2013 Legislative Session: First Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
official report of
Debates of the Legislative Assembly
(hansard)
Tuesday, July 9, 2013
Morning Sitting
Volume 2, Number 3
ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)
CONTENTS |
|
Page |
|
Orders of the Day |
|
Committee of Supply |
253 |
Estimates: Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations (continued) |
|
N. Macdonald |
|
Hon. S. Thomson |
|
B. Routley |
|
Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room |
|
Committee of Supply |
262 |
Estimates: Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation (continued) |
|
Hon. D. McRae |
|
J. Kwan |
|
K. Corrigan |
|
TUESDAY, JULY 9, 2013
The House met at 10:02 a.m.
[Madame Speaker in the chair.]
Prayers.
Orders of the Day
Hon. T. Stone: In this chamber I call continuing estimates debate for the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, and in Committee A, I call continuing debate of the estimates of the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation.
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
FORESTS, LANDS AND
NATURAL RESOURCE OPERATIONS
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); D. Horne in the chair.
The committee met at 10:07 a.m.
On Vote 26: ministry operations, $340,367,000 (continued).
The Chair: We're currently considering the budget estimates of the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations.
N. Macdonald: We'll just pick up on the discussion that we were having yesterday about the cruise-based timber pricing system that's been introduced first in the Interior and that is now being moved onto the Island with, I think, some questionable success.
The difference, just for people at home, is that we used to have in place a scale-based pricing system, where the scaling that was being done by the company was physically checked. We are depending more and more upon a cruise-based system to decide the revenue that's coming from a particular plot.
Just picking up on that, it used to be that under the old scale-based pricing system, we had a reasonably accurate understanding of what trees were logged by species and grade so that we could actually keep the logging companies accountable by doing spot inspections.
Under the cruise-based pricing system, estimates of the total number of trees to be logged and estimates of their breakdown by species are arrived at by taking data from test plots cruised by forest company employees or contractors and then by taking those estimates and applying them to the wider area of the forest to be logged.
So in addition to the previous question that we asked yesterday, I would like to ask: how are crude cruise-based estimates turned into data in a database that indicates actual volumes of trees logged, with a breakdown by species and grade? How is that supposed to work?
Hon. S. Thomson: Just, again, to remind the members opposite of some of the discussion yesterday, on the coast we are talking about 9 percent of the volume under cruise-based. The Interior, as I mentioned, was quite a bit higher, around 50 percent. That's primarily focused on the low-value mountain pine beetle stands.
The specific question is: how is the information from the cruise entered into the data system? It is done directly. The cruise information is what is entered into the data system, and that forms the basis for the billing.
B. Routley: Can you just confirm that there is, then, no grading done of the logs? What I think I heard you say is that under the cruise-based system, you do report the species and report the volume, but you're not reporting the grade.
As a former forestry union rep that used to deal with the log graders and scalers and spent many an hour down on the dry-land sort, watching what they do, I'm clearly aware that there's a big difference between a second-growth fir or hemlock and old growth that has probably four to five times the value — in an old-growth piece of wood versus second growth.
It would alarm me indeed if we're not accounting for grade at all. Is that correct — that you're not accounting for grade whatsoever?
Hon. S. Thomson: No. Just to confirm, the grade on the cruise on the coast is included. It's based on quality indicators that are part of the cruise. Those, through the modelling, are based on those quality indicators and put in the factor for grade, and that's included in the data that's entered.
B. Routley: Okay. Would the minister please tell us if he stands by the system and that the data contained in government's publicly available harvest billing system is true, complete and an accurate portrayal of all the trees logged in the province of British Columbia?
Hon. S. Thomson: The cruise-based system, as I pointed out, is 9 percent of the total on the coast. It's something, as I indicated yesterday, that we're moving carefully with. The process has oversight through an audit process, through a risk management process, on both scale-based and cruise-based.
[ Page 254 ]
We remain confident that the data entered reflects both the volume and the species and the grade that go into the billing system. As I said, we're monitoring it carefully. We provide the oversight through a risk management process on both systems, which is important to continue to do. So we believe that it does provide the information that's required.
Again, as I said, we're assessing it carefully and moving forward with it in a very measured way, particularly on the coast.
The Interior. We're confident that, when you look at where it's applied in the Interior on the lower-value mountain pine beetle stands, we're capturing the information required.
N. Macdonald: Minister, we'll just turn to B.C. Timber Sales revenues now.
Would the minister provide us with the B.C. Timber Sales projected revenues, split again by the coast and the Interior for this fiscal year, as well as for 2014-15 and for 2015-16?
Hon. S. Thomson: For B.C. Timber Sales, the gross revenue for 2012-13, $178 million; projections for '13-14, $187.3 million; and for '14-15, $191.2 million. In terms of the specific breakdowns between coastal BCTS operations and Interior B.C. Timber Sales operations, I don't have that specific information in front of me here. We will undertake to provide that breakdown as quickly as we can.
B. Routley: Okay. For greater certainty and clarity, in fiscal year 2012-13, did B.C. Timber Sales operate at a revenue net loss or a profit? What was the amount of loss or profit? Is BCTS forecast to operate at a revenue net profit or loss this fiscal year? And what is the amount of that projected loss or profit?
Hon. S. Thomson: For the '12-13 fiscal year BCTS generated a gross revenue of $175 million and a net revenue of $24.8 million. For the previous fiscal year, '11-12, it generated a gross revenue of $136 million with a net revenue of $1.3 million.
For '13-14 it's anticipated it will generate a gross revenue of $187 million and a net revenue of $29.5 million.
B. Routley: Shifting gears here a bit, biodiversity is a source of direct and indirect revenue in the form of fees and ecological services respectively. By biodiversity, I'm referring to the province's rich diversity, the richest in Canada for ecosystems, species and genes. In short, the term biodiversity encompasses the provincial natural renewable resources.
Biodiversity, along with the elements of soil, air and water, is our natural inheritance and one we are morally obligated to pass on intact to our children. Biodiversity is the source of most of our wealth in British Columbia. If we use it to generate wealth, then we must also care for it. From the wealth generated from biodiversity, we must ensure that sufficient revenue adheres to the Crown to pay for its stewardship.
Much of the province's biodiversity is publicly owned, and the provincial government has a statutory requirement to assert the financial interests of the Crown in how it permits use of biodiversity, whether it be for timber, fish, wildlife or non-timber resources.
My question to the minister is: would the minister kindly provide us with a breakdown of the itemized wildlife revenues for this fiscal year, for 2014-2015 and for 2015-2016?
Hon. S. Thomson: I think the question was for '13-14, '14-15 and '15-16. Revenue from Wildlife Act fees and licences, which includes angling and hunting permits and licences, for '13-14 — $13.2 million; forecast for '14-15, $13.2 million; and for '15-16, $13.2 million. That is net of surcharges paid to the Habitat Conservation Trust Fund of $6 million per year.
N. Macdonald: Just to be clear, I think within there the minister had talked about fish as well. I thought you said angling. If not, could the minister provide similar information for fish? I thought I heard it included in there. If not, then could we have the figures for fish?
Hon. S. Thomson: Yes, those figures do include both hunting and angling permits and licences. But I should also point out, as I pointed out with the…. That's net of surcharges paid to the Habitat Conservation Trust Fund. You also, I think, will be aware that on the angling revenue…. About 54 percent of angling revenue, in terms of licences, is paid to the Freshwater Fisheries Society on an annual basis — approximately $9 million.
B. Routley: Given the damning February 2013 report of the Auditor General on the status and stewardship of the province's natural renewable resources — for example, biodiversity, which the government has cut funding for by 52 percent over the last 12 years….
It would seem that the ministry needs to become innovative in generating revenue to pay for the care of the land and the water that's under its jurisdiction, especially given that it is incapable of generating sufficient revenues from stumpage and B.C. Timber Sales to pay for such things as the rehabilitation of wildlife and fish habitat that's damaged by logging; the planting of extensive areas of NSR resulting from failed plantations, disease infections, insect infestations and wildfires; the fireproofing of wetland and urban interface to ensure the safety
[ Page 255 ]
of British Columbia; and the maintenance of the current, and a reliable, inventory.
All of these are examples of failures of this provincial government to act, to protect communities in such things as wildfire.
My question for the minister is: has the minister considered increasing revenue to be used for the conservation of biodiversity, as is done in other jurisdictions? I'll give some examples, based on one or a combination of the following ideas — for example, a 1 percent tax on sporting goods similar to the incredibly successful U.S. measure, the Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson acts in the United States.
Before the minister responds, I should point out that there is an established precedent in the province of British Columbia where moneys collected from human activities on Crown lands and waterways — the fees charged by the province to anglers and hunters on provincial lands and waterways — are dedicated to a special account, the Habitat Conservation Trust Fund, to do important habitat restoration work and to make strategic wildlife habitat acquisitions.
It would be possible to apply additional revenues collected under a 1 percent tax on sporting goods to the HCTF for administration and to expand the HCTF's mandate.
Another idea: a one-time major conservation endowment from B.C. Lotteries fund. And/or another idea is the conservation impost of one or more of a tonne of coal, a cubic metre of timber, a cubic metre of gas or a barrel of oil, or on all forest agreements and resource development permits.
These are just some ideas, and that's my question to the minister. Could you please respond.
Hon. S. Thomson: We recognize the very important work that both the Habitat Conservation Trust Fund and the Freshwater Fisheries Society do. That's why we provide them dedicated revenues.
You also will know that we've committed, in our platform, to provide the full amount of revenue from fishing and angling licences to the Freshwater Fisheries Society, recognizing that that is a great model, and it's doing great work. That additional funding is going to help them increase inventory work and stocking and the many programs that they manage very, very successfully in the Freshwater Fisheries Society.
With our integrated approach to managing the resources, we're always looking for efficiencies and how we can do much of this work more efficiently. We've collaborated with the B.C. Wildlife Federation, for example, on wildlife inventories. So we recognize the importance of doing all of this work.
We also recognize that we need to do it within a balanced-budget approach without increasing levels of taxation, which some of your suggestions do in terms of adding additional taxes. We'll continue to work to make sure that we continue to support those organizations that are doing that very important work.
From time to time we find opportunities to provide additional funding to the Habitat Conservation Trust Fund. They're able to lever the support that we provide them in many ways, enhancing the work they do. Both models provide excellent support and service to British Columbia.
N. Macdonald: As we began the debates, Minister, I talked to staff, and there was an understanding that while there would be some questions to do with the hazard reduction in wildland-urban interface, staff this time of year would be busy. I said that any of the questions that needed to be answered could be answered later on.
I simply want to put some things on record. If the minister, through the deputy, is able to answer, that's fine. But the understanding was that staff, at a time that was more appropriate, given that this is the fire season, would answer at that point. So just to put that on the record.
British Columbians in urban centres throughout the interior of B.C. are becoming increasingly anxious about the government's lack of progress in reducing fire hazard in the two-kilometre zone of the wildland-urban interface surrounding communities. I'll deal with the neglect of the safety of residents when I tackle the expense side of the estimates before the House.
I suspect that our courageous firefighters — recently commemorated, last year, with the unveiling of the monument on the south lawn of the Legislature — would agree with the idea that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
With that said, I suggest to the minister that as with wildlife, fish and water, there exist opportunities for direct and indirect revenue generation in the wildland-urban interface that would greatly help achieve those safety objectives.
We know that hazard-reduction treatment of the wildland-urban interface buffer is extremely expensive. When we looked at the progress that we've made and we looked at how much has been spent to deal with approximately 4 percent of the area that was identified…. I think anybody could see that that model is simply going to be too expensive for us.
I think what government would be looking for are innovative ways to pay for hazard reduction in the WUI buffer instead of, effectively, doing nothing, as confirmed by results to date when contrasted against the recommendations of the 2004 Filmon report, a report which the government commissioned as a result of 2,500 wildfires in 2003. I think the minister will remember, of course, coming from Kelowna, that we lost 334 homes and we had an evacuation of over 45,000 residents.
[ Page 256 ]
Worse still, in the 2004 throne speech the government committed to the people of British Columbia that it would act on the Filmon report recommendations. A commitment was made that it has failed to honour ten years later. So I remind the minister, as he knows, that this is the tenth anniversary of the tragic Kelowna firestorm. I would ask the minister to sort of join with us in looking at some of the options that may be available within the wildland-urban interface.
There's great potential, we feel and others feel, to use the small-diameter and dead trees as feedstock to produce higher-value end products in the bioenergy sector — for example, products other than power from cogeneration plants. To make this revenue-generating option for hazard reduction possible, the ministry would first need to address a number of key policy and market impediments.
The ministry needs to place management of the WUI buffer under the control, likely, of local or First Nations governments and delineate the spatial boundary of the WUI buffer based on wildfire threat and on volume of feedstocks available, to satisfy creditors investing in the development of a bioenergy infrastructure. By pooling all of the fibre in the WUI under one licensee and auctioning off the biomass — both saw timber and biomass — to the highest bidder, the program, I think, avoids tariff issues with the softwood lumber agreement while maximizing the return of revenue from the sale of forest products.
All stumpage revenues from the sale of forest products from the WUI buffer would then be placed in a locally administered trust account owned by the Crown and dedicated to forest fuel reduction and stand maintenance operations within the WUI.
In place of the UBCM program, local government and the ministry's wildfire management branch would be permitted to access the trust as a long-term dedicated source of funds to pay for hazard reduction and for maintenance activities within the WUI. To ensure the long-term effectiveness of hazard-reduction treatments, all Crown forest stands within the buffer would be removed from the timber harvest landbase.
As an additional source of revenue from hazard-reduction treatments and from maintenance, the Crown should make forest stands in the WUI buffer eligible for investments, possibly in carbon offsets.
So my question for the minister is: has the minister considered a concept like this, the solution that we've talked about here? I think, from my perspective, and the minister obviously has 3,000 employees to work on it in more detail, what would need to take place is you'd need to legislate a land use objective that clearly states that the priority for harvesting activity in the WUI is not timber but fuel-hazard reduction and carbon offsets.
Secondly, issue a government action regulation order that directs fire-hazard-reduction activity on Crown and private land within the WUI buffer.
Third, provide incentives and legal framework necessary for communities to manufacture bioenergy products and to build cogeneration plants, both using feedstock removed from the WUI buffer.
What we've tried to do here is offer an alternative. If the government is considering that objective, I think it's one that is highly supportable. I have spent many years as the critic, and, especially in some of our earlier debates, we debated fuel management in the interface. Of course, it all came down to money.
There is recognition, I think, that only 4 percent of the work identified has been done. There is recognition, as well, that to do this work saves money in the long term. So I guess just an opportunity to respond to that sort of suggestion that would take care of some of the issues that we see on the revenue side in dealing with the interface issues that we have.
Hon. S. Thomson: Thank you for the question. I certainly understand the need to look for longer-term solutions and options for addressing this. We know there are risks that exist. As was mentioned, we've contributed over $62 million through the wildfire interface program, working with UBCM and communities and First Nations in response to the recommendations from the mid-term timber supply committee work.
We're proactively working towards landscape fire management planning. We've got three pilot projects in the Cascades and in Vanderhoof, Fort St. James and the Sea to Sky resource districts. Those are all important initiatives. There is no one silver bullet for this. It is looking to how we find creative options for solutions.
We're doing lots of work on the bioenergy — the market side of it — with the Bio-Economy Transformation Council that we have in place. I think that provides some options for looking at some of the suggestions that the member opposite suggested.
As we look ahead, while not responding specifically to all the suggestions, I think we need to have the discussion and the conversation. I'm quite prepared to continue to do that, because it is an important issue as we address the future of both the current program that we have in place and how we move forward under the recommendations of the mid-term timber supply committee, particularly around that fire management planning on a landscape basis. The suggestions are all part of that.
I think it's a very valid question and some suggestions that we need to continue to have the conversation about. As minister, I'm quite prepared to continue to do that.
B. Routley: We'd like to turn to dams for a while, just to keep the minister's interest up. Would the minister tell us if he or if his ministry derives revenue from dams? Does the ministry obtain revenue from run-of-river
[ Page 257 ]
dams and from independent power project dams? And how much revenue do dams of all kinds generate for the ministry in this fiscal year, for 2014-15 and for 2015-16?
Hon. S. Thomson: The question was: do we receive revenue from dams? What we receive revenue from is the water licences associated with works. I think the question was in terms of the revenue from those. For the fiscal year 2013-14, $482.067 million; for '14-15, $464 million; and for 2015-16, $470.149 million.
N. Macdonald: So nothing for the dams, the infrastructure, but for the water rental. I'll just continue, perhaps, with water rental and usage and the projected revenues related to such.
When the present ministry was constituted as the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, the ministry assumed responsibility for reviewing applications for water licences and temporary water permits. With the exception of the provincial Oil and Gas Commission, which has authority for issuing temporary rights of access to provincial water resources to energy companies, all water applicants are now reviewed and approved by the ministry.
Could the minister please provide us with last year's figure for water revenue collected by the province? I presume that was the figure that the minister provided. If it's not, then could the minister provide us with the figure for last year's water revenues?
[R. Chouhan in the chair.]
Hon. S. Thomson: I think I provided the figures for '13-14, '14-15 and '15-16. I think the question was what the revenue was for '12-13, and it was $456.074 million.
B. Routley: Could the minister confirm that the overwhelming percentage of B.C. water revenue stream is generated by B.C. Hydro for what is essentially flow-through water, while the tiny remaining percentage is paid for by companies and utilities that may wholly consume or toxify water, such as the natural gas industry?
Hon. S. Thomson: I appreciate the question. I've talked to the Chair, and I talked to the member opposite as well, about, at this point in time, having a moment to make a statement and reflect, at 11 o'clock, on a very tragic event.
So before I answer the question, I wonder if I could take that opportunity.
The Chair: I understand the agreement has been reached and leave was granted. Carry on, Minister.
Hon. S. Thomson: On June 9, 19 members of the Granite Mountain Hotshots firefighting crew lost their lives fighting the Yarnell Hill fire in Arizona. This represents the single biggest loss of life fighting forest fires in the U.S.A. and Canada. The event has had a great impact on all of our brave men and women in B.C. who work for the wildfire management branch and who often work shoulder to shoulder with their counterparts in the U.S. and other countries under our mutual aid agreements.
In honour of these fallen forest fire fighters, the wildfire management branches here and across the country are initiating a moment of silence with all forest fire agencies across Canada at 11 o'clock today to coincide with a memorial service that is currently being held in the Prescott Valley in Arizona.
With your agreement — and I appreciate the agreement — I would ask and like if all of us could take part in a moment of silence to show our respect and appreciation for the fallen — to reflect on the great work and sacrifice they made, to pass on our thoughts and prayers to the families and to the firefighting community, and to reflect on the great work that firefighters do every year putting their lives on the line to protect our communities and resources from the threat of wildfire.
I really appreciate the opportunity to do that today. This is a moment that is happening across the country and in the U.S. If we could just have a moment of silence, everybody could reflect on the great work they do and the tremendous sacrifice they make and could pay their respects to the fallen firefighters and the families in their community and to our friends in the U.S.
N. Macdonald: Certainly, we want to share our thoughts with the family and friends of the firefighters who were lost. We know that every fire season we have women and men who risk their lives. It's important but dangerous work. The risks are managed as much as possible, but there's so much that's unpredictable about a wildfire. So of course, the NDP opposition join with the other MLAs in showing our respect.
I think that now, Minister, you'd like us all to stand. I'll leave it to you to direct that.
Hon. S. Thomson: Please stand.
The member opposite referenced the percentage of that volume that is B.C. Hydro. It's approximately 85 percent of that total.
B. Routley: One of the important issues in British Columbia today that is talked about a lot in communities, especially rural communities in British Columbia, is the issue of fracking. I am wondering. Does the minister have any idea at all how much B.C. water is used for fracking? And if we could also hear from the minister on what kind of revenue the province of British Columbia
[ Page 258 ]
receives from the water that is used for fracking.
Hon. S. Thomson: The licensing is under the Oil and Gas Commission.
As you know, we manage a program called the NorthEast Water Tool, a hydrological survey program to make sure that we are confident, in terms of providing those licences, that we are not overallocating and have the water available — a very well-used and important program.
In relation to the quality issues, those are under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Energy and Mines and the Ministry of Environment and would be more properly canvassed there.
N. Macdonald: Part of the question was also just about the revenue generated from that water. Perhaps the minister, if he has that figure, can give it to us.
The fact is that there's very, very little data on actual water usage available. I think the money is collected by government based on total volumes of water assigned under a water licence, not what's actually used.
People do ask about why government isn't more careful with a resource that most parts of the world see as incredibly valuable. We are blessed with a tremendous amount of it. But we are asked, and I asked the minister to explain, why some major water users in the province — for example, in the pulp and paper industry — are not required to meter their actual water usage.
Hon. S. Thomson: It's important to note that the Oil and Gas Commission requires reporting with respect to the other users, their water licences. They're charged for maximum use, so they pay for that maximum use on their licence — the volume that they're licensed for.
I think it's also important to note that, as you know, we're currently in a process being led by the Ministry of Environment around modernization of the Water Act. That process is looking at the whole framework for the regulatory approach to reporting as part of that process. It's a very important initiative that's been underway, and it had a significant process of consultation, led by the Ministry of Environment. The specifics around that could be canvassed with the Minister of Environment.
N. Macdonald: Just a quick follow-up. First, the Water Act. Those changes have been a long time coming, as the minister knows. Hopefully, at some point they will show up. It's important stuff.
Just so I understand. The revenue piece, though, is reported within this ministry. That's my understanding. If that's not the case, the minister can simply tell me that that's not the case and that the revenue is reported somewhere else. If it is reported in this ministry, can the minister tell me what revenue is received for the volumes that are used in fracking?
Hon. S. Thomson: To confirm, the member opposite is correct. The revenue is reported through our ministry. We don't have the specific breakdown on the portion for the oil and gas sector, but we can provide that. We'll provide that in the follow-up.
B. Routley: Could the minister share with us that the data on the actual water use in the province is currently being collected and used to determine what major water users pay the provincial treasury for the water they withdraw from provincial lakes, rivers and streams? Further, could the minister explain the usefulness of such information if it is the case that major water users are, in some cases, not even required to meter their water?
Hon. S. Thomson: The approach is that we collect the revenue based on the licence, which is a licence for maximum use. The system is managed to ensure that through those provisions of licences we don't overallocate the resource. There are portions where it is directly reported — utilities and the power industry.
Again, the process going forward from the current Water Act is being addressed through the modernization of the Water Act, which is looking at, amongst other things, the regulatory framework for water going forward.
N. Macdonald: I thank the minister. Could the minister tell us whether, in his estimation, companies withdrawing water from below-ground sources or groundwater resources currently pay the province not a dime for such water? The minister has talked about it, and I did want to ask.
Could the minister further tell us when the government expects to complete the inaugural portions of its promised modernized Water Act so that groundwater withdrawals are brought under provincial regulation and the stage is set for proper groundwater tracking and revenue collection from those entities tapping into provincial groundwater sources?
Hon. S. Thomson: To confirm, as the member opposite asserted or indicated, groundwater is not currently regulated. As you know, it is being considered in the modernization of the Water Act, in that process which I said has had wide public consultation and involvement. In terms of the specific timing with respect to consultation and bringing legislation forward, that is addressed under the Ministry of Environment. It would be appropriately canvassed with the minister.
B. Routley: I would like to ask the minister, in light of the clear indications that industrial water use in B.C.
[ Page 259 ]
could rise dramatically, particularly in the oil and gas sector, whether he believes that it would make sense, from an environmental as well as a revenue perspective, for his ministry to have an accurate understanding of water use across the province.
Hon. S. Thomson: Just to say from my perspective that water, as everybody knows, is a very, very important resource. The suggestions or the points that the member opposite is making, in terms of reporting, regulation — all of those are being considered in the discussion process around the modernization of the Water Act, which is being led by the Ministry of Environment.
N. Macdonald: I think the minister agrees, then, presumably, since the government has promised to do this and is working on modernization of the Water Act, that it's important to have an accurate idea of water usage across the province. I think that's clearly the responsible thing to do.
Again, trying to put some suggestions forward to government, I would like to ask the minister whether, in his opinion, it would instil greater public confidence to have his ministry establish some new rules around water use data collection reporting and publication, which I think is within his ministry's realm.
It seems to me that sensible ground rules for a new water data collection system would be as follows.
Make the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, if it's not already responsible for data collection, responsible for collecting data from all major water users in the province. I think that's a sensible fit.
Make it a requirement that all major water users must meter all water withdrawals from both surface and groundwater sources and report said water usage to the ministry, which would obtain a database on all water usage and publish that information. I think, again, that's a sensible way forward.
Lastly, review current water fees to determine whether they are high enough to encourage the wise use of water resources and maximize water conservation.
I guess the question for the minister is to explain whether he's supportive, in general, of such measures. If not, why is he opposed to what seems to me a fairly simple accounting practice that one would naturally do if one considered water a valuable resource?
Hon. S. Thomson: As a general response and statement, certainly, yes. That's why we're undertaking the modernization process of the Water Act being led by the Ministry of Environment. Our ministry has been an active participant and part of that process, both in terms of working with the ministry and also in terms of the public consultation process that has been underway. It has been very broad and extensive, with very, very significant input and support for the modernization.
That process is continuing and is being led by the Minister of Environment. If you look at the minister's mandate letter for Environment, it's clearly referenced in the mandate to complete that process and bring modernization forward.
B. Routley: Would the minister please tell us whether his ministry has considered, in comparing the estimates before us, if there are likely to be increased applications by industries to access and use significant volumes of the province's publicly owned water as a resource in various industrial applications? For example, the ministry in 2011 approved two long-term water licences allowing two natural gas companies to pull up to 10,000 cubic metres of water per day from the Williston reservoir.
Could the minister tell us what such increases may mean in terms of increased revenues in the years ahead?
J. Yap: I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Introductions by Members
J. Yap: I am delighted to welcome to the Legislature some students from an elementary school in my riding. It's always fun to welcome students, as all members know, and especially in the summer. It's wonderful that they are here — 28 students from Garden City Elementary School, with their teacher, Ms. Elizabeth Nasu. These are grade 4 students, and five adults are also with them. They are here, of course, to visit the Legislature and see what happens.
This is unique. Normally we don't sit in the summer, and you're here for a visit in the summer, and here we are. So welcome, and would the House please join me in offering a warm welcome to these students and their teacher and adults.
Debate Continued
Hon. S. Thomson: As I noted, all applications are put through a very strict review process to make sure that we manage any approvals on the basis of availability. That was the case with these licences. The revenue from those licences is part of the revenue that comes to the Crown, which we referenced before. The licences are reviewed by experts, by hydrologists, and they are well within sustainable limits.
N. Macdonald: The minister, I know, is getting my colleague and me the total revenues for the fees paid for water for fracking. But could the minister tell us what the current fee structure is for water withdrawals under
[ Page 260 ]
water licences that it approves — to oil and gas companies, as an example? I know that you are going to get the total revenues. But the minister, I'm sure, will have on hand the fee structure.
Hon. S. Thomson: The current fee, as set out under the regulation, is $1.10 per thousand cubic metres. It's also important to point out that water fees are also embedded in the well permit fee, which is $11,000 per well. Again, as indicated, we will be providing the member opposite with the total revenue numbers as requested.
B. Routley: It is my understanding that at present the ministry collects only a nominal amount of funds from companies that withdraw significant volumes of water from public waterways. For example, the money collected from oil and gas companies withdrawing 2,500 cubic metres of water from a provincial lake, river or stream, which is enough water to fill one Olympic-style swimming pool…. The payment is only in the order of $2.50.
Can the minister tell us whether his government is considering raising such fees as one means of increasing government revenue and as a means of encouraging best industry practices and increased water conservation? For example, in the province of Quebec the corresponding payment for 2,500 cubic metres of water is in the vicinity of $175.
Hon. S. Thomson: Yes, fees are part of the consideration of a Water Act modernization. I think if you look through the discussion papers and information with respect to that, you'll note that that is part of the consideration. I think it's also important to note that this…. Everybody knows that this region is one of the very significant economic generators for the province, one that provides tremendous opportunity for us in the future.
We will need to ensure that the appropriate balance is determined between fees and conservation in terms of ensuring that we continue to generate economic activity from the resource — again, pointing out that our water resource is one that is critical to the future of the province not just in this area but across the province.
I'm from the Okanagan, and I certainly understand the value and importance of that resource. That is why, as government, we have committed to the process of a modernization of the act, an act that is — I forget the last time it was modernized, but it's one that has certainly has been around for a long time — due for a modernization process. Again, that is being led by the Ministry of Environment.
N. Macdonald: I think we're all waiting for the act, which sits with a different ministry. I think it's fair to say that it stalled pretty comprehensively about two years ago. It would be good if we made some movement there.
I guess with respect to water, the minister also should share with us — or I hope he will share with us — where the current estimates reflect any budgetary increases for what might broadly be described as integrated resource management. I couldn't find any of these in the estimates. If the minister can direct me to those, that would be useful.
The ministry is assuming responsibility for critical decisions around water allocations as well as being responsible for land base decisions that can negatively as well as positively impact hydrological cycles. Certainly, the minister was aware from the previous parliament discussions we had about caribou issues and so on. I think the minister, with his background, will be well aware of this.
So you would think that the current estimates would reflect increased funding to ensure heightened protection of provincial water and forest resources, but I'm left to wonder where this is reflected in the current estimates that are before us.
Hon. S. Thomson: Thank you for the question. The focus of our ministry, as the member opposite knows, is based on an integrated approach to decision-making across the resource base. This is not a process about spending more money.
The government has committed to bring in a balanced budget, and our ministry plays a significant role in achieving that objective, both in terms of ensuring that we manage our processes efficiently and also in ensuring that we provide the framework that allows the resource industries in British Columbia to contribute the revenues.
This is about having our processes work to ensure that we get to yes on projects, to ensure that we do it in a way that recognizes all of the environmental values. So this is not about just putting more and more dollars into the process. This is about making sure that our systems are integrated. That has been the focus of our ministry on the integrated decision-making framework and approach.
We continue to refine and solidify those processes, working collaboratively within our ministry and across other resource ministries. It is a model that is supported and is working, and we look forward to continuing to make our very important contribution to both resource development in the province and our contribution to ensuring that we meet our objective of a balanced budget.
B. Routley: Before we leave this issue of water, I would like to ask the minister…. Under your ministry, there are a number of community watersheds, and the government seems to have moved away from the concept of community watersheds. I'd like to know…. Particularly, the people in the Cowichan Valley would like to know, because we've got the Cowichan River watershed; we've
[ Page 261 ]
got Shawnigan Lake area. There is a lot of concern about their watersheds, and both communities would like to see a day where there is more community control and more community watershed control in communities.
Just briefly, the example that I would use is the one that the minister is very familiar with. In the Cowichan River we had concerns about fish. I actually experienced this. I had the Cowichan Valley regional district, I had three mayors, and I had the First Nations come down and meet with me out in the hall. They wanted to know whether I would go to you and plead their case, on their behalf, that they wanted the right to save a little water.
When that happened, I went to you and explained, and I see that as putting a lot of capital on the table. We put a lot of political capital on the table. We were requesting the minister to act to protect water on behalf of the people of the Cowichan Valley. All those political representatives wanted to contain a little water, and your ministry acted against the wishes of all of those community leaders, including the MLA. As a result, we ended up trucking water up and trucking fish. We had to truck fish up the river to pools because of the failed actions of the minister.
So I want to know: why does the minister not get it, particularly having gone through that experience with me, that we need more community watershed control in communities all over B.C.? But I know, certainly in our communities in the Cowichan Valley…. I've met with a number of river groups, a number of lake and river groups in Shawnigan and the Cowichan River, that are extremely concerned about the lack of control and being ignored by the ministry.
Could you explain to me why this government is refusing to sit down with local communities and establish more community control of watersheds?
Hon. S. Thomson: Again, thanks for the question. Certainly an example of one that I'm very familiar with, and I'm very pleased with the role that our ministry played in finding a solution there. The deputy water comptroller has amended the rule curve for the Cowichan River, providing the solution that was required. It took a lot of work, a lot of facilitation in order to achieve that.
The challenge in all of these is developing a consensus among all the water users. That took some time. In the year previous that consensus didn't exist, but we worked through it with the First Nations, with the mayors, with the community to find that solution. I'm hopeful now that that is in place.
Community watersheds are designated under the Forest and Range Practices Act. We have many community watersheds in the province under the legislation. I think it's important to recognize that local solutions through that community approach are an important part of the process, one that we need to continue to work with and support.
N. Macdonald: We're just going to go — again with the revenue theme — to carbon offsets. Recently the provincial government announced that a private company would be able to reforest areas of Crown land that were no longer the legal responsibility of logging companies or the provincial government to replant. I'll just note that it's not the provincial government's responsibility because the B.C. Liberals changed the law to absolve themselves of that responsibility.
In a press release the government said that private entities would have the opportunity to do so on about one million hectares of Crown forest land. The private company then has the right to try to capture monetized value for the trees planted by selling carbon offsets.
My question to the minister is this. Why is the government not availing itself of the opportunity to do exactly the same thing, at potential financial benefit to the Crown? For example, in 2012 about 14.6 million seedlings were planted on Crown lands under the Forests for Tomorrow program. Those trees represent additional trees that do not, by law, have to be planted.
Why is the provincial government saying that trees planted with public dollars on the public's behalf do not qualify for carbon offsets but trees planted on Crown land by a private entity do?
The Chair: Minister, noting the hour.
Hon. S. Thomson: Noting the hour, Chair, I have a very quick response.
It's important to recognize that under this offsets program…. It's under a very complex protocol, 120-page protocol. One of the key factors is the principle of additionality, and the traditional funding through the Forests for Tomorrow program, or others, doesn't meet that test of additionality. That's why this separate option was created under the protocol — to provide that opportunity. We think it provides a significant opportunity for the future. We've got a start in it and are looking forward to increased participation in the program.
Noting the hour, I seek leave to rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:57 a.m.
The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
[ Page 262 ]
Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. T. Stone moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Madame Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.
The House adjourned at 11:59 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND
SOCIAL INNOVATION
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); D. Plecas in the chair.
The committee met at 10:09 a.m.
On Vote 41: ministry operations, $2,487,215,000 (continued).
The Chair: Good morning, everyone. We are currently considering the budget estimates of the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation.
Hon. D. McRae: Hon. Chair, thank you very much. I'm looking forward to once again continuing the estimates.
I don't think I'm supposed to review the motion, so I won't, but I will introduce staff once again for those watching on TV and those who are new in the room. To my right is Sheila Taylor, the deputy minister for Social Development and Social Innovation. To my left is Wes Boyd, assistant deputy minister and EFO of management services division.
To my back right is Allison Bond, assistant deputy minister, employment and labour market services division. She does not like to be called Molly, just in case you were wondering. And immediately behind me is Doug Woollard, who is the interim CEO, Community Living British Columbia.
I look forward to the questions, and I'll turn the floor over to you.
The Chair: Member.
J. Kwan: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Congratulations, I think, for the position, and also, congratulations to the minister. To all his staff, thank you very much for spending time with us today and for answering the questions.
I want to say right off the top that I know the budget within CLBC is tight. In fact, there are cuts that are coming down the pike which will make the service delivery even tougher. You have a tough job ahead of you. That said, I will do my very best to advocate for the people who depend on the services and to be a strong voice on their behalf as their critic in this House.
To that end, questions will be forthcoming and issues will surface beyond this session; there is no doubt. I look forward to working with the minister's staff and the minister over the coming years. Also, I say that none of the issues that are raised — I want staff to know — are at all personal, but rather they are strictly on the issues. We want to raise them and ensure these voices are heard in the Legislature and by the government.
Budget 2013, of course, the update that was provided…. The updated service plan mirrors, I think, the budget that was tabled in 2013. Budget Update 2013 shows that the government, in my view, has not really learned a lesson from the huge issues that arose from CLBC between 2010 and 2012.
In 2011 the CEO of CLBC was fired, people will recall. The minister responsible for CLBC at that time was demoted — and, well, gone now — as a result of the government's failure to address the problems that resulted from increased demands for CLBC services with no additional funds to meet those demands.
Now, of course, we have a situation where the government is attempting to do just the same by lowering per-client funding while demand for CLBC services is actually increasing. Per-client funding for residential services will drop by 3½ percent, day program funding for clients will drop by 5 percent, and funding for personal support initiative clients will drop by over 33 percent.
I would estimate that these cuts will surely result in chaos similar to what took place in 2011 when the government was forcing adults with developmental disabilities out of their homes, cutting their employment programs and denying them essential support services.
So on top of these structural shortfalls that exist at CLBC, the Crown corporation will likely face further pressure as a result of government's new core review. I would fully anticipate that there would be more bad news to come.
We know that there was an internal audit that was completed for CLBC. It stated: "CLBC's caseload has increased by approximately 5 percent annually for the past five years, and this trend is expected to continue. CLBC has as an appropriate caseload projection methodology that has produced reasonably accurate caseload forecasts." That's a quote from the internal audit on page 12.
[ Page 263 ]
The deputy ministers' report that was completed for CLBC states: "Over the past several years CLBC has indicated to government that planned increasing funding from government was sufficient to meet service demands." That was on page 8 of that report. However, the former CLBC chair has already gone on the public record to state her concerns with respect to the funding — or lack thereof, if you will — for the demand for services.
My first question to the minister is this. Can the minister outline how the internal audits and the deputy ministers' report that was conducted in 2012 dealt with the structural shortfall that exists at CLBC?
Hon. D. McRae: I think I have the information the member opposite has requested, and if I haven't, I'm sure we'll clarify that as we go forward. For the sake of clarity, I'd like to tell the member opposite and the general public that the budget dollars for CLBC are up $32 million this year from the 2011-2012 budget year, and this year we have added an additional $10 million.
In regard to the deputy ministers' report, I'm sure the member opposite knows there were 12 points that were to be addressed within the deputy ministers' report. As I look through the deputy ministers' report, all 12 have been completed.
For example, develop a coherent one-government policy — completed. Implement a more consistent assessment platform across the Ministry of Children and Family Development — completed. Use a coherent and integrated system to track demand — completed.
I'm giving the short version on this for time constraints.
Improve cross-government planning for individuals who are transitioning through different types of care — completed. Maintain CLBC as a Crown agency — completed. Implement changes to address mandate tension — completed. Implement new government capacity based on transition supports — completed. Increase employment services planning and supports as well as alternative day-programming options — completed. Support greater utilization of individual funding — completed.
CLBC and the Ministry of Health to assess and model needs of the older cohort of individuals with developmental disabilities and develop a three-year plan to meet these needs and ensure early planning with families. CLBC has completed its portion of that ask.
Reinforce government's accountability and responsibility for CLBC through more effective use of legislative authorities — completed. Carefully increase funding to support these changes and link new funding to clearly identified outcomes — completed. Lastly, support ongoing innovation in the sector and recognize and support the innovations developed, championed and undertaken by families and individuals — completed as well.
I'd like to thank the deputy ministers for giving a clear road map to how we can better deliver services, both through this ministry and with CLBC. There are a lot of very strong individuals within the organization. I'm pleased to say that we are trying very hard, as we move forward, to continually improve service, making sure individuals are treated with respect, dignity and fairness. As always, we will continually look at our service delivery and see if there are ways we can improve.
J. Kwan: Is the minister saying that per-client funding for residential services will not be dropped by 3½ percent — yes or no?
Hon. D. McRae: Funding for CLBC is going up this year. Including contingencies, CLBC's funding is $740 million. The member opposite is correct. Every year there are more clients coming on to the system.
J. Kwan: Is the minister saying that I am correct that the per-client funding for residential services will drop by 3½ percent? I don't need commentaries; I just need a definitive answer — yes or no.
Hon. D. McRae: Existing funding for individuals and families will be maintained. Any changes will be by mutual agreement, both with CLBC and the families and individuals involved. There is no plan to make reductions.
J. Kwan: So the minister is saying that there will not be a drop of 3½ percent on per-client funding for residential services unless the families agree to it — by mutual agreement. Is that what he's saying?
Hon. D. McRae: No.
J. Kwan: So he's not saying that. So then, that means there is going to be a cut. Which is it? You can't have it both ways.
Hon. D. McRae: Like I said earlier, existing funding and service for individuals and families will be maintained. Any changes will be by mutual agreement, and there is no plan to make reductions.
J. Kwan: The minister is saying there are no plans. So of course, maybe then that will happen? I don't know why he can't actually just come forward with a straight answer. Why can't he just answer this question?
These questions, by the way, so the minister knows, are questions from stakeholders. They want to know what will happen to them and their family members. They are, in fact, the people who are most vulnerable in our society, who need the supports. And I think, generally speaking, British Columbians agree with that as well.
[ Page 264 ]
We just need a clear, straight answer. No doubletalk from the minister. The election is now over. So tell British Columbians clearly what this would mean. Will there be a 3½ percent cut in the per-client funding for residential services? Yes or no.
Hon. D. McRae: To the member opposite and the stakeholders that she refers to, please pass on this message from this ministry and from CLBC. Existing services for individuals and families will be maintained. Any changes to these stakeholders that you refer to will be by mutual agreement, and there is no plan to make reductions.
J. Kwan: Based on my understanding of the English language, my interpretation of that, then, would be no. I hope, then, that the minister will actually hold true to his words. He's saying that changes to their services would be effected only if it's by mutual agreement. I am, in fact, going to send information out to all of the stakeholders to let them know that, so that they know that if the government tries to pressure them to effect change in their programming, they could actually say no. This is my understanding of it. If I'm incorrect in that understanding, I would ask the minister to correct the record.
On my second question, same thing goes for day program client funding for clients. Would that be dropped by 5 percent, or will there be no changes? If the minister is going to get up and give a similar answer, to say that it would be by mutual agreement, then my interpretation of that would be that there would be no changes unless the family members agree to it, and if they say no, there wouldn't be pressure to make changes otherwise.
Hon. D. McRae: I am going to be consistent in my answer, because that is our intent. Existing services for individuals and families will be maintained. Any changes will be by mutual agreement. There is no plan to make reductions.
J. Kwan: My understanding, then, of that answer is a no, which I'm happy to hear — to say that there would be no cuts and that families will not be pressured to change their day programs based on this question and that if they say no to CLBC's proposal, to the government's proposal, to make any changes to their children's programming and they do not wish for that to happen, the government will maintain those programs.
If I'm incorrect in understanding what I interpret the minister to have said, I would ask the minister to correct the record. If he does not correct the record, then, that is how I am fully expecting the government to conduct its business on this file.
Same thing, then, on the question for the personal support initiative, as well — funding for personal support initiative clients. Will that be dropped by over 33 percent? If the answer is no, I'm hoping that the minister will actually get up and read the same statement that he just put on the record earlier. Then, my interpretation of that would be the same as the way it is applied to the other two questions.
Hon. D. McRae: To the member opposite, I'm sure she'll be excited by my first two bullets in regards to this question. Existing service for individuals and families will be maintained. Any changes will be by mutual agreement. There are no plans to make reductions.
