the information, but the minister has basically just given me more detail on the things that she's already put on the record. I appreciate that, but it doesn't answer the question, which is. . . . Maybe I can put it in different terms; I'll reframe the question.

If the ministry spent $22,000 last year per child in care -- I'm trying to remember the number off the top of my head -- and they are reducing the amount that will be available for children in care by 10 percent, every child in care will get $2,200 less spent on them. That's for every child in care.

The minister said -- and I made the assumption -- that that was because every child in care would have their stay reduced by 10 percent, so it would naturally be less cost for each of them. If you're only cutting 10 percent, or one and half months, from 10 percent of the children in care, that means 90 percent of the children in care should still be costing you $22,000 a year. Ten percent of the children in care who will have their stays cut, which is what the minister said, should be costing you 10 percent less -- $20,000 a year. You are still left with a very substantial shortfall, then, for the children-in-care budget, unless you are planning to reduce the total amount that you are spending for those 90 percent of children in care whose time in care will not in fact be shortened. That is the only other answer to this question. If you're not shortening their stay in care, but you're limiting the amount of money or reducing the amount of money that's available for each child in care, then you must be spending less on each child per month for the months that they are in the care of the government.

Hon. L. Boone: I explained that we are reducing costs in a number of different ways, and I just went through them: better guardianship planning, etc. Maybe if we just go though this, I can give you the budget here and you can see the children-in-care budget. The foster care task force -- the recommendation is $3.3 million for that. A forecast of 10 percent growth in children in care -- that's $14.3 million. Transfer to foster care from contracted services, which I already talked about, is a savings of $4 million. Better planning as a result of increasing guardianship workers results in a savings of $2.6 million. Increased adoptions of 240 children is a savings of $5.6 million. Reduction in guardianship expenses for children in care is a savings of $1.8 million. Then, as I said, the increase in the federal government children's allowance is $4.2 million.

Those are the costs; they balance. I don't know how much more I can give you other than that. That's where our dollars, our anticipated savings, are coming from. This is the budget that we have.

C. Clark: Well, I'm going to have to spend some time crunching the numbers on this. By the numbers that we got from the ministry on Friday, a shorter stay for, say, 1,000 children will save $1.3 million, if you save a month and a half a piece. Shifting $115 million from contract homes to foster homes will save $6.33 million, the minister said. New legislation involving supervision orders -- $1.35 million. The total budget savings there are $9 million. That leaves an unexplained $11 million shortfall; you're still short by $11 million.

How does the ministry account for that, except by cutting the total amount that they're going to be spending on each child in care? I don't see any other answer. Perhaps the minister might make some additional savings through adoptions, but I don't see anything else on that list that's going to make up for the shortfall.

Hon. L. Boone: I'll just read this once more, and then I think we should move on, because we're not going to get anywhere different. We see a reduction of $8.9 million in contracted resource expenditures. There is $5.6 million in adoption. . . . There is a $1.8 million reduction in guardianship costs. There is an increase coming in, as I said, of $4.2 million -- and I've said this three times now -- from the federal special allowance. Those are the budget figures I've given you; they balance out. I don't know how much more I can tell you, other than that that's where those are coming from. I know that last week we went through the $22,000 per child. We looked at the figures, and you were questioning us. We've now done the figuring-out, and we estimate that this year's figure is based on $20,000 -- approximately $22,200 per child -- which shows the 10 percent change that I was talking about last week.

C. Clark: Well, the minister has me at a disadvantage in that I don't have my calculator in the chamber here, but she can rest assured that I will crunch the numbers on this, because they do not make sense. Either they don't add up, or they're different from the numbers we got last time. Once I get a chance to sit down and crunch the numbers on the calculator, I hope the minister can answer some of the questions, because if I'm correct and the numbers don't add up, then she's got a real, very serious problem in her budget.

I should say at this stage, too, that one of the reasons I am so focused on going after these numbers is because I really don't believe that the ministry is budgeting accurately and honestly, based on what the needs are predicted to be and on what I think any reasonable person in the ministry could expect them to be. I don't think that the ministry is making fair provision for the number of children that will be coming into care. I want to take this opportunity to just warn the government that there is a very serious problem in your budget. There is a serious flaw in your numbers. If the government doesn't fix it, we are going to be down here in February or March of next year to debate more special warrants. The ministry is going to say: "Well, we didn't do the right predictions."

What I'm doing here today -- and it's what I did last Friday and the Wednesday before -- is trying to warn the government that their budget numbers are wrong; their predictions are out. They are probably intended to be lower than anybody would realistically expect. I don't think it's necessarily very honest. What's going to happen as a result of that is that the ministry is going to have to come back again, go secretly to cabinet, get more special warrants and then come begging for forgiveness afterwards.

The theme of this government is: it's better to ask forgiveness than permission. The estimates process is about asking for permission. That's why it's important that you do your budget honestly. That's why I'm going after these numbers. I want to take an opportunity to issue a warning: do it right this

[ Page 9316 ]

One of the other issues that arose from our debates on Friday is the minister's assertion that she's going to be transferring children from the contracted sector to the foster care sector. I'll ask her to correct me if I'm wrong, but it is my understanding that much of the care that's provided to high-needs children in the contracted sector is more expensive because those children are so high-need. In many cases, they are children that have been through the foster system and through the level system, and that system can't cope with those kids anymore. That's why they end up in these specialized group homes, where they have very intensive -- in some cases, one-on-one -- care. That's more expensive. How is the minister going to transfer these children from well staffed, expensive homes into homes that are maybe less appropriate for them?

Hon. L. Boone: Clearly we're not transferring all of those children. You are right: there are many who would not be suitably placed in foster homes. We believe that there are a number of children in these more expensive care facilities that could, in fact, be placed in foster homes, and we intend to find those children. They are in these other facilities because we have a shortage of foster homes. We intend to find these foster homes and make sure that the placements are there and that these children are in their proper placements.

C. Clark: The minister said last week that there wasn't a shortage of foster homes. I could probably pull up the quote where she said that there currently is not a shortage in foster homes at all, and that it's a predicted shortage. In fact, she said on Friday, June 19: "As indicated earlier, we anticipate a shortage of 250. We are not short 250 foster homes right now." My assumption was that that was a predicted shortage. What's the answer? Are we short now or are we not short now?

[11:45]

C. Clark: What the minister is talking about, then, is transferring children who are inappropriately placed and redistributing them within the foster care system. That's why you're short of foster homes. But at the same time, she wants to transfer children from contracted care -- which is highly specialized care for high-needs and, in many cases, highly behaviour-disordered children -- back into the foster care system. She's talking about moving 115 of these children into the foster care system, where she says that sometimes there's a shortage, sometimes there's not -- but certainly there is a shortage of appropriate care facilities.

We wouldn't be going back and forth on this if the minister would give straight, logical answers to each of these questions about foster care. The minister says she doesn't know how many foster homes they're short of at the moment, and she doesn't know what kinds of foster homes they're short of at the moment, but on the other hand she knows that they're not short of foster homes. But at the same time, she's going to be transferring children from highly specialized care homes in the contracted sector into the foster care system. How can the minister do that? If the ministry doesn't even have the basic information about what kinds of foster care they're short of, if they don't know if they're short of specialized care homes, or level 1, level 2 or level 3 homes, how can they know? This is leaving aside whether they know that there are 115 children that are inappropriately placed in the contracted sector. How can they know that they can transfer these children into the foster care system if they don't even know what they've got in the system inventory as it stands?

Hon. L. Boone: Oh, gosh. Member, you certainly like to make mountains out of molehills here. I've explained to you as best I can, in many different ways, and we will just read through some of these things so that in fact you have this information.

As I've said, we do not have children out there that have no place to go, that don't have a foster home. But we could use more foster homes; we've said that quite clearly. I've always said we need foster homes. But we don't have a shortage, with children who are not in any place. . . . And I've said this to you before: we have children that are in many cases not in the best placement area for them.

Currently we have 2,159 children placed in contracted resources, and that's $55,000 per year in resources. Currently we have level 1, 2 and 3 foster homes to provide care for children who require a high level of care and supervision. We will be recruiting additional foster family care resources during '98 and '99. We are estimating a net increase of 250 foster family homes -- regular and level 1 -- and we are hoping to have 90 homes, with a capacity of about 180 children. These are estimates. We don't know how many children are going to be coming into care or what the needs of those children will be. We are estimating, based on some of the facts from the past. We are estimating that we will need 80 level 2 homes with the capacity for 160 children. For level 3, we are also estimating 80 homes, with the capacity for 160 children. This will result in 115 children being placed in foster homes and family care, at an average cost of $20,000 per year, instead of contracted resources at an estimated $55,000 per year. So we are looking to reduce those costs.

We are also looking at a number of different. . . . I've talked about supervision orders, which would make it so we don't actually have to take kids into care. We are looking at parent-teen conflict resolution, because we currently have 1,604 children in care by voluntary agreements; 1,014 of those are teens. We will be hiring some new social workers that will be working on this and working to resolve some of those parent-teen conflicts so that we can have those children back with their families again. So there are a number of different initiatives that the ministry is going to be taking, with the new staff that we will have coming on stream pretty quickly here -- as soon as we can go through all the hiring processes. We will be working to make sure that we can keep kids in their homes if possible, or get them back to their homes as soon as possible and try and find them alternative care, rather than in the very costly $55,000-a-year area. So foster parenting certainly is one of those areas that is going to be a resource that

[ Page 9317 ]

C. Clark: I want to make sure that I'm very clear about this issue of a shortage or no shortage of foster care. I think the minister has said that there is not a shortage of placements for children in foster care, that there are basically no foster children out there going wanting for a home -- they're all in their homes. But she's indicated that there is a shortage of appropriate placements. Could she at least give us some idea of where those shortages exist? First, are they culturally appropriate homes that the ministry is short of? Is it the fact that there are more children in homes than there should be -- for example, homes that would normally have two children are now maybe accommodating three? Is that how the shortage is being accommodated? Could she just tell us how the system is accommodating the shortage that she's indicated exists in the system today?

Hon. L. Boone: There is no shortage of placements. We have every child in a placement, but they may not, as I said, be in the most appropriate placement.

I will read into the record here our estimates of where the changes will take place in the next year. As of March 31, 1998, in regular foster care, we had 1,180 children; we anticipate that on March 31, 1999, we will have 1,212 children. In restricted care, on March 31, 1998, we had 898 children; we anticipate that on March 31, 1999, we will have 1,339. That's the area where they may be living with a family member.

Level 1 specialized is 1,502 as of March 31, 1998, and 1,676 as of March 31, 1999; level 2 specialized is 1,602 on March 31, 1998, and 1,762 on March 31, 1999; level 3 specialized is 551 as of March 31, 1998, and 711 as of March 31, 1999; contracted resources is 2,159 as of March 31, 1998, and 1,727 as of March 31, 1999; living independently is 364 on March 31, 1998, and 402 on March 31, 1999; with parents or relatives is 537 in '98, and 670 on March 31, 1999; adoption is 133 in 1998, and 338 on March 31, 1999. Those are the resources that we expect for children and the changes that we expect will take place in the next year.

C. Clark: The minister has indicated that there is a shortage of appropriate care homes for the children in some classes of homes. There's not a shortage of placements and there aren't children going wanting out there, but there are children in placements that aren't necessarily appropriate for them. What I'm asking the minister to do is tell me where those shortages exist within the system. It is extremely relevant to this debate. If the ministry is hoping to transfer 115 children out of contracted, highly specialized care into the regular foster care system , then surely those 115 children should be moving into level 2 or 3 homes. I don't assume that any child in the contracted system is going to be moving into a regular care home. Or is that the assumption that the ministry is working on?

Hon. L. Boone: No. If you look at the numbers that I gave you, that's why you see the increase in level 3 specialized, going from 551 to 711. We anticipate that there will be increases in levels 2 and 3.

C. Clark: The House is looking a little bit empty, so I would like to just take a moment to call a quorum.

The bells were ordered to be rung.

The Chair: It appears we have a quorum now, member, if you wish to resume.

C. Clark: How did the ministry determine that there were 115 children inappropriately placed in contracted homes?

Hon. L. Boone: That is an estimate that we have given you. As you know, the ministry has 20 regions, and the regions deal with the foster parents and do the planning and all of those things that are taking place. Children move in and out of foster care; they move in and out of contracted resources. This is an estimate that we have had, based on information that we are gathering from the field. As to whether we have a list that says that there are X number of children in this region, we don't have that list. This is an estimate that we have.

[12:00]

The Chair: Members, there's a call for a quorum in Committee A.

We can resume, minister, when you're ready.

Hon. L. Boone: This is done from discussions with the field staff in the regions, who indicate to the director that they could place children in level 2 and level 3 foster homes if they had them. As a result of that, they're having to place them in contracted resources. This is done from discussions with the director and with the regions.

C. Clark: What I'm inferring from the minister's comments is that most of the shortage in foster care is in the level 2 and level 3 areas, that that's where the largest shortage currently exists. Could the minister confirm that for me?

Hon. L. Boone: I already gave this information to you. We are estimating that of the 250, the regular level 1 is 90 homes, level 2 is 80 homes, and level 3 is 80 homes.

C. Clark: The reason I'm sort of chasing these numbers down is that I'm quite concerned that the ministry, in order to meet their budget projections that they're setting this year, is going to be putting social workers and foster parents in a position to put children in inappropriate care situations -- particularly the children that are in these highly specialized contracted care homes, who are very, very high-need. It's also my understanding that most of these children have already moved through the foster system, and that in many cases those children have tried a placement in the regular foster care system and in the level system and haven't been able to manage.

Could the minister confirm whether that's the case, and how many children in the contracted sector have been through the foster care system, if there's any estimate of that? Or does the ministry just think that these kids have somehow gotten better, their needs have been reduced and they can magically move back?

Hon. L. Boone: We have no intention of moving children into inappropriate levels of care. That will not be happening. We will do the best we can to find appropriate movements for children so that we can move them into a lesser-cost. . . . We

[ Page 9318 ]

C. Clark: Well, we're back to this shortage issue again. One day there's a shortage, and the next day there's not a shortage; the next day there's a shortage somewhere, and the next day there's a shortage somewhere else. I'll tell you: it's hard to follow. The minister is changing her story so often that it's hard to determine exactly where the shortage in the system exists.

The minister does say, though, that she's going to reduce the amount of time for children in care. All right, if the minister is going to do that -- and it's a laudable goal -- aren't they going to have to go do some work with the families, I would assume? Most children are in care because their families can't care for them, and that's particularly true for children younger than teenagers. Can the minister tell us how much in extra resources the ministry is going to be putting into helping families resolve their differences, so that there's a place for a child to go back to when their stay is shortened?

Hon. L. Boone: These are all included in the cost of the new guardianship workers, the new child protection workers and the services that they will be providing. Some of the services we will be doing are parent self-help groups like Parents Together -- so we'll be working through our contracted services there -- family enhancement worker programs, family preservation programs, parent-teen mediation programs, one-to-one child-youth care worker programs, home support workers, respite. . . . All of these services are currently available and will be worked on within the programs that we have and with the new workers that we have coming on. So when we have new guardianship workers, for example, they'll be able to work more closely with families and the community and the resources we have, to make sure that services are provided.

C. Clark: Is there any increase in the budget amounts for any of those envelopes other than the 62 new guardianship workers?

Hon. L. Boone: We are talking about the children and family support programs. Last year we budgeted $107 million, and we spent $108 million; this year we have budgeted $110 million. So that's an increase of $2.2 million.

C. Clark: So the $2.2 million is going into parent education programs. Is that the total increase in the budget that would be going to support families, with a view to making their homes places where children can go back to?

Hon. L. Boone: The increase that we're talking about is in the children and family support programs. Within that are the community education programs, aboriginal services, services to support youth, the Vancouver action plan, Maples child protection program, Children Who Witness Abuse, child and youth mental health, and family supports. Those are all the programs that are within the children and family support programs. Those budgets are given out regionally, and the regions determine, at their own level, how they divide their budget up according to what services they want in their regions. It varies from region to region as to how much goes into each of these particular programs.

C. Clark: So even the 2 percent increase in that budget this year -- which I should point out isn't even keeping up with the 10 percent increase in the number of children that come into care. . . . But I recognize that the budget probably goes to pay for families who are not in care and would never come into contact with the ministry, so it's an even broader group of people you're talking about there. When you look at this little increase, this 2 percent increase, it includes things like the Maples program and the Children Who Witness Abuse program. Those are worthy programs, but they are not programs that are aimed at repairing families and making homes a place that children can go back to. They are programs -- Children Who Witness Abuse, for example -- aimed at getting the child back on track, giving the child the emotional support or the psychotherapy or whatever it is that the child needs in order to be able to cope with what they've experienced. But it doesn't do anything about fixing the home.

The question that I'm concerned about here is the fact that the ministry says it's going to shorten the time for children in care, but it doesn't appear to be providing any additional resources to fix the homes that the children would have to go back to. Either they're in care, they are in their homes or they're on the street. Those are the only three options. So if the ministry is going to be shortening the amount of time that children are in care but it isn't going to be providing any additional resources to work with the parents to make sure that the homes are places that the children can go back to, then the only option, I guess, is for the children to go to the streets. It's A, B or C. I don't know how to avoid coming to that conclusion.

The ministry has said they have 67 new guardianship workers, for example. That's the centrepiece of this whole scheme that the ministry has. But guardianship workers work mostly with children; they work with the children who are in care. Resource workers are supposed to be assigned to work with families. Of course, the guardianship workers will do some work with families, but that's not their primary concern. The minister said that she's not adding even one new resource worker to work with families so that those homes are places that children can go back to. Can she explain how she performs this marvellous feat of mathematical magic?

[12:15]

[B. Goodacre in the chair.]

Yes, we have some tight controls to do there. But you keep forgetting the stuff that I've told you. I've told you

[ Page 9319 ]

Could we use some more money? Every one of us could use more money in our budget. But we do have an increase in our budget this year; we have a $30 million increase, even if you don't want to consider the $30 million that we did for the special warrant. Even you will admit that there's a $30 million increase, and $30 million is not peanuts. We do have additional workers coming on staff who will be working to make sure that children have a better plan of care. The sky is not falling, hon. member. We will work and are working to reduce the number of children that are coming into care. We have supervision orders that are there now so that workers do not have to take a child into care as they did in the past. With the workers that we have, we will be able to do better child planning. All of those different things are there.

Now, if the member wants to stand there and say: "It's not enough, it's not enough, it's not enough. . . ." That's what you do with every single, solitary ministry. I've watched you and your members do that. It doesn't matter whether it's Forests or anything -- any ministry. For every ministry around, you stand there and say that we need more money. But we will live within the budget that we've got. We will do the best we can to do that, but we will make sure that the children receive the services they require.

C. Clark: Well, the minister flies off the handle every time she gets caught fiddling with her numbers, I think. I'm not standing here saying to the minister: "You'd better spend your money here," and "You'd better spend your money there." She's not getting my message, so I'll repeat it. The message is this: what I'm asking for is the minister to be honest about her budgeting. Just be honest about it; just tell the truth. That's all I'm asking. Just make sure the money you're budgeting meets your predictions. Clearly it doesn't.

Hon. L. Boone: Point of order. I'd ask the member to withdraw that, please. It's really unparliamentary to ask me to tell the truth, indicating that I am not telling the truth -- which I am. By indicating that I am not telling the truth. . . . I find that offensive, and I would ask the member to withdraw that.

The Chair: Member, could you please withdraw any words that you think may have impugned the minister.

C. Clark: I withdraw any words that I think may have impugned the minister. Well, maybe I'll try not to say the word "truth." If I avoid that altogether, maybe that will make everyone on the government side of the House feel a little more comfortable. We don't want to tread too close to that territory, I guess. Truth and honesty are words that I'll try not to use in the House.

My question for the minister is this. What I am trying to ensure here is that the minister's budget meets the ministry's predictions. That is the basic element of budgeting. If it doesn't, then what we'll end up with at the end of the year is either the ministry going for special warrants, which the government say they really, really hate doing. . . . They hate doing that under the cloak of darkness -- going into those cabinet meetings and never going to the public until after it's done; and going and asking forgiveness rather than permission. The government say that they don't like to do that, so they've got to make sure that their budget is right. That's what this is about: making sure that the budget is on target. Either they're going to do that or they're going to cut the amount of money for every child in care. It's one of the two, and the minister can take her choice.

All I'm asking her to do is to stand up and tell us where the savings are going to come from, because she hasn't. She says that they are going to be shortening the stay for children in care, but she doesn't tell us how she's going to make sure that there is somewhere for these children to go. The minister has said there isn't an increase -- or there isn't a substantial increase at all -- in the amount of money that the ministry is going to put toward repairing families and fixing homes and doing all the work to make sure there are homes for the children to go to. She indicated that there would be less than a 2 percent increase in the total budget envelope, only part of which is devoted to that. I mean, I suppose that might be -- what? -- a 0.5 percent increase or a 0.2 percent increase in the budget for trying to repair homes so that children have somewhere to go.

On the other hand, she said that they're going to have 67 new guardianship workers. Well, the guardianship workers aren't even charged with trying to go in and fix families, do parent education and work with those issues. The guardianship workers are there to work with the children. Certainly children are going to need those kinds of supports, but if their home is still broken and still dysfunctional, they're not going to be able to go back. Unless the minister is suggesting that they want to send them back to homes that still aren't appropriate for them. . . .

These are the choices the minister has. Choice A is that they'll be shortening the stay of children in care, and they'll be increasing the budget on the side of repairing homes and making it easier for children to go home. Choice B is that they'll be shortening the stay of children in care. They won't be fixing the homes; they'll just be sending them home sooner to homes that are still inappropriate for them. Choice C is that they shorten the stay of children in care and turf them out on the street, because there's nowhere for them to go. So I would ask her: which is it? Which of the above options does she choose?

Hon. L. Boone: I choose D. We will be shortening the number of days that children are in care, and we will not be reducing the level of services given to them when we are providing services to them.

Hon. member, just for your information. . . . I mean, seeing as you don't seem to understand some of these things we're talking about, this will give you a clue that we are on the right track, that things are going along. We have budgeted this year to date $222 million; expenditures year-to-date were $180 million; accrued, $37 million -- for a total of $218 million year-to-date. That means that this year to date, our variance is $4 million to the positive. So that means that what we are doing is working, that we are getting better plans in place, that we are managing to put children into the proper resources, that we're managing to reduce the number of children coming into care and that we're managing to reduce the number of days they're staying there. It is working. We will make sure that as a ministry we do those things.

A $2 million increase is not chicken feed, hon. member. Those are dollars that are going out there. And in today's

[ Page 9320 ]

Hon. H. Lali: I request leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. H. Lali: Visiting us in the galleries are friends of mine, Paul and Jyoti Gill, and their children Priya Gill and Akash Gill. Joining us also are relatives of Jyoti: her mom Harbans Kahlon, and from Kuwait, her aunt and uncle, Jasbir and Satinder Maini, as well as their children Sikander and Jasmin Maini. Will the House please give them all a very, very big Victoria welcome.

C. Clark: Just a quick one, then, so I can be clear. . . . When the ministry shortens the stay for these children in care, where does the minister expect them to go?

Hon. L. Boone: Oh God, we've gone through this time and time again. We believe that they will be going home, because we will have better plans in place. We'll be able to get the children's plans in place through our guardianship workers working with the families. We'll be able to move them home as soon as we can.

C. Clark: Is the ministry devoting any more resources at all, then, to working with families, other than the guardianship workers? Any new resources?

Hon. L. Boone: We've gone through this. We have 250 new workers. Child protection workers work with families; guardianship workers work with families. We have an after-hours rapid response team that works with children; non-protection intake workers work with families. That's a total of 224 individuals who will all be working with families. The $24 million, I think it is, went towards this. In the support for families, as I said, we've got a budget increase of $2.2 million. Some of those dollars will be providing services to families.

C. Clark: In addition to the growth in the number of children in care and the growth in the number of children overall in British Columbia -- so you'll have those two numbers that grow. . . . You're going to have those social workers doing that, plus you've got a shortfall to make up -- which the BCGEU says is as high as 700; the ministry says it's somewhere in the neighbourhood of 200 -- that already exists, and there are 100 vacancies out there. So you've got to take care of those things. Plus, you're going to be moving children out of care into their homes, and all those people -- already committed to doing all those other things -- are going to be fixing all the problems in people's homes so that children can go back to them sooner. I mean, it's ludicrous to ask anybody to believe that that will actually happen. The minister would be laughed at if she went to any social worker -- any single one -- in British Columbia and told them that. They would tell her that even with the 250 new workers that will be on line by the end or the middle of next year, they're not going to be able to do it.

What I'm asking from the minister is for her to make the numbers fit the reality. That's all I'm asking. If she says that she's going to shorten the stay for children in care by a month and a half, she's got to have a way to do it. And she doesn't have a way to do it, because there isn't any extra money budgeted for parenting courses and for those kinds of resources out there. That extra money isn't there, and the $2 million she refers to is being spread over much, much more than that. It's going to the Maples; it's going to Children Who Witness Abuse programs; it's going to help all those other children that never even come into the care of the government. When you talk about the additional resources that are available for those children who the ministry hopes to send home, those resources are just not going to be there. The numbers don't add up.

[12:30]

Hon. L. Boone: We don't seem to be going anywhere here. We go back and forth. She's going to tell me forever that my numbers don't add up; I think they do. She's going to tell me that we can't do what we say we're going to do; I say we can. I believe that our figures are showing that we're on the right track. Our costs are coming down. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, let's call the whole thing off. That sounds good. But you know, it just doesn't make a whole lot of sense. We're talking about 900 children; I gave the member this. She seems to forget what we've said from one minute to the next. I've told you before that we're only talking about reducing the length of stays for about 900 kids. We do have adequate resources. We've got 224 new staff that will be working with those 900 kids to find better planning for them. We will not be sending them back out into the streets. We will be making sure that they are placed back with families or within their family units.

You know, I don't see a whole lot of point in us going back and forth over this, hon. member. You can stand there until you're blue in the face and tell me that this isn't going to work. I've got the numbers that show you that it is working, that we are in fact reducing our costs. It's working because of the changes that we brought in through legislation, through the supervision order changes that are taking place and through the risk assessment model that we're using now. All of these things are in fact helping us reduce the number of kids in care.

C. Clark: Well, I can tell the minister what I'm going to do. I'm not going to stand here and argue this with her until I'm blue in the face. But I'll tell you this: when she comes back to this House and demands that this House approve her special warrant, I am going to ask her to look back to this

[ Page 9321 ]

She's going to have to come back for a special warrant, because she is not budgeting what she needs to budget. Either that, or she'll just end up with more problems in the child protection system. She's making the predictions fit the budget, not the reality. That's what she's attempting to do here. You know, when she comes back and asks for the special warrant, she's going to have a fight on her hands. She has been warned more than once. When she comes back with a sheepish look on her face, we'll see.

It'll be another example. . . . I know the minister doesn't like me to use these words, so I won't use them. But it'll be another example of what we've seen happen in every other budgeting process that this government has been through. I know I have to be careful about words like "truth" and things like that, so I won't mention it. I don't want to bruise the minister's very, very sensitive ego.

The minister talked about the shortage in the number of foster homes that are in the system. I want to touch on. . . .

Interjections.

C. Clark: Hon. Chair, could we have some order in the House?

The Chair: Yup, you've got it. No problem.

C. Clark: It's difficult to try and have an orderly discussion with the minister when we have the Ministers of Transportation and Labour. . . . You'd think they were a little bit sore about losing their procedural battles. I'll tell you, we're real sticklers for procedure on this side of the House. That's maybe why I'm interested, hon. Chair, in maintaining a little order and decorum: we are sticklers for procedure on this side of the House. It's always nice to see the procedure and traditions and the rules of this House respected. So I'm sure you won't find it unseemly for me, of all people, in the opposition to stand up and ask that decorum and order and the rules of procedure of this House be respected. As I said, we are sticklers for procedure on this side of the House. I know the government doesn't always pay so much attention.

Sometimes those ham sandwiches are hard to resist. Goodness knows that the dining room makes a heck of a sandwich. Did you ever try it without mayo and butter? It's marvellous, you know. It's hard to get down. . . . Sometimes you're in a rush to get down there while it's still fresh. I know that sometimes the call of the dining room will interfere with the government's attention to detail, with its attention to procedure in the House, but I'll assure the minister that we still have some time before lunch. I'll ask the ministers to try and stay calm and keep the rumbling in their tummies under control.

Let's try and maintain some order and decorum and pay attention to the rules of this House, so that we can conduct this debate in an orderly fashion. That's what I'm asking here today. Of course, the Minister of Labour will know, as I said, that we are sticklers for procedure on this side of the House.

I want to get some baseline numbers on adoptions from the minister, if I can. The minister says that they're going to be moving children into the adoption system. I just want to find out from the minister how the number of adoptions compares in the predictions for this year to the total number of adoptions from the ministry that happened last year.

Hon. L. Boone: Last year we did 91 adoptions.

C. Clark: Would the percentage of those who were special needs be about the same as it's predicted to be this year?

Hon. L. Boone: Sorry -- those were the special needs ones. There were about 120 in total, and 91 were special needs.

C. Clark: How many of those came out of the foster care system?

Hon. L. Boone: Thirty-one of the 91 adoption placements were foster parent adoptions. I don't have the number for the 120, but we can get that information for you.

C. Clark: The issue of the number of foster parents coming into the system is something I'd like to clarify as well. I am still unclear about where the shortages are in the system and whether there's a shortage or not, but I'll leave that alone for the time being.

I'm interested, though, in how many of those 250 will be just keeping up with growth for next year. And when does the ministry expect to fill those places? Is this going to happen over a year-long period, over the fiscal year -- that the ministry will be recruiting these 250 new parents into the system? Or will it be something that the ministry hopes to accomplish by September or October?

Hon. L. Boone: I'm sorry, I lost you there. Are you talking about 250 new foster homes? Is that what you're talking about? You were formerly talking about adoptions. You've switched gears and gone back to foster homes again?

Interjection.

Hon. L. Boone: Okay. So you're asking how many. . . . Sorry, what were you asking about the adoptives? Was it how many of the 250 new foster parents. . . ?

C. Clark: When are they coming on line?

Hon. L. Boone: When are they coming on line? We said last week that we currently have a number of applications that we're reviewing. We're doing a foster parent recruitment program in the fall, and we are very hopeful that we will have these in place by the fall.

C. Clark: The reason I'm switching back and forth is that for me the two issues are closely linked. We've been dealing with Delphine Charmley's case, and, of course, that's an issue for both adoption and foster parents, given that the ministry is adopting children into the foster care system in many cases and is hoping to move children from foster care into the adoptive system and from foster care into existing foster care homes where they'd be adopted, I think. I hope you followed me on that.

With the foster care placements in the foster care homes, the ministry appears to have been predicting that there will be a need for 250 new homes by the fall. The minister indicated that there isn't necessarily a need for 250 at the moment, but that there will be by then. Is that correct?

Hon. L. Boone: No. We bring on new foster parent homes all the time. We've gone through this before, and we can't seem to quite click on this. Foster parents come into the

[ Page 9322 ]

C. Clark: Will the 250 be a net gain in the system, then? Am I correct in that assumption?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes. We are hoping to have a net increase of 250.

C. Clark: If there's a net increase of 250, with a turnover rate of something like 5 or 10 percent -- I can't recall off the top of my head how much it is -- how many will the ministry then need to recruit to meet the net increase by the fall?

Hon. L. Boone: The numbers that we're talking about -- 250 -- are the net increase for the year. We're hopeful that we'll get them on stream sometime in the fall, because we are starting a foster parent recruitment program in the fall. There's a net increase, as I said, of 250 for the full year. We anticipate that we would need around 400 to cover any loss of foster parents who come off during that time.

C. Clark: If the ministry is planning to recruit 400 new foster parents into the system over this full fiscal year. . . . I guess I should first ask: are they going to be recruiting new parents into the levelled foster home system, or are they going to be mostly recruiting them into the regular foster care system?

Hon. L. Boone: Would you check the Blues? I've gone through this three times. I've given you the numbers. I think it was 90, 80 and 80 at the different levels. It's in the Blues.

C. Clark: It's not in the Blues; it's not. This is the first time the minister has mentioned that she needs 400 new foster parents. It's the first time ever. I mean, in the press release that she put out, where she talked about recruiting foster parents, she talked about 250. When the numbers coming from the minister change every time we do this in the House, either it makes it impossible to figure out or we have to go back and go over some of the numbers again if the baselines continue to change.

Now that she's got to recruit 400 new foster parents, I'm curious about where they're going to be coming into the system. The numbers the minister just referred to are the numbers she gave me for the shortages that they think exist in the system, but it doesn't add up to 400. So I'll ask her again if she can answer the question in a way that adds up to the 400 -- the new number that we have today, as opposed to the 250 that we had last Friday.

[12:45]

C. Clark: Does the minister's budget for recruiting foster parents include the total 400, or is it just for the 250?

Hon. L. Boone: It's for the entire recruitment plan.

C. Clark: I want to get some detail about the recruitment plan and how it's going to work. The minister will have to remind me of the total number for the recruitment money that has been set aside. I think it's $1.3 million or something in that neighbourhood. Could she give us some detail about how that money is going to be spent?

Hon. L. Boone: The recruitment strategies. . . . Phase 1 is starting right now and through the summertime. We will be looking at advisory committees working with us, through aboriginal and multicultural communities, to help us develop plans at the community level. We'll be establishing regional recruitment kits and media information packages, establishing regional and provincial inquiry response strategies, identifying specific regional needs and establishing resources to respond to inquiries and conduct timely family assessments and pre-service orientation sessions.

In September we will be launching our formal campaign, and we will be moving to provincial and regional activities to support October as Foster Parent Month in B.C. We will be reassessing all current applications for utilization and subsequent assessment, responding to all new inquiries, assessing applicants, evaluating recruitment strategy and getting on with the job. We are working on this right now, as we speak.

[G. Robertson in the chair.]

C. Clark: I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. D. Lovick: I would like to wish all members of the chamber a happy and healthy holiday -- or weekend. I know it will be productive for most of them, as they'll still be working, but I hope they get some time with their families and friends. With that, I move adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:54 p.m.

[ Page 9323 ]

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 11:12 a.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, LANDS AND PARKS
(continued)

M. Coell: Good morning. The first issue I'd like to canvass is Maps B.C. and LandData B.C. My understanding is that the air photo products that the government creates have changed this year, and I wonder if the minister could update me on that change. The area I want to spend some time looking at is the dealers, who were private sector dealers -- basically, salespeople for the ministry -- and who have been discontinued. The products are just now on line and only available through a computer. I wonder if the minister could update me on that.

Hon. C. McGregor: We've reorganized to create some efficiencies in the new organization, which we call LandData B.C. It was, in its early stages, a manual system, but as the member notes, it's become much more. . . . We've applied technology to it so that people can now order by fax or phone, and as the member notes for some products, on line. That has greatly reduced our price point, because it isn't a manual system any longer and doesn't have the same kind of labour costs in handling the products. People do use those systems to order the map products, but that's not to say that private dealers can't continue to offer those products and they do, as I understand it.

[11:15]

Hon. C. McGregor: On the question of the quality of the maps by fax, we haven't actually had any complaints. Nonetheless, if that is the concern of individuals who are accessing their maps in that way, there is a capacity either to have it mailed or couriered to the individual.

In terms of how to identify a map a person might need and to avoid duplication of effort and so on, we do have an air photo library that's available to the public. They can come in and look at the maps at the LandData B.C. office, and that would assist, I think. Of course, that answers the question only for those people who live in Victoria. It's not available, at this point in time, on the Internet or on some other similar system. However, with the kind of technology that's being applied to mapping, I could certainly foresee that that might be a direction taken sometime in the future. But it isn't available now.

M. Coell: The minister spoke about the licensed air photo dealers. These were private individuals who would, I guess, serve a bit like arms and legs for the ministry and go out and actually sell the maps directly to the forestry companies and to the engineering and mining companies. I gather that they're now paying the same price as anyone walking in off the street, so there is a markup change. There's no more wholesale for those people, and I think basically that's put a lot of them, if not all of them, out of business. So you don't have that group of individuals now, going throughout the province with your products to sell. I wonder what effect that has had on sales and whether the ministry is addressing that in any way.

Hon. C. McGregor: There was notice given to the map dealers on how we were changing the delivery model and making it more accessible to the general public through a number of means. This topic was canvassed last year during estimates also, and my understanding is that for most of the map dealers it's not a matter of it being their only line of business but a complementary line. They tend to be in sporting and outdoor goods or forestry supply equipment and so on, so this is a small part of their business.

I just discussed with the ADM the possibility of perhaps making the air photo library available in one of these other locations. Obviously that would have to be at the cost of the dealer, but it might be a tool that a dealer could use to draw the public back -- to use that library facility and have members of the public come in to identify map needs through their office. Our goal is to make the maps more accessible, and I think that the methods we're using to do that ensure that the public has the opportunity to access the maps that are provided at a relatively low cost.

M. Coell: It seems to me there's a potential of missing out on sales, because the provincial government doesn't have salespeople going throughout the province with this product. We're relying on people coming to us, or using the Internet or the fax machine. Whereas there's the potential of having, I suspect, a couple of dozen salespeople at no cost to the ministry -- other than a wholesale price to those individuals in order that they make a profit selling the product. I don't know whether the ministry is considering that or whether it has considered that and decided it's something they don't wish to get into.

Hon. C. McGregor: In response to the member's question. . . . We provide maps that we develop for our purposes as a service to the public. The way we're doing that is to ensure that it's done in a cost-effective way and allows the public to have access. I don't think the promotion of that product generally has been considered. That's an interesting idea, though, and I'd certainly be happy to meet with individuals who are involved in the sale of maps around the province to discuss what possibilities there might be.

M. Coell: I think that would be worthwhile, and I agree with the minister that over the next few years you're going to have a very good service, which you should promote. If you can earn a bit of extra money because more people are buying maps, because of sales through private enterprise, I think that would be helpful. I'm pleased to hear that the ministry is open to that idea.

[ Page 9324 ]

I realize that the new one that's opening in Langford has the support of Langford council and the CRD transit committee, I believe. What I'm looking for, on behalf of the residents, is: were there any air quality studies done, before and after, by the provincial government? Or would they have directed B.C. Transit to do that?

Hon. C. McGregor: As I understand it, the site was investigated for contamination -- which is a requirement under the contaminated-site regulation -- and the municipality met the provincial requirements. But in the case of air emissions, at this time the ministry doesn't regulate air emissions. In fact, we don't require the investigation of individual sites related to air emissions.

M. Coell: So at this point the ministry doesn't have the authority to test, before and after, the effects of a new site that would generate air pollution in an area, but you would have the statutory ability to test soil or the site itself.

Hon. C. McGregor: If you recall, last night we canvassed the kind of equipment that the ministry does use to monitor air quality issues. We talked specifically about what it could and couldn't distinguish. There is generally equipment in that area, so there is ongoing monitoring in that sense. I'll have to confirm with my ADM whether or not the equipment at that site can actually distinguish some of the particulate matter. Some of the equipment can indeed identify some of the sources, but not always. In this case it's just general monitoring of ambient air quality, generally, in the area on an ongoing basis.

M. Coell: Does the ministry have any mobile equipment that can be brought onto a site to test ambient air quality?

Hon. C. McGregor: Actually, there is some portable equipment available for that. But another ADM just mentioned that our heavy-duty and bus regulation, which was introduced this year and deals particularly with emissions from buses and heavy-duty equipment, will have a monitoring program that will move around in areas around the lower mainland to check on emissions that come from buses as well as from other heavy-duty vehicles. One of the ways we want to do it is to actually add yards where buses or other types of heavy-duty equipment would come to rest at a time of the day that would enable us to very effectively and quickly check a variety of those vehicles to ensure they are in compliance with their ability to get maximum fuel efficiency and to ensure that they aren't over emitting any particulate matter that buses or heavy-duty vehicles might create.

M. Coell: I realize that Vancouver would probably take priority for any testing like that. Is there any scheduling this year for the testing of the buses in the Victoria area?

Hon. C. McGregor: We're beginning by focusing on the lower mainland area, where the emission problem and the quality of air is more significant at this point in time. But we will expand into the Victoria area and likely into the Okanagan as well. Those are other areas where air quality is a concern, particularly because of the high level of urban population and the number of cars and emissions overall.

Certainly I'd be prepared to work with the member and discuss a way we might do that -- maybe a more timely way.

M. Coell: Is there a threshold at which a company such as B.C. Transit would open up a new site? If they had ten vehicles, that's obviously not going to have an effect on a neighbourhood or an area. If they had 500 or 1,000 -- and I'm thinking of a trucking company as well. . . . Is there a threshold at which the ministry would get involved with air quality testing?

Hon. C. McGregor: Part of the difficulty in this particular site or sites similar to it is that it's not really a single-source point of pollution or emissions. Vehicles are coming and going, and it's very difficult for one to say that there is a certain level of emissions coming from a particular site and then to be able to put in measures to control it. It simply isn't as easy as that, with vehicles coming in and out from a public transit site. Nonetheless, if we get a large number of complaints from the community -- and it sounds like we're starting to get a few -- we'd certainly be prepared to work with you on bringing in some portable air-monitoring equipment, to determine the degree to which that is having an impact on the air quality in that specific part of the Colwood area.

M. Coell: I guess it would be safe to say that the ministry, in regulating air quality, would be more likely to have jurisdiction and to get involved with a stationary industry or something that is creating an air quality. . . . But with regard to traffic -- whether it be cars, trucks, or buses -- it's done through ambient air quality monitoring. Would that be correct?

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, that would be correct. In the lower mainland we also control specific emissions through AirCare and quality control, in terms of meeting emission levels for each vehicle -- as well as the new bus and heavy-duty vehicle regulation, which we have begun on a pilot basis. We'll be moving forward in terms of the mobile unit, beginning in the next few months.

M. Coell: I have one further question on this topic. With AirCare and the new program that the minister has outlined for me. . . . Is the testing of buses done by AirCare, or is that a separate company which was set up to do that testing?

Hon. C. McGregor: It's a separate agency, done in cooperation between the government and the GVRD.

[11:30]

[ Page 9325 ]

M. Coell: Being that the development of a waste management plan is a cooperative venture between the provincial government, the municipal government and the communities that it affects. . . . I do agree with the minister that many times there is a lot of anxiety in a community when a landfill is being developed or proposed. The one in -- and I mentioned it to the ministry in memo form -- the Cowichan Valley regional district, if we could use that as an example. . . . Some members of the community feel that there wasn't enough community input; the regional district feels that there was. There is a disagreement between some members of the community and the regional government on that. I'm not privy to all the information from the regional government, as I'm sure the minister is.

I just wonder, keeping that example in mind: is there some way that the ministry can develop with regional government a process that they're both comfortable with? Or is that what you were explaining to me -- that you're going to have something at the end of the day that regional government and the provincial government will both agree on, on the level of community input, the type of community input, the number of brochures that are sent, where they're sent and how the people in a surrounding area are notified? Is that what the government is working on?

Hon. C. McGregor: I think it's important that we begin this discussion by really outlining roles and responsibilities, because land use planning decisions are clearly the purview of local government. So the policies and practice we have around waste management and development of solid waste management plans are very respectful of that role.

The ministry's only involvement in solid waste management planning is this: we insist on and must meet standards so it won't affect water quality, for instance, and other environmental concerns in terms of the actual suitability of the site. We have a great deal of involvement at that end. We also require local governments to engage in ongoing consultation and public consultation; that's why we have the guidelines. In fact, as you describe, we are working with municipal governments to improve that level of the guidebook.

We try very hard to make sure that responsibilities that flow -- and must flow -- to local governments are left in their hands and that our role is simply one of ensuring that the environmental standards are met, as well as the requirement for public consultation, before the regional government makes a decision as to where a landfill, transfer station or what have you should be.

That doesn't always mean, of course, that the public is happy with the outcome. As you know, because you've been a member of a local government, these issues often cause a great deal of controversy in communities. There's almost always someone who's not happy with the land use decision that's been made about where a landfill will be located. It's one of the reasons, by the way, that we're working so hard on waste reduction, because the siting of landfills is going to continue to cause greater and greater problems, particularly in highly urban communities, where they perhaps don't have the same opportunities that less populated areas of the province might have to find suitable locations that won't offend the sensibilities of residents.

So we have to keep moving on both fronts -- concern on the environmental side and about having communities consulted, but also on the reduction of solid waste, so that we don't have to continue to look for places to bury our garbage or to have it hauled by barge, in some cases, or over the border or to other locations, such as up in Cache Creek, in order to solve what people view to be a significant decision that will affect the quality of their life in their neighbourhoods and towns.

M. Coell: I guess that in an instance like the Cowichan Valley regional district and the Hill 60 Ridge residents, the ministry would see its role as evaluating the site more than evaluating the process that got to the designation of a site. For myself, I'm trying to see how the provincial government works in conjunction with the regional district and the residents. Is there a responsibility for the provincial government directly to the residents? Or is there a responsibility to the regional district to evaluate that site and to give the okays and approvals necessary to proceed with the development of that site?

Hon. C. McGregor: Just to be clear, none of this conversation is in the context of the Cowichan Valley regional district or Hill 60. It would be inappropriate for me to comment, as the matter is before the courts, and the government has been named as one of the respondents in that court action.

Nonetheless, I will attempt to answer your question about who identifies the sites. It is, in fact, municipal governments that identify the sites. We do the technical analysis of the sites, so we provide them with information about whether they meet the criteria for where a landfill can safely go. The other part of our approval process is the adequacy of public consultation, which is what we do in the review of the plan. So we review the plan in those two ways, and once it's met those two tests, then the minister responsible -- in this case, myself -- signs it off.

M. Coell: In signing off a plan, if I could just follow that. . . . None of the work has taken place; you've signed off the plan. How does the ministry check on the site after you've given approval and the regional district begins to develop the site? What is the role of the provincial government at that point?

Hon. C. McGregor: The next step, after a site has been identified, would be the issuance of an operating certificate, which would detail all of the conditions under which the landfill would have to operate. That would include ongoing monitoring as well.

M. Coell: Thank you for that clarification.

The next topic that I'd like to talk about is the Fish Protection Act. I know there are a number of members of my

[ Page 9326 ]

Hon. C. McGregor: It's important to note that the Fish Protection Act and any regulations that might flow from it have not yet been enacted. So at this time we don't have any setback requirements that would affect this homeowner or anyone else.

The Fish Protection Act is designed to deal with new or redeveloped urban sites that would have impact on fish-bearing streams. We're engaged in a very extensive public and local government consultation process, to determine how to best do that. We've talked at great length about the need for us to develop a streamside regulation that's framed very broadly and is flexible, so that local governments can use the tools that many of them already have in their repertoire to be able to refine development proposals where there is an impact on fish and fish habitat.

I'm sure the member is aware of the very sensitive and, frankly, nearly endangered status of coho in the province of British Columbia. One of the factors that's been identified in the loss of coho stocks is the impact of developments on fish habitat. That's why it's very important as a province that we engage in this exercise of talking about how urban development does impact on fish-bearing streams. We have a lot of threatened streams in the lower mainland area, in particular, and a huge potential, in fact, to recover the stocks -- if we take the right steps. We can restore fish to many of these streams that have had them extirpated. In fact, in cases where stocks are low as a result of different impacts, we can take steps now, and over a period of time ensure that we rebuild the appropriate habitat so those fish stocks can recover. So it's a good-news story in the sense that as human beings, we can plan and make plans that will in fact not impact adversely on fish habitat.

On the other hand, we also acknowledge that as people of this province, we're not going to stop continuing to develop. In lots of cases, in the lower mainland in particular, there are many small streams. That's going to mean some changes in the way we manage.

But we are working very closely and carefully with local government and residents in this consultation process. At the village of Anmore, residents may well find themselves able to attend an information session that's currently planned. The dates I have here are just a broad range between June 23 and July 16. We've already begun some of those public meetings. There'll be one in Maple Ridge and one in Burnaby. There'll be an opportunity for individuals to come forward to talk about the regulation and to receive copies of the material that we've developed to date, which really gives a much broader description of how we might take a variety of strategies and tools to approach the problem of fish habitat. I want to assure the member that we're not talking about mandatory setbacks. We are talking about using a variety of tools and mechanisms to deal with fish protection issues.

M. Coell: I'm glad to hear that you're not looking at "one size fits all" in the province, because you may find -- and I think Anmore is a very good example of a small, compact area -- that if you were to use setbacks, basically you'd be destroying that small town in quite a number of ways.

[11:45]

Hon. C. McGregor: We currently have in place what are called land development guidelines, which is what staff use to meet with developers and talk about how a development is going to proceed to reduce impacts. But they are indeed guidelines. There is reference, I know, to setbacks, but those setbacks are flexible in terms of. . . . Once they've had an opportunity to work with a particular landowner or developer, those can be modified or changed. In recent weeks there have been several examples. One is the Husky Oil development in the Chilliwack area, where the setbacks were adjusted in such a way as to bring it much closer to the stream-side, but there were additional mitigation measures and investments in other fish habitat of higher quality -- sort of an immediate area.

So those are the kinds of opportunities to work with individual landowners or developers and make the system flexible enough so that we can continue to protect the fish values, because that's the reason why we have the guidelines in place. But we don't do that without considering the context of the type of stream that's there and the type of appropriate measures that should be put in place, not taking a one-size-fits-all approach.

M. Coell: I think there needs to be an appeal process developed. I don't see it at this point, and I haven't had any comments from ministry staff or residents, but I'm thinking of an appeal process for farmers.

I can give an example. The meeting for this area was last night, and a large number of farmers from my riding went. Using some examples, they have been draining their farmland, in some cases, as in one family, for 60 or 70 years. That creek has actually changed course and depth and height quite a few times. The potential of this now is that it would be alienating land that they have been farming for 50 or 60 years, plus restocking a stream that, really, the farmer created to drain land some years ago. If the regulations aren't flexible for farmers, you could be alienating land. At the same time, if they don't continually dredge some of the ditches, you're going to have land that doesn't drain and will alienate more land. You could have a farmer with, basically, a ten- or 20-acre small parcel, who is not able to farm any of it if the regulations are brought forward as they're being recommended.

Has the minister given any thought to the difference -- and I'm sure she has -- between development of housing or Husky Oil and the need to keep farming going, draining farmland as it has been done in the past?

Hon. C. McGregor: To begin with, we have to be clear that the Fish Protection Act does not apply to agricultural

[ Page 9327 ]

One of the difficulties is that it's not just this ministry that has jurisdiction on matters related to fish. It's at least two, including the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. I may be corrected on this, because I'm not certain what the current status is, but we have developed a set of agricultural ditch guidelines through the Surrey office that have been working very effectively. We believe they could be applied fairly broadly. We do, however, have to get the cooperation of DFO.

We are working with the agricultural community through their organization. We have this ten-point action plan, one point of which was agreement on the question of agricultural ditches. In fact, we understand that there is a need to ensure that practice reflects what the agricultural community needs, as well as the protection of fish. I think there is, and continues to be, a place where we're working on this question, but I think the member understands that it's not just this ministry that has to take the lead on that. We're involving the Ministry of Agriculture as well as the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the Fraser Basin Council and others to ensure that we are getting this right.

M. Coell: I'm glad to hear that, because I see it as problem in my riding, and I know there are other members of the opposition who have some questions in regard to this issue. I won't spend much more time on this issue.

I think farming is so fragile in British Columbia that anything we do to hamper that or put roadblocks in its way can have some really negative effects. I know that many of the farmers I talk to are quite concerned that they're dealing with three ministries and with a federal department that seems very heavy-handed and that all the talk is of more guidelines and more setbacks. I know the minister has said that the setbacks are for development, but the farming community sees that as a start -- and alienation of farmland as well. So I'm pleased to hear the minister's comments. As I said, there are other members of my caucus who have some questions, so I'll leave this until Monday and leave it to them.

The next item that I want to canvass is the Trans Canada Trail. I have a couple of issues in regard to that, but I wonder if the minister could give me an update as to what work the province will be doing on the Trans Canada Trail in the coming year.

Hon. C. McGregor: There's a variety of things that we're working on. The member will know that we declared the creation of the Trans Canada Trail in British Columbia as our first millennium project, and I was certainly pleased to participate in that announcement. I think it speaks to the kind of vision and legacy, in fact, that the Trans Canada Trail will leave on completion.

There are some challenges in British Columbia. There is no doubt of that, but we're excited about the possibilities. Local communities, in particular, are very excited about how they can build economic development initiatives related to the Trans Canada Trail. We have a rough cut of where the trail is going to go. There are a couple of possible alternatives, so we're working with communities there. I'd certainly be happy to set up a briefing with the member so you could specifically see some of the areas that are being identified. We are also using abandoned railway rights-of-way as a chief route through which the trail will go. Some of the trail already exists -- for instance, through the Kettle Valley. It's also going to hook up to the Galloping Goose, which is, of course, a terrific pre-existing trail system in the greater Victoria area. The province will assist communities to determine where the route should go, where that's possible. We're providing some support for that. We have some staff support, and we're working actively with communities to do that. We're also prepared to work on the question of the use of Crown land to access trails from one point to another, as well as the abandoned rights-of-way that I made reference to, several of which the province has ownership of.

Additionally, the amendment we brought through to the Occupiers Liability Act in this session was a deliberate tool that we used to help support the access issue for trails through privately held property. As the member will know, there are some individuals who, for very good reasons, don't want to have a trail system have access onto their private property -- mostly because of the issue of liability. I think we've really assisted in that by taking that initiative and moving it forward to limit liability, so individuals who do own private property -- and that includes the agricultural community -- may wish to allow access to their private land as a part of the trail system. It clearly isn't our role to tell private land owners whether they will or won't participate in the trail. Where there is concern in a community, then we'll have to find another route, because we can't insist -- and won't insist, in fact -- that it go through an individual's private property if they choose not to have that happen.

M. Coell: Is there a budget for provincial money this year for the Trans Canada Trail, and is it cost-shared with the federal government?

Hon. C. McGregor: We don't have a specific budget. It is largely the staff assigned to the work at this time, who also have responsibilities for other land use planning initiatives. We work with the Trans Canada Trail Foundation, because they in fact have resources that they've been able to get through fundraising and so on. It may be that we assist them in acquisition or costs related to putting in markers along the trail and so on, but we don't actually have a specific budget attached to that.

The Chair: For the members present, those bells were a quorum call.

M. Coell: I understand that we are supposed to shut down in here until that's satisfied in there. That's the ruling from last night, I understand.

The Chair: Hon. member, there have been many times when a quorum call has occurred in the other House and Committee A has continued, so we will continue.

M. Coell: I understand that, but I would also call a quorum in this House, if that's the case. I appreciate the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin being here.

The Chair: Hon. member, could I have you take your seat for just one moment? I'd like to inform you that once the quorum call in the big House has been satisfied, we will proceed with the quorum call in Committee A.

The bells were ordered to be rung.

[ Page 9328 ]

[12:00]

Thank you, members. Quorum has been satisfied.

D. Symons: On the Trans Canada Trail, I gather that the society for B.C. is doing a sponsorship -- maybe like the marmot sponsorship -- where you can sponsor a kilometre, I believe, of the trail for somewhere in the neighbourhood of $35.

Interjection.

D. Symons: A metre, rather. Did I say a kilometre? I beg your pardon. Is $35 the right number?

Can the minister give me an idea of how much money the government will be budgeting as its donation toward the Trans Canada Trail? Since it's going to be our millennium project, in a sense, the government must have some figure in mind for support of the trail.

Hon. C. McGregor: The total provincial contribution toward the trail will need to be determined at a later time in that we don't know exactly the full route that the trail is going through. It's scheduled to go through a variety of provincial assets that have been acquired already, like the Kettle Valley Railway. But clearly, I've indicated to members of the Trans Canada foundation in British Columbia that we're quite prepared to work with local communities to assist in acquisitions, if necessary, and to make Crown land available where that is also necessary. It is a process of give and take in determining where the best route should go.

A few moments ago we talked specifically about a budget. We don't have a specific budget attached to the Trans Canada Trail. We do, however, have a cross-ministry working group. We are working with Trails B.C. and with communities on how best to establish where that trail should go. We're cooperating, and it seems to be working very well. It is a private society that's engaged in the fundraising, at $35 a metre, and a variety of contributions towards the trail have come from across Canada. I'm not certain what the status of their fundraising is, at this time. But certainly if the member is interested, we could put him in touch with members of the Trans Canada Trail Foundation, who might be able to provide him with that information.

D. Symons: Just one further question relating to the trail. The minister mentioned allowing Crown land as a possibility in determining the route. I suspect that some of those Crown lands are under dispute through aboriginal questions of land tenure and so forth. I wonder if the minister has been working with the aboriginal people, as well, in relation to the Trans Canada Trail.

Hon. C. McGregor: I would like to assure the member that that's absolutely the case. We work with local communities, and that includes first nations communities.

M. Coell: With regard to the Trans Canada Trail and a landfill issue in Fort Steele, I wonder whether the ministry is aware of the discrepancy between where the trail is going and a landfill. What sort of remedial action is the ministry taking, in conjunction with the regional district?

Hon. C. McGregor: The ministry is actively involved in this matter. There has been a concern that the new landfill site is close to where a group in the community would like the trail to go. At this point we're working with the community to determine if that is the route that the trail should take or if there's some alternate route that wouldn't come as close to the proposed landfill site as does the original trail route that was proposed. It's not a matter that's totally resolved yet, but we are actively working with the community on that point.

M. Coell: The next area that I'd like to canvass probably has some interest for the Chair, I would think: elk hunting in the Kootenays. There was a report done. I wonder if the minister can update me on the actions taken since that report was received by government.

Hon. C. McGregor: We've announced our intention to implement the hunting seasons as recommended in the Raedeke report. That process is ongoing. As well, there were a variety of recommendations related to ongoing inventory and work to restore habitat and so on. Those are actively being considered by wildlife staff at this time. While we haven't made decisions yet, there are obviously a variety of recommendations that we will be following through on. There were other recommendations related to the operation of the advisory committee that we intend to implement as well.

M. Coell: I'm not aware of how the author of the report was chosen. Was there a proposal call? If so, I'd be interested in hearing what the proposal call was and what qualifications were required for the person doing that report.

Hon. C. McGregor: What we actually did was develop a list internally of ten people that we had knowledge of and that lived in the British Columbia, Washington or Alberta areas. They also had to have some sort of knowledge of this region, some expertise in elk management and certain qualifications and credentials. So we developed a list. There were ten in total that were considered ungulate specialists. Nine of those were contacted, and out of the nine, two submitted proposals for the project. Then we had a steering committee that consisted of the deputy director of the wildlife branch here in Victoria, as well as the regional director for the Kootenay region and an independent wildlife scientist from UBC. They examined the proposals and selected Dr. Raedeke.

M. Coell: I also asked what the cost of the report was.

Hon. C. McGregor: The cost of the report was $25,000 (U.S.).

M. Coell: The minister said that they're planning on implementing the report -- I think she said the recommendations in total. There seems to be a fair amount of controversy over the number of elk and their decline. I wonder what follow-up to the report will take place over the next 18 months to two years?

Hon. C. McGregor: There were a number of petitions and letters received in our ministry on this question. So what we did was we actually went through and identified as many names and addresses as we could read from the petitions and letters, drafted responses, sent copies of the summary of the report, explained the process we had gone through and so on. That went out to about 2,000 people in the region in an effort to share the information and what efforts had been taken.

[ Page 9329 ]

Overall, of course, there is a great deal of concern about the elk resource and the declining numbers. The report speaks to some of the issues that affect the decline in elk populations. I'm told, as well, that there's a historical reason for a large decline in the elk population due to the impacts on agriculture, in particular. Some years ago -- and that's long before the NDP became government -- the ranching and agriculture community in that region heavily lobbied the wildlife branch of the day to increase the hunting opportunities to decrease the elk population because of the negative impacts on the agricultural components of the community.

[12:15]

It is also believed that there has been a fairly large impact on elk as a result of some pretty difficult weather over the last couple of seasons. There were a variety of community initiatives to feed elk during that time period, because of the impacts on population due to starvation because of the degree of snowpack.

There are quite a few issues, and Raedeke's report at least attempted to address many of them. He made a variety of recommendations on how to limit hunting opportunities. Probably the key recommendation he made was to actually move to a limited-entry hunt as a way of best controlling the populations that hunters can and can't take -- to address the specific nature of herds and impacts on population. That was clearly not supported by the community. He went to an alternate recommendation, which was to limit the season to a six-point-or-better only, as the best way to control how many animals could be taken during hunting season.

Overall, I think it's important to put on the record that we manage the resource for conservation. We want to provide a hunting opportunity, but we have to address the question of survival first. Our practice and policy are designed to get at those questions. The research we do and the statistics we collect are designed to enable us to make better decisions on how to manage that resource.

M. Coell: I wonder if we could spend just a moment looking at that regional office. One of the concerns that I have -- and I suspect the minister shares it -- is the people resources to actually do the tracking and observation of animal herds and individuals in a given area. I wonder if there have been any increases or decreases in staff who would be doing that job in that regional office.

Hon. C. McGregor: There have been no changes in the number of wildlife staff in the Kootenay region.

M. Coell: It strikes me that we're relying on very few people for input into the number of different species. I don't have an answer for that, but I hear from guide-outfitters and hunters that there are a certain number of animals in a region, I hear from environmentalists that there are a different number of animals in that region, and I hear from farmers that there are a different number again. I suspect we don't really know, and I would be interested in hearing what the ministry is doing on an overall basis. I know we've been looking at the Kootenays. In dealing with counts, how is it best to do that?

It seems that if you go through history, there isn't any method of establishing counts for animals that has been successful. I'd be interested in hearing if the ministry is working on a coordinated way of dealing with those four groups -- the guide-outfitters, the environmentalists, the farmers and the residents -- to come up with something that is more agreeable to all of them. If the minister wants, she could use this region as an example and explain that to me.

Hon. C. McGregor: There's a variety of strategies we use related to wildlife management, and we do have a provincewide advisory committee that includes representations from GOA B.C. as well as from the B.C. Wildlife Federation and others. They meet quarterly and give us advice on what's called the wildlife strategic plan. I don't know if the member has a copy of it; we would be happy to provide it. It's in a coil-bound binder and describes generally the wildlife management strategy for different regions of the province. It is also species-specific, where species-specific plans exist.

We do a lot of work in the Kootenay region, for instance, around elk and new work related to elk management. In other parts of the province, it's caribou or grizzly bears and so on. There are species-specific management plans as well. We also have local advisory committees. As the Chair knows and as you know, in the Kootenays, for instance, we have a very active advisory committee, and we try to use those kinds of structures, as well, to provide advice to us on how to best manage our resource.

In terms of inventory, we generally do what's called an aerial inventory. As the member points out, that isn't going to give you an exact count -- short of going out there in the field and counting and tagging each and every one. We use scientific principles to extrapolate populations on the basis of those inventories, and I could have someone from the wildlife branch come and describe that to you specifically. Or if you'd like, we could just set up a meeting where they could take you through the steps that are used to determine a population.

M. Coell: Thank you. I would appreciate that. I know it's an area that. . . . There's always the two British Columbians -- the rural British Columbians, who have different needs and thoughts on wildlife management, and the urban area ones, who are definitely more defined and different in how they view what wildlife management should be. I'm pleased to hear that the ministry actually does that intensity of work. The other concern that I have and will bring forward is the ability for a limited number of ministry staff to coordinate that and to actually get out in the field and look at some of the problem areas where you see declining herds, as in the Kootenays. I appreciate the minister's comments on that.

I want to spend some time talking about leghold traps. I get -- and I'm sure the minister gets -- a lot of literature and a lot of letters with regard to leghold traps. I think a lot of confusion exists in the province as to the status of leghold traps and the types of traps that are still allowed and sanctioned by government for use. I wonder if the minister could

[ Page 9330 ]

Hon. C. McGregor: The use of the conventional steel-jaw leghold trap has been banned in British Columbia for some time. We are just trying to determine what the date was, but it was quite some time ago. It's not permitted any longer. We do use jaw-type leghold traps -- modified versions. They're called names like the soft-catch or the offset or laminated traps, and they're designed to reduce injuries. I was at a trappers' convention in Kamloops, actually, a few months ago and had some of these traps demonstrated for me so that I could see their offset nature. They are specifically designed to cause no harm to the animal. There are requirements to check traplines on an every-so-many-hours basis to ensure that an animal is not in distress.

The trapping community is required to take what's called humane course work in the management of their traplines. We're one of the few jurisdictions that require this level of humane treatment of animals caught in traps. The traps are designed. . . . I saw one example with a chain attached to the end of the trap, for instance, so the animal can actually move away from the trap location; it's confined by the trap, but the trap allows it to have a certain level of movement so that it can sit down in a place where it might feel comfortable -- like behind a bush or something like that -- and it is not in distress during the period in which it's trapped.

Also, foot snares are allowed for the wolf, fox, coyote, lynx and bobcat. Killing snares are allowed for furbearers. They are mechanically powered killing snares. They are permitted for the smaller furbearers. There are also live box-traps. There is what is called an egg-trap that is permitted for raccoons. That's designed to catch a raccoon by the front paw, and it's very species-specific and safe for use in populated areas.

M. Coell: The minister commented that the old leghold trap with the claws has been banned. To her knowledge, are any of those still being used in British Columbia? Is there a fine? What sort of deterrent is in place to deter the continued use of those traps?

Hon. C. McGregor: Leghold traps would be permitted for trapping semi-aquatic furbearers, such as beaver, otter, mink or muskrat, but only when they're also used with a drowning set. In no other cases would they be permitted. There is an agreement that Canada's been working on to prohibit the use of steel-jaw leghold traps by the year 2000 for the rest of Canada, but we're well ahead of that, having done that -- and we think it was at least ten years ago.

M. Coell: I'm not quite sure I understand. The clawed leghold trap is still in use for aquatic mammals, but not on land?

Hon. C. McGregor: When they are used with a drowning set, yes.

M. Coell: So we basically have. . . . We've banned the old type of clawed leghold traps on land. They're not being used. What's the deterrent? Is there a fine if we catch someone using that? And the one in the water. . . .

[12:30]

M. Coell: I wonder if the minister would be able to tell me what those fines and penalties are.

Hon. C. McGregor: We don't have the details here, but we will certainly get them for you.

M. Coell: I would appreciate that. I wonder if the minister could tell me if the aquatic leghold traps require a licence.

Hon. C. McGregor: Aboriginal trappers are not required to be licensed, but all other trappers are.

M. Coell: I wonder if the minister could explain the reasoning for still allowing aquatic leghold traps. We've banned them on land.

Hon. C. McGregor: It is deemed to be humane because they are caught in a drowning set, so it is a humane way of trapping the animal -- as opposed to there being any degree of length in the death of the animal.

M. Coell: I would be interested in knowing how many aquatic leghold traps are in use in the province. I realize you may have a difficulty with that with the aboriginal peoples. But I would be interested in how many licences are given out for people other than aboriginal peoples.

Hon. C. McGregor: We don't have that level of detail here. I could only surmise, on the basis of the species in question -- beaver, otter, mink or muskrat -- that it would be a much smaller subset of the number of trappers overall. But we can certainly endeavour to get you that information.

M. Coell: I would be interested in knowing how many licensed trappers there are in the province.

Hon. C. McGregor: Actually, I do have that information in a letter that I've just drafted to one of your colleagues. I just signed it this morning, but it's upstairs and not immediately available, so we'll get that to you as well.

M. Coell: I can come back to that. I would be interested in knowing the statistics, and possibly the minister can get that to me, if she doesn't have them here. On the statistics -- the number of animals trapped per year, by species -- has the ministry kept a record of that? How would they keep a record of that? I would be interested in hearing whether we have that statistic -- including aboriginal people as well as the licensed trappers.

Hon. C. McGregor: We do keep a degree of data for non-aboriginal trappers. It's much more difficult to quantify in some detail the number of animals taken by aboriginal hunters. That is one of the areas we are working on with the aboriginal community related to both hunting and trapping -- and largely through the treaty negotiating process, but sometimes in other agreements related to wildlife. It is an area where we're trying to get better data. But we can provide the member with statistics over a period of time. I'm not sure how many years we keep data available, but it's several years anyway.

M. Coell: I'd like to switch topics now and discuss the gypsy moth. It affects this area and potentially affects nurseries and farming operations on the lower Island with regard to the potential of a quarantine by the United States. I would

[ Page 9331 ]

Hon. C. McGregor: I think it's important to establish early on in the discussion who had the pesticide permit and who had the authority to treat the gypsy moth. Our role was to issue a pesticide use permit on application. It was issued to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency in order to engage in aerial applications of Btk. There were public hearings held, and all those processes were gone through. The permit was issued. That was then appealed to the Environmental Appeal Board, which overturned the decision to do aerial spraying and substituted a ground-spraying program.

As a result, the ministry engaged in some monitoring of that activity. There was also a very active community group, I understand, that assisted with the ground-spraying program and the location and eradication program. I've been given to understand, as a result of some of the information garnered through the hearing process, that ground-spraying programs can be very effective in monitoring and containing populations of gypsy moth. There's been a presence of gypsy moth in the southern Vancouver Island area for some considerable years. It is not an infestation at any level.

Nonetheless, concern has been raised by the B.C. Landscape and Nursery Association. Through correspondence with me, they raised concern that we need to develop a longer-term strategy on this question, that we not run back and forth on a yearly basis on the question of overhead spraying and public concern around the possible impacts on human health, that we take a longer-term approach and strategy and that we set up a task force. We're actively working on that recommendation at this time. It'll be one of the ways that we can work to develop a longer-term strategy with the community on how to approach this question so we aren't faced with threats. In many cases, it was largely a media presence that dictated the issue of a quarantine. In fact, there is a mandatory inspection process in place that would detect the presence of gypsy moth if that were the case.

Gypsy moth is a well-contained pest that does exist in some small parts of the community. We do have to treat it very seriously, and that's why we're going to take the task force approach. But I think the concern did tend to be perhaps somewhat exaggerated, and I would attribute that largely to the attention that the media, particularly in the Washington State area, placed on the question.

M. Coell: I am aware of the nursery concerns, and I think they're valid. Does the ministry have a position on the spraying of Btk? I know they had originally approved it, and then the appeal board rejected it. Is it the ministry's position that overhead spraying is preferable to ground spraying?

The Chair: Members, it's really difficult to hear the questions and the answers, so I'll just call order.

Hon. C. McGregor: In terms of effectiveness, our staff did approve the aerial spraying program, because they believed that to be more effective from a technical point of view. As a result of the appeal process, it became apparent that there was a concern from the public health perspective, from the community, which is why the Environmental Appeal Board took their decision.

M. Coell: I want to deal with the Environmental Appeal Board at some length later in estimates.

I'm interested in hearing about that task force the ministry is going to be setting up. Who would be sitting on it, and who would their recommendations go to? Would they go to the ministry or to the Environmental Appeal Board?

Hon. C. McGregor: We're going to establish a working group consisting of members from our ministry, the Ministry of Forests, the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Health, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, as well as the B.C. Landscape and Nursery Association. That task group will then take the opportunity to consult with other stakeholders, including municipal and regional governments, industry stakeholders, interest groups and the general public.

M. Coell: Will the recommendations be staying with the ministry, or will they be going to the Environmental Appeal Board?

Hon. C. McGregor: The recommendations will come to me.

M. Coell: Has the minister also considered adding the capital regional district to that group?

Hon. C. McGregor: If they're interested, we could extend the invitation to them. I think it would be very appropriate to involve that level of government.

M. Coell: I suggest that only because I think that many of the municipalities have public hearings on spraying as well. I know I was involved in many, many public hearings over gypsy moth spraying.

Just one more question with regard to the gypsy moth. Over the past almost ten years of spraying programs -- it may be a little less than that -- has there been any increase or decrease in the infestation of gypsy moth in this area? I'm looking for the status, I guess.

Hon. C. McGregor: It's basically staying stable and remaining under control.

M. Coell: They're obviously very persistent, because there has been a great deal of spraying. I will watch the progress this year with the ground spraying with interest -- I believe this is the first time that there has been just ground spraying -- as to changes in it.

I wonder if I could move on to the marine park legacy in the Gulf Islands and get an update as to the expenditures expected this year by the provincial government. I know this is cost-shared with the federal government.

[12:45]

M. Coell: I'm happy to do that.

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

[ Page 9332 ]

The question is whether to rise and report progress.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS -- 11
Conroy	McGregor	Orcherton
Sihota	Janssen	Streifel
Farnworth	Giesbrecht	Kasper
Gillespie		Symons

NAY -- 1
	Coell

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1998: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada