Hansard -- Wednesday, April 10, 2002, p.m. -- Vol. 6, No. 3 (HTML)

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY



CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Introductions by Members		2715

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		2715
	Securities Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 29) Hon. R. Thorpe

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		2715
	PathNet lab results system P. Sahota Northern British Columbians role in Battle of Vimy Ridge B. Belsey Kiwanis House S. Orr

Oral Questions		2717
	Performance of Attorney General J. MacPhail Hon. G. Campbell Powers of municipal governments J. Kwan Hon. T. Nebbeling Hon. G. Campbell U.S. softwood lumber negotiations B. Penner Hon. G. Campbell Autism services S. Brice Hon. L. Reid Global warming J. Kwan Hon. G. Campbell Water pollution and protection R. Lee Hon. J. Murray

Petitions		2719
	S. Orr

Committee of the Whole House		2719
	Sustainable Resource Management Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 22) J. MacPhail Hon. S. Hagen

Tabling Documents		2722
	Hon. S. Hagen

Report and Third Reading of Bills		2723
	Sustainable Resource Management Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 22)

Committee of the Whole House		2723
	Transportation Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 25) J. MacPhail Hon. J. Reid B. Suffredine D. MacKay

Report and Third Reading of Bills		2726
	Transportation Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 25)

Committee of the Whole House		2726
	Criminal Injury Compensation Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 24) J. MacPhail Hon. R. Coleman

Report and Third Reading of Bills		2727
	Criminal Injury Compensation Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 24)

Committee of the Whole House		2727
	Health Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 18) Hon. C. Hansen

Report and Third Reading of Bills		2727
	Health Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 18)

Committee of the Whole House		2727
	Health Planning Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 19) J. MacPhail Hon. S. Hawkins Hon. K. Whittred

Report and Third Reading of Bills		2728
	Health Planning Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 19)

Committee of Supply		2728
	Estimates: Ministry of Children and Family Development (continued) Hon. G. Hogg J. MacPhail S. Orr V. Anderson J. Bray

	Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		2743
	Estimates: Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection (continued) Hon. J. Murray J. Kwan B. Kerr

Hon. G. Halsey-Brandt: Today in the members' gallery I would like to acknowledge a special visitor from France. Please join me in welcoming His Excellency Philippe Guelluy, the newly appointed Ambassador of France to Canada. This is the ambassador's first official visit to British Columbia, and I am pleased he has travelled to British Columbia to discover the many opportunities our beautiful province presents. He is accompanied by Michel Dejaegher, consul general of France at Vancouver. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

Hon. L. Reid: In the precincts today is an incredibly dedicated soul, Dr. Gene Krupa. Gene leads the health promotion and prevention in the interior health authority. He has been innovative in a particular program. The acronym is CATCH, and it stands for the Community Action Toward Children's Health. I would ask the House to please make him very welcome.

P. Bell: We have five very special guests joining us in the House today from the beautiful community of McLeod Lake, B.C. Joining us are Debbie Prince, Gary Gurnsey, Guy Jolly, Joe Bowers and Chief Alec Chingee of the McLeod Lake Indian band. Would the House please make them feel very, very welcome.

P. Sahota: On behalf of my colleague the member for North Island, I would like to welcome a group of grades 7 and 8 students from Linnea middle school on Cortes Island and their teacher, Ms. Donna Bracewell, and assistant, Jake Mazri. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, along with the member for North Island, I'd like to introduce a distinguished guest from the municipal realm who's in the gallery today. Councillor Mary Ashley from Campbell River was elected as a councillor in 1999, after previously serving as mayor of Campbell River from 1990 to '93. She was elected to the Association of Vancouver Island and Coastal Communities executive in 2000, was elected as president of the AVICC in 2001 and re-elected as president in 2002. I'd like the House to join in making Mary very welcome.

R. Sultan: I rise to introduce a B.C. original, a leading citizen of the metropolis of Big Creek, Mr. Tim Hollick-Kenyon, a.k.a. Chilcotin Charlie. Would the House please make him welcome.

S. Orr: I have a number of guests in the gallery today. Jean, one of the Sergeant-at-Arms staff, has two guests here from Turkey, Erkan Gun and Gunesh Yeltekin. Gunesh is working on her MBA at UVic.

I also have two members here from our local Kiwanis Club, Keith Myers and Bill Beveridge.

Also in the galleries we have, from SaveRail, Gerry Howell-Jones, Brendan Read, Paul Janke, Ivy Riese, Jim London and Marjorie Rogers. Would the House please make them all welcome.

Hon. R. Thorpe presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Securities Amendment Act, 2002.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I'm pleased to introduce the Securities Amendment Act, 2002. The primary purpose of this bill is to introduce additional investor protection measures to complement the easier access to capital and investment opportunities made available under the security commission's new capital-raising exemption rule.

This bill also provides a framework to recognize competing security trading systems to complement a market operations rule that was recently adopted by security regulators across Canada. This bill will also increase fines and penalty provisions and make other housekeeping amendments.

Mr. Speaker, these amendments are part of our plan to improve the investment environment in British Columbia. They will support efficient markets and effective raising of capital without compromising investor protection.

I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 29 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

P. Sahota: Over the past number of weeks I've had the opportunity to get a firsthand look at how our health care sector is embracing the technology sector, in particular a technology called PathNet. Although I'd

heard about PathNet, it wasn't until a local physician, Dr. Sangara, gave me an informative insight into how he is going to make his office paperless. PathNet is the electronic delivery of lab results, and these results would be delivered directly to the laptop or desktop at home or in the office. Dr. Sangara has signed up to be part of this pilot project.

Over 200 physicians today are using PathNet. PathNet has signed up an additional 1,000 physicians. The lab results get reported under a single personal file, ensuring that the doctor has the most complete, up-to-date information available on the patient. Dr. Sangara will be able to access his patients' records regardless of where they were tested. He believes it will improve diagnostic reporting between labs and physicians, and the use of PathNet will improve the delivery and access of diagnostic reports by offering on-line test results and inquiry capabilities such as historical databases.

This joint pilot project was developed and launched by MDS Metro and B.C. Biomedical Laboratories. On my recent meeting with Bob Breen, the president of MDS Metro, I was informed that MDS Metro and B.C. Biomedical spent approximately nine months building, testing and modifying PathNet.

One of my questions to Mr. Breen and, of course, Dr. Sangara was on protection of confidential patient medical records. They were both confident that PathNet has taken significant steps to make sure that patient confidentiality isn't violated. All data transmission uses highly secure encryption technology similar to that used in the banking sector. I am advised that MDS Metro and B.C. Biomedical have worked closely with the Ministry of Health's HealthNet/B.C. initiative to develop provincial standards for diagnostic information management, and PathNet fully complies with these standards.

P. Sahota: …that we will do things better, and we'll find better solutions to the health care sector.

B. Belsey: As my colleague noted yesterday, April 9 marked the eighty-fifth anniversary of the Battle of Vimy Ridge and the crucial role British Columbia soldiers played in that courageous battle. Many have cited this battle as the moment that marked Canada's emergence as a nation. Today I wish to recognize the men from northern British Columbia, in particular Prince Rupert, who helped to make that possible.

The 102nd Battalion was known as Warden's Warriors and recruited men from all over Canada, yet the name of the battalion, North British Columbians, originated from the large number of men that came from Prince Rupert and Prince George. As the newspaper account says, the unit was the outcome of a wager between a Mr. H. Clements, MP, from Comox-Atlin and one of his colleagues in the federal House, the latter having joked, challenging him to produce a unit from his barren constituency. Authority was issued to Lt. Col. John Weightman Warden, who set up recruitment stations in Prince Rupert among other locations in northern British Columbia.

When the men from Prince Rupert and Prince George arrived at the station in Comox, they were so numerous that they formed a company themselves, called Company B, which became known as the rallying point of all hearty men from the district. The name North British Columbians replaced the words "Comox-Atlin," and when Capt. J.S. Matthews welcomed the men from Prince Rupert, they called for cheers: "North British Columbians, three cheers for the men from Prince Rupert." From that day forward the 102nd Battalion would be known as the North British Columbians.

On the morning of April 9, 1917, the North British Columbians captured their three objectives within a mere hour and a half, which helped to ensure the overall triumph of Vimy Ridge. Today an individual memorial stands on Vimy Ridge in memory of the officers and the men of the 102nd Battalion who fell during the assault and capture of Vimy Ridge on April 9, 1917.

S. Orr: I rise today to tell you about a very special project that has just been completed in my community of Victoria-Hillside called Kiwanis House. Kiwanis House was built by the Kiwanis Club of Victoria. As always, this organization reaches out and addresses the needs of the communities they serve in. This time they have just completed a project that reflects the program priority of Kiwanis International called Young Children: Priority One.

Kiwanis House will provide a support system for single moms with one child. It consists of eight self-contained units. This complex will provide not only very comfortable shelter but a place where life skills will be taught through programs provided by the YWCA. Kiwanis House will enable the young moms to get a kick-start on their lives, enabling them to better provide for their children.

A project like this happens because the Kiwanis Club understands the needs, as they have for all other projects they have built in our communities. One person, amongst many others, who is passionate about this project is a man called Keith Myers, a well-respected business person in our community that nobody would dare say no to. Because of that determination, Kiwanis House has been built, and it has been built without any funding from government at all.

This project is a model of success. Kiwanis House is caring for our most vulnerable moms and children and will move them forward into a better future. We can learn a lot from them.

J. MacPhail: We see that the Attorney General has already had a pretty tough week with his tour of the province as the yes-side campaign manager for this province's ill-conceived referendum. While he's on the road, his legal colleagues are making his life even more miserable back at home. Lawyers are taking the Attorney General to court over cuts to legal aid, and now we see that the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court of B.C. has stated that the court no longer has confidence in the Attorney General.

To the Premier: how can he and British Columbians have any confidence in his Attorney General when the judges do not? Does the Premier just say that the judges are another special interest group that he can ignore?

Hon. G. Campbell: I think one of the most important appointments you can make as Premier is the MLA that you appoint to the office of Attorney General. I looked for a person with integrity, a person with principle, a person of experience. I looked for a person who had a passion about public law, who would stand up for the integrity of the courts. I looked for a person who would be willing to be innovative as we provided better and stronger access to the courts for British Columbians.

I can tell the member opposite that I have complete, absolute and utter confidence in the Attorney General of the province. [Applause.]

J. MacPhail: That's interesting, because earlier on the Attorney General said that there was no need to have any campaigning around the referendum. Now he's designated himself as the yes-side campaign manager.

That's because the Attorney General knows that the referendum is wrong and that it's a futile exercise. He knows there are far more important matters that he should be dealing with at home, rather than a travelling road show to prop up the flawed and meaningless public opinion poll that this referendum is. He knows that on Friday the Law Society of British Columbia is to consider for the first time a motion of censure against an Attorney General for the budget cuts.

The actions of the Attorney General and of this government have thrown the justice system into chaos.

To the Premier: why? If he has such faith in this Attorney General, why is he so intent on destroying the career of the Attorney General?

Hon. G. Campbell: One of the great things about being the leader of this government and this party is that we actually attract people of talent and ability, so they have careers.

The Attorney General has been very clear. The referendum is an opportunity for British Columbians to actually participate in one of the most important social issues we face as a province, for the first time in the history of the province. The Attorney General believes he has a responsibility to inform people about how the referendum works and why they should be including themselves.

The Attorney General has a responsibility to explain the law. For example, the referendum in no way whatsoever could ever undermine minority rights, because they are protected by this government and the Canadian constitution.

Let me say this: the Attorney General, like all the rest of the members of this government, inherited a total mess from the previous government, a government that was unsustainable. The fact of the matter is that the Attorney General is working very hard with members of the legal profession and with the judiciary to make sure that in British Columbia, we have a legal system that is second to none.

J. Kwan: Will the Minister of State for Community Charter please stand up and tell British Columbians what powers he plans on granting municipalities?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: For the member's information, we will be introducing a White Paper in the very near future explaining all the powers.

J. Kwan: Question 6 of the treaty referendum seeks a mandate to limit aboriginal self-government rights to those of a municipality, but because the government refuses to tell British Columbians what powers it plans on granting municipalities, British Columbians have no way of knowing what a yes vote or a no vote might mean.

To the Premier: how can he in good conscience spend thousands of dollars on a tour pleading with British Columbians to vote yes to a question when no one, except maybe those in the Premier's office, has any idea what powers municipalities will soon have? Obviously, the minister himself doesn't know.

Hon. G. Campbell: I'm surprised the members opposite don't understand what municipal government is and how delegated authorities work from the federal government and provincial government.

The fact of the matter is that it wasn't this government; it was their government that spent $8 million trying to convince British Columbians that the Nisga'a government was a municipal style of government.

Hon. G. Campbell: We believe that aboriginal self-government should be modelled on a municipal style of government, with delegated authorities from the federal and the provincial levels of government. We are doing something that the previous government never deigned to do. We're asking British Columbians if they agree with us and if that is a principle we should take to the treaty table.

B. Penner: Many forest-dependent communities across British Columbia have been hard-hit by the crippling U.S. duty imposed on B.C. softwood lumber exports. Some of my constituents are taking hope that the Premier may have made some progress earlier this week during talks with our federal counterparts, perhaps looking for some help for our workers and families who have been hurt by this unfair duty.

Hon. G. Campbell: I am pleased to say that during my meetings with a number of federal ministers, it was clear that Ottawa and British Columbia are going to work together to make sure that working families in the forest industry in this province have a great and bright future in forestry.

There were a number of issues that we discussed, including extension of employment benefits, research and development that will allow us to increase the productivity of our industry, expanding our marketplaces and dealing with customers in the United States so that they understand the impact of this onerous and punitive duty that's been placed on our products and the cost it will put to them both in terms of buying homes and in terms of lost jobs in the construction industry.

We will continue to fight for our forest workers. On April 29 there will be a B.C. forest softwood summit, and we hope to be able to outline some concrete, detailed frameworks for action in the future.

B. Penner: As you know, lumber barons in the United States continue to claim that B.C. subsidizes its softwood lumber industry; yet these allegations have been proven untrue time after time. Not even all U.S. politicians agree that we are unfairly subsidizing our lumber, and not all U.S. politicians agree with the duty. Can the Premier update us on our government's efforts to build support for B.C.'s position in the United States?

Hon. G. Campbell: I would ask all Members of the Legislative Assembly to join in the endeavour to make sure that people in the United States understand the impacts of that punitive duty on their lives, on their communities, on their economies. I am very pleased to say that as a result of the connections that we've made in working with the PNWER conference, the House majority leader from Alaska, Rep. Jeannette James, has actually written to the President of the United States saying that the policy makes no sense, that it hurts them in Alaska, that it's time for us to open our borders to provide open access and to make sure that not just in British Columbia but in Alaska, in Washington, in Oregon and Idaho everyone has the benefits of free and open trade.

S. Brice: My question is to the Minister of State for Early Childhood Development. B.C. families with children suffering from autism have had to cope, often without government support, to meet the challenges. I'd like to ask the minister of state what her ministry is doing to help these families.

Hon. L. Reid: We as a government made a commitment to increase parental choice, to increase parental involvement, to support families who have a child with autism. We are, today, living up to that commitment. I can assure the member opposite that we have an individualized funding program that is very close to being ready to go. The dollars, frankly, to purchase services on behalf of children will be in the hands of those families by the first day of June of this year.

S. Brice: I know the government has said it is committed to helping special needs children receive the services which they and their families require. Can the minister please tell us what actions she is taking to fulfil that commitment?

Hon. L. Reid: In addition to the individualized funding program, we certainly have early intensive behavioral services available to 75 children in eight communities across our province. We have a school transition year which will assist families whose children are either five or six years of age to have a better entry into the school system. It's vitally important that we do that. We will continue to offer service supports to families who have children with autism, whether that be respite service, home support service, services that actually assist families in staying together and staying healthy.

J. Kwan: Yesterday the Minister of Forests was lamenting the fact that a warm winter has fuelled the infestation of pine beetles and the destruction of B.C.'s forests. The Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection has released a report on climate change saying that global warming contributes to the pine beetle crisis.

The Premier has just returned from meetings with oil industry representatives and is opposing the Kyoto protocol on climate change. To the Premier: as climate change is contributing to a crisis in our forests, can the Premier tell us what brilliant ideas he has to reduce the effects of global warming?

Hon. G. Campbell: I'm interested if I was meeting with industry representatives in my living room. The fact of the matter is I haven't recently been meeting with industry representatives, so I'm not sure what the member opposite is dealing with. There are these mythical meetings that we have.

I have met with ministers of the federal government. I have met with editorial boards. I have met with potential investors in British Columbia. But I can tell you this.

Hon. G. Campbell: What we have said is that we want to be part of the solution with regard to global warming. British Columbia is actually leading the rest of the country as part of the solution to global warming. We intend to continue to do that, because we know that everyone benefits from that.

R. Lee: My question is to the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection. Last year it was discovered that Chevron had polluted the groundwater under its refinery in Burnaby North. In order to deal with this contamination, Chevron has announced plans to collect, treat and discharge the groundwater into Burrard Inlet. Can the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection assure us that this will not have a negative impact on the marine life in Burrard Inlet?

Hon. J. Murray: I understand the concern of the member and the member's constituents…

Hon. J. Murray: …about the Chevron spill. The ministry has carefully considered all of the environmental concerns in reviewing this request of Chevron to release the treated water into Burrard Inlet. The levels will be well within the ministry standards that were set for environment and human health protection. This plan actually allows Chevron to move forward to collect and treat this material.

In addition, there is a study, which the ministry required Chevron to commission, that has to do with the human health risk assessment tied to the MTBE issue, and this is nearing completion. The ministry will review it and take any additional actions that it may suggest.

R. Lee: The quality of groundwater is of great concern to my constituents. Can the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection tell us what steps she has taken to prevent these types of accidents from occurring again in the future?

Hon. J. Murray: This government made a commitment in our New Era document to protect groundwater resources in British Columbia. The action was to appoint a panel to look at drinking water protection, including groundwater protection. I want to assure the member that we are reviewing the panel's report, and we will take the steps to protect groundwater.

Also, in February government amended the contaminated sites legislation to require owners of sites that are contaminated to notify their neighbours if any of the contamination…

Hon. J. Murray: …moves across the boundary of the site. In this way, contamination will be caught early and will be reduced. MTBE is a classic case of a contaminant that moves through the soil and into groundwater.

S. Orr: I rise to table a petition in the House on behalf of the SaveRail coalition. This petition has 5,675 signatures and asks that the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway be saved and revitalized to create a viable, environmentally sound and economically sustainable rail service for Vancouver Island.

The petition asks that this House work together with federal, regional and local governments and stakeholder groups to find a way to encourage the reinvigoration and the renewal of this railway.

Hon. G. Collins: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members we'll be discussing the estimates of the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. In this House I call committee stage on Bill 22.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 22; T. Christensen in the chair.

J. MacPhail: On this particular section, as I understand it, the responsibility for landscape units and objectives is being shifted over to the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management and, as the notes here say, away from the district manager. But there was also a requirement for the then Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks to have input into establishing landscape units and objectives. Does this clause remove any involvement of the now Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection in establishing landscape units and objectives?

Hon. S. Hagen: Before I answer the question, I'd like to introduce Mr. Warren Mitchell, who's a staff member in our ministry. He's the director of regional planning. We may be joined by Jim Mattison, who's the director of water management.

Water, Land and Air Protection will still be giving input to the decisions we make, but the responsibility is shifted to this ministry.

J. MacPhail: They'll be given responsibility. Are there any changes in what input the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection has?

Hon. S. Hagen: With regard to landscape unit objectives, some of the staff from the old Ministry of Environment is now in my ministry, but we don't do this in isolation. We do it with input from Water, Land and Air Protection.

J. MacPhail: Well, that answers my question, but it's not legislated input. There used to be legislated input where the then Minister of Environment, now the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection, had a legal right to that input. Now that's been removed by this legislation, which is a step backward.

Why is the minister now authorizing these plans, as opposed to the chief forester?

Hon. S. Hagen: The chief forester never had that responsibility. That responsibility used to be the district manager of forests. It's now under the minister because of the numerous impacts, including impacts on the social structure, economics, environmental issues and community issues.

J. MacPhail: Then why does the explanatory note of the bill say it authorizes the minister rather than the chief forester to make directions? That's just what the explanatory note of the bill says.

Hon. S. Hagen: I'll get you that in writing. There's a discussion as to whether this is correct or whether an error has been made in the information that was given to me. I would like to clarify that, and I'll get it to you in writing.

J. MacPhail: As I understand it, previously the board was, first of all, unpaid. They were volunteers. Secondly, the chair was chosen from amongst the board. Why has the minister decided to interfere with what was a workable process?

Hon. S. Hagen: The first thing I did was decide not to have a politician chair the board, because I didn't think that was appropriate. The politician who was chair of the board — well known, I'm sure, to the member opposite — in fact was getting paid, because he was getting paid a salary as an MLA. He was getting paid while he was doing that job. The reason to pay the new board chair, who is not a politician — he's a private citizen who is taking a lot of time, a lot of time, out of his private life to carry out the duties as the chair of the Muskwa-Kechika Advisory Board — is because it takes so much time. That's why we've decided to remunerate him.

J. MacPhail: I'm sorry. Who is the person the minister is talking about? Who is the chair?

J. MacPhail: I assume Mr. Peck has a job as well. It's kind of a silly comparison to say that…. I fully accept that the minister may not want to appoint a politician, but it's ridiculous to say that, oh, the politician was earning money. He, too, was doing it as a volunteer, outside of his full-time job as an MLA. I assume Mr. Peck has a full-time job.

All I'm saying is that there's a very disturbing trend with this government to take what used to be volunteer positions, appoint their business friends and then pay them money. What will the remuneration be for other board appointees?

Hon. S. Hagen: The only member of the board being remunerated is the chair of the board. By the way, I didn't clarify that he came from the board.

J. MacPhail: Can the minister explain why he chose to reduce the trust fund top-up from $3 million to $1 million?

Hon. S. Hagen: The reason we reduced the fund is the same reason that we have had to reduce a lot of budgets, except Health and Education, and that is because of the fiscal situation we inherited from the previous government. I would have loved to have kept the budget where it was, but I think we've come up with a very good answer, and that is to guarantee the funding of a million dollars and then increase the matching amount from $400,000 to a million. They've already made great headway in raising that money, and that'll kick the fund back up to $3 million.

J. MacPhail: It's just simply ridiculous for this minister to stand up and say it's the situation they inherited, because the Muskwa-Kechika Advisory Board inherited a trust fund that was topped up to $3 million every year and received worldwide recognition for that. I predict that with the changes this government, and this minister particularly, is making in terms of sustainable land protection, revenues into this province will actually be reduced with campaigns that will be mounted against this government for their regression on sustainable land use protection. This is but one example of that.

The minister seems quite confident that the fundraising will go just fine. Who is contributing?

Hon. S. Hagen: In the first year of our administration, in the matching fund part of this, we raised $548,000.

Hon. S. Hagen: I was hoping that the member was going to ask me how that compared to previous years.

Hon. S. Hagen: Seeing as the question has been asked, in fiscal year '98-99 there was $110,000 raised. In '99-2000 there was $117,000 raised. In 2000-01 there was $77,000 raised. In the first year that we were government — $548,000.

I might say that in the first few weeks of this fiscal year they have raised something around $300,000. There is no doubt in my mind that they're going to raise that million dollars in this fiscal year.

The question of who the moneys came from was asked. This is public information. I'm pleased to list it out. I'd be pleased to give you a copy of this. Abitibi Consolidated….

Hon. S. Hagen: I would ask people not to interrupt, so that she can hear the numbers.

The Northern B.C. Guides Association — $35,000; Macilhaney Land Surveys — $200; Western Geco — $500; an environmental group, the Round River Conservation Studies — $5,000; Imperial Oil Resources — $500; the North Peace economic development commission — $725; Home Hardware — $500; Anadarko — $2,000; the Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Society, another environmental group — $1,000; Murphy Oil Co. Ltd. — $500; Slocan Western Geco — $2,000; Anderson Consulting — $1,000; Gibson Petroleum Co. Ltd. — $250; the Oil and Gas Commission — $340,000; Northeastern B.C. Wildlife Fund — $7,500; the North Peace Rod and Gun Club — $15,000; the Henry P. Kendall Foundation — $51,480; district of Mackenzie — $625; city of Fort St. John — $4,000; Shell Canada — $1,000; Canadian Forest Products — $625; Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers — $3,000; Ross Peck Outfitters — $250; E.B.A. Wabeski Darrell Consulting — $1,500; another donation from the Northern B.C. Guides Association — I think these are like guiders, not guides — $250; Interra Planning Services — $150; Northgate Land and Associates — $150; Peace River regional district — $2,500; Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers — $5,000; Northern B.C. Guides Association — $250; the Northern B.C. Wildlife Fund — $20,000.

J. MacPhail: What's the oil and gas commission that donated $340,000 to this?

Hon. S. Hagen: That's the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission. They donated that from their environmental fund.

Hon. S. Hagen: Yes. It's the same commission that the previous government set up.

J. MacPhail: It's the first time they've made a donation of this amount to this, I expect. The minister was claiming great victory on the great fundraising, and well over the vast, vast majority of it has come from the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission.

What's happened here, as I see it, is that whereas this Muskwa-Kechika trust fund was set up so that

there's a balance between the environmental protection of the land base and allowing sustainable development through a trust fund that doesn't have strings tied to it, it's now funded much more greatly by the very people who were to be kept in check, the oil and gas industry.

Hon. S. Hagen: Could you ask the question over again? I didn't realize there was a question.

J. MacPhail: I said that I take it…. Sorry. Does the minister need the voice inflection to go up at the end?

I said that what was supposed to be in balance, having a trust fund that was supposed to be a balance of interests, has now, because the government has reduced the funding to the trust fund by $2 million and has relied on fundraising…. We now have an inexorable shift, do we not? There's the question.

The answer is that what we are striving for in the Muskwa-Kechika, as we are striving for in the rest of the province, is to find that critical balance between the environment and the economy. I believe that this province will turn — and is, in fact, turning — its economy around. We are a resource-based economy. We are turning the economy around, but not at the expense of the environment. That's a principle in my ministry, and it's a principle of this government. It's a commitment we made in our New Era document. It's a commitment we made during the campaign.

I can't stress enough that yes, we are inviting investment back to the province, and we are inviting industry back to the province so that our people can get back to work, but they're not being invited back at the expense of the environment.

J. MacPhail: What is the document the minister is reading from that he said is public, so that I can make sure I get the numbers accurately? Where would I find that, please?

J. MacPhail: Section 12 is where the government is now permitting, for the very first time, short-term diversion or use of water in accordance with the regulations.

Hon. S. Hagen: My understanding is that there is nothing new to this. It was done by the previous government as well. All we're doing is changing the legislation to make it official.

J. MacPhail: I'm sorry. This is new legislation. This legislation, to allow for the short-term diversion of streams for up to 12 months, wasn't there before. I don't know what the minister is talking about. Why is this being legislated?

Hon. S. Hagen: This is to help reduce the paper burden and look after many routine functions that take place every year, year after year. An example would be dust control where companies come and fill up their water trucks, and then spray water on the road for dust control.

J. MacPhail: Why is there legislation required to do this for up to 12 months? What restrictions are there on this diversion so that it won't interfere with habitat or spawning grounds?

Hon. S. Hagen: Regulations will be developed to control volumes, location, in-stream impacts. Sensitive streams will be exempt. There will be no impact on fish habitat or other habitat.

J. MacPhail: Could the minister table the regulations from which…? Have the regulations been published at the same time that this act is introduced? How can we rely on what the minister is saying if we can't see the regulations?

Hon. S. Hagen: This section of the act will not come into force until the regulations are developed.

J. MacPhail: Will the regulations receive consultation before they're put in force?

J. MacPhail: Sorry. Just to confirm the minister's commitment, I note that sections 12, 17, 20 and 21, all of which deal with the issue of diversion of water for 12 months, will come into force by regulation. It's under 24(3) that the minister is making the commitment that they will not come into force until the regulations are established.

Hon. G. Collins: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 22, Sustainable Resource Management Statutes Amendment Act, 2002, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 25; T. Christensen in the chair.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, just to seek clarification, my questions all revolve around changes to the inland ferries that were announced April 1, 2002, by the Ministry of Transportation in an information bulletin. I assume that's all under part 4, if I'm correct. I don't want to miss the opportunity to ask those questions, but I assume that's section 6. If it is, then that's where my questions lie.

The Chair: Under section 6, it adds part 4, of which there's four separate sections, so we can deal with each of those separately. Initially, we'll deal with section 48 under section 6 of the bill.

J. MacPhail: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for being so accommodating and separating this out. Section 49 is the one that I assume gives all the powers that gave rise to the announcement. I'm looking at, just for the minister's edification, the Ministry of Transportation information bulletin dated April 1, 2002, entitled "Update on Changes to Inland Ferries." Is section 49 the authority that allows the minister to make these changes?

Hon. J. Reid: Yes, this section does talk about both the tolling and the schedules.

J. MacPhail: Where is the section that allows the minister to cancel service, or does that not require legislation — the service that's been cancelled to the Marguerite, McLure and Little Fort ferries?

J. MacPhail: Under section 49, what alternatives is the minister preparing for those communities whose service is reduced and who are alleging they will be compromised from a health and safety point of view?

Hon. J. Reid: We have ferries that already operate less than 24 hours a day — for example, the Francois Lake ferry. It has an emergency call-out procedure that's been operational and has worked for that service. The same emergency call-out procedure will be made available to all the other ferries. In addition, by delaying the implementation of the times scheduled by the 45 days, it's given additional time to satisfy the concerns people might have had with regard to that procedure, to make sure that everybody is aware of it.

J. MacPhail: Well, I checked in with the community yesterday. Their concerns haven't been allayed at all. Sorry, I must make it clear what community I'm talking about. It's the community serviced by the Arrow Lakes ferry. I'm wondering whether the minister has actually had a chance to review the commitment she made to the mayor of Nakusp that if they could find evidence that as a result of the Columbia River damming, the community was promised a free ferry until a bridge was built, she would get them a bridge — whether she's revisited her commitment.

Hon. J. Reid: This whole issue is part of a legal action against the province. It's currently before the courts. It's inappropriate for me to comment on the matter.

J. MacPhail: I only have a couple more questions, and then I'll yield the floor.

The commitment around keeping the ferry free and running as a result of the Columbia River flooding is subject to a court case, and no more questions are to be answered around that. Is that what the minister is saying?

J. MacPhail: Yikes. That's unfortunate for the community — very unfortunate. My gosh, the legal actions are building up against this government like we've never seen before.

Hon. J. Reid: I was out to the communities when we first made this announcement. I haven't been out in the communities in the last four weeks.

B. Suffredine: The point raised earlier in the questions is that this legislation refers only to tolling powers. Reduction of service levels doesn't require legislation. If tolls were not implemented, what consequences would that have for service levels?

Hon. J. Reid: I'm sure the member is aware that I am on a fixed budget and certainly understands the difficulties that we're facing with regard to budgets. I have those budget targets to meet. If there was to be no tolling, we would either have to find another source of revenue or else drastically reduce the service levels.

B. Suffredine: To the minister: you've stated publicly that you're flexible and that your focus is to meet your budget targets, but you're willing to work with communities to find acceptable solutions to meet their needs. I know people in my area are concerned. I've received many, many calls today alone from Harrop and Procter. The costs of tolling in Harrop look like they'll add about $500 per year to the average user. In Glade, which isn't in my riding but is just adjoining it, it's much more significant.

I believe there are better ways to generate revenues and spread the costs more evenly among the users. I've been working with local committees to try to find some acceptable ways to do that. If the legislation is passed and tolls are approved, do you remain committed to continuing the discussions and to having that flexibility so that we might be able to avoid tolls if we can find acceptable alternatives that are the best solution for the community?

Hon. J. Reid: I'm very committed to working with the communities and to addressing the concerns and looking for other ways of finding revenue. The people who are covered off in the area, for example, of the Columbia Basin Trust are free to make application to that trust to look for ways of working with them. There are a lot of other suggestions out there. There are a lot of other — as you say, in communities looking for ways of applying this….

Certainly, within each community there's also a different mix of people and a different mix of users. In some communities it might be predominantly freight or industrial, in others it's more of a mix of tourism, and in others it's mainly the residential users. We need to be sensitive to that. We need to work with them to find what's going to work best with their communities.

We have not established any rates for tolling. This legislation gives us that ability. The process, which is already started in the member's communities, will continue. Our objective is that by the end of this year we will have a tolling structure in place. That gives a lot of time to try and look for those solutions, to try to work with the communities and try to individualize the approach to each community's needs.

B. Suffredine: On the topic of the Columbia Basin Trust, I have some concerns. The trust was created by the former government. It created a structure by which it said: "You can't use this money to do what government would otherwise do." That's of concern to me because it seems to me that the Keenleyside expansion project is exactly what government did in the first place in building the Keenleyside Dam, and the suggestion that the trust can't use its money for projects the government would otherwise do is directly contravened by the construction of the Keenleyside expansion.

I don't agree, of course, that the money should be used to fund the operation of ferries. I don't think that's any way of accommodating communities. But I do think the trust terms should be expanded so that projects that government might technically be able to do but is not willing to do could be levered by the use of the trust funds. I wonder if I could count on the minister to participate in discussions with the Ministry of Energy to help broaden the terms of the trust so that things the community does want, like the Needles bridge, could be levered by use of the trust funds if the community was behind that.

Hon. J. Reid: I am committed to working with the member, to working with the communities, to working with the minister mentioned and looking for solutions. I don't know, obviously, right now what those answers might be, but I think we do need to have the dialogue, and I'm certainly willing and committed to having that dialogue.

B. Suffredine: The ongoing need for the ferries on the Arrow Lakes is a direct result of the operation of the Keenleyside Dam. It's my view that Hydro should actually pay this cost as an operating cost of the reservoir. The people of British Columbia are benefiting from the power generation, and in my view it should be spread over the load of the customer base. Are you willing to participate in discussions with the Minister of Energy to see if that cost could be passed along to the customer base of Hydro customers rather than fixed solely on the users in the Arrow Lakes region?

Hon. J. Reid: That whole issue the member mentions, I would say, is part of the legal action that's against the province and currently before the courts, so it is inappropriate for me to comment on this matter.

D. MacKay: I understand the problem you have today, with a fixed budget, to continue to operate all the services the province presently does for the citizens of this large and diverse province. I would like to ask you a question about the tolling of the inland ferries, having to do, more specifically, with the François Lake ferry, which last year — 2001 — carried approximately 600,000 passengers. In the year 2001 the ferry carried approximately 6,453 loaded logging trucks on that short haul across François Lake, which equates to about 290,000 cubic metres of wood. Based on an average cost of $70 a cubic metre, that wood which came across on the ferry is valued at $20.326 million. The

stumpage that went to the province, based on that $70 a cubic metre, realized a revenue of approximately $7.260 million. That's just from the forest sector.

The recent announcements to cut back sailing times from 20 hours to 17 would suggest to me, from the research that I've done, a saving of approximately $825 a day or approximately $300,000 per annum to the ferry by cutting back the three hours of sailing time. I would like to ask the ministry if they would look at the ferry crossings in terms of the large forestry sector issue that needs to be addressed and the large volume of beetle-infested wood that has to come out of the Lakes District and look at a fee structure for logging trucks to offset the budget shortfall that she now faces.

A simple example would be to charge $15 per truck for a round trip across and back on the ferry. This would more than offset the $825 shortfall that she has. If we were to charge the $15 round trip, based on a 20-hour sailing time, the province or the ferry system would realize revenue of approximately $1,200 per day, which would more than offset the cost. I wonder if the ministry would look at that to continue until the privatization of this ferry project is completed, which would allow the ferry to operate for the 20 hours at no cost to the residents. The cost would be borne directly by the movement of that wood coming across the lake.

Hon. J. Reid: It's an interesting idea that the member proposes. I understand the way of trying to address the situation and the shortfall, as he's presented it, and I appreciate that. I would need to talk to the Minister of Forests about the idea from the point of view of any duress this might put on an industry that's already been severely impacted. I'm certainly willing to have those discussions and follow up on that idea.

J. MacPhail: My questions arise from the questions asked by the member for Nelson-Creston. If the member is seeking ways to work with the minister, as I understand it, to find alternatives to shutting down the hours, then my question to the minister is: other than tolls, government funds to the ferry or reductions in hours of service, what other alternatives could there possibly be?

Even if money is taken out of the Columbia Basin Trust, it's government money, so it doesn't help. The minister started off in answer to the member for Nelson-Creston: "You know the difficult financial situation we find ourselves in. There's one bottom line." Putting aside the fact that this would be a violation of the purposes of the Columbia Basin Trust, it's still government money. It doesn't assist the minister and her bottom line one iota to take funds out of the Columbia Basin Trust, because her bottom line is the entire taxpayers' bottom line. What alternatives could there possibly be that she's working on?

Hon. J. Reid: It's absolutely right. There is only one taxpayer in British Columbia.

It's interesting — the member's questions — in that this is a matter of difficult choices. We are in a situation and a time in this province where we do have to make some very difficult choices. The previous government made a choice to double the provincial debt in their time in office, and that has left us now with some very difficult choices to make. One of the choices we made was to maintain and protect funding for health care and education. That means that all the other ministries have to be extremely careful with their expenditures and have to look for savings and efficiencies wherever possible.

It is a difficult situation we're in; it's a very challenging situation we're in. We are looking at ways of trying to help communities out as they grapple with this situation so that they can understand that we are trying to reduce the costs of these ferry services. I think that's a very important part to remember. While we're asking people to participate in part of the operating costs, we're doing everything we can to find ways of reducing the costs of this service.

Other than tolls, we have talked with some regional districts about the regional districts' participation in how they might want to fund ferry service. We have been open to suggestions from the communities, and certainly we will continue to work with the communities and industry groups and look for ways to make sure this service is provided.

It's also important to realize that what we want is a dependable, sustainable service for the future. We have seen another ferry system in this province under the previous government that has been operated in a manner that has not been sustainable, and we have seen the difficulties we've inherited because of that. We have to be very careful about our dollars here. We have to work with the communities. That's what we're doing.

Hon. J. Reid: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 25, Transportation Statutes Amendment Act, 2002, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 24; T. Christensen in the chair.

J. MacPhail: Under section 1. I understand this is the section that removes the awarding of compensation for non-pecuniary loss or damages for the pain and suffering of the victim of a crime.

My question to the minister is this. Previously, people could apply under the Criminal Injury Compensation Act and be awarded, after examination, damages for pain and suffering if they were injured on the job. Now they no longer will be able to. What happens to those people in terms of any claim they now make?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, the amendment that was made to the act in 1995 actually brought workers from the Workers Compensation Act, who had suffered as victims of crime for pain and suffering, into the act. Everybody else was already allowed to claim for pain and suffering prior to that. Those were the comments made by the then, I guess, Attorney General.

What happens now is that pain and suffering basically extinguishes on April 16. Any application in prior to April 16 will be processed as an application for pain and suffering. What we're doing now in the transition to the Crime Victim Assistance Act is putting in the retroactivity in order that people will be able to avail themselves of the other benefits available under the new act. Also, the existing benefits under this act will still be available. During transition, the WCB will still take those applications, and we will deal with the whole application of those benefits.

For the information of the members, the additional benefits will be retroactive to start with. Secondly, the pain and suffering awards are done as of the 16th, and then we will move forward with the additional benefits being retroactive. These include things like compensation to the victim's family for loss of love, guidance or affection. Instead of going through a tribunal process, however, we would be able to process them quicker, because we're not going to make it a hearing-type format on a tribunal to determine what the pain and suffering levels are but actually get to where we can get these resources to the victims.

Those include counselling for the witnesses, protective measures and physical rehabilitation. They also include medical and dental issues, as well as income support for the victim or victim's family relating to loss or reduction of income or inability to provide services previously provided by that family member.

The whole intent of this was to (1) get ourselves away from the very expensive administrative costs that we felt should be going to victims and (2) be able to move forward with having services and support for victims of crime available as quickly as possible to take care of those issues today, rather than having them go through a process sometimes for 18 to 24 months to receive a small amount. The average award was about $3,000. We felt that we should have that financial support and those types of supports there for them right when they become victims.

Bill 24, Criminal Injury Compensation Amendment Act, 2002, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 18; T. Christensen in the chair.

Hon. C. Hansen: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 18, Health Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2002, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 19; T. Christensen in the chair.

J. MacPhail: Could the minister explain to me…? I'll ask my two or three questions on this section. They're a continuation of the same theme.

As I understand it, sections 2 through 8 change it so that it removes the Emergency Medical Assistants Licensing Board and puts under the Health Professions Council a new college, as I understand it, to deal with emergency medical assistants.

What are the implications for who is now eligible to be an emergency medical assistant or to be trained as an emergency medical assistant?

Hon. S. Hawkins: It's the same people that were eligible before. That would be 7,000 first responders and 3,300 paramedics.

J. MacPhail: I am aware of a controversy that exists between some first responders who are employed as firefighters and those who are employed as paramedics with the B.C. Ambulance Service. Does this change in any way exacerbate or alleviate that controversy?

J. MacPhail: I confess I have not had a chance to read the 1,400-page report from the Health Professions Council. Can the minister explain, in sections 9 through 13, how health professions will be certified, monitored, administered, disciplined?

Hon. S. Hawkins: The Health Professions Council only deals with looking at the granting of new professions. What the member is talking about — the licensing, the discipline, the investigation — is all done through the self-regulating colleges after they've been designated a profession and the authority has been delegated by the government to those professions.

The Health Professions Council has done a lot of work over the last six to eight years, I believe, and we have made the decision to wind it up, so it will be wound up December 31. After that, there will be a ministry designate who will take the applications of groups that want to be designated, and review them.

J. MacPhail: On section 21, what are the savings that the government is realizing from firing the Seniors Advisory Council?

Hon. K. Whittred: I am meeting on a regular basis with seniors groups. I am hoping, over the next several

months, to put a more formal process in place so that there is ongoing consultation.

J. MacPhail: The Seniors Advisory Council was a group of people that was regionally chosen. How does the minister plan to replicate the regional input that seniors advise is so much needed, now that she's fired the council?

Hon. K. Whittred: Seniors groups exist all over the province. They exist in a whole variety of ways. There are seniors groups that deal with housing, there are seniors groups that deal with transportation, and some groups deal with health, and so on. I look for input from all of these groups.

There are seniors organizations, such as the Seniors Summit, that have organized themselves. They work on a regional basis and are representative, I think, of seniors across the province.

In addition, the health authorities, of course, are organized on a regional basis. As the plans of the health authorities are implemented over the next several months, we will find that there is room for advisory councils of seniors in various capacities at the health service delivery area, I believe, and I await those programs.

J. MacPhail: The unique strength of the Seniors Advisory Council — that, by the way, started in the 1980s and proved to be very effective in advising successive governments of different political stripes — was that it was one-stop shopping for advice to a government. Those seniors, who were regionally and multiculturally based, took input from all of the other seniors organizations, whether it be on transit, health, recreation, housing, legal matters or guardianship. Now that's gone. Now there will be an approach to ensure that the seniors of the province are protected with ad hockery. That's what this minister is proposing — an ad hoc approach to the well-being of seniors. For a $100,000 savings, I think the province will be in a much poorer position to do well by our seniors.

Hon. S. Hawkins: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 19, Health Planning Statutes Amendment Act, 2002, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Collins: I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

Hon. G. Hogg: I might add, if I may, that there were seven questions put in estimates discussions and

debates yesterday, and we have the answers for those. Some of them were questions which required more information. I have those in writing, and they're available for the opposition at their request.

I'm going to be asking a series of questions on adult community living. The first question is around handyDART. HandyDART is funded by B.C. Transit, but they are services for adults with special needs. Recently Linette Baker of the Victoria Association for Community Living said that the reduction in services for handyDART will have a significant impact and limit lives that have a number of barriers around accessibility.

There are about 450 people with disabilities in the Victoria area, and handyDART has introduced a cap on the number of rides a day at 950 and has limited advanced bookings from one month to two weeks. Has the minister had any input into these cuts?

J. MacPhail: Well, I would urge the minister to look into this, please. The services for handyDART serve exactly, right over top, the same clients that the minister serves. I would ask the minister to investigate with handyDART and to work with handyDART to figure out a way to not limit the mobility of people with special needs.

Hon. G. Hogg: Yes, we are aware of the Provincial Monitoring Group. It did have a contract with the ministry. As a result of the review we're going through, in terms of the service delivery models and the tests we're applying to those, we've made a decision that that contract will not be continued. We're looking at other methods of providing regional responses to the types of services that they were providing.

J. MacPhail: Yes, the Provincial Monitoring Group is a unique organization. It's not a group of stakeholders or a group of service providers. It actually monitors to ensure that people with developmental disabilities have the same rights as other people to live, work and spend their free time in the community. They're really a group that monitors to ensure equality for people with developmental disabilities.

How much was the Provincial Monitoring Group receiving? What was the cut? Who will replace this service?

Hon. G. Hogg: The amount of the contract was $1.379 million. We are in the process of transitioning. We've given them 90 days to look at alternatives and transitions with that. In terms of replacing the types of services that have been provided, we're moving towards accreditation models and peer review standards.

I should also point out that one of the tests in the principles that was applied as we have been working our way through the ministry's 15,000 contracts is looking at whether or not they actually provide direct services or a coordinating service. In this matter we've tried to refocus our dollars around direct services and are looking at models such as I've outlined to look at and provide the monitoring and ensuring the credence and credibility of the programs provided.

J. MacPhail: The important aspect of this group — and they were very successful — is that they actually did monitor on behalf of people with developmental disabilities to ensure that the services were there. The monitoring function is gone.

I want to talk a little bit about how the Ministry of Children and Family Development is funding families with disabled members. Has the minister appointed a committee, a review group, to determine funding options for families with people with disabilities?

Hon. G. Hogg: I'm just in the process of appointing a transformation committee that is looking at moving to new governance models, which will be looking at all of the indices that the member has made reference to.

I have been meeting with a number of service providers and the B.C. Association for Community Living, which represents some 75 non-profit service providers, and a number of parents and clients and self-advocates. This group has been meeting for probably four or five months, and I have been meeting with them. I'm pleased to say that just yesterday I was able to come to agreement on a set of terms of reference for a committee that they're putting together to look at the transformation, to provide new ways of looking at not just funding but the whole delivery system.

I'm quite excited about the opportunity for this province, I believe, to take the next step. I think we should be proud of the fact that we've led in the deinstitutionalization of community living for the developmentally disabled. I think the next step is to give more authority, more autonomy and more funding options and responsibility to both clients and parents.

We've been able to come to an agreement in terms of how that process will work with the coalition of the community living service providers, the BCACL, a number of parents and clients and a number of the for-profit service providers. We have about 24 people across the province who are all interested in supporting this initiative and this direction, and I'm quite excited about the opportunities which this presents to that community to actually take greater authority for and responsibility over the services that are provided and the methods by which they are provided.

J. MacPhail: Well, there's no question that the minister talks about improving family and community capacity to exercise responsibility, but the families

themselves have made it quite clear that there's no sense in giving families that responsibility if all the ministry is doing is downloading it onto the families without giving resources.

I note in the service plan that the average amount of money it costs the ministry for one adult with developmental disabilities is about $64,000 each year. The ministry is planning to increase that funding per adult up to about $67,000 this year. Then, curiously, the next year it plummets to $59,000 per person and then drops further to $51,000 for year '04-05. How does it work that at the same time that families get greater responsibility, there'll be less money available?

Hon. G. Hogg: Firstly, with respect to downloading and talking about the changes that are taking place there, I should point out to the member that in the first meetings I had with the coalition and the BCACL, the people who were talking about and excited about this unprecedented coalition, this unprecedented agreement in terms of what's in the best interests of this community, they said they felt that by giving them some more options, they could actually provide an equal number of services and an equal quality of services for about 20 percent less than we're currently budgeting. They, of course, want to be able to use those moneys to deal with some of the wait-lists we have to face.

In looking at and developing this year's budget and the projections we have for three years down the road in the service plan, we're projecting a 17 percent reduction in this area. That is actually 3 percent, or about $45 million, more than they felt they'd be able to deal with.

I'm assuming the numbers the member has referred to, in changing the $64,000 to $67,000 and the other changes, is a product of dividing the area by the number of developmentally disabled that we're providing services to. Actually, that mathematical formulation doesn't work. We're moving towards individualized funding models where we'll actually be able to provide support for those developmentally disabled, perhaps in the context of their family.

We had an example last week of an individual who arrived at one of our member's offices with her sister and said: "I just can't afford to continue to keep my developmentally disabled sister with me. It's too costly. For about $400 or $500 more a month in individualized funding, I'd be able to do that." Instead, in the past the practice of the state has been, "You exist for as long as you can, and when you can't function any further, the state will take over" — averaging somewhere around $64,000 a year to do that.

We believe there is a range that can be provided, and that is that we're able to provide funding at that range, where we're providing support for families that want to stay together, and then we're going to see the average drop. That doesn't mean that those people who are in the full care of the state will not be receiving more or less. It just means that that function number will probably be the same, but the average will drop as we're able to look at provision of services in different methods and at different levels.

J. MacPhail: The minister is saying that he met with the groups, and everybody is happy with the 17 percent cuts.

Hon. G. Hogg: No, I'm certainly not saying that. I'm saying that what the group said was that they could provide the same level of services that are being provided today for 20 percent less. They believe that those moneys, the 20 percent savings, should all be put into the ability to reduce the wait-list, which we inherited and which has been around for a long, long time.

I've made the decision, with respect to that, that we contribute about $45 million to addressing that wait-list. Clearly, we won't have enough money to deal with all of the issues there, but we will be able to provide the same level of services that we've had. We'll be able to provide them more effectively and better because we're going to give clients, parents and the community more authority and responsibility over that decision-making process and because we're going to move to individualized funding models that allow them to actually develop wraparound services rather than having to force them into different programs and services which the ministry funds in a block fashion.

J. MacPhail: Well, the minister seems to think that everything's rosy, so I certainly wish him well. I hear of concerns out in the community, but all I can rely on is the minister reiterating or recounting, I hope in an accurate way, that the community seems to be fine with this. We certainly hear rumblings that are much different. Of course, for the minister to somehow suggest that cuts of 17 percent will be entirely made up somehow with families being able to find efficiencies in an experimental model…. It will require close monitoring.

That was why my question about…. The cuts in funding to the Provincial Monitoring Group seem to be so ill-advised at a time when the minister's moving into a new model that…. Really, with cuts imposed, it would seem more than ever that there would need to be a time for the most vulnerable to have their own provincial monitoring group.

The minister mentioned that they'll be going to a new governance model. Yes, this is a governance model. As I understand it, it's exactly the one that the Minister of Health Services threw out — the regional model for service delivery. In fact, I've met with groups who said: "Oh my God, we were just told that we won't have any input into health authorities anymore, and now we're being asked to replicate what we used to have under the Children and Family Development ministry." That's a curious aspect of this government: the one hand doesn't know what the other hand is doing. What is the process for implementing a new governance and service delivery structure?

Hon. G. Hogg: I don't want to pretend that every one of the developmentally disabled or every one of some 75 non-profit service providers within the province is ecstatic or delighted or happy, but the proposal

we're dealing with is a proposal that came from them. It's not a proposal that was dreamt up or thought out somewhere outside of that.

As a government we share a vision with the community living sector as represented by their umbrella agency, the B.C. Association for Community Living, as represented by a coalition of for-profit providers that are a part of that. We share that vision. We're moving to a model that will actually see the monitors put into positions of being able to monitor parents and clients who are actually going to be a part of the government's structure that will be in place. I am delighted and to some degree excited.

I was just sharing with the Minister of Finance that I was able to finalize some terms of reference with respect to the process and the appointment of the committee of some 24 clients and service providers and parents yesterday. This morning about 120 service providers and parents from all over the province met, as they have been, to look at the strategies they want to move with. They were read the terms of reference which I provided, and I was told that they actually provided the terms of reference and the opportunity which they were given.… They greeted that with a standing ovation. There is, certainly within the context of this sector, some optimism and some excitement around the vision and around the process that will give them more authority and more responsibility as we move forward.

The process is that there is a transformation committee of some 24 members. Their first meeting, I believe, will be in two weeks' time. They'll be looking at the vision, which we can talk about, but it is well articulated and laid out on our website. They'll be talking about the vision and an operational model that will allow that vision to come into being. More than half the representatives are parents or self-advocates from the community living sector, so they'll be well represented within that. We hope to have that process completed by the end of June. They'll come back with their recommendations in terms of the process and the model they see as being best able to effect the vision we've laid out.

I will be meeting with them sometime within the next…. Hopefully, I will be able to attend their first meeting, in fact, and talk to them about the issues and the initiatives and again be able to thank them, because the community has really stepped forward and said that this is the way we should be going. This is in the best interests of making sure that we're able to have the developmentally disabled move into the mainstream part and existence of our society. I hope that we're able to go there and to give them that responsibility, authority and ability.

J. MacPhail: Well, it sounds great. I wish the minister well. It's sounds like the community groups are completely on board. A standing ovation — that's wonderful. Where would the terms of reference be found — on your website?

J. MacPhail: No, he said the vision is found on the website, but thank you for your help.

Hon. G. Hogg: The first issues around the transformation and the layout of the process are on the website. The terms of reference as now approved by that group, which were just approved this morning, will be loaded hopefully… Certainly by tomorrow those will be on the website as well. The other issues that we've been talking about with them are on the website of BCACL and certainly will be on our website as well.

Again, the Leader of the Opposition had commented that it sounds good, and I think it does sound good. It sounds good because the community has really come together and has been willing to take some responsibility and put forward…. They've put an enormous amount of energy and effort into developing this model which they believe, and I believe with them, is in the best interests of the developmentally disabled. I hope very much that we're able to see it through to a conclusion that will allow them to have the type of freedom that we want them to have.

J. MacPhail: Those people that were running ads against the government around services for the developmentally disabled are now on board?

Hon. G. Hogg: That was the Developmental Disabilities Association out of Richmond. They had some particular concerns in the early going with respect to some belief that there was going to be some form of institutionalization taking place. I have met with them a number of times. You'll notice that the ads have stopped. They are actually being represented on our transformation committee. They have agreed to sit on that committee and to be a part of developing this new vision for the province. So, yes, they are a part of it.

J. MacPhail: The ministry has already announced that there's going to be 11 community care regions. Apparently, they've also been told that they need to balance their budgets. Is that accurate?

Hon. G. Hogg: I know that's not accurate. In fact, we are moving to five regions which are consistent with the regions that exist for the Ministry of Health. The Leader of the Opposition may well be referring to the 11 regions which were in existence prior to us making the shift to the five regions and may well be referring to some initiatives that may have existed within the context of some of those regions to deal with the budget overruns.

When we formed government, this ministry was between about $55 million and $60 million projected over budget. We asked that they come in on budget, and they have done that. Any of the issues which the Leader of the Opposition may be referring to may well have come out of that. We have now moved to five

J. MacPhail: The 11 community care regions came from what the ministry itself announced in the last few months. Has the ministry now moved to five regions — is that it?

Hon. G. Hogg: Yes, we have moved to five regions. I don't remember any announcement about 11 regions. It may well have been just consistent with the 11 regions which we inherited when we formed government and looked at and made the decision to move to five regions. I'm not aware of any announcements. That may well have been something that was old news.

J. MacPhail: The Victoria Association for Community Living raised a concern around the need for the capital region — I guess it's now the whole Vancouver Island region — to balance its budget. They articulated the concern that community associations all over the province were coming under increased pressure to provide more services, reduce staff wages or lay off staff. For instance, I'm sure the minister is aware that the Victoria Association for Community Living was contemplating laying off staff and reducing programs. Staff were being asked to contemplate wage cuts of up to 24 percent. Is that old news too? Has that problem been resolved?

Hon. G. Hogg: The Leader of the Opposition references situations that were in existence within last year's budget in an effort to bring them in on budget. The ministry is still working with the Victoria Association for Community Living. I met with about 150 representatives of that association about two weeks ago and went through a number of the issues and concerns. Clearly, there is concern amongst that group around some of those issues.

We have said to each of the regions: "You have a responsibility to handle the budget which you were given responsibly and come in on budget." In fact, the budget they have been working with within that framework was the budget which was given to them and approved last year by the former government. We've asked them to come in consistent with that model. I understand they're very close to having done that, and they're actually doing some continuing work into this year to ensure that they're not dealing with a structural deficit.

J. MacPhail: I'm not going to spend much time challenging the minister. He's very smooth and very glib. Somehow he's trying to say that things are no worse than they were before. That's the message I get.

I hope that's true. It will be unbelievable if, indeed, they are no worse than before with these massive cuts to his budget. Clearly, he's brimming to the fullest with confidence that things are fine. Somehow he tries to say, as I've pointed out to other ministers who have been in this chamber with me before: "Oh, don't worry. We're just doing exactly the same thing as what was done in the past." Now, that's convenient on a day like this. Earlier in the day it was like everything in the past was hell.

This minister is just repeating this message from this government. I'm not going to challenge him at all. It will be up to him to prove that all he's doing is carrying on with what happened before and that the associations just have to buck up or that the families have figured out that a 17 percent cut really isn't bad.

Things are very different. It would be folly for this minister, on two counts, to not admit that things were different. If it fails, it'll come back to haunt him. If it's successful, he won't be able to claim credit.

Hon. G. Hogg: If the Leader of the Opposition is picking up that I'm glib, then we'd better go back into another study of body language, listening to intonations and being able to pick up a little more effectively.

I'm anything but glib. I'm darned excited and pleased because the community has been given the authority to make some decisions and has actually done that. The community of parents and developmentally disabled has said: "We want to have more authority. We want to have more responsibility. We want to make some decisions."

I'm excited because they've said that and they're willing to do that. I'm excited because we've been able to facilitate that, despite them trying to do that for a number of years and never getting to the point they're at today. I think we should be darned pleased and darned excited about that, and I am.

Things are very different. I'm pleased that things are very different. The community is pleased that things are very different because they're going to have an opportunity to take more responsibility for their services and the things that they have.

I'm not glib; I'm excited. Things are different. The Leader of the Opposition made reference to the funding. The funding model that we have in existence today is virtually the same one that existed last year in terms of the envelope of funding. The way that we're being able to administer that is much more consistent with the way that the BCACL with the service providers and the clients want. We're being able to administer and change that in fashions that focus services on the direct service delivery, where we think it should be.

I'm not glib; I am excited. Things are very different. They're going to continue to be different because the community is driving that. The community wants that. They see the vision and the opportunity. We want to facilitate that. We don't want to get in the way.

J. MacPhail: The minister misses my point. The organizations with whom he is working are the exact same organizations that have existed delivering services in a dedicated and time-honoured fashion over the last years. If somehow those associations for community living have remade themselves, good.

It's not as if those associations weren't remaking themselves, developing new programs and working closely at a community level before.

That's all I'm saying to the minister. Either something — and he can certainly articulate that — was seriously amiss in the past, and that would be working with those same organizations, or else the mandate given the organizations has been such that they're forced to make change. That's all I'm saying.

Perhaps the minister could articulate, given that these are the same organizations delivering the services, what creates the new excitement that wasn't there before.

Hon. G. Hogg: Well, I have spoken with past ministers in this ministry, and I know that there have been efforts made in the past government to try and build the coalition, and it never quite made it to the level that it's at today. That's one of the reasons I'm excited about what has taken place.

Hon. G. Hogg: The Leader of the Opposition said: "Because it's facing cuts." In fact, this came forward prior to knowledge with respect to budgets. This is something that has been worked at. I give full credit to the parents and the service providers and the clients in the work that they've done in the past to do that. I'm not denying that they believe that the full level of funding should be there through the full course of the three-year service plan.

The reality is that we're going to have to deal with a 17 percent cut. They're not happy about that. I'm not saying that they are happy. What they are happy with is the change in a service delivery model that says to them: "We're giving you some responsibility, and you're going to have the ability to make some more decisions around how that service is provided."

As an example, one of the models that parents are looking at and have met with and have arranged for me to meet with was a fellow from the Western Australia's Disabilities Commission, Eddie Bartnick. I had a chance to meet with him and talk about the initiatives that have taken place in western Australia. Many of the parents are excited about that model and about what it has to offer.

When I first met with them, the parents said that the meeting was unprecedented in the history of British Columbia, inasmuch as the developmentally disabled community had come together to focus on a direction and to focus on an idea. Of the 25 representatives we have on the transformation committee, 14 of them are families or self-advocates. We really are saying to the community: "Here are some parameters; here are some ideas. Let's see if we can reinvent this system so that we can take the next iteration, the next step."

As I said earlier, British Columbians should be very proud of the fact that we have deinstitutionalized; that we've closed down places like Woodlands, Glendale and Tranquille; and that we've moved the developmentally disabled into the communities. And we should now have the chance to take the next iteration, the next step in the growth of that. That's really what we're trying to do. We're doing that because the community is taking some initiative, because we've been able to facilitate them to do that and because they want to. Not only is it economical, but morally it's the right thing to do. Morally, it's the right thing to do to take that step to ensure that the developmentally disabled are in the community and have the opportunity to be full participants in our communities.

That's the step we're trying to take. That's what we're trying to facilitate, and that's what the parents and self-advocates and service providers want. That's the direction we're going. That's what the transformation committee is working on; that's what the parents are working on.

J. MacPhail: How will the minister be making sure that the provincial standardized eligibility and assessment process for adults with developmental disabilities is a fair one?

Hon. G. Hogg: The role of the state throughout all of this is to fund the programming, to ensure that standards are in place and are followed, and to use accountability to ensure that it happens.

I don't want to preclude or predetermine what the outcome of the process that parents are involved in will be, but if we go to the model that exists, like the Western Australia disabilities model, then we're going to a model where parents and service recipients are actually there monitoring and advocating for the quality of services that exist. Combined with accreditation models, I don't think there can be a better model in terms of quality of service than having provincial standards set, holding people accountable and actually having the recipients of service and their parents there to monitor and ensure that the quality of service that they receive is the quality which they're entitled to. I think that's an awfully good system for ensuring that there is quality of service out there.

J. MacPhail: In answer to my question about what kind of eligibility and assessment process is in place to make it fair, it's the western Australia model? Is that the answer?

Hon. G. Hogg: No, it's not. I said I didn't want to preclude the outcome of the process that parents and service providers and clients are involved in. But certainly that's one of the models that they're looking at. Ultimately, they're going to be making some decisions about that.

There are internationally accepted standards for the definition of the developmentally disabled that are sometimes an impediment, but those broadly accepted international standards are probably ones which will continue to be accepted in terms of the standards that

The parents and the clients may well, within the purview of the direction that they have and the terms of reference they have, adjust some of those in some fashion as well. I don't know the final outcome of that, because we're giving parents and clients some ability to make some decisions and to recommend on that.

J. MacPhail: I hope we're talking about the same thing. I assume the minister is putting in place a provincial standardized eligibility and assessment process to determine support for an adult with a developmental disability. That's what I'm talking about. Is that what the minister is talking about, too, in what he just said to me?

Hon. G. Hogg: Perhaps I'm not directly and correctly understanding what the Leader of the Opposition is saying.

The international definition of developmentally disabled is a standard which is out there and which is used in this province and used internationally. That is still there. Within the service plan there is some discussion of the processes we're going through to deal with governance models which may, in fact, give parents the ability to adjust that in some fashion.

Hon. G. Hogg: How depressing. Not that I need anything to eat, not that there's anything required, but I did see you chewing and thought perhaps you were not chewing on your tongue but probably had food to share. If you don't have anything to share, I'll move on hungry.

The international definition is in effect and in place in this province. There may be some modifications to that as the parents become involved in it. I'm not sure whether I'm actually answering the question the Leader of the Opposition has put. Perhaps we could redefine the question so that even I can understand it.

J. MacPhail: I'm just quoting what the ministry has said — that they will be introducing a provincial standardized eligibility and assessment process for adults with developmental disabilities. I assume that's a process whereby people go forward and say: "Here are my needs. What am I eligible for?"

My next question was going to be: will that eligibility process involve means testing?

Hon. G. Hogg: I think I understand the question. The process we are following as a ministry is to look at the standardized eligibility and assessment process, and the process we're following to do that is reviewing research and existing practices around assessment tools; determining a rate structure around assessment that is based on budget and categorized by service level; exploring issues such as income testing; drafting assessment processes, policies, procedures, practice and guidelines; and after piloting, evaluating and finalizing, introducing standardized assessment and rate structures to implement it provincially. All of those issues are issues which will be managed, directed and controlled by the transformation committee we've put in place as of yesterday. I expect, again, that we're going to have the recommendations with respect to the outcomes of those coming from the parents and the self-advocates and the service providers who sit on that committee.

J. MacPhail: It's my understanding now that there is no income testing, so if income testing is being explored, it will be a new concept.

Hon. G. Hogg: I'm not sure who I should be thanking for the envelope, but obviously somebody is caring, and I'm willing to share that which has been provided to me.

The Leader of the Opposition is correct. There is not now income testing in existence, and as we go through this process, it is something the committee will be looking at and examining and determining the impact of. Clearly, no decisions have been made with respect to that. Clearly, that is something which is in the purview of the transformation committee to review.

J. MacPhail: Just for the minister's information, I have learned my lesson about placing things on members' desks.

Children and adults who require specialized equipment for their homes and workplaces are growing. What's the ministry doing to assist people in securing equipment? What's the policy now? How much funding is being provided in this budget for the purpose of purchasing specialized equipment?

Hon. G. Hogg: Could I ask the member to clarify whether that is for children or adults? Apparently we have two different programs that exist, depending upon which….

Hon. G. Hogg: With respect to special needs children in the medical benefits program and equipment, it supports some 2,600 children who are either in care or eligible for the At Home program and the medical benefits program that comes out of that.

I was honoured to be at the opening of a recycling program that the ministry sponsored with the Canadian Red Cross Society, which actually recycles much of the equipment that is used and needed in these…. We were able to name that after a member of the ministry who met an untimely death, Jane Bayliff, who had

The program will be maintained at the current funding level, a level it has been at for some time. If the member wishes more of a breakdown of the types of service provided in that, I'd be happy to provide some of that.

With respect to the adults portion of that, those under B.C. Benefits fall under the Ministry of Human Resources. The medical equipment portions of that fall under the Ministry of Health Services.

Hon. G. Hogg: That's correct with respect to the special needs portion of the medical benefits program in the Ministry of Children and Family Development. It is maintained.

J. MacPhail: The group Aim High, in Prince George, was fairly active in their community to protect their services. Is Aim High one of the organizations that is working so well with the minister now and is fully in the loop?

Hon. G. Hogg: Aim High is a member of the B.C. Association for Community Living. There are some 75 service providers within that. BCACL has been representing…. All of their member agencies have been a part of that representation.

J. MacPhail: I still have a couple of questions on the early childhood development initiative that arose yesterday, and that will complete the opposition's discussion with the minister. I want to go through this because I am pursuing this vigorously myself. I'd be happy, if the minister can answer my questions, to leave it alone.

We've already explored the fact that the early childhood development initiative is a provincial-territorial-federal government program. In '01-02 the federal government transferred $39.6 million to B.C. So far the Minister of State for Early Childhood Development has accounted for $20.8 million of that and then suggests that the rest of the money has been administered by other ministries, specifically in areas relating to early childhood development, but we can't find out the details of that.

There's about $19 million — almost half of it — unaccounted for. These are federal dollars. It's not even provincial money that we're talking about here. Then this program expands over the next five years, so there'll be $291 million from the federal government. The provincial government will be investing $249 million, so that's a total of $540 million, but no one, even in looking at the three-year service plan, can figure out where this money is going. Organizations who know this is targeted money from the federal government are desperate to find out where this money has gone. This government is not allowed to spend the money on anything other than early childhood development because it's not their money to spend. It's federal money.

That's the background of my questions. Here is my question: how are the Ministry of Health Services, the Ministry of Human Resources and the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services spending these federal early childhood development moneys? If I could just clarify, Mr. Chair. These questions were directed to us to be answered by the Minister of Children and Family Development by other ministers.

Hon. G. Hogg: I'm able to provide the Leader of the Opposition with the breakdown of those expenditures within the Ministry of Children and Family Development. I know she's requesting those as part of the agreement. There is currently being developed a letter of reporting-out to the federal government with respect to those expenditures. I saw a draft of that letter this morning. I expect it will be finalized and going to the federal government probably within a week. We will commit to posting that on the website when that goes out within about a week's time. There were still some discussions to be held with the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services, as well as with the Ministry of Education, to make sure that those numbers and figures are accurate. I'd be happy to ensure that the Leader of the Opposition receives a copy of that when it is completed and ready to go.

I don't know if the member is interested in hearing about the initiatives that have taken place within our ministry, but I think, as I understand the question, it is a more global question in terms of the accounting of the dollars that have come from the federal government, the accounting of the dollars which the provincial government has put into it and a breakdown of those. Part of the accountability process requires that we report that out to the federal government. We'll be doing that within the next week, and I'm happy to provide the Leader of the Opposition with a copy of that.

J. MacPhail: So that's to answer the question? That will be a full accounting of the $39.6 million that was given to the province from the federal government in '01-02?

Hon. G. Hogg: The baseline figures with respect to the federal funding models are from the year 2000-01. That's what the federal government is now asking us to put in place to ensure the monitoring is there and to show the projections that come off that.

We're now putting together the final figures for '01-02. I have to report those out as well. I'm advised that those numbers have to wait for the public accounts to report out. Those numbers will be provided both provincially and to the federal government as part of the reporting-out process by the end of June. We'll have those figures in place by the end of June.

The reporting that we will be providing to the federal government within the next week to ten days will show the baselines upon which the $291.2 million funding over the five-year period would be built upon. The actual expenditures for '01-02 will be reflected in the public accounts.

J. MacPhail: Okay. People have been waiting a long time for it, so whatever.

I'm asking whether it will be an accounting of the $39.6 million. That's all I was asking.

Hon. G. Hogg: Yes, when public accounts report out and we get those figures at the end of June, it will be a full accounting of the $39.6 million.

J. MacPhail: Will it be published in such a way that the people who are concerned about this can go to one page and say: "We were given $39.6 million, and here's how it was spent"? Or will the minister guide us to where else we would look?

Hon. G. Hogg: Yes, they tell me that even I will be able to understand it. It will be posted both on the federal government site as well as on our ministry site, and it will be broken down according to programs.

J. MacPhail: My last two questions are on the areas of inner-city kids and mental illness. The two are separate. I'm not tying those two together.

I just wanted to bring this to the minister's attention, because yesterday I was reading the Hansard debate between the minister and my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, and I noted one area that affects my riding directly. That's the cuts to inner-city school funding that will directly affect prekindergarten kiddies.

This is a huge issue in my riding — a huge issue. Families who live in my riding are amongst the most vulnerable. They have very few resources to organize themselves beyond feeding, clothing and getting children to bed. Now the inner-city school funding is greatly at risk. Part of that inner-city school funding funds the prekindergarten program at one of my schools, the Hastings School.

Yesterday the Minister of State for Early Childhood Development said, "Don't worry. There are programs like HIPPY," which is the home instruction program for preschool youngsters. The one on the east side of Vancouver is at Britannia Community Services Centre.

I just want to let the minister know, as he's deliberating on what to do about inner-city school funding, that this is not an answer. It may make sense for those of us who have well-organized, well-resourced lives, but if these families had well-organized, well-resourced lives, there would be no need for inner-city school funding.

Getting from my riding to the HIPPY program at Britannia is an impossible task for the families in my riding. We're talking about prekindergarten. It requires two buses and a walk, at a minimum. Secondly, it also requires people to have bus fare. Frankly, there's also a substantial waiting list for the home instruction program for preschool youngsters at Britannia. For all of those reasons, that's why Hastings School, through the Vancouver school board, used some of its own inner-city school funding to fund a prekindergarten at Hastings School. It's paid off hugely. The last time I visited it, the program people working with these kiddies said: "This is such an investment. When these children enter kindergarten and grade 1, they're adjusted, and they're entering on a basis of equality for behavioral development."

I know that the minister is not coming clean on what he's going to do with inner-city school funding, which means, I think, that there's still lots of opportunity to lobby him. I'm encouraging everybody to lobby this minister as hard as possible to maintain inner-city school funding.

Above all else, inner-city school funding is all about what Dr. Fraser Mustard says is an investment in the economy. The minister stood up yesterday — or whenever my colleague asked the question in question period about inner-city school funding — and said: "We're relying on Dr. Fraser Mustard." Inner-city school funding is a Fraser Mustard initiative. I make that appeal to the minister to, whatever he does with inner-city school funding, think about those prekindergarten kids who don't have the ability to take two buses and do a long walk, let alone have the bus fare.

Hon. G. Hogg: I thank the member for her comments. I'm well aware of the research and the impact that has. It's also been pointed out to me that at the Britannia Community Services Centre, the HIPPY program has actually received a one-time grant of $75,900 within the last week or two, which will assist and support them with respect to wait-lists that the Leader of the Opposition may have referred to. I thank her for her comments with respect to inner-city schools.

J. MacPhail: My last area to explore is child and youth mental health. This minister is responsible for that. What are the plans? The ministry service plan says that it will be developing a child and youth mental health plan. When will this be made available?

Hon. G. Hogg: One of the issues of concern for me when I took over this ministry was that we had an adult mental health plan but not a child and youth mental health plan. I talked to many of the professionals in the field and many of the service providers, and they saw this as an issue and a concern. There were particular concerns around the transitions. We don't do a very good job of transitioning children and youth out of psychiatric acute-care hospitals into the community. We don't do a very good job of transitioning when they reach the age of majority.

In an effort to deal with that, the Minister of State for Mental Health and I appointed a committee to develop a comprehensive child and youth mental health

plan. They have been consulting and meeting with that and are supposed to have a draft ready for us by the end of this month and a final report sometime during the summer.

J. MacPhail: How many dollars of this minister's budget will go toward that child and youth mental health plan?

Hon. G. Hogg: The budget in the child and youth mental health services area is $69.1 million, which I'd say is an increase over the restated budget of '01-02. In terms of the amounts that will go directly into the mental health plan, we don't know exactly what those will be for this point in time. We don't know what it'll be requesting and the actions and recommendations that will come out of that. We will be looking at the budget we have and looking at the plan and seeing how we can adjust the services and the funding to address the direction and recommendations coming out of that plan.

J. MacPhail: Will the services for child and youth mental health be delivered through the regional structure of this ministry?

Hon. G. Hogg: Yes, they will, with the exception of the central agency, the residential centre, which is the Maples, but the remainder will be delivered through the regional model.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, thank the minister. Those are the questions that the opposition has. I'll yield the floor, if any, before conclusion of estimates.

S. Orr: I have a few questions left over from the other day that I would like to ask for my constituents. One of my questions was actually going to be about inner-city schools, but I just noticed that the member previous brought it up, so I'm not going to repeat it. I would like it on record that we have in fact lobbied the minister many times.

My first question is: what will happen to the 2,800 social workers who will find their jobs going to the community governance authorities?

Hon. G. Hogg: To facilitate the transfer of 2,800 social workers to community organizations, there will have to be legislation. That legislation we expect to be introduced in about a year. The model for doing that…. Traditionally, government looks at introducing legislation and struggling to find out what happens and how that's going to be implemented. We are anxious to have some experience with that and experience with the public policy — to push the public policy so that legislation is in fact a reflection of the public policy initiatives that we're taking.

Towards that end, we are looking at co-locating a number of our staff members today. Co-locating our staff members in non-profit service sector organizations, perhaps even some for-profit organizations, where they will carry out their tasks side by side with community organizations and community groups…. In this area the Western Communities has been a wonderful demonstration of that type of initiative where we'll be able to co-locate with them.

As the transition takes place with these workers, we've been very diligent in this ministry, and I don't expect that in terms of the targets that we have, as the workload reduces, we will have any staff members that we will have to lay off. Certainly, we haven't had to do that to this point in time. I expect that we will be able to meet our targets with respect to that without any layoffs — just by the natural attrition and the processes that we've been following.

I expect that as we develop the social service authorities and the legislation to put those in place, we will see the 2,800 workers making these transitions to these community-based organizations. I expect they will do that with the full benefits of their union agreement — the same wages, benefits and seniority, and all of the issues associated with that — that they currently enjoy. It's simply that their cheque will come from a different point at that point in time, as the state continues to be responsible for ensuring that they are funded and that those services are provided.

Certainly, there is a certain amount of uncertainty and angst that goes through the transition. It comes with transition and change. But I have met with a number of social workers who are really, genuinely excited about the opportunity to work within their communities and respond to the needs and nuances of the social service needs of families and individuals within their communities. I'm very excited that they will have an opportunity to actually utilize their training, skill and education in a much broader sense than they have ever been able to do within the confines of a large bureaucratic structure and all the limitations that it presents. I expect we're going to see better services for the children and families of this province, because we're going to give social workers more flexibility and more ability to work and to function within their communities.

S. Orr: I have a couple of questions. This is the last question under the governance structure. What kinds of controls will the ministry maintain with respect to appropriate use of funds and overall policy coordination?

Hon. G. Hogg: The ministry is developing a provincial accountability framework. We have a committee of experts which I met with about a week ago. They are a number of experts, including one from the Canadian Comprehensive Auditing Foundation in particular, David Moynagh from Toronto, who is one of the acknowledged experts in accountability in Canada, combined with representatives from the University of Victoria and a number of representatives from around the province in both government and NGO responsi-

bilities. They will have a draft of their public consultation process that will be up on the website in mid-May. We'll expect to have consultation and review of that, because when we last posted some of the transformation documents, we had some 100,000 hits on that, and we've had great participation as we've been developing this model.

Secondly, we'll be looking at performance contracts with boards. We'll be looking at accreditation of boards and of service providers. Auditing and financial accountability will be in place. We're going to, again, look at the whole process of whether or not the BCASW, B.C. Association of Social Workers, should be looking at becoming a college or having some placement or joining of that.

The policies that are in existence centrally…. We expect those same types of standards to be in existence and accountabilities around that. Therefore, the same quality of service that so many of our staff members provide today will be there as a standard, but they'll have much more flexibility in terms of their ability to respond to that rather than to bureaucratic policy and structure.

S. Orr: This part of my question is to do with adult community living services. The first one is…. I know the minister has spoken of — he used the words — a congregate care setting for high-needs adults. My constituents were concerned about that, so I would like the minister to respond. Exactly what did he mean by congregate care? How many people does he think will live in these facilities, and will this be a return to the days of institutionalization?

Hon. G. Hogg: I regret ever uttering and stating the words "congregate care" and all of the loaded intonations and emotion that were carried with that. Let me be very clear, as I have been in speeches, on the website and in discussions with many groups. It clearly is not another name for reinstitutionalization. We are not going to reinstitutionalization. We are very proud of the direction this province has taken over the past 25 or 30 years to move towards deinstitutionalization. We, in fact, see the vision that is shared and presented to us in so many vivid and appropriate ways by parents, clients and service providers as they talk about being able to take the next steps in terms of community living and opening up the community in ways that give the developmentally disabled more control over their lives as most of us in the mainstream have. That is the direction we want to move to.

At the same time, we recognize that there will be some need for some specialized residential resources for those people who have multiple disabilities and will need types of support. We're looking at this and giving that challenge to the 24 people we have on our transformation committee to look at some models for doing that. I've spoken to some of them. Some of them have some exciting ideas and thoughts in terms of how we do that, but the key has to be the livability.

The driving principle, the driving value, in terms of what we're presenting is: how can we ensure that we're providing the highest quality of life, the highest participation — the good life, as Al Etmanski would say — for the developmentally disabled? That's the direction we want to go. We want to find the best and most appropriate way of providing that.

S. Orr: I'm glad you clarified that. I have in fact heard you explain it before, but my constituents needed to hear it, and it is on the record. There will be a lot of people in my community who will be relieved to hear what you just said.

My next question is on the $25 million that was in the capital expenditure. There's been a lot of discussion about that. Can the minister please tell us what kind of facilities will be provided with these funds? I have heard from many of the community care facilities in my riding that are concerned about what this means exactly.

Hon. G. Hogg: The $25 million which is in our capital budget is there to reflect the fact that the Willows, a 25-bed facility still in existence at the old Woodlands site, needs to be replaced — not replaced; it needs to be eliminated. We still have about 25 or 26 residents who are there. In the original service plan they were intended to be there for assessment and then to be moved to some community-based facilities. In many cases they've been there for years, so in fact it has become a form of institutionalization.

The $25 million we have in the capital budget is to make the transition that I referred to in the member's previous question. It is to give a challenge to parents and clients as to how we can best provide services to some of the more challenging clients we have. I know that in the past month or so there have been two very challenged clients who were in the Forensic Psychiatric Institute, and we've been asked to take them into the community. We don't have a place to take them and to facilitate their services in the community.

We are going to be challenging the transformation committee, the parents, the clients and the service providers to come up with some models that will provide the best services for this. We have some money in place to be able to respond to some of the recommendations that they may make in terms of the best and most appropriate way of ensuring that. It's not the issue of deinstitutionalization; it's the issue of how we improve the quality of life. We've got to focus on quality of life for these people. We want to give them the opportunity to maximize that quality of life. That capital budget portion there is to achieve that end.

S. Orr: I'm pretty well finished with my questions. I have one comment. Actually, it is a question about the joys of having high technology in the House with us and your extremely good website, which I use all the time. I was flipping through your budget, which I've seen several times, and I noticed an increase in your budget under program and regional management. That

part of the budget actually did go up. I would like to know what area of programs that went up on.

Hon. G. Hogg: The increase in the budget this year is to look at — and is an appreciation for and a recognition of — the fact that as we develop transitions, as we look at parallel service models…. I've made much reference to the transformation committee and the work that they're doing. We're looking at some of those staff members who have chosen to have buyouts and to voluntarily leave the ministry. We're looking at ensuring that they are compensated consistent with what their contracts provide them.

It's about a $6 million increase, which will allow us to parallel structure. We don't want to just go down the road and say, "Okay, this one's over and a new one starts," because we know that in the provision of services to the vulnerable and the disabled, we can't do that. We have to have parallel structures that allow some continuity and flow. That is why we have $6 million more to do the transitioning with staff, as well as for paralleling the structures that we have in terms of service delivery.

S. Orr: My questions are complete. This has been, for me and for my constituents, a good time to get questions answered that they were concerned about. My constituency houses a lot of very vulnerable people. I want to thank the minister for giving me such clear answers. Now we have the answers in Hansard. That will be a good record for me to refer to. I want to thank the minister.

V. Anderson: For the minister, I have two related questions that have come up earlier in the discussion. It has to do with the kind of support that families and children have when difficulties come and they're not sure what to do with the circumstances they're in.

I'll suggest two. One is if children or a family have difficulty when their children have been taken for protection. Because the social worker is the person who has taken them for protection, there's no trust between the family and the social worker, even when the social worker may wish to have it. Where would the person go in that case to get support and to help the system be worked through smoothly for the benefit of the family and the children involved?

Hon. G. Hogg: Usually it will be the intake worker who is involved in any apprehension. It would not be the follow-up social worker who would be involved in the issues that appear before the courts and the presentation hearing and the protection hearing, although in smaller offices and in some circumstances it may in fact be the same individual, as the member appropriately puts it. In those instances, we would expect that they would go to the supervisor involved and work their way up the organizational structure to get, if need be, to the deputy minister or to me with respect to that. Hopefully, there would be resolution far before that point in time. There are also a number of central agencies there as watchdogs for the services of the ministry.

I also want to point out to the member — I know, because of his interest and knowledge in this area, that he is aware of it — that the initiative and direction of the ministry is to go to the provision of support for those families. We have, over the past six years, seen an increase of some 6,000 children in care. That has been because the mentality and the approach of the ministry is to say: "We're going to designate some of our social workers as protection workers, and the way we're going to protect is to go in and apprehend children." We know there will always have to be some children apprehended, but we also know that the outcomes for those children in care are going to be far more positive. Their horizon, their future, is going to be far brighter if we're able to keep the family together and provide the supports and structures within the constellation of that family.

That is the focus and direction we're moving in, and I'm hopeful that we're going to see that type of support going into families. I've made reference many times that about 65 percent, I think, of the children who are apprehended are apprehended from single-parent families who are on B.C. Benefits — usually a mother and often in very desperate circumstances and situations because of the way her world has evolved. In those instances, we can so often provide them with some assistance and support which will allow them to continue to have their children and continue to be a parent. In fact, many of the children who are apprehended…. In four to five months I think about 40 percent are actually returned to their families.

But we need to be able to try and do that at the front end of the system, as well, to provide that type of support. For that reason, we've actually increased our family development budget, that portion of it, by about $10 million. I think that puts us at about $110 million in the budget of the ministry to look at and deal with those types of issues.

V. Anderson: The other part of that same scenario, in a sense, is that when children have been taken and have been taken through the court system, so often — in the past, at least — the problem was that the social workers made their report to the court, but there was no balancing report from family or other people regarding the children's side. How do we plan, in the future, to be able to have a balanced presentation so that the family, who also represent the children and their future, as well as the social workers — that all sides of the situation are presented so that the court really has the full picture in order to make a fair judgment…? That was not always available in the past. I'm wondering how it can be in the future.

Hon. G. Hogg: Actually, part of the legislation which I introduced two weeks ago will help to facilitate some of that by giving greater flexibility to use family and extended family at the presentation hear-

ing, which is the hearing where a child has to appear before the courts within seven days. Currently, the judge has two options at that point: to basically apprehend the child or to return the child to the parents. Our legislation proposes an expansion of that to give more options to the courts at that point in time.

There are also two sections of the act that have not been proclaimed, which we will be bringing forward and recommending the proclamation of: the kith-and-kin section which will allow friends and extended family to be involved in assisting and supporting. Perhaps more specifically focused on the issue, which the member brings forward, is that we use group family conferencing as an option to having to proceed through the court procedure, so that hopefully we can find…. So often I think we take our social issues and problems and make them legal problems. In many instances, we're able to resolve those problems within the context of the social environment, the neighbourhood and the community. When we have that type of resolution and that type of buy-in that comes from within the context of that family, rather than being laid upon them by an external expert, we have a better buy-in and a better chance of success. So we will also be proclaiming that section of the act.

The final piece is that section 104 of the act also has the possibility for community tribunals to actually work in lieu of the court procedures and processes. We want to see pilot projects run. The community tribunal provides for the opportunity for pilot projects. We want to see the development of some of those community-based pilot projects. As we move to our community-based governance models, we're going to have the opportunity for much more involvement from the community and certainly community-based tribunals. In terms of the placement and decisions around the best interests of children in need of protection, it is the right place for those decisions to be made.

I think those three initiatives will assist in addressing the point which the member brings forward.

V. Anderson: I know that in the past on some occasions, where foster parents had been looking after the children during the period of time when the processes were going on, they had become very aware of the children — who they were and what their concerns were. It was my understanding that they were not allowed to present their information so that it could be considered by the court. I reflect on that and hope it might be taken into consideration. They have more recent knowledge than most other people.

The other question that I wanted to ask the minister is about the future of the children when the children are taken into care, even on a permanent basis — whether the children will have the opportunity, which they have not always had in the past, to know their heritage and their history and to know their parents are still around, even if they're not able to keep them, so that they don't grow up without that kind of background. And it can be very important in a medical way. A child's medical history, through their parents, may be very important later on in their life. I've had personal experience of knowing how this can be important. It's that kind of history of the child that they shouldn't lose because they have been taken by the court or put out for adoption.

Hon. G. Hogg: Certainly, as a former foster parent and as a foster parent of two children who did not know their birth parents, we went through an extensive time of looking with and talking about that and recognizing their need to make that contact. Certainly, the literature is replete with the need to do that in terms of being able to develop resolution and being able to effectively move on with their lives. In some cases, those are very happy reunions and contacts, and sometimes not very happy at all. In both cases, it helps to bring some closure or some opening to some of the issues that they need to work with.

We certainly recognize that's an important part of the whole psychological and social development that happens with children. In every instance, we make efforts to facilitate that type of search for birth parents and the contacts which are appropriate in that context, recognizing that it is in the best interests of all children, particularly if they have the desire to do that. We don't want to force things on them. Most of them do come to a point in time when they want to check that out.

J. Bray: I'll continue on with my questions from yesterday. I have a few more for the minister, if I may.

Carrying on with the service plan, I'm looking at the primary service area of child protection and family development and some of the performance measures and targets that are laid out on page 13 of the ministry's service plan. In "Performance measures and targets," on the number of children in care adopted per fiscal year, I'm seeing a doubling from the baseline to the third year of the plan. I'm wondering if the minister could expand a bit on some of the strategies involved, both from a community perspective as well as from his own ministry's perspective, on the supports for the adoption process.

Hon. G. Hogg: My first response to that is somewhat anecdotal, inasmuch as I had a briefing from our staff with respect to the Adoption Act and the issues in that. There were some minor changes that they were hoping to make to the Adoption Act. I asked why we were trying to make them. The concern was that there are so many adoptive parents in British Columbia who were going to places like Kentucky and Georgia in an effort to find children to adopt. I asked what the legislation would do to affect that.

The initial response was that it would make it more difficult for that to happen, and by making it more difficult for that to happen, the expectation would be that we would see more adoptions occurring within British

Columbia. My response and the response of our government is that we should actually be making it much easier to adopt in British Columbia and trying to facilitate that, so we have, as part of our longer-term plan, a review of the Adoption Act to facilitate that and to make adoptions easier.

Some of the immediate strategies we are implementing that will help us increase the number of adoptions of children in care include eliminating a regulation which requires an income test for post-adoption assistance, therefore allowing there to be more assistance in the post-adoption stage for parents who are adopting children.

In many cases, a child may well be in care or may be a foster child. The parents may wish to adopt them, and financially that's not something they can handle. If they keep the child in foster care, they're compensated to allow that to continue, but the moment they adopt them, that disappears. We're continuing that process of providing them with some support so that finances do not become a reason to prevent a child from being adopted.

Secondly, we've continued to run a provincial adoption recruitment program. Last year we had our staff in many parts of the province making presentations to municipal councils, talking about and presenting foster parents to them, letting them know how many foster children there were in their communities and how many children were eligible for adoption and talking about that. We want to continue that recruitment policy in keeping the information out there.

Next is to regulate and to give authority to licensed agency placements of healthy infants and direct placements and intercountry adoptions to licensed agencies. We will complete a new family assessment model that will develop a plan for a new initiative, which will also look at ways that we might increase adoptions.

The last figure I saw in terms of the number of children in British Columbia currently eligible for adoption is about…. I'm going out on a limb. I think the last figure I saw was in the range of 600. Of course, that figure varies. Certainly, if there's anybody watching or listening or reading, we have a lot of wonderful children in this province who would love to be adopted and would love to have parents on a permanent basis.

J. Bray: Thank you very much to the minister for that answer. It sounds like the plans for adoptions are moving in the same way as many of the other changes in the ministry — to provide more continuous care for children and better support for parents. I think that's good news.

I apologize for jumping around a bit. My colleagues have asked many of the questions.

In the service plan dealing with some of the youth justice issues, there is a specific question that I've had in my constituency around drug and alcohol support for youth. There was a recent report of a facility in Langley that was closing. I think there's been a bit of misinformation. I want to ensure that I can provide my constituents with proper feedback as to what the ministry is doing to provide drug and alcohol programs for young people, in particular young women, and whether or not there are in fact residential treatment beds available for young women.

Hon. G. Hogg: I should first point out that when we formed government, one of the issues we looked at in terms of the organizational structure and service delivery model was the issue of alcohol and drugs. A decision was made that those services, those treatment programs, would be transferred to the Ministry of Health.

One of the issues associated with that — one of the concerns expressed by some of the recipients of services at that point — was that in some cases parents were concerned about having to go to the same office to receive alcohol and drug treatment, as they might also receive apprehension. They were concerned about the information flow. That was one of the concerns. By reorganizing that, we have gone a long way to addressing those types of concerns.

In terms of treatment services that continue to exist within the ministry, those primarily exist in support of youths who are in conflict with the law and are therefore adjudicated. In some cases, they may be part of the mental health services we provide. We do continue to provide services for them.

Within the constellation of our province, between the Ministry of Health and ourselves, there are a number of residential centres for alcohol and drugs. The member made reference to the Campbell Valley Women's Centre. That centre is a privately owned and operated facility that received from our ministry some one-time funding. I believe it received the one-time funding for three years in a row, as there was an attempt to develop a residential centre for young girls within the Fraser Valley. There was a determination as to where the greatest need was. That was determined to be Surrey, and a request for proposals went out. The operators of the Campbell Valley facility did not bid on that service, and it did go to tender. It has been and is up and running as a residential alcohol and drug centre for girls in that area. It is a seven-bed facility.

A number of facilities, both private and publicly funded, exist around the province. If my recollection is correct, we have somewhere between 50 and 60 residential beds for youth for alcohol and drug treatment in some 12 or 13 different facilities.

The last area I'd like to canvass is goal 5 in the service plan, around the corporate services program and regional management. Yesterday when I was asking questions of the minister, he gave some excellent information about some of the exciting opportunities for front-line staff, primarily social workers and resource workers, moving to a local management and community-based model.

I'm looking at some of the strategies that are laid out in the service plan. One of them is to facilitate an orderly transfer of human resources to community governance bodies. Obviously, while staff are excited about some of this, the minister alluded yesterday to some of the apprehension. One of the key issues, of course, is dialogue and information so that front-line staff feel like they're in the loop with what's happening. I'm wondering if the minister can provide just a bit more detail as to how front-line staff are staying informed as his ministry moves through this three-year strategic shift.

Hon. G. Hogg: There are a number of methods by which we are endeavouring to keep them informed. We have just over 5,000 employees, and it is often a difficult process to both get the information out and get information that the people deem to be relevant.

Through the process of developing the strategy that we currently have, we put up discussion papers on the website on service delivery models for children for community living and governance models. We had submissions from across the province in response to our discussion papers. There were about 100,000 hits on our website, many of those from our staff members. There were over 200 written submissions, which were also all posted on the website, looking at, reacting to and giving ideas with respect to the directions and focuses we should take.

I know we have one of the very best websites you're going to find in government anywhere. It is up to date in terms of providing information, both to the media and to staff, in terms of the whole transformation process. We actually have a large button on our website that's called the change site. Virtually all of our staff members have access to the Internet, and they can hit on that change site and know exactly what is happening as we move through the process. The plans are there. The time frames are on that website, and the people who have been identified in the terms of reference for those people for the transformation process are also there.

I have also been trying to get around the province myself so that I have the opportunity to meet with staff in offices to answer their questions and concerns. I recognize that as we move and make some pretty dramatic and significant changes in terms of service delivery, there are significant sets of uncertainty and sometimes fear of the unknown that starts to go out there.

People want a model and a template, but it's really clear from the research in terms of developing community capacity and developing the placement for those people to go that it's that dynamic within the context of communities that you start to find the model. The model is different for different communities because we want a model to be responsive to those communities, not a singular model that was developed here and somehow placed around the province.

We recognize that our staff are the experts in service delivery. They're the experts in child protection. They're the experts in community living. They're the experts in mental health and in youth custody. We have to rely on them to ensure that our system is going to work and is sensitive and has their expertise. We welcome their input. We're talking to them. We use the website. I get a number of e-mails directly to me from our staff, and I try to reply to all of those. I continue to welcome staff with their issues, ideas and concerns.

There is a multitude of processes which are going to include, as we move on to this transformation process, local and regional opportunities for input and comment by not just our staff but service providers across the province and recipients of service.

J. Bray: That ongoing dialogue will be very important as staff go through this change. Certainly, the feedback I've got in my community here in Victoria is that staff really do enjoy having a supportive minister who is out in the community and who is dialoguing. I encourage the minister to continue on, because that will be one of the most important aspects for staff.

My final question in this area is under goal 5.2.4: to work collaboratively with other social policy ministries to coordinate service provision and to identify and respond to new, ongoing and emerging issues. The minister has probably heard this from his staff — and I know his deputy has lived this story in another ministry — that although government provides services to the same family through different ministries, current regulations make it almost impossible for those front-line workers to communicate in any collaborative way with each other and operate in a case management process to ensure that the right services are going to the right families at the right time.

I wonder if the minister can expand a bit on that section of his service plan as to some of the strategies they may be looking at to better coordinate between social service agencies to ensure that the best services are going to families.

Hon. G. Hogg: Certainly, with the Ministry of Health, one of the primary reasons we went to the same boundaries as the Ministry of Health was so that we could have that dialogue for the same recipients of service. That geographic co-location is something that will assist us and support us in terms of that.

I have been meeting with the Minister of Human Resources and the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services, looking at those issues. Our staff have been looking at issues and looking at the impacts that changes to other ministries will have on our ministry and changes within our ministry and what impact those will have on other ministries. As we go down this road and this process of change, we have to continue that dialogue, because I'm sure there will be issues which arise that we have not thought of in terms of various impacts that will happen there. There may be some anomalies that start to present themselves, which we're going to have to deal with, and we have to ensure that there is interministerial consultation and processes as we go down here.

In looking at some of the changes that have happened in other provinces, I've been well aware of some of the impacts that might. I've made reference to the fact that when Alberta went through some restructuring, there was about a 78 percent increase in the number of children coming into care. That's clearly a concern for us and for the Ministry of Human Resources. There is some talk of change in the Child in the Home of a Relative program. That may have some impact on us as well. Some of the issues within child care….

Certainly, we as a government have to ensure that the ministries are talking together and ensure that we do provide services to the most needy and the most vulnerable within that context. We will continue to maintain a standing brief on that. I hope that if there are examples that you or any other members have of those specific types of issues, you will bring those to our attention. We can certainly learn from specific examples of our constituents and of the people of this province so that we can ensure that we put in place the structures necessary to respond to those. That's going to be one of our ongoing challenges, and I think that by communicating, we will be able to ensure that we don't create undue hardships for the people of our province.

J. Bray: Those are all my questions. I'd like to thank the minister and, again, congratulate him on the service plan. Just to reiterate from yesterday, Victoria is looking forward to this, and we are offering ourselves for pilot opportunities for co-location anytime.

Hon. G. Hogg: I want to thank all of the members for all of their questions. As we make them go through these difficult changes, some of the very best and best-informed advocates we have for this process are the MLAs that exist around this province, the members that are out there hearing, listening to and being part of those changes — even those who have people come to their offices with suitcases. We welcome their assistance and support in doing that. We hope that you will continue to ask questions, to be advocates and to help us as we go through this transformation process.

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

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

Hon. J. Murray: Madam Chair, a question was asked last week, and I took the question on notice. I'd like to respond to that question. The member last week asked me to provide the number of science officers that were in the ministry in fiscal 2001-02, and I now have that information.

The combined number of science officers in the ministry was 472. This number was made up of 106 licensed science officers and 366 scientific-technical officers. In my answer last week I mentioned the number 321 for the fiscal 2002-03 budget, but that was referring only to the scientific-technical officers. The combined number of licensed science officers, which is 93, plus the scientific-technical officers, which is 321, totals 414 science officers in the ministry for this current fiscal year.

J. Kwan: I think this is the first time we've seen the Minister of State for Women's Equality in the chair.

Thank you to the minister for that answer. Let me ask the minister this question: how many science officers in WLAP received pink slips on Black Thursday, deeming them to be redundant employees? What is the total number of science officer positions that were cut?

Hon. J. Murray: Fifty-eight science positions were declared redundant. There have been no pink slips given at this point, because for each of the people in those positions…. The ministry is seeking to find alternative positions for those science officers.

J. Kwan: Then, from a total of 414, we minus 58. That would give us 356. We know that from the service planned for '02-03 and '04-05….

I understand that these are only projections, but could the minister please provide me with a sense of how many more science officers will lose their jobs

with the ministry? An estimate is fine. I'm sure that the ministry has some idea in terms of what that looks like, in terms of targeted FTE cuts.

Hon. J. Murray: I believe the member used figures that were not correct. The member said there were 414 being reduced by 58, but 414 is the number for this fiscal year, not the total number in the previous year.

J. Kwan: Is 897 the total number for the previous year combined with this fiscal year? That's the number we've received from the service plan. If that's not the correct number, then could the minister please tell us what the correct number is? I thought 414 was the number the minister just gave herself in terms of how many science officers there are in this fiscal year. That minus the 58 positions gives me the 356.

Hon. J. Murray: If I'm understanding the member correctly, the 58 is not being deducted from the 414. The 58 is after the deductions were already made.

J. Kwan: Thanks to the minister for that clarification. I thought the 58 were a deduction that was to come after the 414. So that's not the case. Could the minister tell us, then, what the projection is for '02-03 and '04-05 in terms of FTE cuts?

Hon. J. Murray: We haven't specified our allocation of FTE reductions for future years. We're working with a plan for this fiscal year that has 414 science officers, so the number for years past has not been determined.

J. Kwan: Does the minister have any estimates in this regard? As I mentioned earlier, I would imagine that the ministry and the minister have some idea around that. What we have come to know is that the ministry has already come up with a specific target of FTE cuts, and I believe that is to be 897 overall. Within the 897, how many of those will be science officers?

Hon. J. Murray: No, at this time the ministry does not have estimates of exactly what the breakdown of those positions will be.

J. Kwan: So the minister has no idea of what the estimates might be at this time, even though there's already been a predetermined number in terms of what the total FTE cuts would be in the ministry.

J. Kwan: In the estimates for the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management we learned that WLAP science is going to be used to assist in land-use planning, assessing water and land tenure applications, developing a working forest initiative and developing a Living Rivers strategy. In estimates for the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries we learned that WLAP science is developing standards for aquaculture. Could the minister elaborate on her ministry's relationship to these issues?

Hon. J. Murray: The ministry works closely with a number of other ministries, and Water, Land and Air Protection's primary responsibility is to set the standards for protecting the environment and then ensuring there is a compliance and enforcement regime that will make sure those standards are respected.

J. Kwan: Does the minister have any decision-making role in terms of decisions on, let's say, land use?

Hon. J. Murray: With land use issues, the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection provides advice. The Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management will make recommendations to cabinet, and cabinet will make decisions. As a member of cabinet I have input at that level, and my ministry has input as the plans are being prepared.

J. Kwan: On decisions regarding land use planning, land use decisions, then, the ministry has no decision-making role. The recommendations actually come from the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management. Is there any area in which the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection has a decision-making role? Is it just related to monitoring and enforcement?

Hon. J. Murray: We're talking about land use planning, which is the responsibility of another ministry. The land use plans are usually developed by a collective of different parties, and it is in the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management's responsibility to make final decisions. There are many areas where the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection has the primary responsibility for making decisions.

J. Kwan: What are those, where the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection actually has decision-making roles?

Hon. J. Murray: The ministry has responsibility under a number of acts. One of them is the Park Act, so this ministry is responsible for B.C. parks and protected areas legislation. The ministry has primary responsibility for the Wildlife Act, so the science around allocation of wildlife, around conservation of wildlife. It has responsibility for fish protection, and the streamside protection regulation would be an example. Stream flow is an area the ministry has responsibility for — water quality. The ministry has primary responsibility for the Waste Management Act.

Those are various sources of potential impacts on the environment through waste in water, air and on

land. That would include contaminated sites. It would include impacts on air, air pollution and water — so liquid waste management plans, solid waste management plans. Those are some examples of the areas of responsibility of the ministry.

J. Kwan: From the list the minister has provided, it appears to me that they are primarily, then, centred around enforcement issues and on ensuring that environmental integrity is kept in relation. But decisions around land use, forest tenures and those kinds of things, where those decisions would have an impact on the environment, are not made within the ministry. They're made elsewhere within government. That's sort of the understanding I have, and the minister could correct me if I'm wrong.

If there's no correction there, then I'd like to move on to the next question I have for the minister around general biologists. Could the minister please advise how many general biologists the ministry employs right now?

Hon. J. Murray: Just to go back to the member's previous questions for a moment to make sure that I was clear, the ministry does set standards and objectives with respect to protecting the environment that are incorporated into the decision-making of other ministries. This government's philosophy is the single accountability of each minister. There need not be joint decision responsibility. There is more effective accountability if it's clear which decisions are being made by which ministers.

With respect to zonation on the land, the minister responsible for land use and land tenuring would make those decisions. However, this ministry does provide scientific information and sets standards and objectives for various ministries.

With respect to the other question, a quick count here revealed 39 fish and/or aquaculture biologists, but there are some of the ministry's staff that are listed as specialities. It's not clear whether they are marine biologists or not because their subspecialty is how they're listed. If the member would like the staff to go back and double-check those subspecialties to ensure the absolute accuracy of the number of marine biologists, we're happy to do that.

J. Kwan: Yes, I would like that very much. Actually, I will list the areas in which I would like to get information from the ministry in terms of how many staff members are employed in these areas. One would be the marine biologists. The other would be the fishery specialists and other zoologists.

The other questions I have would be how many biologists specialize in large mammals and carnivores? How many plant biologists, foresters, hydrologists? Also, I'd be interested in knowing how many geologists, geotechnical engineers, climatologists and general specialists in atmospheric sciences exist in the ministry. I'd also be interested in knowing from the minister how many geographic information systems specialists exist in the ministry now.

If the minister could provide that information to the opposition caucus at a later time, I would appreciate it very much. I would assume a week or two would be a reasonable time frame to receive that information.

Hon. J. Murray: We'd be happy to do that and have that information by the end of two weeks.

J. Kwan: At this time, I'd like to take a detailed look at the ministry's service plan for '02-03 to '04-05. We'll take it from the top. In the introduction the ministry commits that "prudent management and protection of the natural environment will help ensure that the benefits we enjoy today will be available for our children and grandchildren in the future." Could the minister please elaborate on what "prudent management" means and what it will look like for this particular ministry?

Hon. J. Murray: By prudent management the ministry means that decisions are made based on science. The science is updated on a regular basis. The needs of society are taken into account in a balanced way. That's where sustainability comes in, where decisions incorporate social, economic and environmental factors and the ability to provide benefits to future generations that are equivalent to the benefits that society enjoys today.

J. Kwan: There is indeed a comment about sustainable economic development. Could the minister please provide some clarity around the priorities of this government?

We see, through the comments in other service plans, like that of Sustainable Resource Management, that a primary goal is "certain access to Crown land." How are environmental protection and ecosystem integrity going to fit with other agencies that are committing to certain access?

Hon. J. Murray: It's a very important fit. This ministry's mandate is the protection of the environment. That is why this ministry will be providing scientific information to inform the decisions of other ministries that may have a different primary mandate. That's also why a positive and constructive working relationship amongst the ministries is very important.

J. Kwan: On page 2 of the service plan, part of the mission statement pledges: "The ministry works to protect human health and safety by ensuring clean and safe water, land and air; to maintain and restore the

natural diversity of ecosystems, and fish and wildlife species and their habitat."

Working from this comment, then, could the minister please explain and offer her opinion on the cancellation of Fisheries Renewal B.C. I know that Fisheries Renewal B.C. is not in the ministry's direct decision area or mandate, if you will, but as the minister responsible for restoring and protecting fish habitat, there's got to be some concern. I wonder if the minister could offer her thoughts and opinions on this matter.

Hon. J. Murray: I understand that a key part of the mandate for Fisheries Renewal B.C. was assisting communities that were in transition due to problems in the fisheries industry. I understand there were fisheries restoration projects as part of what the communities were doing.

The new government has taken freshwater fisheries, which were part of the commercial fishery under the previous government, and combined fisheries with habitat. Some of the concerns the member is pointing at, which have to do with watershed protection and restoration, are very allied with habitat protection concerns. The ministry believes that that will be a more effective combination.

The other concern I personally had was that projects through Fisheries Renewal B.C. — but also through other funding sources — were not always working together in a common direction with a common set of priorities in terms of watershed restoration and protection. The purpose of the Living Rivers strategy is to be looking more holistically at the issues of watershed risks or threats and damage to be restored and to be pulling the resources devoted to fish habitat restoration into a coherent strategy that will have other organizations and the federal government also in alignment to increase the effectiveness.

J. Kwan: Fisheries Renewal B.C. provided for many aspects of restoration and protection of fish habitats, as well as providing employment training opportunities for people who were displaced as a result of the resource sector downturn. It provided assistance not only on the environmental front but also on the employment training front, as well, in the coastal communities like Port Hardy, amongst others.

The minister mentioned that there's a switch in government direction, a different approach to it, perhaps different priorities within government. What specific plans or programs and funding options does this ministry have available to make up for the much-acclaimed programs of Fisheries Renewal B.C.?

Hon. J. Murray: I'll just reinforce something the member mentioned in the beginning, which is that Fisheries Renewal B.C. is not and was not part of this ministry's responsibilities or reporting relationships. On the question of what the ministry's program is with respect to watershed protection and restoration, the ministry is developing the Living Rivers strategy. It is under construction. It is not complete.

The regions will each have specific budget envelopes that are being developed. These will be under the environmental stewardship aspect of the ministry operations and will include water quality, stream flow and habitat kinds of specific local projects. The ministry still has a trustee relationship with the habitat conservation trust fund, which does fund fisheries and other kinds of conservation projects.

J. Kwan: What is the budget allocated for these initiatives? Could the minister give the budget allocation breakdowns for the programs?

Hon. J. Murray: The division budgets are being finalized this month, so we don't have specific dollar amounts for specific projects or subsections of the regions at this point.

Hon. J. Murray: I need to clarify: all of which programs? What's the member asking about? We have environmental stewardship as one of the branches of the ministry. That includes more than fisheries-related issues. There is the fish hatchery program that's a specific funding package. There are subsets of the environmental stewardship branch that are more focused on habitat and stream issues than others. I'm not clear what the question was.

J. Kwan: I was asking the minister about the budget for each of the regions in the areas that provide for programs, plans or funding options to address issues of restoration and habitat protection for the fish habitats. The minister advised that their plan is being devised right now and that there would be regional plans. I asked the minister, then, the breakdown for the budget for each of these regions. The minister says she doesn't have the breakdown for each of the regions.

The minister must have, though — for each of the respective programs that pertain to restoration and fish habitat protection — what those overall budgets within the ministry are. In each and every area that the ministry has some allocated dollars to this kind of work, I would like to know what the budget breakdown is.

Hon. J. Murray: We're in the process of finalizing budgets, so we don't have those final figures by the region or by project designation. We have a figure of $68,655,000 for our environmental stewardship and biodiversity operations. However, that will include some work that's not related to fisheries, and there will be some work that is related to fisheries in the environmental protection budget that is aimed at water quality protection. We don't have a breakdown that

The Chair: On that note, division has been called, so we will recess until the vote is over.

J. Kwan: The minister was advising that she didn't have the budget numbers for this area within the ministry, and the minister is advising that the regional breakdown will be forthcoming in a few weeks' time. When the information becomes available, could the minister provide the opposition, again, the breakdown of her budget on a regional basis with respect to the restoration and protection of fish habitat and other initiatives that will make up for the cancellation of Fisheries Renewal B.C. programs?

Could the minister also tell us that the cancellation of Fisheries Renewal B.C. initiatives will be replaced by new programs through this ministry? Is the minister confident that the issue of protection and restoration of fish habitat and other areas supported by the Fisheries Renewal program in the area of environmental integrity and protection will be enhanced in the new programs that the minister will be announcing in the next while?

Hon. J. Murray: I just want to be clear with the member that the process is not about replacing Fisheries Renewal B.C., which had a primary goal of providing workforce adjustment in formerly fisheries-based communities. That's not the essence of this ministry's work program, nor are we talking about replacing specific projects or programs.

At the same time, I want to assure the member that protection and restoration of aquatic habitat is something that this ministry has as an objective and is creating plans to ensure that that happens. I would like to offer the member an opportunity to sit down and have a briefing with ministry staff by the end of May to have a look at the allocation of funds in the divisions and Victoria that are aimed at watershed protection and restoration and fisheries-related issues.

J. Kwan: Yes, I would anticipate that in terms of employment training initiatives and the like, those don't actually fall within this ministry. And I appreciate that was within Fisheries Renewal B.C. Out of Fisheries Renewal B.C. there were numerous programs which were targeted towards restoration and protection of fish habitat and so on. Because it was actually a joint approach, it provided for protection, but at the same time it provided for employment and training initiatives.

Having said that, the piece that I would anticipate the minister would be concerned about would be the protection side and the restoration side of fish habitats. My question around specific plans and programs and funding options that this minister will be offering to make up for the losses of the programs from Fisheries Renewal B.C. centres on the environmental piece. I can only assume then that the minister would ensure there will be plans and programs in place that would make up for the loss of those programs from Fisheries Renewal B.C. — perhaps not only just make up for it, but also enhance the loss of those programs in this area.

On the issue around offering the opposition members a briefing: yes, thank you very much. We welcome that. Aside from that though, I would still like to receive the information in writing in terms of the breakdown of the funding, what programs and the purpose of programs and the regional allocation associated with it, so that it could be shared with our staff and also with my other colleague.

With that, I'd like to yield the floor now to the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca. I understand he has a couple of questions for the minister.

B. Kerr: I don't have very many questions to ask, but there are a few things that are important in my riding that I would like to ask and get on the record. Clearly, it's about water protection. I have a number of important watersheds in my riding: Sooke Lake reservoir being one, Shawnigan Lake, Mt. Matheson; several large aquifers and Kemp Lake. You know they're also quite important to the CRD.

I noticed there were some recommendations from the drinking water review panel. They came out with six major recommendations that they prioritized as most important. I'm just wondering if the minister's reviewed those and made any decisions with regards to that.

Hon. J. Murray: No conclusion has been reached. The drinking water panel's report is under review by the ministries that are affected. The process for moving forward is under discussion, but there's no conclusion.

Hon. J. Murray: As the member is of course aware, these are very important issues. They're also complex and cross a number of ministries. We are working to get it right, and we're aiming at having a conclusion this spring.

B. Kerr: I appreciate that, and I know it's important. I'm glad you're taking the time to get it right the first time. That's good news.

One of the items on those recommendations is that there should be a single protection agency. I'm just wondering if any work has been done at all on that specific recommendation.

Hon. J. Murray: All of the recommendations, as well as the recommendations from the provincial health officer and the auditor general's drinking water report, have been very thoroughly discussed. Everything is under consideration. Yes, clear lines of accountability are very important. That's come up in each of those different groups' reports to government on safe drinking water.

B. Kerr: I imagine a number of my other questions sort of hinge on that report. Now that you're reviewing it, I don't want to impose on you to answer the questions when you really haven't done a thorough review.

I'd just like to make a comment that right now water purveyors answer to a number of different ministries and a number of different agencies. Sometimes it's not certain who's controlling the water purveyor. If the water purveyor is not doing his job, the people that are affected by say this private water purveyor don't know who to go to, don't know who to report to. If the minister could bear that in mind when she's reviewing it, I would appreciate that.

Also there are questions, too, of septic fields leaching. Again, these are other things you have to consider when you're getting involved in doing your benchmarking and that. You have to look at what's happening in certain areas. The question I would ask: if there is a problem, who do people complain to? If there's a problem in an area where there appears to be problems with water, who can people complain to?

Hon. J. Murray: At this point, if the member's constituents have any concerns that relate to a health issue, they can consult the local medical health officer. If there are any concerns about protection of the source of drinking water, then the Water, Land and Air Protection staff in their region would be the appropriate person to consult.

B. Kerr: I notice in your plan you have some benchmarking that you're planning on doing. Has any benchmarking started as yet with regard to water quality?

Hon. J. Murray: The member may be referring to the objectives, strategies and performance measures around clean water on page 8 of the ministry service plan. Yes, there are objectives around ensuring safe, high-quality drinking water and reducing effluent discharges that impact water quality. In the service plan as it is now, the targets have to do with the monitoring of water quality and the frequency and extent of monitoring. Water quality monitoring is something that the ministry has increased funding for.

B. Kerr: Will that be done independently? Will it be done by the ministry? Will it be expected to be done by the person, and if it's a purveyor, to be provided the purveyor or whoever has the groundwater? Who will be doing the actual testing?

Hon. J. Murray: The ministry does a number of monitoring activities for both surface water and groundwater and will continue to do that. The ministry will also set standards for monitoring, but the conclusion as to exactly who will be carrying it out will be out of the review of the drinking water panel process. That's part of the accountability structure that's being discussed.

B. Kerr: One final comment: water isn't free. Most people — even myself, I guess — have gone on this assumption that water is free. Is there any money spent on publicity to change the culture where people think water is free, so they can understand that it's a large cost to provide drinking water? That's particularly in light of the review panel's comments that we have the highest cost of disease and one of the oldest systems in British Columbia. Are we going to be spending any money in a public-awareness campaign to let people know?

Hon. J. Murray: I accept the member's comments, and I'm in complete agreement that water has been taken for granted in many parts of B.C. We do need to change the culture of our idea that water should be endless and free. I think pricing water appropriately is an important conservation measure. I've spoken on these issues at a conference in the interior, the C5H2O conference, that had to do with clean water.

The member may be aware that 13 of the 15 infrastructure grants of the federal-provincial-municipal program that have been awarded in the last few months were on water systems. My input into that process has been and will continue to be to tighten up the conservation side of the application so that the municipalities are thinking about specific water conservation measures. Pricing is perhaps one in a set a tools that municipalities can use.

Also, I recently approved the greater Vancouver regional district's liquid waste management plan, which added in some additional requirements. One of those requirements was to create a plan for water conservation measures in the GVRD. I appreciate the member's comments on the importance of valuing our drinking water sources and ensuring that we have them into the future.

The Chair: Member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca, did you have any further questions?

B. Kerr: I think for now that covers it. I'd like to thank the minister very much for her candid answers,

J. Kwan: The member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca triggered a thought for me around pricing water as an approach. Is that something that the minister advocates?

Hon. J. Murray: Water tenuring and pricing are the responsibility of Sustainable Resource Management.

J. Kwan: Yes, I know that. I'm asking about the minister's perspective, because she advised the House earlier that she was at a conference where she talked about the issue of water pricing. She also mentioned infrastructure dollars being needed and suggesting municipalities look at the option of pricing water. Is that something the minister advocates?

Hon. J. Murray: Certainly, water conservation is the key to my earlier remarks, and water pricing is a tool for conservation. I think any tools that enable communities to manage their water responsibly should be looked at.

J. Kwan: Then the minister would support pricing water as a means of water conservation?

J. Kwan: But the minister herself supports this as a notion? I just need a yes or no.

Hon. J. Murray: I support water conservation so that water is not wasted and is used wisely. I think there's an array of tools to achieve that. I think water pricing is one of those tools.

J. Kwan: I take it from the minister's answer that, yes, she supports pricing of water as a tool for water conservation. That's what I heard. Unless the minister disputes it, that's my understanding of the answer to my question.

The mission statement in the ministry's service plan also pledges to provide park and wildlife recreation services and opportunities to British Columbians and visitors. This part seems, in my view, a little empty, considering the cuts to park services in this ministry and others. To provide these recreational services and opportunities in parks, what does this minister have planned to deal with the Ministry of Forests' decision to cease maintenance of many logging roads that serve our beautiful parks?

Hon. J. Murray: We have no plans to deal with the Ministry of Forests recreation sites.

J. Kwan: Does the ministry have any specific initiatives, then, around embarking on the maintenance of access for residents and visitors in British Columbia to parks and protected areas for recreational purposes?

Hon. J. Murray: I'd like to refer the member to page 11 of the service plan. In the first paragraph the service plan states that the ministry will be undertaking a park and wildlife recreation strategy to develop a new management model for park and wildlife recreation. The ministry will be undertaking that.

J. Kwan: Page 11 of the service plan states: "The broad park and wildlife recreation strategy is to develop a new management model for park and wildlife recreation that connects fees with services and opportunities and allows greater public involvement in decision-making by mid-2002 and to implement it by mid-2004. This strategy supports the park and wildlife recreation goal and both of the objectives in the table below." Then it lists some of the items associated with it.

The reason I ask, of course, is this. Yes, I can appreciate that there's a different model that's being looked at. We canvassed some of this, as well, in the Ministry of Forests, where the Minister of Forests advised that in the forest recreational areas, they will be looking at getting other organizations to manage these recreational sites. There were issues related around access, around liability and around how you ensure that low-risk recreational sites don't become high-risk because of the lack of maintenance of these sites.

The same can apply, actually, to this ministry in terms of recreational sites. While the mission statement states the ministry wants to provide park and wildlife recreational services and opportunities to British Columbians and visitors, at the same time what we see, of course, is what's driving the agenda of this government is the bottom line. We see that budget cuts are coming forward, so therefore parks are not going to be maintained. There are going to be challenges with respect to that in terms of how the government is going to meet their commitment of providing park and wildlife recreational services and opportunities to British Columbians and visitors.

Maybe the minister can tell us, then: what exactly are her plans? Is it her plan to also off-load, like the Minister of Forests, who is going to off-load to other agencies that will take over the management of these recreational sites? Is the minister looking at privatizing these operations by way of management?

I actually have a list of recreational park sites with me. Maybe the minister doesn't have the answer to this question. Tell me which park will actually continue its operations and which park will be shut down in terms of this program. I would appreciate receiving that information from the minister at another time for the opposition. The park sites that I've located on the Web come from the ministry's website, http://wlapwww.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/parklist.htm. It starts with Andy Bailey park and ends with Yard Creek. It's a list, as such.

Hon. J. Murray: The member has the list of the 45 parks that the ministry will no longer be providing services for as of this year. That list of parks accounts for approximately 3 percent of campsites and day use areas, so the ministry is maintaining services to 97 percent. That list also accounts for approximately 25 percent of the subsidies or the services that the ministry was providing funds for that were not being recovered through camping fees.

With respect to the strategy to develop a new management model, that process is being developed at this point, so I wouldn't want to limit the possibilities as to what might be explored in developing that strategy.

J. Kwan: What options are being looked at for closures? This list identifies parks that will be faced with closures. Is the option of privatization being looked at? What are the options the minister is contemplating?

Hon. J. Murray: There are almost two separate issues that we're talking about here. One is the list of 45 parks that the ministry will not be providing services for. Now, that doesn't mean those parks will be closed; people can still go to those parks, but the services the ministry has been providing will no longer be provided.

The ministry did notify each of the communities and first nations near that set of 45 parks and offered to engage in a discussion if the community or first nations had an interest in providing those services in a manner that was no cost to government or the taxpayer. The ministry is very willing to have those discussions. If there are particular parks where people feel strongly about having services and would like to problem-solve how to do that without ministry funding, we're having those discussions. That's one part of the question.

The other part is what we're considering for the future, the process for who will be part of that review, what the time frame for that review is and what the steps are. That's under discussion now, so the ministry is not actually drafting options for the future. It's looking at a process for conducting this review of the management model.

J. Kwan: Well, in the parks that are now closed, the 45 sites that are now closed, is the ministry concerned about liability?

Hon. J. Murray: Just a quick correction. These parks are not closed. The ministry will no longer be providing services, so we'll no longer be emptying garbage cans and cleaning toilets in those particular parks. If there is considered to be a health hazard, then the facility in question would be removed or mothballed. The parks will remain open as long as there's no vandalism or other activities that lead to a public safety hazard. Our discussion with the communities is that the parks will remain open. We're confident the communities will treat those areas respectfully.

Hon. J. Murray: The ministry will be assessing each of the 45 parks to identify any risks. The ministry will be doing monitoring to see how this planned withdrawal of services is proceeding and will make any changes or adjustments that appear to be necessary. We'll do minimal monitoring after that.

Hon. J. Murray: Monitoring these parks where the ministry will no longer be providing services will be part of a collection of responsibilities of our park generalists, who will also have responsibility for biodiversity protection and other aspects of managing the parks. Approximately 70 area supervisors and 75 park rangers will have as part of their responsibilities to ensure the safety and the appropriate use of the parks.

J. Kwan: The minister advised that this would be the initial monitoring and assessment of these parks, and then once that's done, she advised that there would be minimal monitoring. When the level drops to the minimal level of monitoring, how many staff will be monitoring these parks?

Hon. J. Murray: The numbers that I gave are of the staff that will be doing that minimal monitoring as part of their suite of duties.

Hon. J. Murray: It's the responsibility of the Ministry of Attorney General to deal with any liabilities. Ministries purchase legal services from the Ministry of Attorney General as needed.

J. Kwan: Is there any budget, then, in the ministry for the purchase of those services? I understand that it transfers from one ministry to another. Is there a budget in this ministry for legal advice?

J. Kwan: Under the section "Government Priorities and Commitments," there's a statement which reads: "The government places a high priority on encouraging a thriving private sector economy that creates high-paying jobs, maintains high environmental standards and respects the strong environmental values of British Columbians."

I'm particularly interested in the part about maintaining high environmental standards. How does the government's deregulation initiative fit into this? How is getting rid of environmental regulations good for environmental standards?

Hon. J. Murray: As the member stated, the government is committed to maintaining high environmental standards and has been clear throughout all the discussions of the deregulation goals that environmental standards would be maintained. The very fact of having a regulation doesn't automatically mean the environment is being protected. Some of the outdated regulations that were eliminated by this ministry through the deregulation initiative already are examples of regulations that have been on the books and not ever used for decades. The ministry is reviewing all of its regulations and standards and has a commitment to having environmental standards that are high and to having processes in place to make sure that those standards are maintained.

J. Kwan: Of course there are going to be out-of-date regulations and the need to monitor those. No one disputes that. However, I think the way the government has gone about this raises a lot of concerns. The government has tied the 30 percent deregulation goal for each ministry to the minister's salary. Should the ministry not be focusing more on the quality rather than the quantity? Therefore, when your salary is attached to the goal of 30 percent deregulation, how do British Columbians get the assurance that the environment will not be compromised because of these competing demands and goals that have been established by government?

Hon. J. Murray: My belief is that the number of administrative requirements and the number of ways the ministry prescribes how a person should conduct their business is not a good predictor of protection of the environment. One of the projects the ministry is doing is looking at environmental policy in the current century in other jurisdictions. It's learning about environmental policy that does a better job of protecting the environment through simplifying but creating clarity about the results that the environmental policy is designed to achieve. We'll be building on that approach.

J. Kwan: Well, I have lots of concerns around that. I know this is what the minister calls performance-based or results-based and so on, and I have a whole section of questions around that. So I'll come back to the minister.

Quite frankly, what the government is actually doing is allowing industry to set the standards and industry to do the monitoring — by and large. That actually puts the risk to British Columbians in the areas of health and safety.

On page 3 of the service plan, the ministry states: "…actions to address climate change will require investment in science, analysis, negotiation and mitigation including green technologies and infrastructure." Could the minister elaborate on how she'll plan to accommodate these required actions around innovation when the budget for planning, innovation and enforcement is to be cut by over 35 percent in the next three years?

Hon. J. Murray: First, I just want to set the record straight: industry will not be setting standards; the ministry will be setting the standards. The ministry is also very involved in compliance and enforcement of those standards.

The other part of the member's question was around the planning, innovation and enforcement division. The budget for the year 2001-2002 was $17,834,000 for planning, innovation and enforcement. It will be $19,894,000 in '02-03.

J. Kwan: The fact remains, though, that the ministry is faced with huge cuts. On the question around environmental protection, the monitoring and enforcement roles: does the minister think that, in spite of these cuts, she will be able to maintain what is necessary to protect the health and safety of British Columbians in the area of environmental protection?

Hon. J. Murray: Absolutely — yes. That has been the job that this minister and the ministry executive, directors, managers and staff have been working on over the last nine months. It's exactly that: how to restructure the budget, how to restructure the ministry's divisions and how to create efficiencies and innovations so that we can do that. There is a strong commitment by this government to protect the environment, and there is absolutely a strong commitment by this ministry and this minister to do that.

There have been many positive changes that have been made that require fewer funds to do a more effective job of protecting the environment. We've been seeking those opportunities, and the ministry has been working on implementing those opportunities and will continue to do that over the coming three years.

J. Kwan: So the minister will give her personal guarantee over the next three years? In the next three years, the budget will reduce by 35 percent. Will the minister give her personal guarantee that there would be absolute protection for all British Columbians in the area of safety and protection of the environment?

Hon. J. Murray: I'd like to make a correction. This ministry's budget reduction is 24 percent, not 35 percent. That is for the very reason that although it was first being contemplated for a 35 percent cut, it was very clear that the public, the government and this ministry's commitment, particularly to the human health impact from the environment, is strong, and so the cuts were reduced for this ministry. Funding was actually increased for some of the elements that are needed to bring the science into play and do an effective job of protecting the environment. That is the mandate of this ministry, and I am accountable for the actions and the success of this ministry.

J. Kwan: The minister says she's accountable, so she'll give her personal guarantee in terms of environmental protection and safety for British Columbians. Because from what we've seen in the area of Walkerton, it was the government's policy that cost lives. I want this minister to be on record that she'll give her personal guarantee for the health and safety of all British Columbians.

Hon. J. Murray: As I mentioned previously to the member, I am accountable for this ministry's programs with respect to protecting the environment. Other ministers are also responsible for environmental protection aspects of their ministries. I'm happy to remind us all that all British Columbians actually do have a role in protecting the environment.

J. Kwan: Yes, British Columbians have a role, but government has a very big role. Government policies ultimately impact the outcome and risks that British Columbians may well face in the area of health and safety. In all the ministries that I've canvassed so far, on the question around monitoring and enforcement, they've all advised that it rests with WLAP, with this minister. I would take it that it is her responsibility to ensure that the health and safety of British Columbians are protected. Irrespective of government policies, cutbacks and directions that governments proceed with, the health and safety of British Columbians would be protected. It would be protected on the environmental front by this minister. That's the kind of guarantee that I'm looking for, and I hope the minister can actually rise up and give that assurance to British Columbians.

On another question relating to the budget, the minister advises that the cut is actually 24 percent. According to the service plan, and this is the information we have, on page 14 it actually shows a 6 percent reduction for '01-02. When you look at other issues around environmental stewardship, the grizzly bear program, the planning innovation and enforcement and add all of these items together, we see it's an average cut of approximately 35 percent. Are these numbers incorrect?

The other question relating to the budget is about the FTEs. The total cuts yield about 31 percent. The budget total cut is approximately 41 percent. The minister said it's 24 percent. Which column am I not reading correctly, and where am I wrong in reading the service plan, which is page 14?

Hon. J. Murray: There is an item on the page that the member was referring to. Under the resources summary, the third line from the bottom is: "Britannia mine remediation." That was a one-time fund that was put aside and has been accrued for doing environmental cleanup of Britannia mine remediation. In my Treasury Board process my comparison was the net of the $45 million. In fact, there was another $2 million one-time funding that was also not taken into account because it was not part of the ongoing funding of the ministry.

The 24 percent represents the difference between the $214,266,000 less $47 million, compared with the $127,007,000 that's in the second-last box in the right-hand column. I understand why it's confusing, with the Britannia mine remediation in there. That's one part of the member's question.

I just wanted to take a moment to respond to the previous statement about the importance of human health protection. The member will see from the restructuring of this ministry, which has been totally rethought, that human health protection from environmental impacts has been identified as the top priority. That has been part of what has informed the planning, the budget reductions and the funding allocations — that the top priority is those kinds of issues. We have allocated more funding for things like air- and water-quality monitoring because that is something that government recognizes as a very high priority.

Yes, I am accountable for those things. We will be doing an effective job through our ministry restructuring programs and new environmental models that we'll be adopting.

J. Kwan: Well, we'll monitor it. I'll have more to say in terms of the Walkerton experience and the issues around health and safety for individuals in their own communities because of government policy changes, the lack of resources and the impacts on the loss of lives. I'll have more to say about that.

I'm glad that this minister has risen up in this House and said that she will be held accountable and that she will ensure that British Columbians will be protected, from a health and safety point of view. I'm glad. The opposition will continue to attempt to hold this government accountable, and no doubt British Columbians will as well, especially on this issue.

Under the strategic shifts, the service plan says it will move from this ministry as sole protector of the environment to shared stewardship, sharing responsibility with others. By this I hope the minister doesn't mean other resource ministries, because during all of the other estimates, those ministers over and over again said that it was WLAP that would be setting standards, WLAP would be holding them accountable, and plans for environmental ecosystem health were WLAP's responsibility. None of those ministers would take any responsibility for environmental protection.

Isn't it clear to the minister that her ministry is still, in fact, the sole protector of the environment and a massively overpressured and — quite frankly, I fear — an underfunded one? I know that when we were in government, we were criticized in terms of the lack of resources in the area of environmental protection, and now what we see is that those fundings have gone down even further than what the previous government had allocated for environmental protection.

There are huge pressures. Everybody says it's the minister's responsibility for environmental protection. Is there any area that the minister would advise the

Hon. J. Murray: The other ministers have made it very clear that they do have a responsibility for environmental sustainability and environmental protection. It is in their service plans. The ministries work closely together to identify exactly which aspects which ministry takes the lead in so that we can reduce the amount of gaps and overlaps that we've seen in the past. The other ministries are clear, though, that they do take guidance from Water, Land and Air Protection on standards, and this ministry has a strong role in compliance and enforcement.

With respect to whether there are any environmental areas not in this ministry's responsibility, the Ministry of Health Services has responsibility for the quality of drinking water that comes out of the tap.

J. Kwan: I have quotes from estimates, which I'll go through with the minister in terms of what other ministers have said. Continuously, ministry by ministry, they've all said on the issue around environmental protection, on the issue around monitoring, on the issue around enforcement, that all of them fall under the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection.

I will be going through with the minister, ministry by ministry, in terms of what other ministers have said. That shared responsibility seems to lapse in the minds of the other ministers, and they seem to indicate that those responsibilities rest with this minister. I'll be going into that, ministry by ministry, in a little while.

Let me ask the minister this question. Under the strategic shifts, the service plan says it will move from…. Sorry, I've already asked the minister the question in terms of the sole protector of the environment and stewardship.

How does the shared stewardship and sharing the responsibility of others ensure that British Columbians would be protected? How do you hold those other people accountable in sharing that responsibility in shared stewardship with these other individuals or companies?

Hon. J. Murray: This ministry is responsible for setting standards, but I'd like to give an example of shared stewardship. I had a conversation a few months ago with Rick Hansen, who's the chair of a non-profit organization that's interested in sturgeon recovery in waterways in southwestern British Columbia.

He was telling me that when his organization, his volunteers, took over the job of catching them, tagging them and releasing them, the number of sturgeon that were tagged — then they use that information to track the movement and the numbers of the sturgeon — was many more. More sturgeon were tagged in a much shorter time period, because there were a lot of people who were fishers, people who enjoy fishing, out there doing that work as part of their volunteer and their recreation time.

That was at no cost to government. So it was, I think, a good example of the ministry working with a non-profit group that has a common objective. In that case, it was the protection and recovery of the sturgeon. The ministry will continue to work with people in British Columbia that have common objectives with respect to protecting and restoring habitat and biodiversity.

The ministry, in that sturgeon example, did provide biologists, provided the science and set the standards, but it was working with the general public and people that are specifically interested in the common objective of protecting sturgeon. That's an example of shared stewardship.

J. Kwan: That's one example, and I appreciate that. Likewise in another area, as an example, in the area of human resources, many ministers and some members of the government bench suggest that charities can come and take on the role of providing for advocacy, as an example, providing support to the communities, providing food to the community and so on. The fact of the matter is that the poverty rate in the community remains very high, and there are still people who are not able to get access to basic supports, whether it be food, shelter or advocacy information. Yet the government says: "Well, we don't have the funding to do that, so we're sharing that stewardship with somebody else and getting the non-profit sector to do it.

I worry, quite frankly, if that's the approach to doing that, and that's what it sounds like is going to happen here in the area of environment, where it's just being off-loaded to the community for them to take on that responsibility.

Can the minister give us the assurance that in this shared-stewardship approach, all of the monitoring and enforcement as well as the production of best science relating to environmental integrity and environmental protection is sufficient for the minister to do her work in ensuring that there is full protection for British Columbians in the area of environmental protection and integrity, health and safety?

Hon. J. Murray: I find it very positive how many different projects the ministry is working in a shared-stewardship mode or in partnership with, often in response to an interest and a passion, actually, for protecting the environment that's indicated by other groups. I think there has been shared stewardship-building, and we want to build on that further.

A couple of other examples are partnerships like the South Okanagan–Similkameen conservation group that has somewhere between 15 and 20 different partners that are interested in helping conserve some of the endangered species and ecosystems in the South Okanagan area. Also, the marmot recovery project: the ministry is sharing stewardship of that with industry and with non-profits.

I think the element that's important here is that the ministry does have a role to play in identifying provin-

cial priorities with respect to protection and recovery. The ministry has an important role to play in finding mechanisms that work well, so that perhaps each partnership doesn't have to reinvent the wheel as to how to work well together. I think the ministry also has an important role to play in developing shared goals and measurable targets for the projects.

The ministry will continue to have responsibility for ensuring that current science is used, that there are clear standards in place and that there is effective compliance and enforcement. But I'm very encouraged at the number of partnerships that are building. It also has the very important function of bringing members of the public that do care about the waterways, habitat and species in their areas into a project and a partnership that creates satisfaction, creates accomplishment and creates awareness throughout the province of the importance of protecting the environment.

J. Kwan: That's one aspect of protection, and yes, I appreciate that. I support those initiatives. But I don't think those initiatives, in and of themselves, are sufficient. There's a big role that government needs to play, and they need to be there with the resources to ensure that there is full protection of the environment, not just for this generation but for future generations.

We also learned of another kind of shared-stewardship approach with another industry. My colleague from Vancouver-Hastings just found this out when she was engaging in debate with the minister in the big House around the Muskwa-Kechika issue. That was on the issue of funding for the protection of the park space. What she found out was that that shared-stewardship approach was being shared with the Oil and Gas Commission, which has contributed some $300,000 towards the fund for the maintenance of the Muskwa-Kechika greenspace.

Of course, what we learned is that the oil and gas industry is looking — and lobbying this government very hard — to lift the oil and gas moratorium, which will impact significantly on the environment. We understand and we've seen the different ways of shared stewardship and how that could work; how that would impact British Columbians ultimately and the compromises of our community on the whole as a result of that kind of shared stewardship approach.

So I appreciate what the minister is saying. What I'm concerned about is on the other side — what the negatives might be. Of course, the big question is whether or not there are enough resources out there independent of government to do all of this work. I will submit that, with the cuts this ministry is faced with, there wouldn't be enough resources to ensure that the work is being done and that the best science is afforded to government. Decision-making — which doesn't rest with this ministry, but with other ministries that are driven by the economic development aspect — would end up compromising British Columbians in the area of environmental protection.

The service plan states that the ministry will move from constraints on economic development to economic development based on clear, reasonable environmental outcomes. Could the minister define what she means by clear and reasonable outcomes?

Hon. J. Murray: An example of the economic development based on clear, reasonable environmental outcomes can be illustrated by recent legislation that the ministry brought forward. It was a regulation. It's the organic material recycling regulation. That had to do with composting of organic material. That was a result-based regulation.

Prior to that, if an organization — it could be a brewery with hops that are waste material which fills up our landfills and creates methane gas — wanted to have their material composted and used for compost, they needed to get a permit.

I was told of an example of an organization that had a potential contract to supply organic material for a highways cut project at Hastings and the Cassiar connector. It took two years to get the permit to have this material composted because the permitting process can be very prescriptive with a lot of steps and discussions back and forth. By the time the permit was approved, the opportunity to actually sell this material and use it productively on a restoration of a highway site was over. So there was a constraint on that particular economic goal that the company had. I don't think it was the hops with that particular highways project, but I'm trying to illustrate that the previous method of permitting constrained economic development.

The organic material recycling regulation, which was commenced under the member opposite's time in office and was concluded in the past six months, creates a very clear standard for the organic material and specifies what the composition needs to be for a class A biosolid or a class B biosolid. It then allows composting companies to get on with the business of turning organic waste material into compost that can be used to restore mine sites, or if it's class A biosolids, it can be used on somebody's garden in their backyard. That's an example of a results-based regulation that fits the description here that the member was asking about.

J. Kwan: Could the minister please advise on the ecosystem-based approach that is outlined in the strategic shifts section of the service plan? Could the minister please advise how this will be used to protect wildlife values and other environmental concerns in the province? Could she please define for the House this approach? How does it work?

Hon. J. Murray: The shift is from well-developed but single-focused ministry initiatives to integrated ministry program delivery, based on best available science and an ecosystem-based approach. I think you know that an example of this might actually be some of the projects from Fisheries Renewal B.C., which were very specific to a particular spot. A proponent would

come forward with a proposal to do some work on a fisheries habitat area, and that work would be done in isolation of the whole watershed issue.

What we're wanting to move towards with the Living Rivers strategy would be looking at the watershed as an integrated whole and developing models for thinking about how we do protect and restore our watersheds and then developing priorities. What are the priority projects, rather than responding to specific project-by-project requests for funding? That's one example, to answer the member opposite.

Another example is something that, again, I'm very happy to be building on — some work that was done in the ministry under the previous government. That's pollution prevention planning, in which a facility…. And there are some examples of companies that have been part of the government's pilot P2 planning process, where those companies look at all of the impacts of their operations on the environment and develop a plan that starts at the very front end of the production process. They look at the design of the whole production process to see which of the impacts are of most concern and develop a plan to address them — but a whole facilitywide, integrated approach rather than focusing on one pollutant at a time. That's another example.

J. Kwan: Have the other ministries that WLAP is working closely with also committed to the ecosystem-based approach — or just this ministry? It would seem, then, that an approach based on integration and interaction of biophysical concerns as well as development issues would be a governmentwide strategy. Will decisions across government be made using this approach?

Hon. J. Murray: The Living Rivers strategy is a combined initiative with the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management. For some of the habitat and biodiversity work the ministry will be working closely with the Ministry of Forests. Yes, this is a governmentwide approach, and I think various ministries provide leads on different aspects. Certainly the systemwide approach is one I'm very keen on.

J. Kwan: So that the opposition can use the ecosystem-based approach as a measure with other ministries and their work as well as this ministry, could the minister please clearly define for me what an ecosystem-based approach is, not through an example but through definition? How would one define that approach so I can understand it clearly and utilize it as a measure to hold government accountable?

Hon. J. Murray: By an ecosystem-based approach it means the ministry is weaving into its planning and structure the process of looking at land, water, wildlife habitat, fisheries in an area-based or a watershed-based sense rather than looking at a specific species in a specific location. It's looking more holistically, because ecosystems do have functions that work together to support the structure, function and health of the whole. The whole needs to be taken into account.

J. Kwan: Then how will it be used to protect wildlife values and other environmental concerns?

Hon. J. Murray: A specific example is that previously, the way the ministry was structured, the staff that were working in B.C. Parks had wildlife conservation, biodiversity, habitat responsibilities in a specific park. That group would work in complete isolation from the ministry staff that had those same kinds of responsibilities but not in a park. There was not a lot of communication between those groups. In a way, an artificial boundary on a map was separating two groups of people with common responsibilities. So we've brought them together. We have our various parks responsibilities and our wildlife, fisheries habitat responsibilities under a division, which is environmental stewardship. One of the initiatives is to look at biodiversity, conservation, habitat issues across park boundaries.

J. Kwan: Will tenure applications be subject to an analysis of their operations in the context of an ecosystem approach? That is to say, will they have to prove that their development plans will not interfere with the overall ecosystem health and integrity? Will WLAP monitor the impact these tenure holders have in accordance with the ecosystem approach?

Hon. J. Murray: Water, Land and Air Protection doesn't make decisions on tenuring, but it does provide information on environmental impacts to the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management through Land and Water British Columbia. The ministry's input will be based on the ministry's strategy for biodiversity or the Living Rivers strategy for watershed protection. Those strategies will be ecosystem based. That will be the information and the standards the ministry will be providing, and that will be the basis on which the ministry will be monitoring the outcomes.

J. Kwan: I understand that this ministry doesn't get to make the decisions. The minister also said, though, that other ministries will be using the ecosystem-based approach in decision-making within their ministries. Part of this information, I assume, would come from the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection.

In the case around tenure holders, would the standard that would be set be on the basis of an evaluation of what kind of interference would occur with ecosystem health and integrity? How would the minister approach these tenure-holder requests and the advice that the minister will be providing to the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management with respect to approvals and decisions?

Hon. J. Murray: Just to clarify, the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection doesn't receive the tenure

requests. That is dealt with by the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management. This ministry does provide scientific information and provides standards. The ministry is working towards integrating its approach on an ecosystem basis, and other ministries determine their approaches for the areas they have responsibility over. Where this ministry is providing input, it will be more and more based on an ecosystem approach.

J. Kwan: Earlier, I asked the minister if decisions across government would be made using this approach. The answer I got from the minister was essentially yes, they would be. I assumed this was across government and that part of the work and responsibility of this ministry is to provide the information, making sure that the ecosystem-based approach is being utilized in other ministries on decisions.

The point is this: this minister does not get to make those decisions. Ultimately, the minister does not have a say in the decision-making, which I think is central to the ability of the minister to protect and ensure that environmental integrity is protected. She has to be able to say no to applicants. She has to be able to say no, but she doesn't have the authority to say no. The one way the minister can work towards ensuring that environmental integrity is protected is by utilizing this ecosystem-based approach and making sure it is in fact done across government.

The other aspect, of course, is the monitoring side, ensuring that tenure holders are going to be in compliance with the standards the government has set. If the minister does not have the authority to ensure that other ministries utilize an ecosystem-based approach, then how can the minister ensure that her job is being done efficiently and adequately in the best interests of British Columbians for environmental protection?

Hon. J. Murray: I just want to reiterate to the member opposite that I am not speaking for other ministries' decision processes. They determine their decision processes. At the same time, every ministry has a responsibility to factor environmental sustainability into their planning and their service plans. High environmental standards are something that this government has publicly stated a commitment to. Water, Land and Air Protection does have the role of providing environmental information and setting environmental standards that will be utilized by other ministries. In providing that information and setting those standards, the ministry will be incorporating an ecosystem-based approach into its science.

J. Kwan: Well, as the minister has indicated and as other ministers have advised in different estimates, the decision does not rest with WLAP. It rests with the other ministries, primarily the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management. In that process, they will take advice and information from the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection. They'll take that information in which the minister will utilize the ecosystem-based approach in providing that advice, but ultimately the decision is made by other ministries. This minister does not have the authority to make those decisions.

I fail to understand, then, how the minister could rise in this House and say, "I will be held accountable on issues around environmental protection, environmental integrity, safety and health protection for British Columbians," when she doesn't have the authority to make these decisions. What happens when other ministries' decisions, and perhaps their science, contradict the minister's office's science — where they contradict each other? Who gets to override that decision? Would it be this ministry, or would it be the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management?

Hon. J. Murray: The ministries work together to incorporate the environmental information and the environmental standards. If there's a disagreement as to how to proceed with a project, the ministry staff work together to sort out the disagreement.

There is a well-orchestrated process, actually, for resolving disputes. If the staff are unable to agree, then the issue goes to a committee of deputy ministers whose job it is to look at the science, look at the economics, look at the social issues and come up with a mutually agreeable solution. If the deputy ministers can't do that, it goes another level up. There's a subcommittee of cabinet — that is, the committee on environment and the economy. Those ministers, then, look at the issue and resolve it at that level.

If that's not a level at which…. For significant issues of policy and direction, if the subcommittee of ministers is not able to reach agreement, then that's an issue that will be taken to cabinet for decision. That's the process in place for dealing with any potential disputes that come up.

Hon. J. Murray: Is the cabinet subcommittee the one the member's referring to? Attending that are the ministers and deputies from the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection; the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management; the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries; the Ministry of Forests, the Ministry of Energy and Mines; and the Ministry of Competition, Science and Enterprise.

J. Kwan: Then we know from the makeup of this subcommittee who's going to override, or what values within government override. The only person on that committee who will go and advocate for environmental protection and environmental integrity, quite frankly, is this minister, I would assume. I look at the list, and I don't see others going to this committee to advocate for environmental protection. We know what will override. It would be values other than environmental values — unless the minister will tell me otherwise, that in fact…

J. Kwan: …it is not the case, and the values of environmental concerns are greater than that of others and, therefore, environmental protection will always win out to protect British Columbia for today and for tomorrow. But I suspect that's not the case.

I'd also like to get the minister's response on the issue of enforcement. It's a tall order the minister has to fill on the question of enforcement. In every other sector, in every other ministry, the role of enforcement falls within the responsibility of this minister. Given that her budget's been cut, I think it's a tall order for the minister to fulfil the issue of enforcement.

Could the minister please advise how many staff are dedicated to the role of enforcement?

Hon. J. Murray: I just want to go back briefly to the member's comments around the cabinet subcommittee. I'd like to assure the member that all ministers are held accountable for environmental protection. All the ministers received personal letters from the Premier that made clear the high importance of achieving high environmental standards. The Minister of Sustainable Resource Management is also very clear on the importance of sustainability, which means balanced decision-making. I just wanted to add that reassurance.

In talking about enforcement, it is a key part of the ministry's responsibility. This ministry is joined by enforcement resources from several of the federal ministries. DFO, Environment Canada, bylaw officers in municipalities and police forces have enforcement responsibilities. The ministry's conservation officer service does have cooperative agreements with some of these other enforcement resources. This year there will be 120 enforcement officers in the ministry.

Secondly, the ministry is redesigning the compliance and enforcement process to make it more effective. Whereas compliance used to be a part of a ministry officer's responsibilities, we've now created a new job designation, which is called a compliance officer. We will be integrating the work of the compliance officers with the conservation officers to reduce previous gaps and duplications that sometimes took place between the compliance function and the enforcement function. That will also increase the effectiveness of our enforcement officers. That's 35 compliance officers.

J. Kwan: In total we've got about 155 FTEs engaged in the role of enforcement and compliance. Yes, there would be a reliance on other jurisdictions as well — the federal government, the police officers and so on. Primarily though, in the jurisdictional areas that rest with this ministry, we have about 155 FTEs engaging in that work.

We'll see. We'll monitor whether or not the enforcement work is going to be dealt with adequately and whether or not the resources allocated to it are going to be sufficient in terms of providing protection for British Columbians in this area. We'll monitor that.

There is a commitment again in the strategic shifts that public information be made available in a transparent, timely and accessible manner. Is this still the position of the ministry and the minister?

Hon. J. Murray: That's a shift this ministry is also working on because the potency of public information will support the protection of the environment. One of the examples is that when the drinking water panel completed their report, it was immediately put on the website so that it was publicly available for people to read through and comment on. Another example is aquaculture data that in the past may have been data that the ministry held as proprietary information. The ministry is making that kind of data available publicly.

J. Kwan: Knowing there is this commitment, I was wondering if the minister could offer her thoughts on the fact that the final Energy Policy Task Force report is being withheld from the public by her colleague at Energy and Mines. This report deals with a lot of issues critical to water, land and air protection, including expanding reliance on coal as a source of power.

Could the minister elaborate on what she's doing to ensure that this province does not add to the climate change problem by increasing B.C.'s coal burning as a source of power? Let me just get the minister's response on this issue.

Hon. J. Murray: Any questions about the Energy Policy Task Force report would be properly directed to the Minister of Energy and Mines.

J. Kwan: This report deals with issues that are critical to water, land and air protection, including the reliance on coal as a source of power. This minister just told us that they're working collaboratively in government, working together, and that there's never going to be compromises that would jeopardize the environment.

Has the minister even seen this report herself? What are her thoughts on the issue around protection for British Columbians in the area of water, land and air protection?

Hon. J. Murray: I'd be happy to comment on the contents of the Energy Policy Task Force report and the implications for the environment once that report has been completed and is public.

Hon. J. Murray: Cabinet will be receiving briefings on the report before very long.

J. Kwan: I asked a very straightforward question. A report relative to government policy that will impact directly on the area of responsibility of this minister, the Energy Policy Task Force report: has the minister seen this report, yes or no?

Hon. J. Murray: I have had discussions with the minister and the task force on various parts of the deliberations. As a member of cabinet, I'll be seeing this report and deliberating on it when it comes to cabinet.

Can the minister elaborate on what she's going to be doing to ensure that this province does not add to the climate change problems by increasing B.C.'s coal burning as a source of power?

Hon. J. Murray: Ministry staff are currently working on a greenhouse gas emissions strategy, which will include addressing emissions of coal-fired plants and other producers of greenhouse gases and are also working on an emissions standard for general particulate and other emissions of coal-fired plants.

J. Kwan: What is the minister actively doing to protect air quality in B.C.?

Hon. J. Murray: The ministry dug right in after the election to become an intervener in the Sumas Energy 2 power plant and to do what this province can to avoid having a major energy plant sited in such a way that it would create a pollution burden in the Fraser Valley. The ministry is involved in trans-boundary airshed planning between British Columbia and Washington. It's involved with community airshed improvement in communities where the airsheds are threatened.

As we move forward to having an airshed planning and improvement strategy that's provincewide, I've had discussions with the federal government on how to harmonize the federal government's and the provincial government's definitions of airshed, come up with a common model for airshed planning and improvement, and come up with a joint identification of the priority for improving airsheds in the province.

J. Kwan: Has the campaign promise that the Liberal Party engaged in to close Burrard Thermal materialized?

Hon. J. Murray: The member is correct; that is a campaign promise to close Burrard Thermal. That's outside of the responsibility of my ministry.

J. Kwan: The answer is no. The government has not lived up to that promise, and that is an issue that impacts this ministry: Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. This minister says that she is the minister responsible; that is her mandate. But on issues on which she has no decision-making authority, she rises up in this House and says, "No, it doesn't fall within my ministry," when she knows very well that what happens in those decisions impacts her ability to do her job, and to make sure that her mandate is actually kept.

J. Kwan: …because, quite frankly, the direction of this government is going the other way. They talk the talk, and this is the Liberal doubletalk approach. They talk the talk of environmental protection and environmental integrity, but in reality the practice shows otherwise.

I am noting the time, but let me ask this one quick question of the minister. Does the minister support Kyoto?

Hon. J. Murray: I just would like to remind the member that a campaign promise for a four-year term does not bind a government to every single action in the first nine months.

Kyoto is a federal decision. The provincial government is working on a climate-change strategy for reducing greenhouse gases in British Columbia. The province is also having bilateral discussions with the federal government so the federal government understands British Columbia's situation and the costs and benefits of action to reduce greenhouse gases in British Columbia. This government is very aware that decarbonization is a movement that is gathering momentum across the developed nations. It's an important one for environmental reasons, and British Columbia will be participating and looking at how greenhouse gases can be reduced in British Columbia.

J. Kwan: I do note that the Kyoto decision is one that rests with the federal government, but the federal government has been engaging in discussions with the provinces, to which the minister's Premier has led other Premiers to say no to Kyoto. I'm interested in this minister's point of view, because she, as I understand, is a strong environmentalist and wants to ensure that the mandate of her job is actually met and that British Columbians' health and safety are protected. From her own personal point of view, does she support Kyoto and the goals that have been set out by it?

Hon. J. Murray: I need to make a correction in the member opposite's statement. The Premier, as the host of a first ministers' conference, did sign a letter to the Prime Minister. That letter stated that it would be irresponsible to make a decision on Kyoto prior to publishing the economic analysis the federal government was working on, prior to having discussions with the provinces about what a plan might look like and how the provinces can input into that plan, prior to seriously

addressing the competitiveness issues with the United States, prior to having consultations with stakeholders and the public. Before those things happen, it would be irresponsible to take a decision to sign the Kyoto accord. That was the essence of the letter.

J. Kwan: Is that the minister's position as well — the same as the Premier's?

Hon. J. Murray: Absolutely. It would be very irresponsible to make a decision to sign prior to understanding what the outcome of signing is, what the plan is and how it will be accomplished.

J. Kwan: Very interesting. We will continue on with this set of estimates. I have lots of questions for the minister.

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


	YEAS — 64

Falcon	Coell	Hogg
L. Reid	Halsey-Brandt	Hawkins
Whittred	Cheema	Hansen
J. Reid	Bruce	van Dongen
Barisoff	Nettleton	Roddick
Wilson	Masi	Lee
Hagen	Murray	Campbell
Collins	de Jong	Nebbeling
Stephens	Abbott	Neufeld
Coleman	Penner	Jarvis
Anderson	Orr	Harris
Nuraney	Brenzinger	Belsey
Bell	Chutter	Mayencourt
Trumper	Johnston	Bennett
R. Stewart	Krueger	McMahon
Bray	Les	Nijjar

	[ Page 2726 ]

Bhullar	Wong	Bloy
Suffredine	MacKay	Cobb
K. Stewart	Lekstrom	Brice
Sultan	Hamilton	Sahota
Hawes	Kerr	Manhas
	Hunter

	NAYS — 2

MacPhail		Kwan


	YEAS — 61

Falcon	Coell	Hogg
Halsey-Brandt	Hawkins	Whittred
Cheema	Hansen	J. Reid
van Dongen	Barisoff	Nettleton
Roddick	Wilson	Masi
Lee	Hagen	Murray
Collins	de Jong	Nebbeling
Stephens	Abbott	Neufeld
Coleman	Penner	Jarvis
Anderson	Orr	Harris
Nuraney	Brenzinger	Belsey
Bell	Chutter	Mayencourt
Trumper	Johnston	Bennett
R. Stewart	Hayer	Krueger
McMahon	Bray	Les
Nijjar	Bhullar	Wong
Bloy	Suffredine	MacKay
Cobb	K. Stewart	Lekstrom
Brice	Sultan	Hamilton
Sahota	Hawes	Kerr
	Manhas

	NAYS — 2

MacPhail		Kwan