However, I do wish to add, as well, to this point. CLBC did do a comprehensive engagement with individuals and their families in 2012 in regards to employment, and we did hear from many, many individuals served by CLBC that there is a desire for them to enter the workforce. So there is a voluntary opportunity for people who are in community inclusion programs to work with CLBC to find employment. This could result, through mutual agreement, in some service change. The key word here is could. The mutual agreement could result in some service change.
J. Kwan: You know, the minister actually didn't answer my question again. I was asking about personal-support-initiative clients and whether or not the funding would be dropped by 33 percent. The minister actually didn't talk about that at all. Maybe it's just a figment of my imagination, in reading the budget documents, that there is going to be a 33 percent cut in the funding.
Maybe I'm wrong, which I hope I am. If I'm wrong, that means that the funding would be intact, and then I know that the families at least would have some level of services and supports through the system.
That said, even though recognizing that CLBC does not provide for sufficient support for the families that need the services today…. Again, based on that answer, is the minister saying that there is no funding cut on the personal-support-initiative clients?
Hon. D. McRae: Again, for clarity, existing service for individuals and families will be maintained. Changes are through mutual agreement. There is no plan to make reductions.
J. Kwan: That's good news, then. The minister is actually saying that there would not be a 33 percent cut for personal support initiatives for clients and that their personal support initiatives will only change if they agree to it.
I do want this on the public record. I am so happy that Hansard is listening intently, recording every single word that is coming out of this debate, because that's what people are going to have to hold this government to ac-
[ Page 265 ]
count. And that's what they'll do.
Their services would not change unless they agree to it. I sure as heck hope that I won't hear stories from people who come forward to say that they're being pressured by government to make those changes. That's on the public record. All right, then.
Let's ask this question to the minister. The minister says there won't be funding changes. There won't be funding cuts for those families who are receiving their services today, and that's all good.
Now, I read in the service plan…. This is the Community Living British Columbia 2013/14–2015/16 Revised Service Plan. There is, of course, the former one, which by and large didn't change all that substantively — the 2013-14–2015-16 service plan, February 19, 2013. Essentially, they are very, very similar documents.
On page 16 of the document, it actually refers to demographic factors influencing service demand. It goes on to talk about the issues of increasing populations served, increased service requirements with age, earlier onset of age-related needs, increasing age of family caregivers and youth turning 19, all of which speaks to adding caseload onto the CLBC system, which means more people would require their services.
Now, I looked at the budget, and I looked at the projected numbers and trend of increase. Based on the projected trend, if the demand for services is increasing at the level of 5 percent per year, as noted in these reports, then can the minister tell me: will the funding that's being allocated for CLBC be able to keep pace with the increase in demand?
Hon. D. McRae: I'm pleased to say that CLBC has proceeded with budget planning based on the government's direction to continue addressing service demand in a measured and responsible manner, consistent with 2012-13. The budget impacts to CLBC of the ministry's integrated service delivery model are not reflected in the above figures.
J. Kwan: The anticipated growth in caseload. Can the minister tell me: what is his anticipation of the caseload growth in CLBC in this fiscal year and over the next five years? It says in the service plan, but I'd like to get the numbers on the public record.
Maybe I'll just make the job easier for the minister. It actually says, on page 17 of the service plan…. It reads as follows: "Preliminary actual results indicate 15,055 adults with developmental disabilities will register with CLBC by March 31, 2013. This figure represents a growth of 5.7 percent in the present fiscal year and a 32.6 percent growth rate over five years." Then there's a graph that illustrates it, and then there are more paragraphs that talk about on a category of what the increases would be.
My quick question, then, to the minister is this. Given that the projection for the next five years is a growth rate of 32.6 percent, can the minister actually tell me if his budget is growing by 32.6 percent?
Hon. D. McRae: I will answer the question that was asked first. CLBC undertook a comprehensive, provincewide service demand assessment in 2012-13, which helped guide the implementation of new services to over 3,000 individuals and families in that year. CLBC is now engaged in a similar process this year and anticipates providing new or additional services to more than 2,450 people being served in the fiscal 2013-2014 year.
J. Kwan: I'm interested in the minister's answer. Why I want to ask and put the number on the public record in terms of what the projected growth rate is, is that I want to see whether or not the minister will actually say on the public record that the funding for CLBC would be able to meet those demands without jeopardizing services for existing clients and incoming clients.
Every stakeholder that I have talked to says the answer is no. In fact, they are living in fear of the chaos and the impact for their family members with respect to the anticipated increase in demand for CLBC because of growth in caseload and the lack of supporting funding to match that demand.
The minister can sort of speak in his scripted answers that don't really answer the questions, but I want to ask this of the minister. Is he anticipating that the budget in his ministry would be able to meet the demand in caseload growth? Can he answer that question?
Hon. D. McRae: I wish to reassure the member opposite and the individuals that she has talked to that, again, the existing services for individuals and families are going to be maintained. Any changes will be by mutual agreement. There is no plan to make reductions. I understand that people may have some concerns, by all means. Hopefully, by listening to this debate, we will alleviate some of those concerns.
J. Kwan: How will the minister meet the demands in growth, given that the budget is not increasing by 32.6 percent over the next five years?
Hon. D. McRae: We do things differently. Differently can be better, believe it or not, members opposite.
CLBC has proceeded with budget planning based on the government's direction to continue addressing service demand in a measured and responsible manner, consistent with the 2012-13. The budget impacts to CLBC of the ministry's integrated service delivery model are not reflected in the above figures.
Again, the integrated service delivery model is different than we used to deliver services in the past. This is a
[ Page 266 ]
better way to serve the individuals taking services from CLBC. It'll be better and more respectful, I think, for the families and the individuals that we serve.
J. Kwan: Is the minister saying that the new clients, then, will be put into this new model? Assuming that the existing clients don't want to change their service…. The minister just said that they would not be forced to change. That means the new clients that will be coming will only be offered a different set of services that the minister intends to provide. Is that what the minister is trying to do and then, therefore, be able to meet those demands? Is that what he's saying?
Hon. D. McRae: I'm also very excited today to talk about doing things differently and better. Just yesterday the member opposite might have noticed that the ministry put forward a proposal to ask communities to express interest in becoming a site for an integrated service delivery model. We do know, from previous consultation and conversations, that there are many communities across the province of British Columbia who want to take part.
For the members opposite, in case they're not familiar, at these sites the ministry will be introducing some improved ways of delivering services to individuals and families. These include the new role of a navigator to help individuals and their families transition from child to adult services and supports and to ensure they're getting the services they're eligible for. The new model also includes an assessment platform so that families and individuals won't have to duplicate assessments, unnecessary assessments.
For example, on Monday I was excited to actually have families with an assessment that they had received when they were in the K-to-12 system from a certified school psychologist or a registered psychologist — a 23-page form which was not enjoyable for anybody to fill out. Again, we were able to come up with a scenario where families can take that previous assessment, and when they come to the Social Development Ministry, there's an opportunity for them to bring that assessment with them. It treats people with dignity and fairness and has a little bit less stress on the families and individuals involved.
Another key part of the integrated model is streamlining the application process for individuals with developmental disabilities who are applying for income assistance as they move into the adult system. These early implementation sites will test the model and make improvements so that when the ministry implements the integrated service delivery model across the province, we will know that it is improving the delivery of services and supports for families and the individuals that we strive to serve.
J. Kwan: I know that the minister is very proud to read off that list, but in effect, from what I understand from the stakeholder groups, those changes would actually not really alleviate the budget pressures, especially in light of the fact that there would be a significant increase in demand and growth in caseload. The government at least had the decency to recognize that in the service plan.
The minister can read off that list all he wants and feel like he's done his job. In fact, the funding in his budget, in my own estimation and in the estimations of many other stakeholders…. They feel that the funding is insufficient. It would not be able to meet the demands of a growth in caseload. It can barely meet the demands of the existing client caseload.
Where will the budget shortfall be absorbed, or who will absorb these budget shortfalls when there are more clients coming on stream? The minister should know — and honest to goodness, he's got to know — that what he just read off in that list of checklist items would not actually address the issue of budget shortfall.
Hon. D. McRae: As we work through the implementation of the five sites, CLBC and the ministry will develop a clearer picture of what is required in the future. In the meantime, I do want to assure the member opposite, and those individuals that she may have talked to, that existing service for individuals and families will be maintained, change will be by mutual agreement, and there are no plans to make reductions.
J. Kwan: The minister is saying that they actually don't know how they are going to meet the caseload growth and demand for services in CLBC. He's saying that he doesn't have all the information, although his service plan puts out the projection of what the growth is going to be. It's not like they don't know what the projection is going to be.
I will say that there may well be some fluctuation, but that said, it's actually spelled out in the service plan in quite a bit of detail under bullet 4.2, "Anticipated caseload growth," and then it itemizes all of that as well. The minister is now saying, though, that he doesn't really know exactly how those demands would be met.
The minister said earlier…. He mentioned a facilitator. He mentioned an analyst. He mentioned a navigator into the system. My interpretation of what the roles of those individuals are is essentially this. The facilitator is the person who will ultimately, I guess, decide what the individual, the family needs. The analyst is the person who will decide what you cannot get. The navigator is the person who is going to try and sort of work through all the systems to see if he can bridge the gap.
Is that how it works? What exactly is the role of the navigator?
[ Page 267 ]
Hon. D. McRae: I did definitely talk in my last answer about the role of the navigator, and I'll talk a bit more about that in a very short time here. However, for the sake of clarity, I did not refer to either an analyst or a facilitator. Those were words that I think she has taken from the service plan.
Again, the navigator role is something that we have designed based on the consultation period from 2012. It's consultation about how we can better deliver services to individuals and the families being served by CLBC. For a bit more detail, the introduction of the navigator role in the five early implementation sites….
I must say once again, that I am very, very excited to know that there are communities across the province of British Columbia that wish to take part in these five units going forward. I'm looking forward to seeing them take place, and not just in the Lower Mainland. They will be in communities outside of the Lower Mainland — larger, smaller communities. Why? Because we provide services to people across this province.
[J. Sturdy in the chair.]
The introduction of the navigator role in the early implementation sites is a key element to the integrated support network model — a one-government approach responding to the planning and support requirements of individuals with developmental disabilities. A navigator is not just a primary contact person but rather a specific individual who will be there for a family as required and has the capacity to make things happen.
Navigators will actively engage other governmental partners, build community connections and support the growth of individual and family capacity. Specifically, a navigator will be able to support individuals through periods of transition, particularly from youth to early adulthood — ages, say, 16 through 24 — with early involvement and focused planning to help individuals and families avoid the major challenges that they now encounter when children's services and supports end abruptly at the age of 19.
J. Kwan: Okay. You know, the minister is…. Well, maybe the government's approach is this. When families can't get the services that they need, let's change the bureaucracy, add more bureaucracy, and then maybe in that process they will somehow drive the families away, actually, because people at some point get frustrated with the system, and they can't get the services that they need. Maybe that's really the tactic here.
Let me ask the minister this. Earlier he said that he doesn't have all the information on the projection of what the growth is and therefore can't really quite put forward the anticipated budget demand.
Does CLBC now have an information system that can provide detailed client and costing information, and if so, what is that system? And if not, why not? Why wouldn't they put in a system like that, so they can get down to the details of what the projected demands would be and therefore costing?
Hon. D. McRae: CLBC is working with the Social Development and Social Innovation Ministry to develop such an approach as the member just referenced. Work is underway, actually, as we speak.
J. Kwan: When will that system be in place?
Hon. D. McRae: This year, in the year 2013-2014, we are defining the approach for such a model. Implementation will begin in future years, but right now I think, again, we want to talk about some of the good work that's being done by CLBC and the ministry. We're working on the integrated service model in the five sites across British Columbia to better deliver services for families and individuals who work with us.
J. Kwan: Is the minister saying that he actually doesn't even know what the timeline is in getting this system in place?
Hon. D. McRae: We'll define the approach this year, and a timeline for implementation will come out of the work that is being done this year.
J. Kwan: In other words, the answer to my question is: yes, he doesn't know.
My question, then, to the minister is this. How much of his budget is allocated for this undefined-timeline project that he doesn't know when it would be in place?
Hon. D. McRae: The budget for the approach is going to be built within the SDSI annual budget, but until such an approach is clearly defined, I think the member opposite would agree that it would be impossible to provide an implementation plan or a budget. We are doing the pre-work now so that we can better design the system going forward.
J. Kwan: So after the chaos that the families said they endure — the chaos in the system, firing of ministers and so on — the minister is now saying that they actually don't even have a system in place to evaluate the growth in demand in CLBC cases. The system is actually not in place. He doesn't even have a plan. He does not have a timeline. He does not have a budget for all of that. So after, you know, 12 years I dare not say: "Good work."
I guess we will have to come back to this in the next set of estimates. The truth is that the minister talked about
[ Page 268 ]
the assessment process, his simplified assessment process and changes in the application process, and somehow, magically, that is supposed to deliver savings in the system.
The minister feels very confident that that's going to do that. Will he provide to this House an itemized list of where the savings would be found with his new, efficient model and how much?
Hon. D. McRae: To the member opposite, I never indicated to the member opposite that there would be savings. These are your words, not mine. We just plan on serving individuals and families in a more transparent, respectful, fair and consistent manner.
J. Kwan: Well, if there are no savings, then how, exactly, would you meet the demand in growth in caseload? That's exactly the whole point. That was my point — that the new, more efficient, innovative models, the creative models and so on that the minister talks about, would actually not yield sufficient dollars in any way. He just put on the record that actually, in fact, he would not find savings. Maybe it's better service delivery. So the minister says.
But at the end of the day, there is a major blinder that the minister has put on, and that is to say that there is a huge demand in growth in caseloads for CLBC. The minister, through the service plan, acknowledges that growth. Yet there is no growth in funding to match that demand. Hence, you have a major challenge on your hands.
I guess, more to the point, maybe, it is not really the government's problem, per se. It's a problem for the family members who need those services — those individuals. That's what I'm trying to get at.
Now, I would like to ask the minister this question. I would think that a responsible, responsive government would actually require risk assessments and for that to be done to determine the risks of this budget, if it's not actually keeping up with the demands of the needs in the community. What risk assessment was done, based on this budget, relative to the demand that is now required in the ministry of CLBC and the anticipated growth that is coming? Has the minister done any of those risk assessments?
Hon. D. McRae: To the member opposite, I want to assure her that the Social Development and Social Innovation Ministry works very closely with CLBC. As well, we continually consult with individuals, families and advocacy groups to make sure we are hearing concerns and addressing them as best we can.
CLBC has proceeded with budget planning based on government's direction to continue addressing service demand in a measured and responsible manner consistent with 2012-13.
To the member opposite: I really would like to, again, reinforce this statement, and please, share it with constituents. Right now existing services for individuals and families will be maintained. Changes will be made by mutual agreement. There is no plan to make reductions. Please, member opposite, share that information with the individuals you're hearing from.
J. Kwan: The minister actually didn't answer my question. I take that to mean that there were no risk assessments done. If I'm incorrect on that, I would ask the minister to stand up and correct the record.
In the meantime, I'm going to ask the minister this question. The Ministry of Finance internal audit and the advisory services review of CLBC that was prepared in 2011, and included the deputy minister's Review of Community Living B.C., states: "Due to limited funds and the high demands for services, Community Living B.C. constantly looks for innovative and cost-effective ways to deliver services. In the year ending March 2011 the agency realized approximately $57 million in annual ongoing savings through contract reviews."
Now, the auditor, I would say, agrees that the service demand will increase. Even the government, through its own service plan, is saying that the service demand would increase. CLBC's budget is, frankly, insufficient — no matter how the minister says that all is well — to meet the current and future need.
Of course, the minister continues to suggest innovation. So far these innovations that I have observed in the community involve closing group homes and placing people in home care or other so-called cost-effective models.
There is a whole list of initiatives that the government has put in place that, I presume, the government will say are doing really well, yet we don't actually, really know what the results are.
I'm going to make a list of these projects. I would like — not at this moment, because we're fast running out of time — to get the response from the government and the commitment from the minister that he will provide the response to me in writing, after the estimates debate, of the detailed results of these programs and whether or not they actually yield any cost savings in the system.
This includes closing group homes. I would be interested in the closing group homes. How many group homes have been closed in the province? How many people are in home share at the moment? Of course, to do that, you have to have a baseline of what you started with and then the change in numbers. Then, if the minister can provide me with those group homes that have been closed, what they are, so that I can understand from which community that group home has been closed.
There is apparently a project called the aging project. I would like to know what the results are of that aging pro-
[ Page 269 ]
ject in detail, the individualized funding. There's some information about that in the service plan.
I see on the service plan, as well, that the uptake for individualized funding is actually not as high as the government had hoped. It's because, I presume, the individualized funding is actually insufficient to support the individuals' needs, and that's why the uptake is low. I would like to actually get the results from the government with respect to their analysis on individualized funding — a detailed analysis.
The crisis response project. I would like to know what the results are for that.
Customized employment, which is a project that ran for three years at an average cost of $54,000 per client — what are the results of that? How many people actually found employment, as an example? The Employment Development Strategy Network. I would like to know the results for that. The employment first initiative — the results for that.
Reinventing day supports working group and seminars. What are the results for that? Transfer of function work group — this would be the transfer of nursing functions to group homes and other support staff. What are the results of that, and savings, if found?
Community action employment plan. What are the anticipated results for that?
The Start with Hi, 1 and 2. What are the results of that program?
The quality of life "include Me!" assessment, where there are no tests, in my estimation — no tests of validity and norm referencing. What are the results of that assessment?
Behavioural support plan committee. How's that committee coming along? What's happening there? What are the results from that committee?
Residential options project. I would be interested in the results of that as well.
All these projects and initiatives cost money. I would like to also know the breakdown of the budget for all these projects so that we can actually have a clear understanding of what really is going on in the ministry in terms of these new initiatives. Will the minister commit to that?
Hon. D. McRae: There are many questions in there, so I'll start with the first one. The first one is about risk assessment. I know the member opposite….
Interjection.
J. Kwan: Sorry, Minister — just to clarify. I wasn't actually asking for the answers at this moment, because I know that there wouldn't be sufficient time. I was simply hoping that the minister would advise and confirm that he would actually provide in writing the information that I requested from his ministry after the estimates debate.
Hon. D. McRae: The member opposite asked two questions, and the first question I'll answer about risk assessment. I know the member opposite is familiar with the CLBC service plan. She has been referencing it many times. She just must have missed the risk assessment that was completed as per requirement. It is in the service plan, page 20 and 21.
As for the question of the member opposite, obviously, thank goodness for Hansard. We are able to get that list of questions that you had. It was long, and it was extensive. We will provide answers for you as soon as possible.
J. Kwan: Yes, I saw the risk assessment items in the service plan. But I was actually hoping for a detailed analysis of the risk assessment in terms of what the impacts are for people. It does say that you risk stakeholders losing confidence in CLBC's ability to respond to needs, as an example, and that the changes require training that "challenges staff to meet day-to-day operational requirements while learning new skills and practices to support these changes," etc.
That wasn't what I was asking for. I was talking about risk assessment for the individuals that would be impacted. I'm not talking about how they would feel about it. Obviously, they would lose confidence if they are not getting the needs that they need. In fact, I would argue that they're already losing confidence in CLBC and have been for some time now. We already know that.
Given that's the fact, and with this Budget 2013, with the anticipated growth that will far exceed the demand in funding that has been provided by the ministry, what risk assessment has the government done on that in terms of the program demands and its impact for the clients that would require them? That's what I was asking for.
Unless there's a new answer with respect to that, I would assume that no risk assessment has been done. The minister is going to check, and in the meantime I'm going to also ask this question, while the minister is contemplating that answer.
On wait-lists. I wonder if the minister can commit to provide the length of wait-lists for all of his programming within the ministry and within CLBC.
Hon. D. McRae: To the member opposite, I just want to assure her we're defining an approach to determine needs and number of people that will receive service this fiscal year. I also want to remind the member opposite that the Social Development and Social Innovation Ministry and CLBC continually work together to provide a transparent, consistent and fair service model for families and the individuals that we strive to deliver services to across the province of British Columbia.
[ Page 270 ]
J. Kwan: At some point I think the minister will know that platitudes just are not actually going to do it.
I'm asking the minister a question with respect to wait-lists. Can the minister commit that he would provide the information with respect to wait-lists for all the programs that CLBC delivers? How long is that wait-list? How many people are on that wait-list? How long would it take for people to get these services that they hoped to get on the wait-list? Can he provide that information?
Hon. D. McRae: Our focus in previous years and the coming year, I'm sure the member opposite knows, has been to respond to individuals and families and their needs.
Last year, I'd like to mention to the member opposite, we provided new services to over 3,000 individuals. This year CLBC plans to provide services to an additional 2,450 individuals as well.
The individuals coming forward through CLBC doors often need a wide variety of services. Some take a short period of time to figure out and assess and deliver; others take much longer. It all depends, of course, on the individual, but we do strive to make sure that we treat them in a fair and transparent manner and deal with it in as timely a means as possible.
J. Kwan: Sorry, that wasn't what I asked. I actually asked the minister if he would commit to providing a list and information on the wait-lists. What is the number? How long is the wait? And how does he intend to address that wait-list for all the programs being delivered by CLBC?
Hon. D. McRae: CLBC actually does not maintain a wait-list. What CLBC does do is have a service demand assessment for individuals requesting services. We'll be happy to provide the member a summary of that list if she so desires.
K. Corrigan: Yesterday I received a letter from a constituent named Susan Anthony. She is a parent of a young adult son with a developmental disability. She presented concerns, actually, to the Select Standing Committee on Finance about a year and a half ago, so she's a strong advocate for her son and for families in similar situations. She's very concerned about planned cuts to CLBC. She's also concerned about possible further cuts as a result of the core review.
I just wanted to get on the record a couple of quotes from her letter to me.
"As the parent of a young adult with a developmental disability, I'm deeply concerned that Premier Clark and her government think that they can squeeze one more penny out of a sector they have already decimated. Imposing cuts in the face of anticipated caseload growth is a recipe for disaster. Service providers can barely maintain the barest minimum level of service quality now. With further cuts, this government can expect to see an increase in critical incidents, decreased safety for our society's most vulnerable, increased potential for abuse and possibly even deaths."
She points out, as a further concern and a specific example, the issue of respite care. She starts by quoting, she says, an example.
"CLBC often points to successful home-share arrangements as a significant savings versus group homes. CLBC's handbook for home-share providers states: 'When you're sharing a home with a person with a developmental disability, taking care of yourself is not a luxury but an absolute necessity. You have a responsibility to the person you support to make sure that you're always in peak form.'"
That's on page 9, and on page 10, again quoting the home-share providers' manual:
"'Most home-sharing contracts include funds to purchase supports so that you are able to take a break.'"
Then she says:
"Now home-share providers are being informed that CLBC will no longer provide additional moneys or hours of coverage for respite care/relief for the contractors/caregivers. Their caregiver must now pay out of the existing monthly payments. This will now be the case for all new contracts. However, existing ones will be grandfathered. Many caregivers will now go without a break, increasing the possibility of caregiver errors due to burnout.
"So the cheaper alternative to group homes is not enough of a savings. This government must wring every last penny out of the disabled community. As a parent and a taxpayer, I am outraged."
My question to the minister is: what response does the minister have to Susan Anthony and her son? Secondly, the very specific concerns that were raised — is she correct in how she characterized what is happening with respite care at this point?
Hon. D. McRae: Perhaps the member opposite wasn't here earlier, but one of the things that we, through many questions, canvassed is an answer I gave many times. My apologies to the members who've heard it before. Again, I do want to say to the member opposite that existing services for individuals and families will be maintained. Changes will be by mutual agreement, and there is no plan to make reductions.
However, in the case of this letter — and, obviously, the individual is very passionate and wanted to make sure that their child is being well looked after — if you would forward that letter to my ministry, we'll provide a response to that individual as soon as possible.
The Chair: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant — noting the hour, maybe time for one last question prior to the break.
J. Kwan: Okay. I'll make these four questions into one question, to ask the minister to simply commit to provide the answers, because clearly, we don't have time to do that.
The core review that's coming down the pike. In light of the core review that's taking place, can the minister
[ Page 271 ]
confirm that the ministry will actually backstop all the shortfalls that would result from the apparent shortfall in funding for the personal initiative supports?
My other question is related to home-share providers. Actually, I have a lot of questions with respect to that. First of all, I'm wondering: has the government changed its policies with regard to group home closures and imposing home shares? Did any changes in this area come out of the reviews that were done prior to the election?
How many group homes are in operation? The minister said he would provide me with a list of that. How many clients are actually living in the group homes? I would like to know that as well. How many home-share providers are in operation right now? How many clients are living in those home shares?
I know that the ministry is doing a review on regulation for home shares. When does the minister expect that review will be completed? And will he actually provide that review and put it on the public record?
With respect to group homes, can the minister advise: have they actually closed the group home bed if a client has passed away? In other words, what happens to that bed? Does it remain open to be offered to another client coming into the system, or is that bed closed? What are the numbers on how many beds have been closed as a result of a client having passed away? How many beds have been filled with new clients if a client has passed away?
I am also interested…. I know that the minister has received commentaries and concerns from stakeholders on the budget, and I'm wondering if the minister can provide comment with respect to those concerns that have been raised by agencies, stakeholders and front-line workers who actually need to provide the services for the people who are in need. I would like to hear the minister's comments with respect to those concerns that have been brought to his attention from those constituency groups.
Hon. D. McRae: The member opposite asked — these are my favourite words — a plethora of questions, ones I'm sure she would like an answer to. Since she gave me that list, I assume that there are perhaps no other questions at this stage.
We will endeavour to answer those questions. She asked all four questions together. We'll try to get the answers as quickly as possible and return them to the member opposite. However, if she would like, I can actually give answers to some of those questions now. But, noting the hour, it's completely up to the member opposite's purview.
The Chair: Minister, do you want to move…?
Hon. D. McRae: It's up to the member opposite, actually. If she wants me to answer some questions, I will.
J. Kwan: Sure. We'll pick this up after the recess.
I move that we now rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:49 a.m.
Copyright © 2013: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada