1998/99 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 36th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 1999

Volume 15, Number 21

[ Page 13341 ]

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

RANGE AMENDMENT ACT, 1999

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We've passed section 3, but we want to add section 3.1, which we've passed out here. I move the amendment, section 3.1, which is in the possession of the Clerk and has been distributed.

On section 3.1.

The Chair: The section reads as follows:

[SECTION 3.1, by adding the following section:

3.1

Section 6 is amended

(a) by adding "or temporary grazing permit" after "A grazing permit", and

(b) in paragraph (a) (ii) by adding "subject to section 7 (3)," before "be for a term".]

[1010]

On section 6.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I move the amendment to section 6 that's in the possession of the Clerk.

The Chair: The amendment reads:

[SECTION 6 is repealed and the following substituted:

Section 9 is amended

(a) by adding "or temporary hay cutting permit" after "A hay cutting permit",

(b) in paragraph (a) (ii) by adding "subject to section 9.1 (3)," before "be for a term",

(c) in paragraph (a) (iv) by striking out "regional manager's or", and

(d) in paragraph (b) by striking out "regional manager or" wherever it appears.]

R. Neufeld: Could I just have the minister briefly explain the amendment that he's proposing to his Range Amendment Act and the hay-cutting-permit issue?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I was going to do that, actually.

What this amendment does is that it just adds a temporary hay-cutting permit to the sections that refer to the content of a permit, so that you can require the permit to have the same contents regardless of whether it's a temporary one or a permanent one. So section 9 says a hay-cutting permit has to have, for example, designation of the range unit to which it applies, or the term, and those kinds of provisions have to apply. You have to have certain content in the permit itself. It's the same. Treat the two the same.

R. Neufeld: Could he explain, just for my benefit, where a temporary hay-cutting permit would apply? Is that something. . . ? I'll just let the minister explain what he means by temporary.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: A temporary hay-cutting permit might be over an area where someone had applied for an ag lease, but before they get the paperwork for the ag lease -- it's probably a wild hay meadow -- they can get a temporary cutting permit so you don't go through all the process of a permanent licence, so that they can actually use the land. It might be over an area that's outside the legal boundaries of a meadow. As you know, people hay irregular sections. I think this applies mostly to the wetland areas, but it could apply to any area where someone may have applied for an extension to holdings because the fence was in the wrong place, but to be legal, they get a temporary permit till they can legalize what's been a historical trespass. Those would be the kinds of cases where we would involve it. But far and away, they will be involved in wetland management in large areas like the Chilcotin, in particular.

R. Neufeld: Obviously the minister said it could apply only to the wetlands. Has it been something that the ministry has had lots of application for? Is it a big issue? You say it could be in the wetlands. . .which leads me to believe that you're not sure where else this could be used. So what would precipitate this kind of an amendment to a temporary hay-cutting permit, unless it has been a really big issue and a bone of contention with a lot of people?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There are dozens of them. I happen to be familiar with the ones for the wetlands. You see them advertised often, and because the length of time that a permanent permit takes -- or, at least, a long-term permit -- it gives the ability to a district manager to allocate it to an operator and achieve that administrative flexibility without going the whole works on advertising, etc.

G. Abbott: I just want to make clear the other amendment that's being proposed here to the Range Amendment Act, and that's the reference to the striking out of "regional manager's or." I would like to know what the amendment achieves that the bill itself does not achieve.

[1015]

Amendment approved.

Section 6 as amended approved.

On section 7.

J. Wilson: Could the minister explain what this actually means -- this section 9.1(1)?

[ Page 13342 ]

J. Wilson: The wording here in 9.1(1) is: " 'Tenure holder' means a party to an agreement with the government, referred to in section 3, or, if another person has the right to exercise the party's rights under the agreement, that other person." That is what I would like clarification on: ". . .if another person." Is this another person that is already holding the lease? Does that allow that person to sublease the temporary permit? What exactly is that referring to?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This refers to the legal person -- the company; whoever has the legal right. It may be a farm or a ranch that has rights but might be in foreclosure, so therefore it would be the receiver. It's just if someone takes over the tenure as the legal owner of the tenure.

J. Wilson: Okay. If another person has the right to exercise the party's rights, I believe the party would be the applicant, and the other person would have to be someone that the applicant has subleased this permit to. Is that the way it is? Is that what it means?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Without giving an exhaustive definition of who it is that has the rights. . . . If a person legally has the right to exercise the tenure rights, then it would be that person -- that's what's referred to here. As I said, it might be somebody who's purchased -- you know, has an agreement for sale, or someone that is the receiver for an outfit that might be in bankruptcy, or an official agent of somebody who's the owner.

J. Wilson: Granted, if an outfit is in receivership -- someone is running it -- then I can see that. What would happen in the case where a permittee has a cutting permit but decides they want to get someone else to do the cutting? Maybe someone else comes along and says: "I'd like to take a portion of your permit over here and harvest it." Will you be able to move the forage into the hands of another individual simply by a verbal agreement, or will you have to go to the ministry and go through a paper shuffle and fill out forms and get everything down on paper as to who is actually going to do the work or who would actually end up with the crop?

[1020]

To be clear, if you wanted to sharecrop or have your ground custom-hayed by someone, the right will still be retained by the permit holder. You don't need to subdivide your hay-cutting permit and get a new temporary permit to the guy who wants to come in and do custom haying on your hay lease or permit.

J. Wilson: The way that you do custom haying, as a rule, is on a share basis. It could be 50-50 with whoever you get to put your hay up, it could be 60-40 -- whatever arrangement you've reached with the person that's going to do the work. In order for them to receive remuneration, they usually take a portion of the crop.

Under the act, you cannot sell a portion of your crop that comes off a hay-cutting licence or a hay-cutting permit. However, should you require someone's help, and they say, "Well, I would like to do that, sure, but I'll take 50 percent of the crop," that's a fair arrangement. Will anyone be able to operate this way, because that person who takes 50 percent of that crop does not have a permit? That hay would go somewhere else, to another base. They'll end up feeding it to livestock or selling it. In many cases, they could end up marketing the product -- just putting it on the open market, selling the hay. Will the permittee be allowed to operate in this manner, which is the way almost all operations are carried out when it comes to hay harvesting?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This legislation doesn't change the way things are now. All it does is allow you to have temporary hay-cutting permits under the same conditions which you have now. The answer to your specific question is that in a sharecropping situation, you're just paying for the custom work -- paying the machinery costs, the harvesting costs -- in kind. Nothing prevents that from happening here. All that is prevented, as the general act reads. . . . This doesn't change it. The situation is that you can't sell your rights.

J. Wilson: Section 9.1(3) says: "The district manager may, without advertising, issue a temporary hay cutting permit. . . . " Now, with the new system, what this bill should do for permittees is speed up the process. What actual time frame will an applicant be looking at here from the time they apply until they actually get the permission, or the go-ahead, to go in and harvest? Will it be a month? Will it be six weeks? Will it be two months?

[1025]

J. Wilson: Could the minister explain (4)(b) here? I believe that it's section 7 on section 9.1(4)(b).

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: What this section does is allow someone who can't use the hay or forage to forgo their rights and allow someone else to temporarily use it.

J. Wilson: To me, that says that if you hold cutting rights on a meadow and you may not utilize that forage or you don't need that forage, the ministry will then allow someone else to come in and harvest it, whether you would want them in there or not. You wouldn't have anything to say about whether they can come in and cut that.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This is not to take away from people who might have a non-use. It is to allow people who apply for a non-use -- in other words, they're saying they don't want to

[ Page 13343 ]

J. Wilson: Whether you use your permit and cut it or whether you have a non-use really has no effect on the operator or the holder of the permit, because the cost to the permittee is identical one way or the other. The way I read this is that if the holder of the permit isn't using the permit, it will allow the district manager to grant a temporary permit to anyone that wants to go in there and harvest hay. Now, that is how I read that. If I'm wrong, I would like the minister to tell me I'm wrong, because that's how I see it.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: What this does is just bring into the temporary hay-cutting permits the same provisions that are there now on the grazing permits and licences. There has to be a non-use established by application by the tenure holder. When the non-use has been established and agreed to, then and only then can it be awarded to someone else.

To clarify things: they only pay the ground rent, not the tonnage fee or the AUM. The idea is that to hold the right, they have to pay the very small ground rent. So there is in fact the double charging, but it's very small. It doesn't even cover the slight administrative cost that's there. So the ground rent stays, reserving the right to take up the use later on. But the fee for the forage itself is not paid for by the people who've given up rights.

[1030]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: That's correct.

J. Wilson: Now, most cutting licences out there -- maybe not most, but a lot of them -- were established as a backup to your forage supply for your base operation. If you got a drought year, you had some more available forage that you could go and harvest. If you had a really good year. . . . Most of these permits are on peat ground; they're on low land. If it's a wet year, you may not be able to get out there to do anything, because the water will lie there, and it's too soft. If you end up with a dry summer, it's fine. You can go on it, and you can harvest anywhere. It's a very important backup to some operations, because you could end up being short a few tons of hay that year. If you get a drought, and you have a permit, you can go out and get enough to winter your livestock.

In order to get a non-use, what has always been the case up until a few years ago was that you simply had to go in after haying season, fill out your form and say, "Yes, we've managed to get our crop off" or "We couldn't harvest it" -- for whatever reason -- or "We didn't need it." Then you would be charged for your ground rent but not for the tonnage. A lot of these places end up with problems because of the low ground. From one year to the next, you never know whether or not you will be able to actually go out there and harvest that hay. All it takes is one pesky beaver to come up the creek and stick a dam in it while you're off doing another hay field somewhere. If you come back a week later, you find that you've got three inches of water on that meadow.

If it's in the middle of the summer, you can maybe pull it out and let it go, but there's no way you'll ever get back on there that year, simply because the ground is too soft. In cases like that, you would go in and you would say: "Look, the beaver's flooded me out this year. I couldn't harvest it. Hopefully, next year I'll be able to" -- and you weren't charged for the tonnage. They would reduce it and charge you for the ground rent, which is very fair. It's a nominal fee, and there's nothing wrong with it.

But will people who are using these permits now have to apply for a non-use at the beginning of the year rather than at the end of the year, when they should be applying for it? That's the only point in time when they will actually know whether they could harvest it, or will have harvested it or were able to harvest it.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Nothing has changed in the process of applying for non-use or use. It's the same. Nothing in this act changes the way the situation is now. So if you can go in, in the fall and change your plans, well, if you could do it before, you can do it now.

J. Wilson: So my understanding is that if you went in, in the fall for the past summer, and said, "I was not able to harvest this year," you could get a non-use for that period of time.

The Chair: Members, just while we're waiting for the minister to respond, could I ask leave to make an introduction? Is it granted? Thank you.

Today in the gallery we have a number of students -- I think there are two groups. This is the second one from the same school. There are some 50 grade 6 students, five adults and their teacher, Ms. Aarstad, from Bay View Elementary School in Burlington, Washington. Would members please make them welcome.

[1035]

J. Wilson: Section 7, section 9.1(5). Could the minister give me an explanation on this?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes. These provisions ensure that overuse does not occur on the grazing licence or permit area as a result of the issuance of the temporary hay-cutting permit.

J. Wilson: I presume that this would be in a situation where there was no cutting licence or permit issued previously. This would be a new, temporary cutting permit. Is that the reason that you would take into account the reduction in AUMs here?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It's an area over which there might have been a hay-cutting permit before, and it might have been an area that you grazed, but you might want to temporarily put up the hay on it, for one reason or another.

[ Page 13344 ]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: In plain language, this section says that if you have a grazing permit and you want to use a portion of it for cutting hay, you can do so much more expeditiously with this change. You can change uses and go to your higher use by way of an easy permit-granting process.

Sections 7 to 9 inclusive approved.

On section 10.

J. Wilson: Section 10 is, I believe, for very small amounts of forage that would be. . . . If you had less than 100 AUMs or it would involve less than ten tonnes of hay, do the same guidelines apply to this? You don't have to advertise, but will these small permits have to go through the same referral process that any other permit would have to go through?

[1040]

J. Wilson: The tonnage is stated here, but for an increase in AUMs I don't see any numbers stated. It just says that a temporary range permit could be granted if you have less than 100. But I don't see where there's a limit put on how many, up to that 100 point.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The intent of this section is to directly award small amounts. It's not intended for large awards. There is a limit to what can be directly awarded.

J. Wilson: I realize there would be a limit, but what would the limit be on AUMs? It says -- I'm looking at section 10, section 14.1(1)(a) -- that the number of animal unit months specified in the grazing licence or permit is 100 or less. So what exactly would the maximum number be that you would be given an additional permit for?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, 100 is the maximum under this section.

J. Wilson: If a rancher's short of forage during the summer and there is some range out there, he could put in for a temporary grazing permit. If he wished to turn, say, a 100 cow-calf pairs out for one month for some additional feed, he would now be able to get a temporary grazing permit to turn out 100 head of cow-calf pairs for one month. Would that be safe to assume -- that this would give him that right?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It can be done now under the temporary grazing permit. This applies to a direct award and not a temporary award. This is a section that allows a variance on a permanent basis.

Sections 10 to 15 inclusive approved.

On section 16.

J. Wilson: Could the minister give me an explanation on 16(1)?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This is an existing provision. All we're doing is allowing the district manager to exercise the powers, instead of the regional manager.

J. Wilson: This is now a change of. . . . This will now mean that it will get rid of any reference. . . . It will simply transfer the power from the region to the district, and the regional manager would not have to even become involved in the process here.

[1045]

J. Wilson: Should a grazing permit. . . ? Should the boundaries be changed, and they're not to the satisfaction of the permittee, what is the avenue here now that the permittee would go through if he wished to appeal the decision made by the district manager?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, there is no appeal to a deletion under this section, as there was no appeal to a deletion under this same section by the regional manager. All it does is transfer the decision-making down to the district manager's level. Quite often these are done with the agreement -- and at the initiative -- of the holder, because they are looking for more efficient resource use. But it does leave the power there if a deletion is necessary -- say, because of the creation of a park. Then there is no appeal in that case; it could just be done.

J. Wilson: So then we have no. . . . Should a decision come about that there's been a protected area established, and someone's boundaries are changed -- it may not be to the benefit of the livestock owner or the permittee -- there is no way that he can go through an appeal process to try and maintain the range unit that will work the best for him.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Actually, I was incorrectly advised. There is an appeal procedure, and it's section 42(2) of the Range Act. It reads:

"The holder of a licence or permit affected by a decision to change boundaries under section 26 may appeal the change to the minister by serving, within 21 days after service of the notice referred to in section 26(2), written notice of the appeal on the regional manager who made the decision."

Section 16 approved.

On section 17.

J. Wilson: Could the minister explain the rationale as to why this system of reporting was put in here?

[ Page 13345 ]

J. Wilson: I'm a little bit puzzled as to why they've used these actual numbers. My understanding of the way the system works is that you do your reporting in December, your application comes in for January, and that is what you will be responsible for, for the following year. Whether or not you use your permit, you still have to pay for what you applied for. There is no way around a reduction in what you will pay on a permit. If you apply for so many AUMs or so many tonnes of forage out there, that's what you'll be charged for, and if you don't use it, you'll still be charged for it. That, to me. . . .

The way I see it, if you used 100 percent of your permit, then you would be exempt from this reporting process, but if you only used 99 percent of your permit, then you would have to report this at the end of the grazing year or the hay-cutting year. Is that correct?

[1050]

J. Wilson: So that's 90 percent we've dealt with. What about from 90 to 100 percent? At what point are you exempt from reporting?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, basically, between 90 and 100 percent, you don't have to report that out. The reason we put some guidelines in here is that for some very large permit holders -- like, say, Douglas Lake -- 1 percent might be a significant amount. We want to be able, as a result of the reporting, to have a way that the district manager can talk to the permittee or the licensee and come up with a more effective utilization, possibly by using temporary fees or reallocation of the resource in some way.

Sections 17 to 20 inclusive approved.

On section 21.

J. Wilson: In paragraph (b) here, could the minister explain to me how this will change the system that people who are dealing with these things now operate under? What is the difference between this amendment and the act as it existed previously?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Right now we don't have the flexibility in the regulation-making power to tailor regulations to suit the situation on the ground. I used the example that a 1 percent variance by a large operator is quite significant, compared to, say, small operators. So to talk about a percentage variation on utilization, it depends on how big you are. You may need a new or different regulation for the very large or the very small. The point is that on regulations, one size doesn't fit all. This is your opportunity to vary the regulation to suit the circumstances.

[1055]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This regulation will allow the delegation to a person. In practice, that is the district manager or regional manager.

J. Wilson: What does the minister mean in (3)(b) by "confer a discretion on a person"? Who would that person be?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It would be the regional manager or the district manager, and for the same purpose: to tailor the effect of the regulation to achieve the objectives and fine-tune it to the circumstances that that person finds in the field.

J. Wilson: So with these discretions, or delegations, that the ministry will now place on the regional manager or the district manger, will there be a set of guidelines put down for those people to refer to, or to follow, when they make their decisions here? As I see it, in (3)(c) they can make different regulations for different persons, different places, different things or transactions. Whatever they feel like doing out there, they can do it. This maybe has some advantages, but for the advantages it has, it also has its disadvantages. We do need guidelines. They have to be flexible, but we do need some guidelines therein that the administrative people can refer to so that people are all treated fairly and equally when they're applying for a permit or a licence -- this type of thing.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: You know, we're in a situation where people complain about extensive guidebooks and call them regulations under the Forest Practices Code. They're there to guide people, and they're flexible because they aren't regulations. What we're saying here is that rather than put everything in the regulation. . . . And that will cut both ways. So what we've put into here is the ability for cabinet to vary a regulation to suit the circumstances. If there is the need by policy to have a guidebook, then we would do that, but this doesn't itself create the guidebook or the guidelines. What this does allow is some kind of flexibility that everybody seems to be asking for in the administration of regulations.

J. Wilson: What the minister has explained is fine, but by allowing this you could put a district manager, say, into a position where he controls everything that goes on out there. Should there become a conflict between two individuals -- the manager, say, and a person that is a permittee or licensee -- the permittee or licensee could end up at the mercy of the district manager. Lots of times you'll end up with personality conflicts: two people just don't get along, they don't see eye to eye, and neither one of them may be wrong, or neither one of them may be right. Should that situation arise, there needs to be another avenue for this permittee or licensee to go to, so that the situation can be assessed and then dealt with.

[1100]

[ Page 13346 ]

Rather than having an elaborate appeal procedure established in regulation or established in law, you could have one guided by policy. This gives the flexibility, and as I say, it can cut both ways. Right now the discretionary powers, one might argue, might err in favour of the applicant against other people in the surrounding area. The only way to bring some sense to that would be if there were a complaint about the way in which the discretionary powers were being used. Then we would have to deal with it. We may have to bring in a guidebook or amend the regulation to take that part of the discretion away. The whole intent is to give discretion so that there can be effective management.

J. Wilson: I appreciate the fact that we do need a lot of flexibility. But I hope that the minister can also appreciate the fact that by putting these discretionary powers in the hands of one individual, you are going to create situations that are not very favourable at times. It gives an individual a great deal of control over the livelihood of someone. A simple decision, at one point or another, could make or break that person's whole operation. It could either put them out of business or allow them to stay in business.

This is the thing, I guess, that I have a concern with: that no one should be allowed to be levered or manoeuvered into a position where they can actually control the livelihood of someone just by doing it this way. There needs to be another avenue for people to access. I'm not saying that it would necessarily be the Cattlemen's Association or an organization like that. It may just be an individual. You may end up with a conflict between a district manager and an individual that is a personal thing, and it gives that district manager power and control over that individual. They can literally break them and put them out of business if they don't like them. That's my concern.

Sections 21 to 23 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

[1105]

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 57, Range Amendment Act, 1999, reported complete with amendments.

The Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. D. Lovick: With leave of the House now, Madam Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 57, Range Amendment Act, 1999, read a third time and passed.

Hon. D. Lovick: I now call Bill 68, committee stage.

FOREST AMENDMENT ACT, 1999

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On section 3.

G. Abbott: In section 3 we see a substantial change to the Forest Act proposed. Could the minister briefly outline the public policy considerations which have given rise to this proposed amendment?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The whole purpose of the amendment is to reduce the paper burden associated with the administration of multiple timber licences that are held by the same licensee in the same timber supply block. It could also result in slightly lower stumpage payments to government by participating licensees.

G. Abbott: Does the Minister of Forests currently possess the authority to consolidate timber licences, and is this an extension to the regional manager of that authority? Or is this a new realm of authority?

[1110]

G. Abbott: The minister mentioned that the application of this may be to see multiple licences in the same cutting area rolled into one. Could it have the effect, in some cases, of turning portions of the forest that were non-renewable licences into renewable licences?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: No, this wouldn't affect that. This is just simply a consolidation, and it would be on the existing terms. It just would consolidate the terms of a number of licences into one licence in the same supply block.

G. Abbott: Under subsections 29.1(1)(a) and 29.1(1)(b), (a) reads "partition or subdivide a timber licence into 2 or more timber licences" and (b) reads "delete all or part of the licence area from a timber licence and add the deleted area to the licence area of another timber licence." Is there a substantial difference between (a) and (b)? I'm not quite sure what the distinction is between those two subsections.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This is just thoroughness, to make sure that whatever has to be done to adjust the licences can be done. In one case, (a), it's partition or subdivide; in the other, it's delete or add. They're really just different aspects of a licence rearrangement.

G. Abbott: That's the sense I had -- that in fact they were just different expressions of the same thing. Fair enough.

[ Page 13347 ]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: No. It can't be done.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

G. Abbott: I think we need a little bit of discussion on this, because we are getting into, I think, another important area of the bill, in that this is going to have an important impact on woodlot tenures in the province -- in that, I guess, currently some 800 woodlot holders in British Columbia will see the term of their licence move from 15 years to 20 years. This is obviously an important public policy change from their perspective and certainly, in terms of the management of the resource in this province, an important change as well. Again, for the record, could the minister advise me of the rationale for this important public policy change?

[1115]

G. Abbott: I met late last week with a group of woodlot owners, and one of the questions that they posed to me, which I'll now pose to the minister, is whether there is anything in section 4, or indeed in any subsequent section, which would affect the ability of a woodlot owner to top up his or her area under the terms of these changes to the Forest Act.

Hon. C. Evans: It makes it easier, because the changes allow the district manager to make minor boundary adjustments -- which is usually what the top-up is about -- during the term of the licence, instead of only at the time of the renewal of the licence.

G. Abbott: I understand that a typical kind of top-up, in the interior at least, would be from 800 hectares to 1,000 hectares. Is it clear that rather than having to wait for a particular anniversary -- the fifth or the tenth or anything else -- they can now make a top-up application for those 200 additional hectares at any point during the term of their licence?

Hon. C. Evans: Yes, it is intended to allow the top-up that the hon. member is talking about. Of course, it's dependent upon their being a good operator in good standing, and the district manager wishing to, essentially, reward the excellence of the operation.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

G. Abbott: Again, I want to just quickly have a discussion of section 5, which as I understand it will change the obligation for submission of plans from a five-year interval to a ten-year interval. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Evans: Yes.

G. Abbott: And is the exclusive public policy consideration in extending that period from five to ten years again to streamline and to eliminate paperwork, or is there any other public policy provision at play here?

Hon. C. Evans: Yes, that's true.

G. Abbott: An interesting answer -- because I asked if there was any other public policy consideration at work, and the answer is: "Yes, that's true." But I'm gathering that actually I captured the essence of why they were doing it in my early lengthy question. So I'll leave it at that, because I think the intent is clear enough.

J. Wilson: If you're changing the management plan on a woodlot from five to ten years, will that also affect the harvesting on a woodlot? Will you now be able to take a cut once every ten years instead of every five years? Or is it going to remain as it was, where you will get a five-year cut every year, or one cut in five years and then come back in another five for another cut? Will that now change -- you can take a cut each year, or you may leave it and take a cut once every ten years?

[1120]

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

G. Abbott: Again, here we are talking about a change in area or boundary: "Subject to section 45 (b) (ii), the district manager or regional manager, if permitted by the regulations and in accordance with the regulations, and with the consent of the holder of a woodlot licence, may change the boundary or area of the woodlot licence." Could the minister provide me with some instances in which this provision might come into play? Why would this kind of thing be required -- in what instances?

Hon. C. Evans: The first example is the top-up provision that we discussed earlier. The second might be a situation where, owing to some change in land use on land -- for example, an adjacent licensee giving up a small part of their area during their boundary adjustment, or some kind of land use arrangement; or some wood becoming available along the borders, and the district manager believing that, rather than having a whole other operator operating between two historical tenures, it would make sense to give it to the woodlot operator. . . . The district manager might say to the operator: "Would you like to extend your boundaries in this way?" -- or, presumably, constrict them. If the licensee consents, and the district manager sees it to their advantage, that adjustment could be made.

G. Abbott: The only other point I want to raise is with respect to 47.2. Is the only change, in respect to the transition positions here, moving 15 years to 20 years? I would like the

[ Page 13348 ]

Hon. C. Evans: Only the time is changed, not the process.

Section 6 approved.

On section 7.

G. Abbott: This addresses one of the old annual issues with the Ministry of Forests, when folks start looking for the Christmas tree every year. A few of them are actually cautious enough to go ask the minister where they can cut and how they can do it. It's straightforward enough that a person who requires a Christmas tree for their personal use and not for sale to others can presumably go out and do it on Crown land now. What kind of process is being contemplated here? Are there going to be paper exchanges? What's in mind?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As the member alluded to, there is no way, technically, to give somebody a free-use permit now. It's just an anomaly in the law. What this does is allow it to be done.

The purpose of a permit would be to direct people to the area so they know how it might be done. I would hope -- and this is a hope at this point. . . . I've given some encouragement for a simple process like what was used in one forest district I know of. You put an ad in the paper for firewood; this is your permit; you cut it out and sign it; you read it, and it says to not take green trees, be careful of hung-up trees, take only dead-and-down, and respect the forest -- that kind of thing. So you get a permit. It's just simply to make sure people are knowledgable about the basic things they need to be knowledgable about. Free-use permits are easy to get, and all they will say is: "Work on rights-of-way," or something simple like that, or "Go to certain designated areas." So we had contemplated a very simple process.

[1125]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The penalties are the same penalties there are now. It would be an unauthorized harvest. So the intention here is to make it easier for people to cut Christmas trees in the appropriate location.

J. Wilson: I can see why you'd want people maybe in certain areas. Have you set these areas up? Have areas been designated? Are they designated, or will it simply be picking a right-of-way wherever? When it comes time to harvest Christmas trees, especially in the Cariboo, snow conditions are a pretty important factor in some areas. If you go into the eastern portions, you might have eight or nine feet of snow on your right-of-way at that time of year. You might go to other areas and only have a couple of feet. If the ministry comes up with designated areas to harvest trees, it could have a bit of a problem working really well for people who want a tree. Sometimes the only place you can get a tree is where you've got decent access to it. Have they considered these things?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: In practice, what'll happen is probably what happens now. If there's no problem in the area -- if it isn't being abused -- I don't think we're going to exercise much effort to require a free-use permit. But if there is a problem in an area, fine. I think we're probably worried here about people going out on snowshoes and cutting the top off a big tree, so that you can't see the rest of it underneath. But if it's on a right-of-way, maybe that's okay. I don't see much change in practice here now, except to say that we're going to make it possible to take the offence away by allowing somebody a permit.

Section 7 approved.

On section 8.

G. Abbott: What I'm curious about here is new subsection 54(2). What this section does is permit the minister to delegate to one or more regional managers and district managers areas of, I guess, relatively less importance in relation to some of the considerations that come into question with the minister. I'm curious to hear why, rather than empowering regional managers and district managers to deal with that under this bill, we instead find the intent to offer the ability to the minister to delegate it. Why not empower the regional managers and the district managers to deal with those issues, rather than having to still go through the step of going to the minister and having him -- or her, as the case may be -- delegate it back?

[1130]

Sections 8 to 12 inclusive approved.

On section 13.

G. Abbott: This section involves applications for timber marks. It allows the registrar of timber marks to issue timber marks to agents of the government and private utility companies in respect of timber removed from private lands. Could the minister advise, first of all: how, in the absence of this provision, is this objective currently managed?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Currently, if a right-of-way crosses, for example, 12 parcels of land, 12 timber marks are issued.

Sections 13 to 17 inclusive approved.

On section 18.

[ Page 13349 ]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Let me give you the plain-language version. The cross-reference to section 46(4) is replaced with one to the new section 47.1 added by this bill, which allows boundary changes to be made to woodlot licences by the regional or district manager. Regulations can be made respecting such boundary changes.

Sections 18 to 23 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I move that the bill be reported as complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 68, Forest Amendment Act, 1999, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I call Bill 63, committee stage.

[1135]

WILDLIFE AMENDMENT ACT, 1999

On section 1.

J. Dalton: I have a couple of questions about the definition of "accompany." Firstly, can the minister advise as to what places in the Wildlife Act itself this new definition will be applicable?

Hon. C. McGregor: It would be at any time where minors were required to be in the company of an adult or guide-outfitters, where there is a requirement for non-residents to be accompanied during a hunting season.

J. Dalton: Will there be any quasi-criminal implications coming out of this? For example, if a minor is accompanying an adult and if that adult is in contravention of the act in some way, would there be any possibility of the minor also being implicated because of his or her accompanying that adult?

Hon. C. McGregor: There is no change in the way charges are laid now versus the coming into effect of this definition. In both cases it would be the adult or the guide that would be in receipt of charges.

J. Dalton: I think, then, the last point I will make. . . . When I first looked at that definition, I got a bit nervous, thinking there may be some implications in here that at least we should be alerted to.

Certainly from a prosecution point of view -- and, hopefully, the minister is assuring us that this would not be the case -- I think a court would be very hard pressed to connect, through this redefinition or new definition of "accompany," any criminal or quasi-criminal implication with someone who may be in contravention of the Wildlife Act and any other individual who may be in the company of or accompanying that person. I'm hoping that there is no such implication incorporated in there, because I can assure the minister that certainly with my understanding of this definition, I don't think there would be any hope of a successful prosecution in that regard.

Hon. C. McGregor: As I indicated to the member earlier, it's not. . . . As a result of this definition, such a charge could not be laid. But it would be, of course, in the case of. . .the conservation officer and the courts to determine whether someone was in breach of the Wildlife Act. Clearly someone who's accompanying an adult. . . . As I said earlier, it would be the adult charged, not the minor.

[1140]

While I'm on my feet, the other thing I have a concern about is the definition of "dangerous wildlife." I wasn't here for second reading last night, unfortunately; otherwise I would have made some observations at that time. I'm concerned, for example, why "coyote" is included in dangerous wildlife. It's certainly my experience, both as an urban dweller. . . . I see coyotes in the roads in North Vancouver not infrequently. I don't consider them to be dangerous; I consider them to be a nuisance. They're like a raccoon as far as I'm concerned. Some effort probably should be made to rid us of those in an urban environment.

Also, in my other life as a quasi-rancher -- having married into a Chilcotin ranch -- raccoons are a damn nuisance there too, if I may put it that way. I don't consider them dangerous in that context either. They are dangerous to young calves; they're not dangerous to people. They're a nuisance both in the streets of North Vancouver and in the ranches of Chilcotin. So I'm wondering why the minister chose to incorporate "coyote" into this new definition.

Hon. C. McGregor: The purpose of the amendment -- to clarify what dangerous wildlife is -- is largely to preserve public safety. So we've named those animals with which there is a public safety concern, and that, of course, includes bears, coyotes and wolves. In the case of coyotes, I understand what the member's saying -- that coyotes are not likely to attack people.

However, let me spell out a scenario that does happen in British Columbia where there is a public safety risk related to coyotes. That's because coyotes are easily habituated through feeding. Of course, that's a great deal of what this bill is about: to stop the feeding of dangerous wildlife so that they're not habituated and making themselves at home in neighbourhoods. There are public risks to children if coyotes are in neighbourhoods, because they can attack small children and bite them. Now, maybe they're not killed as a result of an encounter with a coyote, but I would argue that the public is

[ Page 13350 ]

I understand the member opposite raises raccoons. Last night the issue was badgers. Certainly we agree they are nuisances, but they are not the type of animal that's easily habituated. They can be treated as nuisances; they're not a direct public safety risk. Clearly, if you were to pick up a raccoon or a badger, you would be putting yourself at personal risk. But with common sense and the kind of alerts and warnings that are put out around how one should handle wildlife in communities and neighbourhoods, those animals can be handled in a different way than what we consider to be dangerous wildlife which clearly have implications for public safety.

J. Dalton: I would disagree. I think, actually, that a raccoon in an urban environment is more dangerous than a coyote. I've got raccoons in my back yard that would come into my house if I allowed them. I know that if we allowed our cats out at night, they might not return in the morning, and I think that's far more of a risk, if I may say, hon. minister, than a coyote. You might want to reconsider the definition and maybe either incorporate "raccoon" into this. . . . Or, probably better yet, let's strike "coyote" from the definition, because I think there's an inconsistency -- with all respect to the minister's argument.

Hon. C. McGregor: I certainly accept the member's point. We do not have a lot of complaints from the community around raccoons and the need to call them dangerous wildlife, but if we were to see a significant increase in incidents around raccoons, I'd be quite happy to consider an amendment to the provision.

J. Wilson: Can the minister tell me how many documented cases she has where a coyote has attacked a human?

[1145]

J. Wilson: That's a pretty high risk factor. How many of these cases actually occurred because there were situations set up -- someone was feeding the coyote, or food attractants were left out and brought the coyote around? Did that have any bearing on it? Or were they just cases where the coyote maybe was suffering starvation and came in and attacked a child, or had a health problem?

Hon. C. McGregor: Four out of the five incidents were directly related to the fact that the coyotes had been habituated due to their being fed and accessing food close to human settlement areas. Clearly that was the bulk of the reason why in these cases there was some injury to persons. But, hon. member, I don't believe the amendments that we're putting forward here today should necessarily be defended simply on the basis of people who have been harmed in the past -- but for us to be proactive around methodologies that we can take with the conservation officer service and the public to ensure that in cases where coyotes are becoming habituated to neighbourhoods, we can take steps to end that habituation and the potential risk to the public.

J. Reid: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

J. Reid: It's my pleasure to greet the grades 4 and 5 class from Seaview Elementary School, which is in Lantzville, who are here with us for a short time this morning and who are going to be touring around Victoria. I would ask that the House make them very welcome.

J. Wilson: I cannot agree with the minister's approach to grading an animal as dangerous to human safety when in actual fact it is not. Coyotes move into urban areas. They thrive there; they do very well there. As a matter of fact, a coyote will do much better living in an urban setting than he will living in the wilderness, because if he's out there, he's got to be looking over his shoulder almost all the time, just in case a wolf sneaks up on him and decides to eat him for breakfast. In an urban setting he doesn't have to compete with the larger predators. He just goes around and picks off your pet cat or your pet dog and has that for lunch. If he can't find anything like that, he'll go and eat out of your garbage, or he'll maybe go and steal something from your pet's bowl. But you are not going to create any benefit by saying: "Look, this little canine here is a danger to human life." They are not. There's no way you can stretch the imagination to make them a danger to people. Sure, they will bite you.

I would like to ask the minister: how many documented cases do you have where a raccoon has bitten a child or a grownup in the province in the last 20 years?

Hon. C. McGregor: I appreciate the member's questions, but we aren't discussing raccoons. They're not a part of the bill.

But I would make this point. The member talks about how there's no harm done to coyotes to have them live in urban areas; there's no harm done to coyotes to let them eat out of garbage cans or help themselves to food sources that could have been protected but were not. Let me assure the member that my goal is not only to be concerned with public safety around the management related to wolves, coyotes and bears but also to be concerned with the species itself. If the member opposite does not have interest in maintaining that species in this province in its full form -- giving it the opportunity to thrive in its natural setting, the way most animals in our province are -- then I would urge him to consult with naturalists and biologists in his own community to get their sense of why that's an important value.

[1150]

How could the minister possibly suggest that we're going to eliminate coyotes in the rural areas in British Columbia, or that we don't care about them, and they're all going to disappear? But if they want to live in an urban setting: "Well, that's not good for them. They shouldn't be there." True, there are a lot of health hazards for urban coyotes, because they do eat a lot of stuff that is not natural. However, nothing that this ministry can do will remove those coyotes from those settings, because the coyotes are ten steps ahead of the ministry all the way, and they'll stay there. They will prosper, and they will

[ Page 13351 ]

If the ministry feels that they are a danger to humans, then go into those urban areas where they are overpopulated, where they are becoming a nuisance. Control them in those areas and leave them off the list of dangerous wildlife.

We also have wolves on here. I think that this bill. . . . To me, to label a wolf as dangerous wildlife is a bit ridiculous, because wolves are actually known for their respect for humans.

I would like to know how many cases of wolf attacks on humans we've had in this province in the last 20 years. And what were the reasons that these attacks occurred -- if any?

Hon. C. McGregor: The hon. member continues to disagree with the intention of this ministry in labelling some wildlife as dangerous so that we can limit their feeding through attractants in a deliberate form. If the member wants to disagree with that intention, then he's welcome to. But I do disagree with his premise that there's nothing we can do about the fact that wildlife moves into urban areas.

We have a variety of tools. This is one. There is something we can do to control through education -- and largely it is an education process -- and through this tool that's provided under this act for us to work individually with persons who are deliberately feeding in order to draw these types of wildlife into the neighbourhood, putting the public's safety at risk and also risking the animal itself. When conservation officers are called into neighbourhoods because they're being habitually visited by a species that's considered to be dangerous, action has to be taken. Often that means the death of the animal. So we want to be more proactive than that. We want to have a variety of tools through which we can achieve our goal, which is to not have food available in residences or near or surrounding a person's residence, in a way that can be managed. So it is one tool we have in order to achieve that outcome.

J. Wilson: I don't know. Are they going to remove coyotes from the list of furbearing animals, where you can harvest them each year? She wants to control the dangerous coyotes in the urban areas. Perhaps she should establish a few traplines in the urban areas so that people could harvest this. It is a furbearing animal, and it's something you can harvest each year. They do have a value on them, and I don't see any reason that we should get to the point where we're going to segregate coyotes. If it's a rural coyote, he's harvestable, but if he's an urban coyote, you don't do that to him. You can't, you know, catch him and pelt him and control his numbers and reduce the danger to people out there, and all this stuff.

[1155]

Hon. C. McGregor: Just to acknowledge the member's point about trapping, clearly lawful trapping is a tool that we use when it's necessary. As I indicated earlier, the Wildlife Act -- and the amendments we're introducing here around the feeding of dangerous wildlife -- is only one of the tools that are available to conservation officers and wildlife specialists in our ministry to try and address these chronic problems.

In terms of wolf attacks, I think we have only one or two documented cases on the record. I'm not certain that we know the exact circumstances, but we can get the ministry to do some research for you if you'd like, member.

J. Wilson: I would like to know: where did these occur? Were they in greater Vancouver, or were they in Fort Nelson? The same with the coyote attacks. I would like to know where these coyote attacks occurred. Do you have that information?

Hon. C. McGregor: As I indicated to the member, I do not, but I'd be happy to provide it to the member once we've had the opportunity to do that kind of research.

J. Wilson: If we have one or two documented cases of wolf attacks, how can the minister put a wolf on a list of species that are a threat to humans? It really is difficult to understand why this would happen, unless there is an ulterior motive here for creating species that the ministry would like the public to view as dangerous. What is the intent? I'm sure that if you take it at face value, there's no wolf out there in this province that's a threat to humans, unless of course you happen to get way out on a bad winter, completely away from civilization, and you run into a pack of starving wolves. Then I'm sure that you might have a problem. But when it comes to urban areas and urban settings and rural settings, wolves are not a problem. They do not create any problem whatsoever to humans, as far as their welfare goes. I would like to ask the minister again: how can the minister possibly label a wolf as a threat to humans -- a threat to their well-being and their lives -- when we've had one, maybe two, documented cases in 20 years and we don't know the circumstances around those?

Hon. C. McGregor: The definition of dangerous wildlife applies to those provisions that prohibit the feeding of dangerous wildlife. Outside of that reference in the act, they have no special meaning. They could be labelled under any name. It has no significance beyond the provision that is introduced here, which is the feeding of that wildlife. We could have named them something else. We could have called them -- I don't know -- easily habituated wildlife. We could have named them in that way. The purpose of those provisions is to have the sections of the act that apply related to the intentional feeding of that wildlife so that we can avoid habituation. As I've explained to the member, these are animals that are more easily habituated, and it has negative impacts on the species if they become habituated to garbage in neighbourhoods. That raises public angst, concern and safety issues.

[1200]

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

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

[ Page 13352 ]

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:02 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 10:11 a.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
(continued)

L. Reid: I want to briefly canvass a number of issues in terms of the debate we had yesterday evening. One of the issues was whether or not the young autistic person I had referenced could indeed be given some consideration by the ministry. The family would be delighted if that were to happen. The name of the young woman in question is Kristy Vath. It's a very extensive file, with much ministry correspondence on the question. So if the minister could follow through on yesterday's commitment to at least give this another examination in terms of this person not being refused community services on the basis of an IQ test alone.

The other issues I wish to canvass this morning are retribution issues on the 1.5 percent clawback. I've had a number of individuals indicate to me that the stance on the part of the ministry has been either "Come back to us with a 1.5 percent reduction in your budget, or it could move to 3 percent," or "We will suggest that we may not place new contracts with you." I'm hoping that has not been the stance of this minister, but I would ask her to comment.

Hon. L. Boone: When we talk about the 3 percent, we're just talking pure numbers. If individuals don't start to deal with 1.5 percent now, and if they delay -- until the fall, say -- then they would be looking at having to do 3 percent in order to get back the same amount of dollars. It's in everybody's best interests if they deal with it earlier rather than later.

L. Reid: The minister is probably aware that that's very threatening posturing in terms of the ministry and, frankly, not typically done halfway through a contract year. It's my understanding that those contracts were entered into on October 1 and will run until September 30. To get the insight from government that somehow they'll return 1.5 percent. . . . You're halfway into the contract; frankly, the dollars have been expended in lots of cases.

So am I to understand from the minister's comments that contracts were opened during the contract year and that in fact those documents were not respected? Can the sector continue to believe that any contract is worth anything when signed off by this government if you can go back six months into the contract year and reopen the contract -- not just reopen it, but go back retroactively? I share that concern with the sector. I think that is only about a threatening posture on behalf of the ministry.

Hon. L. Boone: We're not threatening. We're asking these individuals to reduce their budgets by 1.5 percent. All contracts have a 30-day cancellation clause. We're not threatening to cancel their contracts, but we're saying that the sooner you make the adjustments to your budgeting processes, the better off you'll be. It's very common within government when we are making our own adjustments. We know that if we reduce certain areas on April 1, it might cost us X number of dollars if we delay making adjustments or changing things until September or October. That's then going to mean a larger proportion that we have to withdraw, because we didn't adjust our budgets earlier.

So we're not threatening, by any means. We're just saying that in order to cut those amounts from your budgets, it's easier if you do so now. Make those plans at this point in time so that it is a 1.5 percent cut for everybody, rather than waiting and, in order to achieve those dollars, having to do a 3 percent cut.

[1015]

Last evening the minister made repeated commentary on consultation. Tell me, minister, where the consultation was regarding the 1.5 percent clawback. When did that consultation take place, and who was invited to participate in that discussion?

Hon. L. Boone: As you know, the budget process is one where the budget is. . . . To have the integrity of the budget, we aren't able to start those processes until such time as the budget is tabled. The budget was tabled, and we went out and. . . . Actually, staff have gone throughout the regions to meet with organizations, to advise them of the cost-saving measures that are expected of them. That is why we started immediately to get out there -- to talk to them -- so that they can start to make those adjustments.

As I said, ministries do that all the time, on a regular basis. Ministries are asked to reduce their budgets and to cut administration or to make cuts in various programs so that they can meet their budget deadline. That's the same as we're asking organizations to do.

L. Reid: When the minister went on a great length yesterday evening to suggest that there was ongoing consultation, in fact that wasn't true. It was after-the-fact consultation -- 1.5 percent had been decided. The sector was not asked how best to realign those dollars to come back with a saving. They were instructed, halfway through a contract year, that 1.5 percent was the directive coming from the ministry, and they would be required to do so. The minister attempted to characterize it as a request -- absolutely untrue. We agreed last evening that that was not an honest statement to be made in this chamber -- that it was no more a request than "Fly to the moon." So in

[ Page 13353 ]

This is the ministry that has always said that consultation with the contracted sector was vitally important. If there were cost savings that the ministry wanted to realize, why not go to the sector and say, "This is what we would like to accomplish -- how best might we accomplish that?" as opposed to: "You must do X, because we have not been able to manage our finances appropriately, and as a result we are going to disenfranchise families in this province." That's exactly what has transpired. The minister talked in last night's debate estimates about $11 million for family support under supervision orders. Simple question: is that contracted money? Is that new money into the system?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, it's new money, and yes, it goes to the contract sector.

L. Reid: Yesterday in the debate we also canvassed utilization management plans. My understanding from the minister's comments basically is that there should now be 11 plans for the 11 regions of the province. I would simply ask that that information be made available. Is that possible?

[1020]

On the utilization plans, they are being developed. The directors are meeting this week to sign them off. But they're not completed right now.

L. Reid: So the dollar value that has been arrived at -- $10.9 million in community living and $26.4 million for child and family services. . . . If the plans are not yet complete, how did the minister arrive at those two sums of money?

Hon. L. Boone: The $10.9 million for the community living sector, as I said, is living within the existing budget. We seem to have a difficult time getting this through to the member opposite, hon. Chair. Maybe I'll explain it to you, and perhaps you'll understand a little bit better.

A Voice: It should be through the Chair, anyway.

Hon. L. Boone: Thank you.

If you're a family, with an income of $50,000 a year and two children, and you're expecting, and suddenly you have twins born into the family, your income doesn't increase as a result of that. You can't go back to your boss and say: "I've got two more mouths to feed. I now have four children instead of two children." You say: "Okay, we have to adjust within our own budget how we are going to spend these dollars. We may have to buy hamburger instead of steak. We may have to eat at home more often, rather than going out. We may have to put bunk beds in a room. We may have to do various things in order to live within that budget."

That is what we are asking the sector to do: live within that budget. The pressures that are coming from outside are things that we have to deal with. So we are asking the sector to look within and to find ways of spreading those dollars better so that we can accommodate some of those pressures coming from the outside. On the pressures, the utilization management savings and the children-in-care budget. . . . We estimate a total savings of $26.4 million: from increased use of supervision orders -- $700,000; youth agreements -- $5 million; adoption -- $6 million; return home -- $4.2 million; and unit cost reductions by moving from contractors to family homes -- $10.5 million.

L. Reid: An interesting example but totally irrelevant to the families in this province, who would expect this minister to champion their issue. But to do that, she has to understand their issue. To come back with some trite example of hamburger versus steak is absolutely insensitive to the demands that these families face every single day. These families know it far better than members of this Legislature. Do not diminish them in this debate, hon. minister. Do not continue in that line.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, members.

L. Reid: It is absolutely unfeeling. In terms of the question that the minister was asked, these regional plans -- 11 of them. . . . It's my understanding that they were supposed to be in place by the end of May. From the minister's commentary, I would suggest that they're not complete yet and that they're still going to have some further discussion.

[1025]

How does any agency operate where the administration is not completely tied into how that direct service is provided? Those scenarios simply do not exist. It's an interesting way to distance yourself from the issue and to be somewhat aloof on the question, but these scenarios simply do not exist. Those people are dramatically tied. . . . Those administrative reportings are often the executive director's salary. To suggest that somehow the executive director is not directly hinged on how those services are delivered in those agencies to those front-line families is illogical. It doesn't make any sense.

So again, I would ask the minister to come back and finally and frankly admit that yes, her government has gone

[ Page 13354 ]

Hon. L. Boone: Look, this is really getting very ridiculous to have this member over there stand and complain, saying that we haven't managed our money, complaining that government is overspending, complaining that we haven't cut enough -- which is what this government has not done and what this opposition is asking us over and over again to do. . . . To complain that we haven't followed the wishes of the B.C. Business Council and haven't made massive slashes to our social programs, such as they would do, and then stand here and have the audacity to say that we don't have a commitment to this sector, when for years and years and years we have had increases -- over $30 million last year, $50 million more in this budget this year. . . . What would the opposition do? How much money would you put into this budget? How would you provide more money for this sector, when you are in fact admitting and proclaiming that you want to cut budgets? How would you do those things, hon. member? How would you stand there. . .

The Chair: Through the Chair.

Hon. L. Boone: . . .and say you're going to cut $3 billion from the provincial budget and then, at the same time, tell us that you're going to spend more money in this area here, more money in health care, more money in education, more money for the front-line workers in forestry, more money for every opportunity out there -- at the same time as giving massive tax breaks for the corporations, massive tax breaks to the wealthy, and doing absolutely nothing to this sector here? How are you going to make those massive tax breaks? How are you going to cut the budgets and still provide the services that you say? You tell me how much money. . .

The Chair: Through the Chair.

Hon. L. Boone: . . .is enough for you, hon. member.

The Chair: I'll just remind all members of the House to please direct their comments to the Chair.

L. Reid: I will say very candidly to this minister that neither she nor any other member of that New Democratic government has the right or responsibility to define any aspect of Liberal policy. It is simply something they know zero about -- absolutely zero. In terms of commitment to family, what I have stood in this House for nine years and asked for is a sense of priority. What the public understands from this government's priority, minister -- through the Chair -- is that fast ferries are up there and megaprojects are up there. Children are well down the list. That is your responsibility as the Minister for Children and Families -- to champion the cause of children in British Columbia, not to tell me or parents in this province that their priority is less valid than expanding the fast ferry, than allowing a cost overrun on the fast ferry. That's where the rubber hits the road in this debate, minister. I am sad to say that I do not believe that you understand this issue in any way, shape or form.

The Chair: Prior to recognizing the minister, I'd like to remind all members of the House that we are on the estimates of the Ministry for Children and Families.

[1030]

Interjection.

Hon. L. Boone: That shows how little you know about budgeting in British Columbia. When you talk about fast ferries, that is not in the consolidated revenue fund. It has nothing to do with. . .

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, members.

Hon. L. Boone: . . .the deficit. The deficit that we are talking about in this province -- the deficit that is run, which this opposition criticizes on a daily basis -- consists of dollars that are going into health care, going into education, going into children and families. Those are the three priorities of this government; those are the three ministries that have received increases. Those are the. . .

Interjection.

The Chair: Order, members.

Hon. L. Boone: . . .programs that are contributing to the deficit of this province. The programs that they talk about -- the overruns on the ferries -- have not one iota of interest in the deficit -- not one. If you are going to cut anything -- if you are going to cut the $3 billion -- you are going to have to take those dollars out of health care, you are going to have to take them out of education, and you're going to have take them out of programs for children and families. You don't understand how the budgeting process in this province works.

Interjections.

The Chair: Through the Chair, hon. members.

Hon. L. Boone: I would suggest that this hon. member go back, find out how the budgeting process works -- what makes up the deficit and what contributes to the deficit -- and recognize that this is a priority of this government. It always has been and always will be.

B. Barisoff: I think the minister is attacking my colleague sitting next to me. Maybe what I should do, then, is read some of the letters that I'm getting from members of the general public about how this ministry is running.

Let me start with the first letter, from Kendall and Donna Ashton in Grand Forks:

"Our son Shane is 24 years old and has cerebral palsy. We are concerned about the cutbacks and the effect they will have on Shane and his quality of life.

"At this point Shane has five-day care. We have been asking for seven-day care for two years, and the government says they can't afford it! Why are you cutting back in this area?"

[ Page 13355 ]

"Why is Grand Forks being asked to cut back the same amount as other areas that are receiving substantially more funding? Our son is 28 years old and has been living for two years in a home that my husband and I bought, and still is only able to stay in this house five days a week. The government cannot afford seven days. Eventually, we'll be too old to care for him. What will happen then?"

These letters go on and on and on. Anita Krawe asks the same thing, What's happening? Why is there a 1.5 percent budget cutback? The same thing from Cheryl Edwards of Grand Forks -- I'll just read a little excerpt from her letter:

"I am writing to you to bring forward my concerns of the negative impact that will be created due to the government initiated 1.5 percent clawback to contracts within the community services sector for a total of $9.7 million to help fund the $488 million budgeted for health services, the $45 million for education and the reduction of taxes for small business. This sector supports individuals living with mental and physical disabilities that represents 10.9 percent of the social service sector, which is the smallest percentage in this sector, and stands to be effected the most by this clawback."

[1035]

"We are writing to you as very concerned parents of our mentally challenged son James. James is 24 years of age and is currently attending the daily program provided by the Granby Support Services in Grand Forks"

"In response to your request to fill out a form to advise you of our method of reducing budgets, please be advised that we are unable to provide you with that information.

"STIL is very distressed with the recent turn of events the ministry has undertaken and will be involved with other community organizations in forthcoming political actions to protest the just-announced cutbacks to agencies who serve people with disabilities.

"STIL has gone through our current budget thoroughly, and there are no efficiencies to found. There are no moneys or funds to return to the province without cutting services. In fact, STIL requires additional funding to meet the ever-increasing demands put on resources in these challenging times.

"We welcome a meeting in our region with yourself to review budgets and contracts at your convenience. This will make clear to you the need to request an exemption for our area. STIL will participate in respectful community consultation that moves our mandate forward in assisting individuals and families to lead healthy and productive lives.

"Thank you for your attention. . . .

Julie Lepine

Director, Grand Forks Services."

"As a concerned friend of a 24-year-old mentally challenged young man, I wish to voice my disapproval of the recent reductions in the community living service programs.

"I have seen many positive changes in James since his participation in the daily program provided by Granby Support Services in the Grand Forks area.

"In closing, I think it would be devastating for James and his peers if the ministry cuts funding to such a positive support group for the handicapped adults in our community."

These are coming from citizens; these aren't coming from the opposition. These are the concerns that. . . . In particular, they feel that Grand Forks is underfunded. At this point in time, I'd like to ask the ministry how that area compares with the rest of the areas in the province.

Hon. L. Boone: We don't have breakdowns as a comparison of one community to the other. But I can tell you that the Kootenay regions have 4 percent of the total budget allocation, and they have 4 percent of the population, so it seems like a fair allocation to them. We've looked at. . . .

You just quickly mentioned a couple of individual groups. We're just looking. Granby Support Services -- they're being asked to find efficiencies for $8,000 from a $530,000 budget. That's not a huge amount of money for an organization of that size.

[1040]

And $8,000 is not going to mean the difference as to whether this organization works well or provides services. They should be able to find $8,000 worth of efficiencies within their organization without dealing with their front-line services, I would think. Most organizations, I think, could probably do that.

B. Barisoff: I think that what the minister is indicating is that they will go in and have a look at that. I appreciate that commitment by the minister that they will go and have a look. But in small communities, $8,000 is a lot of money. I know and understand that with the present-day government, sometimes it's $8,000 here and $8,000 there. But to some of these small communities that are working on a shoestring from the start, it means a lot. I do appreciate the fact that the ministry will send in some people to see whether they are being funded on an equal basis compared to. . . . They are in the Kootenay region. If they're getting their fair share for Granby Support Services, I'm sure that the minister will get back to me and find out exactly how that goes.

I've just got another, one from another area, hon. Chair, to read to the minister. This is addressed to her, and I actually had it hand-delivered. But I'd just like to read it into the record just in case, for whatever reason, it didn't get into her hands. It's addressed to the hon. minister, and it says:

"I have a mentally challenged son living in Oliver in integrated community living. As a family we have great concerns, as there are no day programs available in our area. Yet Penticton has an abundance of programs that are working very well.

"The ministry has tied the hands of the private sector by forcing them to pay minimum wage. It would be beneficial for people such as Kevin to receive less and be mentally stimulated. At a recent meeting with Clair Quinn on staff with Ministry for Children and Families, also Charlotte Whitmore, supervisor of

[ Page 13356 ]

our group homes, [they were] stating they also have concerns due to the lack of programs.

"They have observed my son Kevin shifting a pebble from one spot to another for a long period of time, due to boredom. Kevin works under supervision at our local Saan store for one hour per week and does very well. His behaviour also improves when he is kept busy -- however, not so when he has nothing to do.

"Unfortunately these people did not choose to be born with handicaps. Therefore, it is up to us to see they have a purpose and a goal in life to achieve their self-worth. I firmly disagree with the ministry's policy of clients' choice as to what they want or don't want to do. This gives him no guidance whatsoever. We believe he must have guidelines to go by.

"We would appreciate any help you could give us to help restore self-worth to the handicapped people.

"Sincerely,

Martha Goltz, Oliver"

Hon. L. Boone: I'll go with the last one first -- the Employment Standards Act. I mentioned yesterday that I've met with the Minister of Labour. I'm aware of the concerns of some individuals who find that they're not able to get the work because of the minimum wage. I'm working with the Minister of Labour on this, but I want to make it clear that we don't want to go back to the days when individuals with mental handicaps were abused by putting them into workshops and paying them far below the minimum wage and having them produce something that was a value. I think there is value for much of the work that is done by these individuals with mental handicaps, and we ought to be paying them appropriately. So we're working with the Minister of Labour on that issue, trying to figure out how we can do this without going back to the days when people were in fact being used by the system.

[1045]

B. Barisoff: Referring to the comments that the minister made, I would hope that something in the nature of where the handicapped people have an opportunity to work. . . . After talking to Mrs. Goltz in my office and to her son, who would be Kevin's brother, I think that the most important thing here is to create self-worth and to be able to do things. When they indicate to me that her son, or the brother, spends his time chasing a marble around the floor, or whatever else, simply because we've created inflexible-type labour laws that force them into a situation where nobody can hire them or will hire them. . . . I would hope that this would be of the utmost priority with the minister and it wouldn't be something that we would be coming back in a year's time and saying in estimates: "This hasn't changed." I guess that what I would like to have from the minister is a commitment that this isn't something that's going to be put on the shelf, and that this is something that's going to be done in the near future -- and when I say the near future, I mean immediately, if not sooner; in the next 60 days or whatever -- to have a commitment of a time frame from the minister to say. . . . I've had the opportunity in the past of coming back into this House, year after year, and asking the same question because nothing had been done from the year before. If I could get that commitment of a time frame from the minister.

Hon. L. Boone: I can't give a commitment on the time frame, because it's not my jurisdiction. I can say that we're working with the Ministry of Labour to deal with this issue, and we will be working with the sector as well. I can tell you that the community living sector and those who have individuals with mental disabilities are not anxious to go back to the days when it was a blanket abuse of their loved ones -- where they were put into situations and working for nothing. We will work closely with them -- the Ministry of Labour -- but I can't give you a time frame, because it's not in my jurisdiction to do so.

B. Barisoff: I guess there is at least a portion of a commitment there that it will be worked on with the Ministry of Labour to make sure that we do something -- that these handicapped people do have something to do in one way, shape or form.

My next issue is probably the one. . . . This entire binder represents an issue. If I had my way, I would read this entire binder into the record. But my colleague says that she will not allow me.

A Voice: Right.

B. Barisoff: The minister understands that this issue is the Victoria Creek Youth Ranch issue in Oliver. It's probably one of the most serious issues that I've had to deal with in my time in politics, and that includes 18 years of being a school board member.

[1050]

I had an episode in my own constituency on Friday, where there was a threat at a local elementary school -- a serious situation. People are concerned, really concerned. Then we get reports from the outgoing children's commissioner, Cynthia Morton, saying that this government's planning of children's care is completely inadequate -- statements

[ Page 13357 ]

Then we move onto what the provincial child, youth and family advocate, Joyce Preston, pointed out - that Children and Families is in a severe state of crisis due to underfunding and misdirected resources, and is not looking after the children's welfare. Preston arrived at this view through complaints and reports from all parts of this province.

Strongly supporting Preston's complaints was a recent survey done by the B.C. Federation of Foster Parents Associations seeking information detailing issues concerning the foster parents of B.C. Within ten days, the group received an amazing 71 submissions, totalling 175 pages, breaking down the issues and concerns in order of importance: recriminations and intimidations from the ministry, 55 percent; wrongful allegations and home closures, 52 percent; poor case planning, 53 percent; working relationships with Ministry for Children and Families, 44 percent; lack of support, 43 percent; relief, 40 percent; money issues, 38 percent. And the list goes on and on.

This brings me to the whole issue of the Victoria Creek Youth Ranch. We have a ranch -- or you call it a ranch -- in Oliver. It has worked extremely well for a number of kids. I just want to point out that the couple, Lloyd and Cara Risling, who've been operating this ranch for the past 12 years have had more than 60 troubled boys in their region go through their care and training. All of them have learned valuable lessons about life and their role, and the bulk of them have had their twisted lives turned completely around and have gone on to become proud and useful citizens. This ranch and its operations have gained a reputation in all segments of the community as one of the most successful of its kind in Canada.

Let us examine how they have been treated by this ministry. It's a horror story, in itself the tip of the iceberg of what's happening to hundreds of good foster homes across all of British Columbia. The only bright spot is that the Rislings have had enough courage to stand up against the overwhelming odds and the rotten system to help out the young people in this province while putting their entire life's work and savings at risk. I've never, in all my years, had as many letters come forward on any one issue. If I had enough time, I would definitely read this entire document. When I'm done, I will actually give this document to the minister and ask her to read it -- but I want it back.

Interjection.

B. Barisoff: No, I would expect that considering what's in this document, the minister would read it and take heed from what's taken place in this entire process.

[1055]

"With regard to the youth ranch, it is my understanding that the ministry is talking of closing this facility due to the concerns about the Risling family that runs it and the worker, Brenda Shugalo. I would like to speak on behalf of myself and the members of this detachment in saying that the Rislings have proven time and again that they are very trustworthy and competent in running this youth ranch. In my 32 years of service I have not met a more dedicated couple that is concerned about the welfare of the youth in the community, with the desire to teach these troubled kids how to integrate with the rest of the community.

"With regard to Brenda Shugalo, I have never met a more loving person that cares for the troubled youth the way she does. We have had dealings with her for the past six years, as she and her husband have taken in the more extremely troubled youth and have been able to deal with these people in a loving but firm environment. No other foster parent has dealt with the police as willingly as this couple has, and it has been noticed by all that the children in their care are better disciplined than others that have come to our attention. The children that have stayed there have also admitted to myself and others here that they have never found a more loving and trustworthy home to stay in.

"With this in mind, I would find it very distressing and disturbing if this facility was to shut down. I doubt that there is anyone that can provide the same leadership qualities and discipline that these children require under the care of this ministry. Please accept this letter as a strong opposition to the proposal of closing the ranch, even if there is another facility in the area."

I have a difficult time, because when this first started -- and it started back in January -- I said to Lloyd and Cara Risling when they came to my office: "Looking at what's taken place here, there's no doubt in my mind that the ministry will deal with this in an upright and positive manner." I made sure that nobody got hold of this in the initial stages, that the ministry. . . . I talked to the minister; I talked with all the people concerned, so that this would be a positive result. This wasn't something. . . . The minister knows that I'm not one for grandstanding or making things that aren't there or that shouldn't happen.

But this kept going on. The letters go on and on; they don't stop. What concerns me the most. . . . Here's another one from Danielle Thompson, another one from Pamela Minor and from Wayne Richens. I'd so dearly like to read every one of these from the Osoyoos Indian band, from the Oliver Veterinary Hospital by Dr. Gordon MacKenzie -- another one from John Minor, another one from Pat Vesper from Cawston.

We have one from the counsellors of Southern Okanagan Secondary School. I might want to read this one in:

"It has come to our attention that the Victoria Creek Youth Ranch, the local rehabilitation facility on the outskirts of Oliver, may be forced to cease operations. We as a counselling staff at Southern Okanagan Secondary School have some serious concerns over this possible closure.

"Over the years, the staff at Victoria Creek Youth Ranch have worked closely with our school staff in supporting the needs of students in this facility. We have always felt that there was a need for this type of support for the youth in this rural area. One of the major questions we have is: where will these young people go to make the transition back to the mainstream in our high schools?

"In this small town, Victoria Creek provides these youths the opportunity to turn things around, learn coping skills, and set new goals under the direction of very capable staff, Mr.

[ Page 13358 ]

Lloyd and Mrs. Cara Risling. If this facility is forced to close, you will take this opportunity away from these adolescents. Make this work. It is an investment in the future of the lives of these young people."

[1100]

Another one is from a councillor in the town of Oliver; another one is from Dave Casorso. Another one is from Chris and Greg Norton of Rockhurst Ranch; he used to be the chairman of the regional district. I know Greg personally, and one thing about Greg is that he says it the way it is. They are definitely writing in support of Victoria Creek Youth Ranch and what Lloyd and Cara Risling have done. Waldy Gaertner is another one.

A letter from Southern Okanagan Secondary School, from the vice-principal, is expressing the same kinds of concerns. Another one is from Tanya Walsh. Another one is from Jane Stelkia, of the Osoyoos Indian band, who says that Lloyd and Cara brought the young lads out to their ranch and helped him in doing all kinds of things -- definitely developmental.

I have some real concerns with the fact that the ministry has turned a blind eye to this ranch. I look at the costs of what has taken place. The Rislings received somewhere, I think, in the neighbourhood of $27,000 per child. They struggle; they have a mortgage. Yet I see now where the new facilities that are coming in. . . . The minister talks about whether people know how to run a budget, in criticizing the critic for Children and Families on our side of the House on how to run a budget. I see now that the costs that they're bringing into place are running anywhere from $60,000 to $70,000 to $80,000 to $90,000 a year. But the minister says we're going to close a facility that has the support of an entire community. They were getting $27,000, maybe as high as $30,000. Now we're taking these young lads, who have been very successful, and we're moving into a situation where we're going to pay people in the neighbourhood of. . . . I've heard figures as high as $100,000. I'll expect the minister to refute these figures, because if they are true -- that we would close a facility such as Victoria Creek Youth Ranch that has been so successful and move off into a different area that's costing the ministry in excess of $70,000 or $80,000 a child. . . . It doesn't take long to do the figures, even on this side of the House. As the minister indicates, we're not financial geniuses. But I'm sure we know that if you have a successful operation at $27,000 a year and you turn around and decide that you're going to close it down, and you start operating at $50,000, you've got to have some concerns.

The Chair: Hon. member, your time is up. You have a question for the minister?

B. Barisoff: The question that I would ask is: what is the difference between what the Rislings were being paid and what is being paid for the new facilities that are going to be coming into the community?

Hon. L. Boone: Victoria Creek Youth Ranch is not being shut down because of cost pressures. It's not being shut down in order to save dollars there, and the member knows very well that this has nothing to do with the cost element. There were reports of abuse and about the quality of care that was received. There was a review done as a result of concerns that were expressed by people in the community. The review was conducted. Actually, an investigation was done initially by a resource supervisor. Following the results of this investigation, we then did a review. The review was done in March. The review found that the closure of the ranch as a youth care resource was a reasonable decision given the current and historical concerns and that had adequate investigation been completed when previous complaints were made, the resource would have been closed a number of years ago.

[1105]

Like most things in this ministry, it is very difficult for the ministry to defend its actions, because the reviews that take place are confidential. Therefore we are not able to publicly state the reasons for the closure. But the reasons have been communicated to the Rislings, and it is their decision not to meet with the child protection director. It is their decision not to meet with the regional executive director, and it is their decision not to appeal the decision to close the ranch. This does not have anything to do with the dollars that one operator is receiving as compared to the other.

B. Barisoff: I guess I have a bit of difficulty with what the minister just said, because one thing about Lloyd and Cara Risling is that they happen to be down-country folks from the interior. They're the salt of the earth. They're honest, and they've laid everything on the table. They've run this ranch for 12 years. They've had 14 complaints. I don't think any of them have been substantiated. And the other thing is that the other day the social worker who supposedly said that she recommended that the ranch be closed said that she had never made that recommendation. The people that closed the ranch had never been there -- had never gone there, had never been at the ranch. So in this case, I have to question that the minister would stand up and say that all of these things are true. They are not true. Fourteen allegations in 12 years. . . . They take the most troubled teens in the area -- the most troubled teens in the area.

I looked, and I could bring evidence of other homes that are paid substantially more money and have allegations this long and haven't been closed. But they took a direct attack on the Rislings, who were prepared to stand up and say: "Put it all out in the open. Show us what we've done wrong, and we'll go from there." But this hasn't happened, and when the minister knows full well that the person -- the social service worker -- that did the investigation has now come out and said that at no time did she ever recommend closure of the ranch, I have to ask the minister again: why, if that was never recommended, and the person that actually did the closure of the ranch had never visited the ranch, and these people are making $27,000 per child or $28,000 -- in that neighbourhood -- versus $70,000. . . ? I ask the minister again to tell me whether the new facility that will be brought forward -- because they said the facility is going to be taken up by

[ Page 13359 ]

Hon. L. Boone: As I said earlier, this has nothing to do with the costs. This has to do with the decisions and the investigations that took place.

[1110]

So there has been. . .and, as I stated earlier, there is an appeal process. The Rislings have opted not to go into the appeal process. They have opted not to meet with the regional director, and they have opted not to meet with the regional executive director. They have some processes that they could use, but they have not done so, and as I stated earlier, the decision to close this ranch was made as a result of the investigations that took place. The member may say things are unsubstantiated. The investigations differ on that.

B. Barisoff: Could the minister indicate to me, then, whether the person that actually went to the ranch, in her report, recommended closure of the ranch?

Hon. L. Boone: She presented her findings to the supervisor, and one of her findings was that the emotional and verbal abuse had been substantiated.

B. Barisoff: Could the minister indicate to me whether the people that actually finally made the decision to close the ranch ever took the time to go out and personally visit Lloyd and Cara Risling at the ranch?

Hon. L. Boone: As I stated in my initial comment before that, the supervisor did not go out there. She took the results of the report that was given to her. We do not use contractors -- these are contractors -- who emotionally and verbally abuse children who come from abusive situations themselves.

B. Barisoff: Maybe the minister could answer for me: is every home in the province that has a complaint of emotional or verbal abuse closed? For every complaint that has those two words in it, is the particular foster home then automatically closed?

Hon. L. Boone: No, not every place is closed. But in this particular situation, there was a 12-year history. Verbal and emotional abuse had been substantiated.

B. Barisoff: That's a point in time that really upsets me. In 12 years you get 14 complaints -- the most difficult children in this province to work with -- and the minister is going to stand up and say that that's substantiated. I cannot believe that I'm hearing that. Fourteen complaints over 12 years, and that's substantiated. Not one of them has been substantiated, and she knows that full well. Nobody visited that ranch, other than the social worker. The social worker has come out and said: "At no time did I ever recommend closing that ranch."

They have done things for that community and for those kids that have never been done before. The sheriff for the area. . . . I don't know if I have his letter, but I can remember what he wrote and what he told me on the telephone. He said: "When these young lads came before the judge, they begged to go back to Victoria Creek Youth Ranch, because it was the only thing that turned them around."

[1115]

Hon. L. Boone: Obviously the member knows that I don't have that information.

B. Barisoff: Well, then could the minister get that information to show me where other foster homes in the province of British Columbia that deal with the most highly volatile kids have the number of complaints that they have? I don't need to know what the complaints are, because the minister says that if they are emotional and verbal, they are going to be closed down. I'm sure we're going to get that information too. But I want to get a commitment from the minister that we will get all that information.

Hon. L. Boone: Previously, we've not. . . . Before the ministry came in, some of our tracking resources. . . . We didn't track all the allegations; they were in the individual files. But last year, in fact, we had 456 allegations made. We actually closed 29 resources -- that included some foster homes and other residential homes -- after we investigated those resources, after investigations showed that the allegations were substantiated. I would hope that the member is not saying that we shouldn't be investigating allegations of abuse in homes and that we should be ignoring those situations or ignoring situations where children are left in abusive situations -- whether that be physical abuse, emotional abuse or mental abuse. I would hope that the member is not indicating that.

I do know that you have a very close relationship with this ranch and with the owners of this ranch. I recognize that the community is very concerned about this. But the community does not have the results of the investigations and is not aware of the information that the ministry has. It's a very difficult situation that the ministry is always in, because we have confidential information that we are not able to share. I hope that this would be enough information for you, because quite frankly, I am not going to be asking my staff out there to waste valuable time going through every child's records to find allegations on various resources.

B. Barisoff: Hon. Chair, then I guess I would ask the minister, as an MLA, for the privileged information -- to be able to look at this information. One thing about the Rislings: they took the 14 complaints; they laid it all out in front of the

[ Page 13360 ]

[1120]

I want the minister to tell me if that's the case: that you have had almost every group in the community. . . . You've had the mayor, you've had the RCMP, you've had the counsellors from the school district, you've had all kinds of citizens -- I happen to know who these people are, and they're good, solid people -- telling you that you've made a mistake. You have totally destroyed a family. And worse than that, you've destroyed a facility that was serving the youth of British Columbia at a cost that the minister says is affordable. Your budget is running away with itself.

The Chair: Through the Chair.

B. Barisoff: You know -- through the Chair -- that it's running away with itself and that things aren't being done. Joyce Preston, the children's advocate, lays a condemning report on your ministry -- through the Chair -- and then you take something like the Victoria Creek Youth Ranch. . .

A Voice: That works.

B. Barisoff: . . .that works, and you literally destroy it. You destroy the people that have worked so hard to make it work. I want the minister to give me the commitment that she'll go over those reports, and I want the minister to give me the privileged information that I as an MLA won't share with anybody else and that I haven't received somewhere else.

The information that the Rislings have provided, they provided to everybody: "Protocol Under Scrutiny"; "Rislings' Case Taints Ministry." You know, the headlines go on and on: "Youth Home Backers Cast Doubt on Probe"; "What Led to Shutdown of Oliver Youth Ranch?"; "More Cases Like Closure of Oliver Foster Home." And it goes on and on, minister. It goes on and on, and it's not something that you don't know about. It's something you know full well about.

The Chair: Through the Chair.

B. Barisoff: And you know that this is a mistake -- through the Chair. The hon. minister, hon. Chair, knows full well that what took place with the Victoria Creek Youth Ranch is a great injustice. It's probably one of the worst cases that I've ever seen. What's taken place for them is the total character assassination of these people. You destroyed something that has served the troubled youth of the South Okanagan for 12 years, and you tell me -- through the Chair -- that the ministry is going to hide behind the fact that the people who were in charge of the investigation didn't even take the time to go there. And the person that had actually done the investigation is now coming out and saying: "At no time did I ever recommend closure of this ranch." At no time, hon. Chair, did she ever recommend that the ranch be closed. I just don't know how I can put it. To think that in government today, we would allow something like this to happen. . . . It's wrong.

[1125]

The Chair: The hon. member knows the rules on using names.

B. Barisoff: The Leader of the Official Opposition has indicated in the House on a number of occasions that this side of the House is prepared to work with the minister in any way, shape or form to make this ministry work.

I'm giving the offer to the minister now that our critic for Children and Families is prepared to go on a select standing committee as an independent investigator into the Victoria Creek Youth Ranch and other situations that are probably in the province. I ask the minister whether she would put that forward because of what has taken place with the Victoria Creek Youth Ranch.

Hon. L. Boone: The member says that nobody went to the ranch, hon. Chair, and that's simply not true. Dr. Brenda McCreight, who is an independent person and not connected to the ministry, went and did a review -- went and spent three hours at the ranch. I recognize, as I said earlier, that there are a number of people -- and the member mentions many of them -- in that community who support this ranch and support the work that it did. However, I don't think that as a ministry, we can overlook the allegations that were substantiated through the review. Recognize that we have a responsibility to make sure that our contractors treat children in a respectful manner. That simply was not found to be true in some of the cases at the Victoria Creek Youth Ranch.

It has not been this ministry that has done any character assassination. It has not been this ministry that publicized this or went to the media or did any of those things. We were acting on allegations and reviews and investigations.

I can't help but wonder why this resource has failed to take up the offer to meet with the director of child protection,

[ Page 13361 ]

B. Barisoff: Could the minister indicate to me how long Ms. McCreight spent at the ranch before she wrote her report?

Hon. L. Boone: I think she spent three to three and a half hours.

B. Barisoff: Is the minister stating to me that she spent three and a half hours talking to Lloyd and Cara Risling?

Hon. L. Boone: That's our understanding.

B. Barisoff: Would the minister indicate to me if that would be enough time to make a decision based on that? To make a decision to close it, you would have to spend. . . . Is three hours a standard procedure, or should it be four or six? What if it were substantially less?

[1130]

B. Barisoff: The minister said that Brenda McCreight spent three hours talking to Lloyd and Cara Risling. Two questions. Did she talk to the boys at the ranch? Did she talk to any other people in the community while she was there?

Hon. L. Boone: No. As I said, she was not there to reinvestigate the original investigation of the allegations. She was there to make sure that the protocols had been followed and that the decision to close was a reasonable one.

B. Barisoff: So the minister is saying that after talking to the Rislings for three hours, she was able to confirm that all of the allegations that were brought forward were actually true. I guess I have to find out whether she actually talked to any of the boys that were there or that were involved in any of the allegations.

Hon. L. Boone: She talked to the Rislings. She talked to all of the key staff that had been involved there. She did not talk to the boys.

B. Barisoff: One of the other questions that I have to ask is. . . . The minister indicated that this is a ranch that should have been closed down a number of years before. Could the minister indicate to me why this ranch should have been closed down?

[1135]

B. Barisoff: Has Brenda McCreight done any other reviews for the ministry, and what were the results that came out of those?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, she's done five other reviews. In four cases she upheld the ministry decision, and in one case she did not uphold the ministry decision.

B. Barisoff: The minister has indicated a number of times that Lloyd and Cara Risling are good friends of mine. I know them, and I've known them for a long time. I wouldn't say that they're good friends, but I know that they're good people. The minister seems reluctant to indicate the issue of why they should have been closed down a number of years before. Knowing Lloyd Risling, I'll bring it forward. It's because Mr. Risling had a drinking problem seven years before. He went to Alcoholics Anonymous. He doesn't drink anymore. The ministry accused Mrs. Risling of drinking. She's allergic to alcohol; she cannot drink.

Probably everyone in this room -- unless you happen to be from Alcoholics Anonymous -- is more susceptible to drinking than Lloyd Risling is. And to say that you're going to close down a facility for something that took place seven years ago. . . . Let the minister tell the people from Alcoholics Anonymous who have recovered and have put their lives back in order that that's wrong, and they can't foster children in this province anymore. Is that what the minister is telling us?

Hon. L. Boone: No, that's not what the minister is telling you. The minister is saying that I will not go into the details of why it was found twice before that this resource should have been closed. We're saying that the closure of this resource was done on other allegations, and I've never indicated that it was due to previous abuse, but that it was due to emotional and verbal abuse. That is what I have said here. I have never indicated that they were closed as a result of past behaviour many years ago, but that the investigation indicated that it should have been closed several years ago.

B. Barisoff: The minister did say that it should have been closed seven years ago, it should have been closed before. I've talked to those people, and they indicated that to me.

Just let me look at some of the reports that came from the ministry. Let me see these dates here. Let's find a date here. The placement date is '97. One is unsatisfactory; 5 is excellent. Care and nurturing, all 5's, two 4's; natural family or guardian, 5 -- excellent; behaviour management, 4 -- well above average; teamwork and communications -- all excellent; program in the community -- excellent; effectiveness -- excellent; "Would you use this home again?" -- yes.

[ Page 13362 ]

[1140]

Let's move into another one: May 1 of '98 to August '98. Let's just go down the sections. Physical and emotional safety, 5 -- if we look back, that's excellent; nurturing family environment, 5; physical care, 5; medical and dental care, 5; positive adult role model, 5; natural family or guardian, 5; behaviour management, 5, 5 and 5; cultural and competence, 5, 5 and 5.

These are reports that were done last year by the ministry. The ministry staff have done these reports, and they are all excellent. "Would you use this home again?" "Yes." All of these things. . . . You know, if the minister's not going to ask for a public inquiry, maybe we should go to the big House and ask for a public inquiry into what the heck has gone on with this case. Sooner or later the minister has to own up that there was a big mistake here.

I want to know from the minister before we leave -- from $27,000 a year -- what the cost of these new homes is going to be. If it's going to take a while to get it, send it to me in writing. But I want to know the difference in costs for a home that has done extremely well for the South Okanagan and for the boys themselves. . . . I want to know the difference in what it's going to cost.

Hon. L. Boone: We will not be replacing the Victoria Creek Youth Ranch per se. We are putting in place an intensive residential treatment centre, which has a program for those very troubled youth -- that's two beds at $50,000 a piece -- and a level 2-3 foster home -- two beds at between $17,000 and $25,000 each.

B. Barisoff: Can the minister indicate to me who runs these homes?

The Chair: Noting the hour, minister. . . .

Hon. L. Boone: I'll have to get those contract names for you, hon. member.

Noting the hour, I'd like to move that we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee adjourned at 11:43 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1999: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada