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

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 2, Number 4

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

TUESDAY, JULY 9, 2013

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Michelle Stilwell: Today it brings me great pleasure to introduce a very important person in my life, someone who wears multiple hats. His day job is actually for our government working as the legal counsel responsible for the Health Care Costs Recovery Act, but in his spare time he is my coach. For the last number of years he has helped me reach the top of the podium as I represent Canada on the international stage, and I welcome him here today as we are preparing for the world championships in just two weeks.

Welcome, Peter Lawless.

L. Popham: I'm happy to welcome a constituent of Saanich South to the House today. Robert Tyrrell is the founder and president of Orca Book Publishers. He joined me for lunch, and he's staying for question period. Please make him welcome.

Hon. M. de Jong: A good friend, Barb Spitz, is here today in the gallery with her son Paul and his children, her grandchildren, Adam, Jordan and Emma. They're here visiting grandma and other family members and undoubtedly gloating about the fact that they live in the Stanley Cup town of Chicago. Well, good for them. Our turn will come, Madame Speaker. I hope all members will make them feel welcome.

[1335]

Tributes

SCOTT NIEDERMAYER

N. Macdonald: Still on a hockey theme, last year Scott Niedermayer came to this Legislature to encourage the government to respect the Qat'muk declaration, and today Scott was inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame.

He was raised in the Kootenays and played junior hockey in Kamloops, before a long career in the NHL, and was one of the most wonderful hockey players that you could watch. Anyone who saw the gold medal game, I think especially in 2002, in Salt Lake City — just incredible stuff. A real gentleman, who won everywhere he played. I ask members to join me in congratulating Scott Niedermayer.

Introductions by Members

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I have two sets of introductions to make today. First, joining us in the gallery today is John Juricic. John is a passionate and longtime advocate for small business in British Columbia. He is the owner of Harbour Digital Media. He is a board member of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce. He is the executive director of the Sidney and North Saanich Industrial Group and chair of the city of Langford's economic development committee. Would the House please make him feel welcome.

My second introduction. Joining us in the gallery today is recently promoted Petty Officer 2nd Class Trevor Moore. Trevor is a proud member of our Canadian Forces and, as a part of his ongoing career-related studies, he is here today to see our Legislature in action. He is joined in our precinct by his wife, Katie Moore, and their five-week-old daughter. Congratulations and welcome. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

N. Letnick: In every community across British Columbia we have those outstanding citizens that really make our communities thrive. In Kelowna we have one by the name of Chris Olson-Brown. Chris lives in the Rutland part of our great community. He has been the chair of the May Days celebration every year for quite a few years. Would the House please make Chris feel welcome.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

HERITAGE ASSETS AND MORDEN COLLIERY
HISTORIC PROVINCIAL PARK

D. Routley: I rise today to remind the members about Morden Colliery Historic Park. It's located just south of Nanaimo, about one kilometre down the Island Highway, just about a kilometre off the highway. It is a coal tipple and loading facility still standing, just barely so, as a reminder of early industry on Vancouver Island.

In B.C. we have no Parthenon, no sphinx. We don't have pyramids. In B.C. our historical assets are often industry-related. These form the backbone of much of our tourist industry. Besides the spectacular scenery in which they reside, these attractions for tourists, such as the Kettle Valley trestles, the Britannia mine at Lions Bay, and here on Vancouver Island, the Kinsol Trestle and the Morden Colliery.

Connected by a network of trails, including the Trans Canada Trail, these historical assets are easily accessed by cyclists and hikers. Morden Colliery was one of the most advanced concrete structures in North America when it was built. A strike in 1913-14 stopped work underground, so the company focused on its assets above ground, improving infrastructure and investing in this advanced
[ Page 274 ]
loading facility.

Coal mining in the area stopped in 1930, but the memory of it remains in these families of the area and in the history of our communities. Morden Colliery, because of its advanced construction, has lasted and stood the test of time, although not without wear.

The constant weathering of the structure has led to deterioration, which now threatens to bring this structure down. Immediate investment on the part of the provincial government is necessary to save this historical gem.

The Kinsol Trestle faced a similar challenge when it was considered for demolition, as the structure was rotting and had been partially burned. Through community organization and public investment, including from the provincial government, Kinsol was saved. It is now a vital link on the Trans Canada Trail and a precious, valuable tourism asset in the region's economy.

Morden Colliery is also an important asset that I hope the members will treasure and I hope the government will invest in.

BICYCLE RACE EVENT
IN PENTICTON AREA

D. Ashton: It was quite a sight in Penticton last weekend. Thousands of bicycles, perhaps too much spandex and even some fairy wings. It was the Valley First Granfondo Axel Merckx Okanagan. It attracted more than 2,700 cyclists from all around the world and many, many spectators.

[1340]

Some of them were in for the competition, trying to win and get the personal best race time. Others were in it for fun, donning costumes and taking in the spectacular views of the Okanagan Valley. There were three distances to choose from: 160, 92 or 55 kilometres. There was also a family-friendly event with a one- to two-kilometre Piccolofondo for the kids.

The event was so successful that it took many minutes for all the participants to get out of the starting gate. That might be a good problem to have, because it means thousands of people are keeping active, inspiring others and contributing to the local economy as visitors to the city.

There are lots of great people behind this fantastic local race. I'd like to thank Axel Merckx for bringing this high-quality cycling event to Penticton as well as Valley First for being the title sponsor and longtime contributor. The city of Penticton and numerous other sponsors also added greatly to the success of this event.

Registration for the 2014 Granfondo is already underway on the event website. I invite everybody to challenge themselves and sign up, whether it be for the 160-kilometre ride for you weekend warriors or the Piccolofondo for the rest of us.

BUSINESS-TO-BUSINESS NETWORK OF
WOMEN IN NEW WESTMINSTER

J. Darcy: I rise to tell the House about an exciting new organization in my community of New Westminster. This organization is called B2B NOW. That doesn't, in fact, refer to back-to-back, although they do have each other's backs.

This is an organization called a business-to-business network of women. I believe the minister met with them when she was in New Westminster a number of months ago. It's a networking group of New Westminster small business women entrepreneurs from a wide variety of industries who meet every month and share information with each other and support each other with the aim of promoting and improving our businesses and the community in which they are located.

They first got together at the time of the launch of Canada's first Small Business Saturday, last October. They had actually invited small businesses led by men and women to join them, but as it turned out, only women showed up, so it became a network of women of small businesses.

The majority of new start-up businesses in New Westminster — as across the province, as the Speaker will probably know — are, in fact, women. They have a lot of challenges to deal with: working part-time in order to get their small business off the ground; putting everything on the line; working morning, noon and night, often juggling family responsibilities; having to negotiate leases for the first time. I'm sure some of the new members on both sides of the House can appreciate the challenges of doing that for the very first time.

Their bottom line is that they want to work and support each other, to grow small business in our community, to encourage more women and mentor more women to get involved in small business. They're very excited to tap into the energy that new development is bringing to our downtown in New Westminster.

They represent a wide variety of businesses, 19 in all. My favourite, actually, is something called big fat paint, the fat referring to the chalk in the paint. It's really about them focusing their energies on developing rich, deep, dark colours, in the heritage colours of New Westminster.

SANDY WAKELING

D. Bing: It is with great pleasure, as the MLA for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, that I recognize one of my community's most outstanding citizens, Sandy Wakeling. Sandy is the 2013 citizen of the year for the city of Pitt Meadows for his remarkable community involvement.

Some of you in this House already know Sandy from his involvement as the former assistant to our Finance Minister just a few years ago. Sandy now works as a communications director for the Langley school district.
[ Page 275 ]
Sandy lives in Pitt Meadows with his wife, Ali, his sons Sebastien and William.

Although he has only lived in the community for 14 years, Sandy is one of the community's most active members. He is willing to help out whenever and on whatever needs doing. Sandy has been involved with the Friends in Need Food Bank, the Pitt Meadows United Church, the city's economic development committee, the official community plan committee, the Chamber of Commerce, the Rotary Club, and Pitt Meadows Day, amongst others.

To me, however, I will always remember Sandy as one of the prime organizers of the annual Terry Fox Run. Sandy has always considered Terry Fox to be a personal hero. According to his wife, Ali, Sandy shares Terry's belief that one person can make a difference. In fact, he thinks we all have a responsibility to do so.

[1345]

Sandy has always emphasized the importance of giving back to the community. Sandy has made a very positive difference in our community and is a very deserving recipient of this award. Congratulations, Sandy Wakeling.

ORCA BOOK PUBLISHERS

L. Popham: What's black and white and read all over? By read all over, I mean read all over the world. The answer is not a newspaper, as the old joke goes, but in this case it's Orca Book Publishers. I'm happy to have the president and founder, Robert Tyrell, as a constituent of mine in Saanich South. He and his business partner Andrew Woolridge have their main warehouse and editorial offices located here in Victoria.

Founded in 1982, Orca Book Publishers is an independently owned Canadian children's book publisher with over 500 titles in print and more than 65 new titles a year. Orca publishes award-winning, best-selling books in a number of genres. The staff at Orca are passionate and dedicated to continually improving the quality of the books published. All editorial production, marketing and distribution is done in-house, and Orca has a well-deserved reputation as an efficient and successful publishing company.

Long committed to publishing books with an environmental theme, Orca continues that commitment with responsible publishing practices. Virtually all books are printed in Canada on Forest Stewardship–certified paper, and every effort is made to reduce, reuse and recycle.

Book publishing is a vibrant part of the creative economy here in B.C. The challenges that the creative economy faces as a sector are well known. Having a provincial strategy in place to support our creative economy is essential, or we will be at risk of falling behind other jurisdictions.

British Columbia is home to the second-largest English-language book publishing sector in Canada, with annual sales in excess of $150 million. When we think of jobs and the economy in this province, it's clear we can't move forward successfully without supporting the creative economy.

FRASER VALLEY
CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTRE

D. Plecas: Today I would like to call the attention of the House to the Fraser Valley Child Development Centre. The Fraser Valley Child Development Centre assists children and families who are at risk or living with a developmental delay or diagnosed disability. This is a centre which was established 30 years ago with a small group of people under the umbrella of what was called the Fraser Valley Neurological Society. Since then, they've been very successful in their main mission, and that is to provide services to children with special needs.

So far, they've provided services to 12,000 children and their families. They provide services to over one thousand children and their families every year. While I'm talking about the Fraser Valley Child Development Centre, of course, this should be of importance to all members of the House because the need which is addressed by the centre is apparent throughout this province.

I want to highlight what can be accomplished by the work done by the Fraser Valley Child Development Centre by calling attention to Surjit Atwal. Surjit Atwal is a man who lives with cerebral palsy. He was told at a very early age that he would never walk and never talk. He was told by educators in his early schooling that he should never expect to gain employment.

Well, none of that happened, because last month he graduated from the University of the Fraser Valley with a Bachelor of Arts degree in political science and philosophy. He did that in a span of just three years and did well enough that it moved the University of the Fraser Valley to create what is now called the Surjit Atwal Remarkable Achievement Award. Accordingly, the work of the Fraser Valley Child Development Centre is important, but it should inspire us to what's possible.

To those people who said that Surjit would never be employed, I have to tell you, I am now graced to have him as one of my constituency assistants.

[1350]

Oral Questions

THERAPEUTICS INITIATIVE
AND DRUG REVIEW PROCESS

A. Dix: My question is to the Minister of Health.

Dr. Arnold Relman and Dr. Marcia Angell, both past editors of the New England Journal of Medicine, have praised UBC's therapeutics initiative as an outstanding drug watchdog. They credit the TI for saving lives and the health care system money.
[ Page 276 ]

TI's research protected British Columbians from Vioxx years before it was pulled off the shelves. It also issued warnings about Avandia, a diabetes drug, six years before the U.S. government fined GlaxoSmithKline over $3 billion for withholding information about the drug's risks.

Does the Minister of Health agree with Dr. Angell's and Dr. Relman's praise for the therapeutics initiative? And if so, will he take steps to ensure that the therapeutics initiative continues to do its job and continues to have the support of the government of B.C.?

Hon. T. Lake: To the Leader of the Opposition, the British Columbia government relies on the best scientific evidence available. That's the very foundation of the drug review process we have in British Columbia.

The therapeutics initiative still plays a role in that drug review process. We will continue to work with the TI, but we will make sure that the system that we use here in British Columbia ensures that not only are the best drugs available for the patients here in British Columbia but also have the best value for the taxpayers of British Columbia.

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition on a supplemental.

A. Dix: Well, the government just cut the funding for the TI and essentially eliminated its role in the drug review process. If that's what the minister thinks is supporting it or working with it, I would like to see what he does to those that oppose him.

Successive Health Ministers Colin Hansen, George Abbott and Kevin Falcon all withstood pressure from the pharmaceutical industry to maintain the role of the therapeutics initiative, to ensure that the therapeutics initiative plays that role in ensuring the safety of drugs taken by British Columbians here in our province — drugs such as Champix, a smoking cessation drug made by Pfizer which Premier Clark added to PharmaCare in September 2011, despite serious concerns about side effects.

The Premier said at the time about those lethal side effects that she was going to insist that the drug's safety be examined. Why did the government then go on to order the therapeutics initiative not to evaluate Champix's safety? Did they, in fact, oppose a published evaluation of a drug the government itself was promoting?

Hon. T. Lake: The hon. member fails to recall that a review of the drug approval process came at the behest of an umbrella patient organization, Better Pharmacare Coalition. The Pharmacare Coalition was critical of the amount of time it was taking the ministry to approve new medications compared to other jurisdictions, claiming it took 2½ years on average, for B.C. to review and list new drugs.

In response to this, the Ministry of Health appointed a panel of experts. Minister George Abbott at the time accepted all of those recommendations.

What we have is a system whereby drugs are evaluated and listed with far greater efficiency than in the past. We still involve the therapeutics initiative. Their funding has not been cut — although, related to the data breach, some of the funding has been suspended while that investigation is ongoing, which is only the right thing to do, and we stand by that decision.

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition on a supplemental.

A. Dix: Well, this appears to be a drug approval process that the minister supports. The Premier promotes Champix in her leadership campaign. The government then lists Champix on the PharmaCare program.

[1355]

The Premier says the drug's lethal side effects, which have forced it to be recently taken off the list in other jurisdictions, will be reviewed. Then, when the therapeutics initiative is doing such a review, the Ministry of Health sends the following e-mail: "We have decided to keep smoking cessation in-house. Sorry about that. It's getting political, and we aren't sure anyone wants to see a published evaluation."

This is a serious situation. The government is promoting this drug. The Premier herself ensured the drug would be listed. She assured the public that side effects would be reviewed, and they are not being reviewed.

Does the minister agree with this approach to drug approval in British Columbia?

Hon. T. Lake: Champix is an effective drug that has helped many people quit smoking and go on to a healthier, smoke-free life — something that we actually think is in the best interests of British Columbians. The ministry, the national common drug review and Health Canada reviewed all the available research on Champix before B.C. decided to cover the drug. All three continue to monitor research on the use of this drug.

For someone to suggest that we are making political decisions, from someone who made a political decision in the middle of a campaign that caused all kinds of issues for job creation in this province, I find it a little bit hard to take.

J. Darcy: The Liberals keep saying that examining government's key responsibilities will be central to the core review they are planning to launch. Given that keeping patients safe should be one of the Ministry of Health's primary obligations, a valid core review would expand B.C.'s drug watchdog.

However, this government is gutting the therapeutics initiative, jeopardizing research into the safety of drugs
[ Page 277 ]
like Accutane and dabigatran, a potent blood thinner — so potent that it may cause life-threatening complications and fatalities due to uncontrollable internal bleeding. It is a drug that the therapeutics initiative planned to and needs to review, to protect British Columbians.

Will the minister agree that his primary obligation is to patients, not pharmaceutical companies? Will he agree to restoring therapeutics initiative's funding so that it can study the safety of drugs like dabigatran?

Hon. T. Lake: I thought I made it clear earlier but just to reiterate, government has not cancelled funding to the therapeutics initiative or cancelled its working relationship with TI. Some contracts have been suspended while a ministry investigation continues. We think that is the prudent thing to do, and that is the decision that we stand by.

J. Darcy: The minister and the cabinet also talk about bending the health care cost curve. As the minister is aware, prescription drugs are one of the top cost drivers in health care today. Peer-reviewed research shows that in addition to saving lives, the therapeutics initiative drug research saves B.C.'s PharmaCare program around $140 million annually. That is an excellent return on money, given that therapeutics initiative's funding from this government has ranged between half a million dollars and $1 million.

Why is the minister agreeing to shut down therapeutics initiative at the very time he needs its expertise more than ever to ensure that B.C.'s health care dollars are spent wisely and efficiently?

[1400]

Hon. T. Lake: Again, a coalition of people who work on behalf of patients was concerned about the amount of time it was taking British Columbia to list new drugs — 2½ years, longer than the national average. I suppose the members opposite would think that that's a good thing — to have people waiting 2½ years to approve a drug that could improve their life. On this side of the House we thought we should do something about that.

A task force recommended a change in the way that we list drugs here in the province of British Columbia, which includes a role for the TI. We think that's appropriate, and we think the faster way of approving drugs has benefitted patients in the province of British Columbia.

THERAPEUTICS INITIATIVE AND
ACCESS TO DRUG INFORMATION

D. Eby: That was 2008 when that patients' coalition made that recommendation. This is 2013. Not only that, but two past editors of the New England Journal of Medicine have said that this was best practice that other jurisdictions should follow.

Giving doctors accurate information about how well medications work is another way the therapeutics initiative saves our health care system money. This information helps doctors give their patients the medicine that works the best instead of new drugs that are more expensive but no more effective. By providing impartial information, the therapeutics initiative helps save money for patients, employers and taxpayers.

In B.C. alone there are over 600 drug company representatives trying to convince family doctors to prescribe new drugs that aren't any better than existing drugs. Can the minister explain to this House how it makes financial sense to shut down the therapeutics initiative and stop doctors from getting the information that saves patients and taxpayers money?

Hon. T. Lake: This is about getting the best medication to patients in the fastest time possible and ensuring the efficacy of those drugs. This is what the Pharmaceutical Task Force pointed out. They wanted to get those drugs to the patients faster. They also have more content experts on that panel to review the drugs under the new system. We think it's a better system. It gets the needed drugs to patients in a faster, more timely way. That is good for the health of British Columbians.

D. Eby: For years the pharmaceutical industry has asked the Liberals to stop the therapeutics initiative from teaching doctors and pharmacists about what drugs work best and how to save patients and taxpayers money. There is no doubt it will save time, stopping the therapeutics initiative from teaching doctors, but that's also, of course, one of the recommendations made by the industry-led Pharmaceutical Task Force in 2008.

Over 90 percent of family doctors and pharmacists use the objective information the therapeutics initiative gives them about what medicines are safe, effective and the best choice for patients. It doesn't make sense to ask the companies that sell the drugs to tell doctors what drugs to buy.

Will the minister stand up today and admit the obvious, that it makes good financial sense to have an independent and objective agency like the therapeutics initiative give impartial drug information to doctors?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, the organization called the common drug review is in fact an independent, impartial, evidence-based agency that's tasked with providing advice to help decision-makers about new and emerging health technologies. That's a national program.

Then provincially the therapeutics initiative is still used, along with our new system of approving drugs, to ensure that in fact drugs not covered by them can be listed here in British Columbia. In response to patients, in response to content experts, we have created a new system that has a more timely way of getting those needed drugs to patients.
[ Page 278 ]

[1405]

OCEAN RESEARCH PROJECT AND ENBRIDGE
OIL PIPELINE AND TANKER PROPOSAL

A. Weaver: In the April 2013 Canadian Ocean Science Newsletters of the Scientific Committee on Oceanic Research there was an interesting article published by scientists working at Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Environment Canada. The title of the article is "Operational Atmosphere-Ocean-Ice Prediction Systems in Canada: Providing Decision-Enabling Marine Environmental Information to End Users."

The article focused on operational oceanography, which provides information for real-time decision-making, historical review of ocean conditions and strategic planning for Canada's coastal and waterway operations. On page 4 of the article it states: "A major initiative in planning is the complementary measures project for the area surrounding Kitimat, British Columbia, to support planned oil tanker traffic. This is a specific demonstrations of how ocean services are infrastructure assets that support the Canadian economy."

Madame Speaker: Does the member have a question?

A. Weaver: Yeah. My question is to the Minister of Environment. Is the government aware of this complementary measures project, and would the project meet the second of the government's five conditions for approval of the northern gateway pipeline — namely, the need for world-leading marine oil spill prevention and recovery systems?

Hon. M. Polak: I have not read the report myself. I certainly am pleased that the member has raised it, drawn to it my attention, and I will pursue with staff whether or not, in point of fact, they are including it in the work that is underway as we develop our world-class, world-leading marine spill response and preparedness plans.

A. Weaver: I've come to understand that since the May 14 provincial election, in fact, federal funding has been approved for this project. Given our Premier's promises that any increases in oil tanker traffic on our coasts must be supported by B.C., how can the government say it has control over whether or not major pipeline projects go forward if the federal government is approving funding for major initiatives without consulting the British Columbia government?

Hon. M. Polak: I can't respond with respect to the specific funding grant that the member speaks to. What I can say to this House, though, is that we have experienced very good cooperation from the federal government through not only Environment Canada but Natural Resources Canada and also Transport Canada with respect to their participation on our working group that is in the process of developing recommendations around our world-leading spill preparedness and response.

DRUG REVIEW PROCESS FOR CHAMPIX

M. Farnworth: I think we need to revisit the issue of Champix with the Minister of Health. He made some interesting comments that I think he needs to address.

The Premier is the one who championed Champix. She championed the drug, and yet, on the day that a class action was certified in Ontario about the drug and the potential lethal side effects around the drug, there's a leaked e-mail that says: "We've decided to keep smoking cessation in-house. Sorry about that. It's getting political, and we aren't sure anyone wants to see a published evaluation."

When the minister has been talking about public safety and safety of drugs, why on earth would the government not want to see a published evaluation of a drug like Champix made public so people can read what's really going on?

Hon. T. Lake: We all know the cost that smoking has to our society and to many loved ones on both sides of the House, I'm sure. So I hope the member isn't doubting our commitment to do all we can to reduce the incidence of smoking and keep people healthy in the province of British Columbia. Champix is an effective drug, and it's helped many people quit this terrible habit that can lead to disease and, in fact, death.

[1410]

The decision was based on a thorough review, as I mentioned — solid clinical research and evidence. The ministry, the national common drug review and Health Canada reviewed the available research on Champix before B.C. decided to cover the drug.

If new evidence comes forward, it will always be reviewed. Of course it will. But we on this side of the House will do all we can to make sure that people of British Columbia know how they can get rid of this terrible addiction, keep themselves healthy and reduce the cost to British Columbians of the health care system.

Madame Speaker: The member for Port Coquitlam on a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: We all know the costs of smoking. We also know the costs of drugs like thalidomide and Vioxx and what happened when they went wrong. There's a class action suit in Ontario about Champix. Your Premier went and championed the drug. You suppressed the report. You suppressed a public report on a public evaluation. Why won't the government make it public?
[ Page 279 ]

Madame Speaker: Member.

M. Farnworth: Put it out there so people can do their own evaluation.

Madame Speaker: Member, your comments through the Chair.

Hon. T. Lake: I find it reprehensible that the member opposite would suggest that this government would suppress information about a drug equal to thalidomide. To compare this to thalidomide is reprehensible. The member should be ashamed of himself.

To suggest that this government would suppress information that would be in the best interests of British Columbians is absolutely reprehensible. We on this side of the House believe in approving drugs that will help British Columbians stay healthy, and we'll continue to do that.

RECOVERY OF DECEASED PERSONS
FROM B.C. WATERS

K. Corrigan: Raymond Salmen was lost beneath the waters of Harrison Lake on June 7 of this year. Police told his widow, Daniela, they know pretty well precisely where the body is. Unfortunately, the police say they have no mandate to recover his body, nor does the Coroners Service. B.C. Hydro has technology that could help in recovery efforts, but they also say they have no mandate to get involved.

In the last three months alone five people have been lost beneath B.C. waters, but it turns out families who want to recover their loved ones are left to rely on charity from outside our province.

My question is to the minister of public safety. Will the government work with the RCMP, the coroners office or whatever agency is appropriate to address this serious gap in services?

Hon. S. Anton: This is a tragic case, and I would like to express my condolences — and, I'm sure, everyone's condolences — to the families of these victims and also the other victims by drowning in British Columbia this year. Many of us will know that there have been many drownings this year.

I would like to say on behalf of public safety that people swimming in British Columbia waters do need to be careful. We do have treacherous waters. There are undertows; there are currents; there are rocks that kids dive off; there are many ways that people drown in our B.C. waters. I would like to caution swimmers and boaters and people, particularly, who are not used to being around the water that they do need to be careful.

On the specifics of this case, it was a tragic case. The police did what they could to find the body, I'm told, but they failed. Whether they did the right thing or not…. Of course, we are always working with the police, but the police do make the operational decisions.

This is in the hands of the coroner. I'll be looking forward to hearing from the coroner on the issue. Because it is in the hands of the coroner, I am not going to make any more public statements about the specifics of the case. But I would, as I said, like to caution people — caution everyone — to be careful in our B.C. waters.

Madame Speaker: Burnaby–Deer Lake on a supplemental.

[1415]

K. Corrigan: Well, I certainly understand people do need to be careful in the water in the summertime. But unfortunately, there are several families that have been unable to recover the bodies of their loved ones, and they are asking for help. Help is available if the government is willing to provide it.

Daniela was hoping that a couple from Idaho, the Ralstons — who specialize in these kinds of recoveries and do their work at cost — could help her. Unfortunately, after successfully recovering the bodies of two young boys who were lost in Nicola Lake and finding a long-missing body in Francois Lake while they unsuccessfully searched for Sid Neville, a Burns Lake resident, at Francois Lake, the Ralstons had to return to the United States for a medical appointment before they could bring Raymond home.

Daniela is just looking for help, but she is losing hope that she's ever going to be able to have her husband's body recovered.

My question — I'm asking the minister and this government — on behalf of Daniela and the other families who have lost members, their loved ones, in tragic accidents like this: will this government please help? The technology is there. The ability is there. Will this government please help these people recover their loved ones and bring them home so that they can have some closure?

Hon. S. Anton: The operational decisions as to searches are made by the RCMP. As minister of public safety, I do not get in the middle of those operational decisions. I am, as I said, of course — as we all are in this House — extremely sympathetic to the families of the victims of drowning in B.C. waters this summer. But as to the specifics of each of these cases, I can't comment on them. There may be risk to teams who are doing the searches. We don't know the individual circumstances of these cases.

I do have great confidence in the RCMP and the operational decisions that they make. I'm not going to try and second-guess those decisions here in this House.

I would, once again, like to express my condolences and the condolences of this House to the families who
[ Page 280 ]
are suffering from the drowning of their loved ones in B.C. this year.

YINKA DENE ALLIANCE CONCERNS
REGARDING ENBRIDGE ACTIVITIES

D. Donaldson: First Nations, especially those living along the proposed Enbridge corridor, have a right to be skeptical about the Liberals' commitment to their own so-called new relationship.

The latest dose of reality comes from the Yinka Dene Alliance. They say if the B.C. Liberals grant permits for Enbridge, which the alliance opposes, to do test drilling and other work on their traditional territories, it will risk future talks on LNG development.

Chief Martin Louie of the Yinka Dene Alliance told me he is worried that the permits are already a done deal. He has been trying to get some answers, but the Premier hasn't responded.

Will the Minister of Aboriginal Relations commit today that the rights of the Yinka Dene will be respected before work goes ahead on their traditional territories, or is the new relationship just more empty promises from this B.C. Liberal government?

Hon. J. Rustad: Thank you to the member for the question. We believe in working very closely with First Nations. We're trying to build relationships. We're trying to build the economic opportunities that can change lives for people in First Nations.

Through that, we, of course, are looking for opportunities with treaties. We're looking for opportunities with non-treaty agreements. But specifically, around the movement of oil, we believe there are five conditions that need to be met. The Enbridge project, to this date, has not met any of those conditions.

Madame Speaker: The member for Stikine on a supplemental.

D. Donaldson: Well, this government has a funny way of working closely with First Nations. Chief Martin Louie told me this morning that the Premier hasn't got back to him, and it's not okay that Enbridge will be proceeding with this work on their traditional territories. Failing to do the fundamental work with First Nations could impact proposed LNG plants in the northwest. This government has just not done its due diligence with First Nations.

[1420]

Proposed pipelines to supply those possible or potential LNG plants cross through the territories of many First Nations — the Yinka Dene Alliance, the Wet'suwet'en and others. Already Wet'suwet'en Hereditary Chiefs have banned pipeline development on their traditional territories.

The Wet'suwet'en are asking for government-to-government discussions to address the environmental and economic conditions of these developments. Once again, will the minister respect the rights of these First Nations? Or, once again, is the new relationship more empty promises from this Liberal government?

Hon. J. Rustad: Through to the member opposite: thank you, once again, for the question. What we try to do with First Nations is to engage, as I mentioned earlier, to develop the opportunities, particularly the economic opportunities, that can change lives.

To that end, we already now have 18 non-treaty agreements that are making a difference on the ground for First Nations people. We have over 110 forest revenue-sharing agreements. Through our work with the mining industry…. We have numerous revenue-sharing agreements with the mining industry. More importantly, it has put hundreds of people to work — First Nations people.

I find it very interesting that the member opposite talks about liquid natural gas. Clearly, his perspective, coming forward, seems to be that before the election it was a pipedream and after the election they wanted to put the brakes on. LNG holds an enormous opportunity for British Columbia, for both aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call Committee of Supply — for the information of members, continued estimates in this chamber, Ministry of Forests; and in Section A, the Ministry of Social Development.

[1425]

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 2:26 p.m.

On Vote 26: ministry operations, $340,367,000 (continued).

N. Macdonald: Where we left off was a question about Pacific Carbon Trust. Where we left, the minister had said that the answer to the question as to why the public planting of trees wasn't something that would qualify
[ Page 281 ]
for carbon offsets was because it didn't meet the test, the requirement for additionality.

I guess the question to follow up on that is: if seedlings planted by government are not required by law…? There was certainly a period of time, after the B.C. Liberals changed the law so that it wasn't required, where the government did no planting.

So if it's not required by law, why do efforts to replant by government not meet the additionality requirement of the ministry's protocol? Why are trees planted by a private entity on NSR land with mountain pine beetle and fire history considered additional, but a public investment in pretty well the same way wouldn't be considered additional?

Hon. S. Thomson: Before I answer that specific question, I wanted to read into the record a response to one of the questions that came earlier around the B.C. Timber Sales gross revenue. I think it was information that we'd agreed to provide to the members opposite. This was the question around the breakdown of gross revenue between the coast and the interior.

[1430]

To provide that for the record, for fiscal '12-13, coast, $55.4 million; Interior, $119.7 million, for a total of $175 million. For '13-14, $50 million for the coast, $137.5 million for the Interior, for a total of $187.5. For '14-15, $48.5 million and $142.7 million for the Interior, for a total of $191 million.

So that's the breakdown between the coast and the Interior — the numbers on the BCTS gross revenue that were requested earlier.

Now to the question that was just posed. I thank the member opposite for the question. The reason for it is…. Under the carbon offset protocol, the one that I referenced, one of the key factors that has to be addressed in that protocol when it's verified by a third party is the test of additionality. With historical public investment, that doesn't meet that test of additionality.

Whether it was required or not required, the base is based on what has been historical public investment. That doesn't meet that test of additionality. So to preserve the integrity of the system and to ensure that you're getting the additional offsets, that historical public investment is recognized as part of the base case. So it's not eligible for the offsets in this program.

N. Macdonald: I mean, that's the minister's position. It doesn't completely make sense to me, but if that's what the minister is accepting, then there we are.

Recently the ministry posted on a website a coloured booklet titled B.C. Forest Carbon Offset Investment Opportunities, promoting investment opportunities in forest carbon offsets by planting trees on Crown land disturbed by fire and pests. I have, for the minister, a few questions that I'd like answered. I'll give him a series of questions here, and then the minister can respond with them all together.

Basically, does the Crown, on Crown land, have an ownership right to the carbon? Will the opportunity to propose carbon offsets be brokered by Pacific Carbon Trust, or is Pacific Carbon Trust only to be involved with the first 100,000 tonnes of carbon offsets from the initial offering? Will the Pacific Carbon Trust be involved with brokering carbon offsets beyond the initial offering of 100,000 tonnes?

Once Pacific Carbon Trust has validated reforestation plans from proponents, will Pacific Carbon Trust be selling the first 100,000 tonnes of carbon offsets to the provincial government? And the final question is: what is the price of a tonne of CO₂ equivalents on today's carbon market?

[1435]

Hon. S. Thomson: I hope I've captured all the questions here that I've had. I'm sure there will be a follow-up.

First of all, to confirm, the Crown retains ownership of the resource. The Pacific Carbon Trust role is not directly involved in the program. They're not brokering. In fact, at this point all they've indicated is that they would be prepared to buy, and that was to provide some initial strength to the program.

With the initial program, it's external parties that are…. We have a number of external parties that are well prepared to be involved in the program. Initially, that's the way the program is — with the initial start to the program.

I'm advised that the current selling price is between $5 and $25, depending on the type of project.

N. Macdonald: Okay, thank you. I want to spend a few minutes to clarify my understanding of how the process for the initial offering of 100,000 tonnes will work and to get the minister to either confirm my understanding or to correct it.

Let me give you a scenario. Let's assume that a proponent submits a proposal plan to Pacific Carbon Trust to plant lodgepole pine seedlings over 1,000 hectares of NSR forest land of medium site index at a cost of $1,000 a hectare. The plan estimates that 175,000 tonnes of CO₂ equivalent will be sequestered over 80 years. Pacific Carbon Trust, or some certifier, applies the criteria and process rules of the ministry's forest carbon offset protocol

Once the plan is validated, the proponent is offered, say, $12 a tonne CO₂ equivalent, for which payment is ex ante, meaning that the proponent can only receive money for actual carbon sequestered, which, again, must be validated before money changes hands. The proponent implements the plan, spending $1 million on tree planting.

The first payment for carbon sequestered would occur
[ Page 282 ]
as soon as ten to 20 years. Pacific Carbon Trust agrees to pay the proponent, say, $12 a tonne of CO₂ equivalent, which would mean a potential cash payout to the proponent of $2.1 million over 80 years.

Meanwhile, Pacific Carbon Trust goes to the B.C. government and says something like, "I have some carbon offsets for you to buy to meet your carbon-neutral goal," say, at $20 a tonne CO₂ equivalent. In order to pay Pacific Carbon Trust for the carbon offsets, the government forces selected ministries, like Health and higher education, to pay from their voted budget amounts equivalent to their carbon emissions — let's say $20 a tonne CO₂ equivalent, not the $12 a tonne of CO₂ equivalent to be paid to the proponent.

My question for the minister is: have I understood in principle how the carbon offset process works with Pacific Carbon Trust, or is it something completely different? Maybe I'll just ask the minister to respond to that.

[1440]

Hon. S. Thomson: I think you need to step back, because the framing of the question was on the assumption that the Pacific Carbon Trust was involved, and as I indicated, they're not involved in the program. What they simply indicated is that they may be prepared to buy an offset if it was verified.

In this program the money is coming from the private sector, not the Pacific Carbon Trust. The company that has the management of the program administers it. The process is verified. As I said, they have a number of interests in the program, the initial start to the program, and both have been private sector investments. I expect that that will continue to be the case.

N. Macdonald: So as I understand the ownership rights, the people of B.C., through the Crown, own the provincial forests. Again, a series of questions so that I can understand this. Who owns the carbon on Crown land in these carbon offset agreements — the proponent or the Crown? I think you answered that it was the Crown, but if I misunderstood, you can repeat that.

How does the ministry separate rights to carbon from rights to timber? Who will pay for validation of plans and of carbon sequestered? And who will pay for monitoring of carbon offset plantations, especially in light of the ministry not monitoring the success or failure of tree plantations after they've reached free-growing status?

[1445]

Hon. S. Thomson: To confirm, the Crown retains the ownership of the carbon and of the trees, so we don't need to separate the ownership of the resource. The validation of the plant is paid for by the proponent. The monitoring is paid for by the proponent.

What they obtain in this program is the right to sell the credit — the atmospheric benefit. The Crown retains ownership of the trees and the carbon.

N. Macdonald: I apologize if I…. Just to understand Pacific Carbon Trust's role in this, you're saying that Pacific Carbon Trust would not necessarily be involved but could be involved? Or are you saying would never be involved? Just to understand.

Hon. S. Thomson: As indicated, they could be a buyer. They're not involved in the program otherwise. They've indicated that they could be prepared to buy; to date they have not been.

N. Macdonald: Just to understand this program better, maybe you could just explain the role that Pacific Carbon Trust has here again. I'm not fully understanding how this works.

Hon. S. Thomson: To confirm, again, the only role in the program for the Pacific Carbon Trust is potentially as a buyer. The basis of the program is based on the fact that there is a private sector proponent — third-party verification against the offset protocol.

[1450]

We have a comprehensive forest carbon offset protocol, which is one of the ones that can be used. It could be another protocol, but the one that is generally used and expected to be used in this program is our protocol that's in place. And you have a buyer.

As I said, again, the Pacific Carbon Trust is only potentially one of those buyers. It has no other role in the program.

A. Weaver: It's my understanding that the protocol used really meets voluntary carbon standards, and as such, the only buyer for the carbon could be the Pacific Carbon Trust, at any value. The voluntary carbon market is essentially collapsed, and the price per tonne is on the order of cents.

My question would be: is there really any other buyer expected other than the Pacific Carbon Trust — which frankly, as I can see it, is the only possible buyer?

Hon. S. Thomson: Already the program is operating. Already the program has seen investment and carbon offsets sold to the private sector, as private sector proponents. So clearly, the Pacific Carbon Trust is not the only buyer.

We expect as the program evolves — we've had a very initial start to the program — that the buyers' market will be there. Again, as I said, the Pacific Carbon Trust is only one of the potential buyers — again, to provide initial strength to the program. To date they have not been a purchaser in the program, and we expect that we're going to continue to see the private sector proponents, those private sectors, being able to sell the carbon offsets.
[ Page 283 ]

N. Macdonald: Will the Pacific Carbon Trust buy directly from the proponent or from the open carbon market? What's going on with that?

Hon. S. Thomson: In this program, if the Pacific Carbon Trust was a buyer, we would expect that they would be buying it directly from the proponent.

N. Macdonald: So to understand — I have it here — on June 28, 2013, the government newsroom announced this forest carbon program means more trees for B.C., which is what the minister is citing. In the news release from Kelowna the minister tells us: "The province has planted more than 20,000 trees to kick off an innovative program that uses private sector investment to stimulate ecosystem restoration and reforestation." The release talks about this newly created B.C. forest carbon partnership program.

I guess a couple of questions just to clarify. Does the B.C. forest carbon partnership program describe the carbon offset investment opportunities through Pacific Carbon Trust that I've been asking about?

You've mentioned the proponent. Who is the proponent? Did the proponent actually plant the 20,000 trees? What was the area planted? Where is it?

[1455]

What price, if Pacific Carbon Trust is involved in this, are they going to be paying the proponent for a tonne of CO₂ equivalent sequestered, and what price will Pacific Carbon Trust charge the government for a tonne of CO₂ equivalent?

Hon. S. Thomson: To reference the specific initial initiative under the program, the proponent was the Carbon Offset Aggregation Cooperative. The trees were planted in Quesnel. A filmmaker funded the first 20,000 trees. The credits are going to the filmmaker as part of a corporate social responsibility climate action undertaken by themselves. So no involvement at all of the Pacific Carbon Trust.

N. Macdonald: Okay. Likely I'm missing something here. I guess when I laid out the hypothetical scenario, and then you corrected it…. It still confuses me how this works.

I mean, if you take 1,000 hectares, and it's planted and it's estimated to sequester 175,000 tonnes of CO₂ equivalent — right? — in 80 years, which equates to about 154,000 cubic metres of wood if the conversion factor is 0.88…. So if the Pacific Carbon Trust is involved and charges the government $20 per tonne for that, then it seems an extremely expensive way to get at the problem here, which is the cost of actually replanting. With that scenario, you're up to about $3.5 million for something that if you simply replanted would be perhaps a third of that.

I still don't follow how this program would work in a way that more cost-effectively meets the needs that the ministry has. Again, the minister has heard what I've laid out. If there's misunderstanding, maybe he can enlighten me in how this all works in a way that's cost-effective.

[1500]

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, the scenario that the member opposite hypothesizes or paints is the Pacific Carbon Trust doing and paying for the reforestation. That's not the case in this program. As I've indicated, the Pacific Carbon Trust is not involved at all in the program, unless potentially as a buyer of the verified offset.

What the basis of the program is, is private sector investment. The private sector investment pays the costs of the reforestation. Through the co-op, the private sector investor receives the carbon offset, or the benefit, to be able to sell the right of the carbon offset. As I said, the province retains both the resource — the trees and the carbon — and that's through a verified process.

This is a program that is meant and designed to facilitate or attract a private sector option for reforestation. We think that it is a model that has potential benefit to be able to assist in reforestation efforts in areas where it's appropriate. The private sector investors get the benefit of selling the offset. They also, in cases, examples in the first case, have the benefit of the social corporate investment that they've made.

The member opposite keeps trying to bring the Pacific Carbon Trust into the equation here. That's not the case. This is done through the carbon offset cooperative that has been put in place to manage the program. They facilitate the private sector investment, facilitate the verification of the offset through an independent verification process, and the offsets are sold.

It's private sector investment, and the private sector receives the benefit under the program. The province gets the benefit of reforestation activities taking place.

Again, to be clear, the Pacific Carbon Trust is not involved in the program other than the potential to be a buyer.

B. Routley: I still recall net zero, the legislation: Zero Net Deforestation Act. Back then — I think it was 2009-2010 — I remember standing in my place in this House and declaring that this reminded me of the old Three Dog Night song. Nothing from nothing is still nothing. I had no idea that my little idea of a joke or a jest was actually coming true.

This government is still nowhere and has done nothing with the Zero Net Deforestation Act. While the government could have…. This could have been an innovative way to pay for reforestation for not sufficiently restocked areas resulting from wildfires, from mountain pine beetle infestation.

As with the 2013 budget in general and with so many
[ Page 284 ]
other initiatives, the government trademark has become: say one thing and do another.

[1505]

The government wasted no time in trumpeting the all-time merits of net zero deforestation. The pitiful reality is that zero net deforestation has become an act of greenwashing and remains pure fiction because it has sat on the shelf for over three years waiting for the enabling regulation to be passed. Why? Because this government prefers unfettered resource development at minimum cost over responsible stewardship of publicly owned land.

My question for the minister is: exactly when will this government pass regulation to the Zero Net Deforestation Act necessary to bring this act into force?

Hon. S. Thomson: I heard a lot of the chatter and the clarification about who it actually was. Although I appreciate the analogy that the member opposite used, there's another analogy that's important to point out here too. I think the member opposite said: "Say one thing; do another thing." I think there's a very clear example of that on the opposite side of the House in saying one thing with respect to Kinder Morgan, saying something different and changing that at another time. So it's a little bit rich to have….

Anyway, to go back to the deforestation. The act was brought in place in May 2010. We have currently an afforestation of an estimated 2,000 hectares per year. Annual net deforestation averages about 4,200 hectares. That's compared with the total annual timber harvest of about 180,000 hectares.

What we are working on are the programs to address that gap, exactly the type of program that we just talked about in bringing private sector investment in. We're going to continue to look to those options with our programs, along with the voluntary actions by stakeholders, to achieve the goal.

[1510]

B. Routley: Further to the subject of zero net deforestation, could the minister explain to us how the province determines the area of forest land in the province that has been deforested and what has been afforested, in order to determine whether or not we are in a deficit as far as the government's stated commitments are concerned?

Hon. S. Thomson: In order to develop a calculation and a database for this, we use a number of sources — both the inventory and silviculture programs. We use a voluntary reporting process with some of the other sectors where we have good data, in areas like forestry or mining or industry.

[1515]

In other areas like settlement, recreation or agriculture, we rely on collaboration across different data sources in order to be able to do the calculation. Again, as we point out, we're looking towards our programs and other programs to be able to move towards that zero net deforestation target.

B. Routley: Related to my last question, serious concerns have been raised about the prospect that very large areas of forest land are being cleared for hydro rights-of-way, for natural gas pipeline corridors, for gas well pads and other infrastructure in the natural gas sector. Such land clearances are likely to rise dramatically in the event that liquefied natural gas, or LNG, plants in the province are built and there is a sharp increase in production of natural gas.

Can the minister please tell the House how forest lands cleared by the natural gas industry are tracked and whether or not such deforestation is being factored into the government's zero net deforestation commitments?

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, this is tracked through our inventory system.

I think it's important to say on this side of the House that in these areas, particularly in terms of liquid natural gas, I hope and expect that we are going to see that level of activity increase. It provides a great opportunity for British Columbia, and we want to make sure that we seize on that opportunity and provide that economic future for the province of British Columbia.

The tracking of that, for corridors or for transmission development, is done through the inventory program. It's done through cooperation with the agencies or proponents, in terms of providing that information to us, and it's built into the overall data as we look to work, as I said before, on achieving the overall objective of zero net in the longer term.

B. Routley: Can the minister tell us what the total area of land cleared by energy companies was for each of the last three years? And if the number cannot be immediately provided, could you commit to return to us as soon as possible?

[1520]

Hon. S. Thomson: Short answer: I don't believe that I have that information readily at hand. Certainly, yes, we will commit to provide it as quickly as we can, as part of all of the follow-up that we've committed to.

B. Routley: Can the minister tell us how much the provincial treasury has received in payment for trees logged by energy companies in each of the last three years? Again, if the answer cannot be provided, could the minister commit to provide it as soon as possible?

Related to that, I might add that in my talking to forest industry constituents in the province of British Columbia…. I was up in Fort St. John and talked to a contractor who was supposed to be logging in a trans-
[ Page 285 ]
mission line site. His statement to me was that he had 300 loads of logs ahead of him and that he was instructed by the company who was dealing with that that he would be logging these trees. Then something changed. A phone call was made to the ministry, and the word came from your ministry to go ahead and burn those logs.

It's related to this question about the trees that energy companies are logging. I would also like to know if you know anything more about what rules the ministry has about discarding such logs. Or do you have a full-utilization requirement for logs that are mature and harvested within transmission lines?

Hon. S. Thomson: On the first question, in terms of the total dollars paid, I will undertake to provide that information. I don't have it readily available.

With respect to the example that the member opposite references, there are a number of circumstances, particularly in the remote areas where the activity takes place. The logs are brought out. They're left…. Our general approach is to try to ensure that they're made available, but in many cases these are remote areas where the market doesn't exist. The market doesn't cover the costs of moving these out.

We would not order the company to burn them, but the company would have that option in order to remove the waste and not have it be a continued hazard.

[1525]

To be clear, in those cases they do pay the stumpage on whatever they leave. In some cases that may be more than what would be paid if it was brought out and marketed.

B. Routley: Can the minister tell us who is tracking logging and deforestation rates by energy companies? Is it the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources? Or is it the provincial Oil and Gas Commission?

Hon. S. Thomson: In this case the permitting for the activity is undertaken by the Oil and Gas Commission. What is harvested is monitored and reported by our ministry. It's reported through to our tenure administration system, which makes its way into our inventory system.

B. Routley: This question is: what is the flat-rate charge to energy companies that log public forest lands?

Hon. S. Thomson: There's a variable rate. Depending on the area, it varies between $460 per hectare to $1,881 per hectare. The reason this is done is it actually achieves more value for the Crown and the resource than if we administered and they had to pay to cruise. Most of it would be at, in these cases and in these areas, minimum stumpage rate.

[1530]

This system is operated because it provides more value to the Crown than it would if it was managed through the normal stumpage process. All of this, in each of these cases, is reviewed and approved by our staff.

B. Routley: Yes, we've had a lot of concern expressed about cumulative impacts. This question is: do energy companies bear any fiscal responsibility to reforest any of the lands they clear in light of the permanent deforestation that does occur in the energy sector? And has the government considered increasing fees energy companies pay for the trees they log so that some of those funds could be spent on afforestation or reforestation activities elsewhere?

Hon. S. Thomson: We've recognized, with much of the work around cumulative impact and things, what we need to do here in terms of ensuring that we reduce the impacts. We've made a lot of great progress in the last number of years. The approach is now to seismic lines where they're no longer bladed. They're left so that they can revegetate naturally. The whole movement towards multi-pad wells has reduced the impact, and when the areas are abandoned, the responsibility is for revegetation of those areas.

N. Macdonald: In principle, the concept of zero net deforestation is sound. It has the potential to offset substantially the cost of planting the vast NSR area resulting from wildfires and mountain pine infestation.

I think when you combined this with planting through carbon investment, if that works, you have the possibility for the ministry to go quite a long way in restoring the ecology and timber resource in support of forest-dependent communities.

[1535]

Unfortunately, even when this is passed into law and is fully operating with regulations, the present zero net deforestation regulation as written really doesn't give the act any teeth. It really is a series of polite suggestions that industries like oil and gas might voluntarily consider replanting some other NSR areas to compensate for deforestation that they undertook to extract resources.

Is the minister considering revising the regulations before making it a fully functioning law so that energy and mining companies, by law, have to replant equivalent areas to those that they have deforested?

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, I recognize the objective that we're working towards here, and I think the member opposite agreed that the overall objective was a good one. As I pointed out, we've taken a number of steps to reduce the impacts, particularly, as in the examples I pointed out previously, in the oil and gas sector. We continue to work with other sectors. We are considering options around how we bring all of those forward with a voluntary approach to achieving the objectives. That was the basis of bringing this forward, so we're looking
[ Page 286 ]
at how we continue.

I think everybody wants to work towards that longer-term objective. We need to look at those options and how we do that, both in a voluntary way and how we also do it in a way that reduces the impact of those activities in such ways as I mentioned: multi-pads, seismic lines that are being managed in a much different way.

[1540]

We need to work with the private sector — for example, in agriculture — looking at those options. We think those options, plus the approach we're looking at for private sector investment in reforestation, provide those opportunities.

B. Routley: The ministry's estimates on revenue growth appear to be predicated on dangerous assumptions about maintaining or potentially increasing logging rates. But as we know — part of the mid-term timber supply committee that I was on — the ministry is predicting shortages in available timber supply in the Interior.

Furthermore, forest companies licensed to log public forest lands are telling the ministry that they are having a hard time finding enough economically viable timber to keep their mills operating. Hence the government's irresponsible moves to log areas previously out of bounds to harvesting at the expense of our water resources, fish and wildlife, not to mention other non-timber industries such as recreation and tourism.

Can the minister confirm that in order to meet its provincewide revenue projections, his ministry is considering lifting some of the current constraints on logging companies? And if such constraints are lifted, can the minister explain what considerations it has given in crafting its revenue projections for the impact that unconstrained logging activities would have on the resilience and the well-being of local communities, on the tourism industry, and on the health of our water and non-timber resources?

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, I need to…. The member opposite has made some pretty broad assertions in his question here that we're on some kind of a path or process to unleash the constraints on the industry. That's certainly not the case.

The recommendations from the mid-term timber supply committee did not make that recommendation. The recommendation was, in fact, that it should be science-based, that it would look at…. Very clearly, it would only take place where communities requested it and brought it forward, and it would happen under a science-based framework.

The revenue assumptions that we have in the current fiscal plan are not based on any adjustments to the constraints. They're based on conservative estimates.

[1545]

It's for over the next three years, in the future revenue, when we look farther out into the fiscal plan. That will come at its point as the harvest levels may come down as a result of the mountain pine beetle impacts on the mid-term timber supply.

That'll be taken into the revenue forecasts, but there clearly is not anything in our revenue projections. They are, in fact, generally conservative recommendations taking into account all of the potential risks to revenue, and there is no intention to move to an unleashing of the constraints on industry as the member opposite seems to insinuate in his statement and his question.

N. Macdonald: Still, logic would tell us that the impact of the mountain pine beetle attack and a growing supply shortfall in available trees of a commercially desirable quantity and quality near to sawmilling facilities will lead to declines in future logging rates and, therefore, future revenues, perhaps within as little as two to three years.

Related to this pressure on timber supply, we see before the Forest Appeals Commission an appeal concerning whether the ministry, as the public's forest agent, has the right to reject a licensee's forest stewardship plan. As I understand the appeal before the commission, Babine Forest Products Ltd. wanted to amend its forest stewardship plan, allowing for clearcutting that the ministry felt would not meet the approved visual quality objectives of retention and partial retention.

Now, Babine has appealed the rejection of the FSP amendment, essentially arguing that the ministry doesn't have the right to say no, that the Forest and Range Practices Act does not grant that discretion. Even if the plan would lead to the established VQO, the visual quality objectives, not being met, the ministry had a legal duty to balance the objectives so that the timber-harvesting objective is prioritized over all other interests.

The appeal, I think, is being heard right now, maybe in the day, at Smithers. If the commission has already ruled on the appeal, perhaps the minister would kindly share the outcome with the House.

Further to that, just to add another question in there: can the minister tell us how soon, in his opinion, we will begin to see logging rates reduced by his ministry in order to bring economic activity more in keeping with the available timber supplies in the 12 timber supply areas most hard hit by the beetle infestation?

And how will the minister ensure that the ministry has the legal controls necessary to conserve biodiversity, visual quality and non-timber values, especially those non-timber values specified in the land use plans, when these values are already under threat by elevated, unsustainable AACs and rates of cuts during a time of rapidly declining timber supply?

[1550]

Hon. S. Thomson: With respect to the appeal that was referenced, it's my understanding that the Forest Appeals
[ Page 287 ]
Commission is considering that, maybe as we speak. I don't have the results of that. We expect we may know shortly with respect to that appeal. But I know and expect…. You know, it was a statutory decision, and in this case, our statutory decision-maker felt he had the right to make the decision he did. That's the subject of the appeal, and we'll see how the Forest Appeals Commission deals with it. I don't have the decision or the response, although I know it is imminent.

In terms of the second part of the question, around declining harvest levels in all of those areas impacted by the mountain pine beetle, that's the work of the chief forester. He will be undertaking that work on a TSA-by-TSA basis. That was a lot of the work of the Timber Supply Committee recommendations in terms of how we might deal with that and how we might mitigate some of the impacts. But that's the important work of the chief forester, and that work is underway as they go through that area on a timber-supply-area by timber-supply-area basis.

N. Macdonald: Thank you, Minister, for the answer. I think everybody understands how important the issue of timber supply is to understanding the revenue projections that are here in the estimates before us, because timber supply availability is directly tied to stumpage revenue and to B.C. Timber Sales revenue.

During the 2012 estimates I asked the minister how many of the 12 TSAs worst impacted by the mountain pine beetle had been resurveyed to the present vegetation resources inventory standard, the VRI standard. The response was less than satisfactory from the minister, but I do wish to acknowledge that the Forests Ministry has been most forthcoming and helpful in characterizing the out-of-date status of the forest inventory in a presentation to the Special Committee on Timber Supply.

Now, one of those beetle-affected TSAs is Merritt, as the minister will know. On the ministry's website, inventory staff categorized the status of the Merritt timber inventory as follows, and I'll read it into the record. "The air photos on which the forest cover inventory is based were acquired in the early 1990s." A second point: the forest cover information is not to VRI standard.

Third point: coverage is pretty much complete. Fourth point: most but not all harvest and reforestation updates are current to 2009. "Harvest detection mapping based on satellite imagery is current to 2011. Recent fires…have not been integrated into the inventory file. The inventory file has been projected to 2011." Timber volumes have been adjusted to reflect beetle-killed forests.

Next point: additional technical details on sampling, site productivity and audit analysis are provided. The final point: "Mountain pine beetle has killed mature lodgepole pine and has changed the characteristics of many forest stands. An estimated 14 percent of the pre-beetle, 1999, timber volume on the timber-harvesting land base has been killed in the current mountain pine beetle epidemic."

[1555]

We are dealing here with an outdated inventory, where some 90 percent of the forest cover was interpreted on aerial photographs over 20 years old, and an estimated 14 percent of the standing timber volume has been killed.

Yet on June 21, 2013, just last month, the minister announced, through the government's newsroom and under the banner headline of "Merritt Innovative Forest Harvest Levels Increased," that the Thompson-Okanagan regional executive director has increased the annual allowable cut, the AAC, for five companies by 370,000 cubic metres over an area that covers 1.13 million hectares for three years, until December 31, 2015.

The minister claimed that this increase does not increase the AAC of the Merritt timber supply area, which remains at 2.4 million cubic metres. On the one hand the minister says that he's increased the AAC for these five companies that operate in the area, and on the other hand he says he hasn't increased the AAC of the Merritt TSA as a whole. I'm not sure exactly how that works.

We are talking about, in my view, an increase in the AAC of the Merritt TSA, a timber supply area among some of the TSAs worst affected by the beetle, for which the AAC was recently set in December 2011, based on 20-year-old forest cover inventory.

Now the minister justifies this increase in the AAC of the five companies in these words: "Continued innovative forest practice, such as ongoing inventory work, support the increase." Could the minister please explain what is innovative about ongoing inventory work and how this so-called innovation justifies an increase in AAC in the region.

[1600]

Hon. S. Thomson: In reference, again, to the Merritt TSA, an inventory ground sample of the entire TSA is underway in 2013 to provide for ground-plot data for immediate use, supporting decision-making such as the upcoming timber supply review. Sampling will establish the long-term forest growth monitoring plots on a grid over the entire TSA. So inventory work is being undertaken in that TSA.

With respect to the innovative forest practices agreement, what we were able to do…. Because of the innovative work that these companies do collectively and in partnership with First Nations — silviculture strategies, specific inventory work that they do — we were able to increase the apportionment for those companies in terms of their allocation under the apportionment, their AAC. But it is all within the total AAC of the timber supply area.

We have not increased the total AAC of the area. But within the apportionment within that area we have been able to increase the annual allowable cut for those specific companies within that innovative forest practices agreement.
[ Page 288 ]

It was an agreement that was to expire. We've actually been able to renew the program at a level that is lower than what their original agreement was but increased above their base apportionment.

N. Macdonald: Now, in the press release there was discussion around doing some inventory work. The minister talks about conducting activities above basic forestry management obligations. The minister hasn't added to that, although he did talk about silviculture. Presumably there is more than simply inventory. But as I say, most of it seemed to be just inventory work.

I think it does confirm, going back to a discussion that we had yesterday, an earlier point, that area-based management can take place and indeed does take place within the existing forest licensing system within the TSAs. The minister, if he wants to debate that point, could explain how this agreement to conduct enhanced silviculture activities over 1.13 million hectares of Crown land within the Merritt TSA is not area-based by definition.

Would the minister, then, agree that the creation of more TFLs is not necessary to achieve area-based management and improve productivity on the publicly owned timber harvesting land base?

[1605]

Hon. S. Thomson: The Merritt agreement, IFPA agreement, is…. I think members opposite may have heard about this agreement and know about it. Some of the work that…. They did a model that, I think, under IFPA the model is one that has worked very well.

We have a number of them, and it doesn't work to the same degree in all areas. It depends on the partners and the companies involved in terms of making it work. This is an example of one that does work well, and that's why we've agreed to maintain the agreement and to provide the additional volume for that agreement.

It is one of the options as we look at the area-based approach that will be one of the examples of where this works. It's not something that would work in every area. We had significant discussion yesterday on the area-based consultation that is to go forward, in terms of looking at the potential area-based approach through TFLs. Again, what we've said is that we will undertake the consultation.

Clearly, we need to work through that. We've said it would be done in a way that would benefit the public interest and be done in a transparent manner. But again, the important point, as we confirmed yesterday, is the step to go out with the consultation, fully engaged in that approach. As I said, we are considering the options of the best way to do that, to ensure that we get meaningful engagement in that discussion. That will take place.

In terms of IFPAs, they are one of the options, along with the other area-based options that we have in terms of community forests and woodlots and First Nations woodland licences.

B. Routley: I'm wondering if the minister would agree that the veracity of the revenue estimates may be in doubt when we have no up-to-date inventories to the VRI standard, or vegetation resources inventory, for Merritt, Lillooet, Lakes, Revelstoke, 100 Mile House and Kamloops TSAs and only partially complete inventories to the VRI standard for sizeable portions of the Williams Lake and Quesnel TSAs. This backlog of inventories, it bears repeating, involves TSAs where the pine beetle attack was, in many cases, very severe.

Hon. S. Thomson: First of all, no, I don't agree that the veracity or the confidence in the revenue projections that we have, that we've projected in the current fiscal plan, is at risk. That's based on, as I said earlier, conservative estimates based on current harvest levels. Going forward in terms of completing and bringing up to date the inventory work across these areas, that's why we've announced the ten-year strategic inventory plan.

[1610]

That's why we're providing $8 million a year in direct funding to the inventory program. We recognize the importance of the inventory work. That was one of the key recommendations of the committee. That strategic plan is underway, and we'll ensure that we bring the inventory work up to date, initially focused on the most critical areas in the mountain pine beetle–impacted areas.

N. Macdonald: We're getting to the end of the revenue section — just two more questions. Basically, the context for looking at revenue is that we have seen, year after year, investments in the land base that simply have been inadequate to do the job that's needed. This year the government is choosing from general revenues to cut into areas that desperately need work, to the tune of $35 million.

What we have done throughout the revenue portion is suggest ideas that come from other jurisdictions or that people have talked about as areas for revenue so that we can get the work done that desperately needs to be done, since the government clearly doesn't feel that it's a priority.

We've given the minister some suggestions. I think that the minister's response clearly demonstrates that the revenue side of the equation is flawed here. We have the 25-cent minimum stumpage charge that's been there since — what was it? — 1987, I think, which essentially ensures that the government has been and will for the foreseeable future be unable to meet its obligations under the Ministry of Forests and Range Act to protect the public's financial interests as they pertain to public forests.

I guess the question is: when will the minister and his government restore confidence to the people of British Columbia that it's able to fulfil its statutory stewardship responsibilities and act in the financial best inter-
[ Page 289 ]
ests of the province by securing revenue sufficient to do its work?

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, it's important to point out that as part of our government objective to achieve a balanced budget — that's the promise that we made in the recent election, that we would bring forward a balanced budget — our ministry makes a very important contribution to that process in terms of the revenues on the resource side of the equation.

That's why we've got the integrated decision-making process. That's why we have over 180 projects in the major projects system, looking through how we move those projects forward to get to yes in those projects. That's going to generate the revenue for the province. We've got a key role, along with the Ministry of Natural Gas, in moving forward on the tremendous opportunity in liquid natural gas.

We will continue to support that work within our own revenue projections. As I've said, they're conservative. We had an advance last year of $10 million, which we've utilized to ensure that we can manage our contribution this year in terms of meeting the balanced budgets.

[1615]

The funding in those programs is fully restored next year. We've also announced in our platform that we're committed to increase additional silviculture investment forward in the fiscal plan.

B. Routley: I think the minister would like to agree with me that with his unconvincing answers to questions about the adequacy of the government's information on public forests, about its lack of imagination in finding new revenue sources, about its reluctance to deal with reviewing existing rates and fees to reflect current values and about the inadequacy of its projected revenues in estimates before us, the people of British Columbia have little reason to place any confidence in this government's ability to assert the financial interest of the Crown and to take strategic decisions in the province's best interests that will ensure a sustainable future for our public forests and a resilient future for those communities worst affected by the mountain pine beetle.

My question is: does the minister agree that much more could and should be done to improve revenue to his ministry?

Hon. S. Thomson: We have lots of good discussion, and probably it would be tough to say that I never like to agree with you. There are times when we've had good discussions and all working towards achieving the same objectives. But clearly, the people of British Columbia expressed confidence in this government and in members on this side of the House in terms of managing the economy, managing the province. We're part of that confidence that has been provided.

That is why in the forest industry we're seeing new investment in the industry — over $1 million in new investment in the last two years. That's why we're seeing job growth in the sector — 3,000 new jobs in the sector in the last year. That's why we're seeing the optimism in the industry, as we've brought them through the most difficult time period in the industry.

As markets recover, we are investing strategically in inventory work. We've committed to future investments, further investments in silviculture work. Our ministry will continue to work to ensure that we manage the public resource and get the appropriate revenues from that resource, not just in forestry but across the great resources we have in this province. I look forward to continuing that work as we work in partnership with the industry, with communities and with First Nations and continue to grow the sector.

N. Macdonald: Turning to the expense side, and again, just to set the context for the estimates, I expect the minister is familiar with a recent report titled Trends in Renewable Resource Management in B.C., by four retired public servants who once held senior positions within the Forests and Environment Ministries.

This report was the focus of a column by Stephen Hume titled "B.C.'s Resources Need Support" in the Vancouver Sun, in which Mr. Hume writes: "A bit of perspective. Renewable resources — forests, fresh and salt water, arable land, rangeland, fish and wildlife — generate more than $25 billion in provincial economic activity each year."

Now, that perspective tells us just how important it is that we steward and invest in our publicly owned renewable and natural resources. Yet this government over the last decade has done, many would argue, the exact opposite. It has ransacked the budgets of the renewable resource ministries.

[1620]

In the report the authors write: "The total budget for the renewable resource ministries, in 1975 dollars, has been lower since 2003 than it was at any time in the 13 years prior to that. In 2011 it was less than half of what it had been in 2002 and only 8 percent greater than it had been in 1976."

The authors go on to say that from 2001-2002 to 2012-2013 the inflation-adjusted funding for the remaining non-resource sectors of government all increased dramatically — and I know the minister knows that — but, of course, declined within the dirt ministries. The decline in budgets noted by this team of respected former senior public servants was and continues to be the inevitable outcome of a smaller revenue base, driven in large part over the past decade by decisions government has made around personal and corporate taxes.

Of course, the officials raised concerns about the ability of government to do the work that it needs to do to
[ Page 290 ]
look after our most valuable public asset. The point is also made that if that investment is neglected, then it leads in the long term to declining resource revenues.

So a couple of questions — four of them, actually. I'll get the minister to confirm, as much as anything. The actual net operating expense budget for the fiscal year 2012-2013 was $601 million, I understand. The comparable budget estimate for this fiscal year is $561 million. The year's budget represents an effective decrease in expenditures of $40 million or a 7 percent decrease.

Hon. S. Thomson: Yes, those numbers are correct.

It's important to point out that in the last fiscal year we received a budget lift of $10 million. The reduction this year was signalled in the fiscal plan. Again, as I said, this one-year reduction of $30 million — we knew that was in the fiscal plan.

With the $10 million, we've advanced a number of activities in silviculture and other areas to prepare for this year. The funding is fully restored in the next fiscal year.

B. Routley: In the estimates for the last three years, government has stopped reporting staffing full-time-equivalents, or FTE levels, by ministry. This prevents B.C. citizens from easily determining where jobs have been cut or increased.

My question for the minister is…. Well, I've got a couple of questions. Will the minister please tell the House the numbers of full-time-equivalent positions in the ministry for the fiscal years 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and for this fiscal year, 2013-14?

The further questions related to that are: how many staff will lose their jobs as a result of the $40 million cut to the ministry's budget in this fiscal year, and how many full-time-equivalents vacated by attrition will not be filled as a result of the $40 million cut to the ministry's budget this year?

[1625]

Once again, I ask the minister: would he commit to restoring the accounting of full-time-equivalents by ministry to provide the openness and transparency that the public expects?

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to confirm, for our ministry, there are no planned staff reductions, within the current plan.

Our staffing varies, particularly seasonally, with fire management crews and other crews — particularly in seed operations and other areas. There is no plan to return to detailed FTE reporting within our documents.

Ministers — we have the accountability to balance the budget to our bottom-line figure, and that will be our focus to ensure that we balance to our fiscal plan.

N. Macdonald: Again, just to set the context. I'm sure the minister would confirm this. He can correct me if I'm wrong, but the 2013-14 operating expenses for resource stewardship are $66.9 million. I think that that represents a $35.3 million, or 35 percent, cut from 2012-2013.

It appears that the subvote of resource stewardship has taken 88 percent of the total cut to the ministry's net operating expense budget. By contrast, the subvote of executive and support services, of which almost 100 percent is located in Victoria, was cut by $500,000, or less than 1 percent — from $63.6 million to $63.1 million. Likewise, all other subvotes remain at almost the same as they were in 2012-2013.

The first question is: would the minister provide a list of all staff positions that the minister's office budget supports — so a list of those positions? And would he please explain the priorities and criteria used to target the resource stewardship expense budget with 88 percent of the $40 million cut to the ministry's budget?

[1630]

Hon. S. Thomson: In response to the question, we've had to make difficult decisions in order to ensure that we've met the balanced budget objectives within our ministry. This meant the one-year impact of certain funding within our land-based investment program. We had the additional funding provided last year of $10 million, which has helped us provide for that. The decision was made to manage that within that specific program, which falls under the resource stewardship branch, knowing that the full funding for that program is being returned in the next fiscal year.

It's also important to recognize that across the balance of our ministry, those are the key components of ensuring that we have the integrated decision model in place that's supporting resource and economic development across the province. The decision was made that the way to manage this was within that specific program, knowing that that would have the least impact going forward, because we were restoring funding to that program fully in the next fiscal year.

N. Macdonald: So what the member is saying in an election year…. There's a one-time cut of $35 million, and then once the election is over, it will come back. I guess that's what the minister is saying on those programs. I guess the question for many would be…. They see the executive and support services there, and the decision is made to cut investments in the land.

But I did ask another question. I did ask for a list of all staff positions that the minister's office budget supports. Maybe the minister could confirm that that'll be provided to me at a later time.

Hon. S. Thomson: Yes, we'll undertake to provide that.
[ Page 291 ]

N. Macdonald: Thank you, Minister.

[1635]

Can the minister tell the House how the overall expenditures break down by resource stewardship functions or programs under the authority of the chief forester for the last fiscal years 2012-2013 and for this fiscal year 2013-14 — for example, by inventory; timber supply analysis; pests and disease — forest health, in other words; silviculture; Forests for Tomorrow; tree improvement; water use planning and authorizations; watershed restoration; fish, wildlife and habitat management; climate change and research, etc.

I may not have a complete list, but that's why I need more clarity and detail, if the minister could provide that. I'm looking for a complete comparative breakdown of the resource stewardship expenditures by function or program under the authority of the chief forester for the last year and this year.

If some of the $66.9 million is not under the chief forester, could the minister please break out the balance by resource stewardship function or program and tell the House what division or assistant deputy minister has authority for it.

I presume that the ministry will take some time to produce it — although, I doubt it would take too much time — but I'm hopeful that the minister could provide the House with maybe columns that would contain the requested information so that we could compare. Again, if the minister could make a commitment to provide that in a timely way, I think that's the best way to go forward.

Hon. S. Thomson: What the member is asking for would take a little bit of work to provide it in the format that he's asked for. We can undertake to do that.

What I do have I could provide and read into the record, if you would like — or we can provide a copy to the member opposite — in terms of the breakdown by function within the land-based investment program — forest health, reforestation, water, timber supply mitigation, tree improvement, inventory, range, invasive plants. We have that information directly within the program. That's only the program side of the resource stewardship budget — some $42 million.

I think what the member opposite is asking for is the breakdown through the balance of how you would allocate that across the various areas of responsibility. That will take some work to be able to provide.

B. Routley: In its efforts to eviscerate the B.C. Forest Service after 98 years of dedicated service as the public's forest agent, this government, in one of its most ill-considered decisions, disbanded the world-renowned research branch, B.C. Forest Service research branch, in an act that some have characterized as public vandalism.

Our resilience to climate change and to many threats of globalism will depend on how we are able to apply knowledge derived from scientific forest research to strategic policy.

[1640]

Would the minister tell the House how many FTEs are involved directly with forest research activities, and is the number of FTEs less than, the same or greater than it was in the fiscal year 2012-2013? And what is the total amount of ministry operational funding provided for research in the estimates before us?

Hon. S. Thomson: The salary budget for research in 2013-14 is anticipated to be maintained at about $6.2 million. That was the same level in 2012-13. The full-time-equivalents in that are 73. The operating budget is anticipated to be, in '13-14, around $5.2 million — so a total of approximately $13.7 million on research activities. We also anticipate spending about $2.2 million on external research through FPInnovations.

N. Macdonald: Certainly, in the past I've spent a lot of time talking about inventory and will continue to do so. There certainly has been a lot from the ministry trumpeting new investments, but I think we all know that the investments don't get us to a standard that we need to get to.

The two questions are: what were the actual expenditures on inventory work in the last fiscal year, 2012-2013, and what is the inventory budget for this fiscal year, 2013-2014?

[1645]

Hon. S. Thomson: Expenditures in 2012-13 on the program side, $7½ million; for '13-14, $8 million plus the associated staff complement that goes with the programming, for a total investment in the inventory program for '13-14 of approximately $10.7 million.

A. Weaver: The preservation of existing and rapidly depleting old growth, particularly on Vancouver Island, is of grave concern to many in British Columbia for a variety of reasons that the minister, I'm sure, is aware of.

Yesterday the Ancient Forest Alliance released a statement calling on the provincial government to establish a B.C. park acquisition fund. The fund would be similar to the park acquisition funds of various regional districts in B.C., which are augmented by the fundraising efforts of private citizens and land trusts.

My question to the minister: has the minister explored within the estimates an option to create a mechanism that would allow public funds to purchase land, particularly old-growth land, for protection?

Hon. S. Thomson: It's important to point out that in British Columbia we have the highest percentage of land that is in parks, protected areas and conservancies across the province, a level that exceeds United Nations
[ Page 292 ]
standards.

[1650]

On Vancouver Island significant areas of old growth are protected through those processes. We have the Great Bear rainforest agreement. That was a leading agreement that protected old growth and other values in that area.

In terms of the specific request of the alliance in developing an acquisition fund, that's not currently under consideration. The Ministry of Environment, with their responsibility for parks, has a program and deals with acquisitions on a priority basis, as the fiscal plan will provide for it.

N. Macdonald: Just on inventory, to come back to inventory, in past budget figures on inventory provided by the ministry, the calculation…. We've had this discussion many times. We'll put on the record again. For the decade 1990-91 through to 2000-2001, the average spent on inventory was roughly $23.6 million which, when you adjust it to 2013 dollars, is about $33.1 million.

For the last decade, 2001-02 through to 2010-2011, the average was about what it is now — roughly $8.5 million which, when you adjust to 2013 dollars, brings you to $10.1 million, which is essentially where we're going to be next year. We also know that in the years '96-97 and '97-98, inventory budgets exceeded $40 million.

I raise this in the context of the discussion we often have. In the past the minister has talked about technology, but that really isn't what's going on. We have allowed inventory, by every measure, to slip to where it is, in many cases, not up to standards that we need. The professional association, of course, talked about a figure of $15 million as being a more appropriate one.

The question that I have…. In 2010 the ministry assumed the additional responsibility for conducting and maintaining 34 tree farm licence inventories. Would the minister please tell the House why the ministry assumed responsibility for TFL inventories and why it chose to pay for them, having cut its own budget for inventory, instead of exacting an annual levy from the TFL holders? And how much money does the ministry plan to spend on maintaining TFL inventory work this fiscal year?

[1655]

Hon. S. Thomson: The member is asserting that we are not investing strategically in inventory, by referencing past expenditures. We have made the point — and we've debated it before — that just because that was what was spent before, it needs to be spent now. It does not reflect the investments and approaches in new technology.

That's why we brought forward a long-term strategic inventory plan with funding certainty in that program over the years — so that the inventory plan…. Now is the appropriate time to do it, after the mountain pine beetle has essentially started to complete its course.

Ten years, $8 million per year in the program — that's going to allow us to do the strategic inventory work. This plan was developed with a lot of consultation from key stakeholder groups, including the Association of Professional Foresters, who welcomed the plan and advised that this plan would meet the inventory needs of the province.

B. Routley: In my travels to forest-dependent communities, people asked me why forestry was excluded from the Premier's job plan. Why, indeed. Their questions commonly applied to fire-hazard abatement in the WUI, or the wildland-urban interface, to reforestation of lands disturbed by fire, to the mountain pine beetle and, also, to forest inventory work, for all of which, the opportunity for job creation is absolutely huge.

Will the minister please confirm that this government's job plan still excludes forest stewardship and continues, through inadequate stewardship expenditure as exampled in the estimates before us, to discount forest jobs in the private sector related to stewardship and forest management?

[1700]

Hon. S. Thomson: The forest sector is a key part of the provincial jobs plan. It's a key part of what is meant to build a strong economy for the province.

That's why we're investing in the strategic inventory. That's why we're investing and have indicated, as part of our platform, future investments in silviculture. That's why we are continuing to work with the industry in partnership to build diversified markets in the province. That's why we're reviewing the operations of B.C. Timber Sales: to make sure that we get the full profile out through the B.C. Timber Sales programs, providing that additional fibre and jobs for British Columbia.

It's all about building the sector, building on the opportunities that are ahead of us in the sector. That's creating jobs for people in British Columbia, jobs for coastal communities, jobs for First Nations. That's why we've continued to build capacity for First Nations in the forest industry. It's all about building jobs and the economy.

The forest sector is a key part of the B.C. jobs plan. We're continuing to make the strategic investments in the industry that are going to help move this sector forward. So I disagree wholeheartedly with the member opposite's assertion that the forest sector is not part of the jobs plan. The sector and all of our natural resource sectors are the future for building that economy in British Columbia that's going to help us build jobs in communities throughout the province.

N. Macdonald: Well, I think most neutral observers would look at what has taken place and recognize that over the Liberals' term we've lost 30,000 jobs in this sector. We've lost over, I think the figure was…. My colleague pointed it out yesterday. Was it…? What was the
[ Page 293 ]
figure — 112, 113 manufacturing facilities?

The trend that most would look at and see is in this budget: the key part to forestry is the land base, and the decision is to take out $35 million in investment in the land base. Increasingly, what we see is the rawest of raw products sent offshore to do work that people in B.C. used to do.

But let's turn to another key element. We often think of it as something that's environmentally important, but of course it's also very important to the product that we market, which is the assertion that the forest products come from a sustainably managed forest. There are, of course, people who question whether that's an assertion that one can make.

In the most recent State of British Columbia's Forests report, 2010, the government describes sustainable forest management as the following: "Management that maintains and enhances the long-term health of forest ecosystems for the benefit of all living things while providing environmental, economic, social and cultural opportunities for present and future generations."

In that report the ministry uses a number of criteria and indicators to self-assess how sustainably it is managing forests on behalf of British Columbians. Without getting into a tremendous amount of detail, forest agencies throughout the world use two very simple indicators of sustainability. One is for the timber resource alone and is called the growth depletion rate. This is a simple ratio that looks at the amount of timber being added to the management unit versus the amount of timber being lost to things like logging, forest fires and pests.

[1705]

The ministry, in response to recommendation No. 4 in the recent Auditor General's report, stressed the importance of accurate yield projections as far as B.C.'s timber base is concerned, which is, essentially, an acknowledgement of the central importance of knowing what our growth depletion rates are.

Could the minister please tell us what performance measure the ministry now uses to report on sustainability, and how is it reported in the ministry's annual service plan report?

Hon. S. Thomson: What's important to recognize is that with respect to B.C.'s forest land base, we have the greatest percentage of our forest operations operating under forest stewardship certification — greater than any other jurisdiction. Our '13-14 to '14-15 service plans will define the provincially desired outcomes for timber.

The updated performance measure for timber volume gained from silviculture investments is linked to baseline provincial timber harvest target levels of 57 million cubic metres per year during the mid-term and 65 million cubic metres in the long term. This is based on projected provincial harvest target levels that are based on B.C.'s 22-million-hectare timber-harvesting land base and accounts for such factors as stand volumes, reforestation growth, conservation of wildlife trees, riparian reserves, water, fish and wildlife habitat and biodiversity.

N. Macdonald: The minister cites performance measure No. 7, the timber volume gained from silviculture investments. As I understand it, that's what he pointed to. That's used in the ministry's service plan as a measure of sustainability. But it's a measure, really, of timber productivity rather than sustainability, I would say, and I think most would agree. It's certainly not a measure that's recognized. Unless the minister can correct me, I don't think it's recognized as a national or international indicator of sustainability.

That's what the minister is citing. It seems to me that a lack of, really, a critical performance indicator undermines the credibility of the government and sort of the mantra of claiming that we have sustainably managed forests.

[1710]

Am I incorrect in thinking that the only point that the minister made was that performance measure 7 is the single thing that government can point to? Or are there other things that I missed in the minister's answer?

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, the approach to doing this is to manage for the long-term sustainability of the resource. There are a number of other performance measures that relate to that — the percentage of the regulated communities compliance with statutory requirements; the coordinated resource decision data quality index, which is a measurement around the quality of the resource monitoring data for resource stewardship decisions — but this is all about building long-term sustainable harvest levels, taking into consideration all the values.

We're confident that the programming we have in place…. We have a bit of shorter-term challenges, but we've managed for that, knowing we had the additional investment last year. We are managing for all of those values in the long term to make sure that we have a sustainable level of harvest and that it's done respecting all of the other values that are in place on the landscape.

N. Macdonald: Well, I mean, the minister…. We spent a lot of time with the committee hearing from groups, and the government has spent an awful lot of time feeding off the work that was done by previous governments. You know, they point back, in many of the certifications, to work that was done ten years ago.

I think with sustainability, as well, there's a real danger, not only environmentally but economically for the province, with the lack of work that's been done. From 2003 to 2010 the ministry reported on a quasi measure of sustainability in its annual service plan and service plan annual report. This performance measure was the ratio of area reforested to area harvested or lost to fire and pests.
[ Page 294 ]
A ratio of less than one indicated that the forest management was not sustainable.

Predictably, the ministry reported and projected targets of less than one for seven years. This reality did not agree with the fictional image of forest management that the minister's predecessor, the former MLA for the riding of Prince George–Mackenzie, wished to project to the world — and I guess maybe the government as a whole wanted to project — so he scrapped that performance measure in 2010.

[1715]

The question for the minister is: what provincial government indicators and evidence can the minister point to that demonstrates that the public forests of British Columbia are sustainably managed?

Hon. S. Thomson: To go back a little bit. With reference to that specific performance measure that the member opposite was referencing, that was based on actual surveys. I think the specific measure was taken out at that point.

I wasn't here at that time, but my understanding is that it was taken out as a result of the fact that with the mountain pine beetle impact that was not a specific performance measure that could be maintained because it was based on the actual survey. It was replaced with a range of other performance measures that relate to sustainability and the sustainability measures, as I've talked about previously, but also other measures, like recovery of open forest and grassland ecosystems as a performance measure; resource decision data quality, as I mentioned; and mountain caribou herds meeting the recovery objective as another performance measure.

We have built in a number of other performance measures that relate to the overall sustainability of the resource, and we're confident that the programs that we have in place and that we're managing contribute to that in terms of a long-term sustainable resource.

B. Routley: Until 2000 the ministry reported annually, in table 4 of its annual reports, on the not-stocked status of forest land within all TSAs and TFLs. The reason the ministry used this is because the ratio of not-stocked to stocked land is a coarse indicator of sustainable forest management.

Could the minister tell us the areas of not-stocked, or NSR, forest land for the coast and for the Interior that are deemed economic and feasible to plant with tree seedlings? How much does this area differ from the comparable statistic that the minister provided during the 2012-2013 estimate debate?

[1720]

Hon. S. Thomson: As of June 2013 there are 698,934 hectares of NSR in the timber-harvesting land base. That includes about 564,470 hectares of recently harvested areas that are managed by tenure holders and B.C. Timber Sales as part of their ongoing basic silviculture obligation to reforest; 37,000 hectares of backlog NSR — those are the government's responsibility to manage; and about 97,000 hectares of NSR relating from wildfire, mountain pine beetle or other agents that have been identified through the field surveys. These areas are the government's responsibility to manage, but government does not have a legal obligation to reforest.

In addition, in terms of recent work, there are estimates that there could be between 600 hectares and 1.1 million hectares impacted by the ongoing mountain pine beetle epidemic and new wildfires that could cost-effectively be treated to improve stocking. I think that number is consistent with the work of the Forest Practices Board in estimating additional NSR lands.

N. Macdonald: Thank you for that, Minister.

The minister cited, as a measure of sustainability within the service plan, the caribou. I'll quote from the ministry's 2013-14 service plan. It has, as I say, that performance measure, which they number 5, the "Mountain Caribou herds meeting recovery objective." Let's test that as part of the discussion we're having about sustainable forests.

The number of herds attaining the recovery objective by fiscal year 2012-13 was forecast to be four. What is the actual number of herds that reached the recovery objective in 2012-2013, and has a third party independently validated the result?

[1725]

Hon. S. Thomson: This, overall, in terms of the caribou recovery programs, as I think as the member opposite knows, is a challenging area. We have a number of programs in place to do that. We continue to work to manage both the complex areas around predator-prey impacts. We've taken a number of initiatives.

In March a major radio-collaring program was completed. We've had transplant programs in place to attempt to work with the recovery programs. I think, as members opposite know — particularly, the member for Kootenay East will know — that project was not very successful in that initiative. Our biologists continue to work with that complex relationship in working to try to move forward on the caribou recovery plans.

I think there is lots more work to do in those areas, and I think there are ongoing challenges to achieve overall success in those areas. We need to continue to work on those caribou recovery plans, but again, it's going to take some overall decisions around how we manage that in terms of the predator-prey relationships, habitat relationships, all of those. I think, on an ongoing basis, this will be a continuing challenge to meet those performance measures.
[ Page 295 ]

N. Macdonald: Thank you, Minister. And I don't doubt the complexity. I understand the complexity of this issue. It's one that impacts the people that I represent a tremendous amount.

[1730]

Nevertheless, there were some fairly specific questions that the minister didn't answer. The question was: what is the actual number of herds that reached the recovery objective in 2012-2013, which is four, and has a third party independently validated the result?

I bring this up mainly because the government points to precious few indicators of sustainability. This is one that the minister has pointed to as evidence of sustainability, and clearly, there are issues with that.

Maybe the minister could either indicate that he can answer those two questions and provide the answers or not, and we'll move on to the next one.

Hon. S. Thomson: As we pointed out, a number of different plans and different initiatives are underway. I think, to be complete and accurate here, I would like to be able to provide that information as a follow-up response to the member opposite, because we need to….

There are specific herds in the specific plans. The overall number was four. Targets for '13-14 are nine, and I think we'll need to provide further specific detail to the member opposite in response to the question.

N. Macdonald: Mainly, I'm focusing on this because this is the area that the minister pointed to as an area that indicates how good a job the government is doing in terms of dealing with sustainability. I don't doubt the complexity.

The mountain caribou, though, is something that the ministry has committed to protecting. The mountain caribou, of course, is an emblematic animal of Canada's cordillera. It's also an animal that we all know is in trouble. In 2002 it was listed as endangered in Canada. In B.C. the B.C. conservation data centre currently lists it as threatened.

The added part of it is that 98 percent of all the world's mountain caribou are resident in B.C. So we have a particular responsibility and the government has a particular responsibility for the long-term well-being of these animals.

I think most of the efforts in recent years have focused on wolf and mountain lion population control — in particular, wolf control. But the part that is, I think, more difficult to talk about is the impact of forestry. That's the part that…. Really, I think people just want to hear what the government is actually going to do, although it's like one of these issues that, I know, for any government is a bit of an awkward one.

Let's look at Wells Grey Provincial Park, which was established by an order-in-council in 1939 largely in response to a major collapse of the area's mountain caribou herds in 1935. It is now understood that this collapse of caribou was caused by a large wildfire that destroyed about 500,000 hectares of low-elevation old-growth forest 13 years earlier.

Those forests are now returning to old-growth status within the park, providing protection from predators and the like in the mountain caribou's need for food, and that's the good news. Yet, according to government biologists in March of this year, only 59 mountain caribou were actually seen wintering inside Wells Gray Provincial Park, down from about 150 only three or four years earlier.

[1735]

The biologists attribute this, it's my understanding, to predators entering the park from regenerating clearcuts just outside the park.

The questions for the minister…. If this is what the government is pointing to as a sign of sustainability, then clearly, the government would want to be able to show that it has some success. Will the minister acknowledge that the mountain caribou herds in Wells Gray Park are once again collapsing? Only this time the reason is not wildfire but likely…. The government biologists say that it's logging adjacent to the park condoned by the same ministry that has responsibility for the well-being of the park's caribou.

Will the minister also inform us that the government's opinion is still that the intention is to save the mountain caribou and acknowledge that, over the long term, protected areas have to be part of that solution? What is the intention of the government around the logging adjacent to Wells Gray Provincial Park?

Basically, it's just that the minister pointed to this as a sign of sustainability. Clearly, it's problematic in a whole host of areas. What's the intention going forward here? How far is government going to go to deal with all aspects of what threatened the caribou?

Hon. S. Thomson: Clearly, this is a complex issue. I don't have the specific numbers in front of me, and I'm not going to dispute the numbers the member opposite quoted in terms of the reduction of numbers in the herd and in that area.

[1740]

I think it's important to point out that there are a number of factors that impact. I think it's a stretch to point to the fact that it is solely related to harvest or logging activity.

The park has a complex predator-prey relationship within the park — wolves, cougars, grizzly bears in the park. We've been working on the fact that there is within that area a significant moose and white tail population that's supporting predators. We have been looking as to whether the harvest allocation or the hunting availability for those species can be part of the solution. But again, a complex relationship.
[ Page 296 ]

I'm not a biologist, so this is something that I just know is a complex area that we continue to work on. While we pointed to the measure in the performance measures as being one that is part of how we measure whether we're doing an overall responsible job in terms of sustainable management…. We pointed to the performance measure. We've got the target measures in there.

I think it's important to set those targets so we keep the focus, again — the ability to achieve those when we have a very, very complex relationship that's impacting not just this caribou herd but caribou herds around the province. It's work that needs to continue under the management plans that are in place and one that will be part of the ongoing work of the ministry.

B. Routley: The minister's recent comments kind of fit right in, in terms of sustainability of B.C.'s fish. I want to look at the very large areas of forest land that are being cleared for hydro rights-of-way, for natural gas pipeline corridors, for gas well pads and for other infrastructure in the natural gas sector. This rate of deforestation will increase dramatically in the event of liquefied natural gas, LNG plants — when or if they are built and the pipelines are built to carry bitumen from Alberta to the coast.

All this activity puts fish and fish habitat in hundreds of B.C. rivers and streams at risk. But no single action has put British Columbia's fish habitat at greater risk than Prime Minister Stephen Harper's unpopular repeal of section 35 of the federal Fisheries Act, which protected fish habitat, and his decision to chop budgets for habitat field offices. This has left British Columbia, a province where salmon are an icon of our way of life, with a huge regulatory gap that it must fill.

The Environmental Law Centre at the University of Victoria recommends that B.C. legislators fill this regulatory gap for fish habitat protection by amending the provincial Water Act.

Would the minister commit to working with the Minister of Environment to ensure that British Columbia's fish habitat receives the protection under the provincial Water Act by implementing the recommendations of UVic's Environmental Law Centre?

[1745]

Hon. S. Thomson: We are continuing to work with the federal government on understanding the amendments to the bill that at this point include the removal of the general prohibition of the HADD to fish habitat under section 35. That hasn't removed the provision of prohibiting serious harm to fish, so we need to continue to work with the federal government to understand how those changes will be managed through here.

I think what's important to recognize is that we understand the importance of ensuring that fish habitat is protected. We have those protections under our Forest and Range Practices Act, under riparian area regulations. So we will continue to have the provisions in place that we can work with that will protect fish habitat.

In terms of the modernization of the Water Act, as we pointed out earlier, that's being led by the Ministry of Environment, and that question would be appropriately canvassed there.

N. Macdonald: The Ministry of Environment has the mandate to develop policies that affect fish and wildlife habitat, as the minister knows, but the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations has responsibility for implementing actions and activities that affect habitat.

The Forest Practices Board has repeatedly criticized the Forests Ministry for a complete absence of planning and management at the landscape level of resolution. Emphasis needs to be placed on ecosystem linkage in fragmented landscapes, landscape integrity, species at risk, fish and wildlife restoration, flood control, invasive species and the conservation framework. Work needs to be integrated with the reforestation program and with the Ministry of Environment.

Of the $66.9 million allocated in the ministry's estimates for resource stewardship, can the minister tell the House how much funding the ministry is dedicating to restoration and landscape management?

[1750]

Hon. S. Thomson: As the member pointed out, in a number of reports around the integrated approach to landscape level or strategic tactical planning, many of the elements are being currently implemented through such initiatives as the type 4 silviculture strategies. We have got those underway in Quesnel, Prince George, Lakes, Morice and the Williams Lake TSAs — about $500,000 investment in those areas.

If we look through our land-based investment program which…. I had indicated that I would provide the information to the members opposite in terms of the overall breakdown of our programming in the resource stewardship branch across the different activities.

Specific programs in ecosystem restoration — invasive plant control would relate to that. There's funding for specific programs related to water and wildlife under Species at Risk and GAR-specific funding set aside for those areas, the ecosystem-based management. So a variety of programs and funding available through the land-based investment program that will contribute to that.

As part of the provision in providing that overall breakdown for the members opposite, we'll be providing the specific investments in the land-based investment program.

B. Routley: The government garnered media coverage for its decision to convene a Species-at-Risk Task Force. The task force report was submitted to the government
[ Page 297 ]
in August 2011. Since then we have heard nothing about what the government intends to do by way of acting on the report's recommendations. Since then we have had the February 2013 Auditor General's scathing audit of the status of the province's biodiversity.

Can the minister tell us how much new money and how many new staff have been allocated to implement the 88 important, extensive and costly recommendations of the task force and the six recommendations of the Auditor General?

[1755]

Hon. S. Thomson: In response, the Species-at-Risk Task Force and the process in response to those is being led by the Ministry of Environment. That would be the appropriate place to canvass that question.

With respect to our ministry, I have been very pleased over the last year to add a number of wildlife management areas in many areas of the province protecting critical habitat. We have over 1,605 wildlife habitat areas for a total of 1.4 million hectares, 59 different species and ecosystems at risk. We've initiated a number of successful captive breeding programs for select species — Vancouver Island marmot, for example.

We are focused on our work in terms of addressing species at risk. The specifics around the task force and responses to those recommendations would be canvassed with the Ministry of Environment.

N. Macdonald: Thank you, Minister. On behalf of the member for Cowichan Valley and myself, we still have a number of questions that we would like to continue with, but by agreement, we've come to the end of the estimates process for the opposition critics.

There are, as you know, issues that individual members have. I think I'm scheduled to meet with you on hazing, on Jumbo, archaeology, resource roads. I know other members have individual issues and that they are going to come and meet with you as well.

I wanted to say that through the process, in terms of the government action, I think the minister and I both understand that we disagree tremendously on many of the things that are going on, and that is well canvassed.

I do want to say — both from my colleague and me — that the minister is consistently a gentleman and consistently answers questions in a way that I don't take for granted at all, and neither does my colleague. I enjoy the exchanges. I enjoy how you answer the questions. I also appreciate, not only for myself but for all members, the willingness to meet and try to solve issues.

With that, we turn it over at exactly six on the dot, which I'm sure the members who are waiting will appreciate. With that, we'll turn it over.

Hon. S. Thomson: Without taking any time away — not much time away — from the other members who are waiting, I want to, again, thank the members opposite for the questions. Also, if there are any other specific questions he didn't get to, provide them in writing, and we'll certainly respond. As our practice has been, we try to be open and available for direct meetings and discussion, and we are prepared to continue that as we go forward.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister and the staff for being here today to answer these questions. I have very little time, so I'm going to abbreviate this. The issue is around a meeting that we had earlier in the year, actually, in the spring, Minister, and your staff dealing with some logging activities in the Alberni Valley.

[1800]

McLaughlin Ridge was specific. It's a wildlife habitat area and a critical ungulate winter range that was established by ministry scientists. As the minister recalls, I was able to attend with Jane Morden of the Watershed Forest Alliance, based in Port Alberni, as well as Mike Stini, an ungulate expert, a local expert on ungulate territories and habits.

Since we met in the spring, I wanted you to know that the level of cut in some of these critical habitats has increased in the valley. As the minister knows, I have freedom-of-information material which I shared with him in that last meeting, which indicated that Island Timberlands, the company involved, was engaging in activities that ministry scientists said were going to be damaging.

With that in mind, the minister did say at the time that he understood the concerns and that he was going to be raising those concerns directly with Island Timberlands. I wanted to remind that of the 2,400 hectares that were originally set aside by ministry scientists — that needed to be set aside as a very, very bare minimum for critical ungulate habitat and wildlife areas for goshawk and others — we're down to 900 hectares and dropping.

With that in mind, to the minister: I have put in a request for a follow-up meeting. I realize that this isn't the right time for the meeting because you are in estimates at this point. I guess rather than ask the questions here, which I have no time for, if I could get a commitment from the minister that we could have that follow-up meeting, and possibly Jane and Mike could attend with me, and they could inform you and the ministry staff about what has transpired in the meantime and the concerns that are still there and growing in the Alberni Valley. If I could get a commitment to a meeting in the near future, that would be wonderful.

Hon. S. Thomson: Certainly. We've met earlier. I know there has been continued review of the file since then. As I indicated to the members opposite, I'll try to accommodate all requests. Certainly, we'll make that commitment, and I think, given the time that we're here, hopefully we can try to do that in a reasonably expeditious time frame.
[ Page 298 ]
I'll undertake to do that, and we'll work with your office to facilitate that.

V. Huntington: Firstly, I'd like to thank the members for Columbia River–Revelstoke and Cowichan Valley for their very thorough canvassing of the water use and water management issues. But I have in that regard one or two questions that I'd like to follow up on. I did mention it at lunch to the minister's chief of staff. I hope he got that information. They are not difficult, and I don't think staff will have a problem following up on them.

In estimates two years ago I asked what seemed to have been the first questions on the intense water use in the northeast sector of the province. At that time there were no watershed management plans, and the Oil and Gas Commission was permitting the withdrawal of tens of millions of gallons of water a day with no knowledge of the exact amount used, the available water volumes, the water flow or the recharge rates.

Water was being removed from wetlands by digging pits and draining them. It was being trucked from lakes, streams, aquifers, rivers and reservoirs, again with no knowledge of the amount of volume used, the availability of it or the recharge rate. In fact, the volumes used then and now basically amount to an interruption of the water cycle itself, and this, I think, is the fundamental concern I have and share with a lot of British Columbians.

At that time I asked whether a watershed management plan was in place. I was advised no. I would like to comment that a watershed management plan is supposed to be in place before development activities can undermine the effectiveness of a plan, and that plan is supposed to factor in the impacts, on the future water inflows and recharge, of climate change, human activities and physical works that intercept water. In other words, the objective of the plan is to manage watershed sustainability in an integrated manner.

[1805]

I would like to ask whether the minister, after two years, has put a watershed management plan in place in the northeast area of the province, and in particular in those watersheds heavily impacted by the non-conventional gas exploration.

Hon. S. Thomson: We've not implemented a specific plan, but in partnership with Energy and Mines and with the Oil and Gas Commission, we're taking a number of initiatives. We've put in place the NorthEast Water Tool. That's a tool that is increasing knowledge of the hydrology and making sure that all applications are reviewed for sustainability. Also, in cooperation with the federal government, we're working on the groundwater monitoring programs to increase our data. We're also undertaking a needs assessment on further hydrology data needs in anticipation of the increased level of activity.

V. Huntington: I'm somewhat concerned, because it is the mandate of the minister under the Water Act to engage in the stewardship of water and the water resource. There is nowhere that a member in this House can go, it seems, to find out precisely what the stewardship plan, the management plan, is for the water resource in the northeast sector.

Are those tools…? The minister is now mentioning something called the NorthEast Water Tool. Is that available publicly?

Are all the different discussions and studies that are ongoing, whether it be the federal government and the aquifer allocations or aquifer…. I can't remember. Anyway, they were mapping the aquifers. Are all of those studies on line? Are they available? Can I receive copies of them?

Can they bring me up to date in a briefing on what is going on with regard to the stewardship of water in the northeast? How much do you expect over the next year, the next coming years, and certainly, how do you expect to provide enough water to the industry with the massive exploration that appears to be in the minds of the government and industry with their liquid natural gas plants?

[1810]

Hon. S. Thomson: The NorthEast Water Tool is available publicly on line. Any member of the public can go onto that and can look at how much water is available and how much has been allocated. Certainly, we can provide the link and the process to access that information.

I'm also advised by staff that there are a number of other stewardship plans and work underway, as I mentioned. We would certainly be prepared to have staff sit down with the member opposite and review that work. Some of it is on line, so publicly available, but not necessarily potentially easy to access. We'd certainly be able to review that. Some of it's draft work in relation to some of the stewardship initiatives underway, but we can certainly undertake to have staff sit down in a full briefing or a comprehensive briefing on that with the member opposite, because I know she is very, very interested in this area.

V. Huntington: I want to thank the minister very, very much for that. I would very much enjoy a fulsome briefing on the entire issue and be brought up to date.

When I was in the northeast last year, with the former member for Cariboo North, we were on a day-long briefing with the Oil and Gas Commission. We were introduced to an initial study that they were undertaking on water volumes and water flow. Yet the minister's comments seem to indicate that the volumes available are already understood. Is that the case?

Can the minister tell me what the present status is of
[ Page 299 ]
the water volume studies that were being undertaken at that time — just initiated? They were just, with one single river area, being undertaken by the OGC.

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, in terms of the briefing or the meeting that we just committed to, I think that will be very helpful to the member opposite in getting right up to date on all the work that is being done.

[1815]

The NEWT program includes the work that we know we are doing — work in cooperation with the Oil and Gas Commission, with the Ministry of Environment, on improving that data. There are a number of studies underway to characterize the groundwater component of all of that, to improve our knowledge and to be able to add to the tool.

I think the opportunity to have that briefing and have the member opposite be brought up to date on all of that work that has progressed since the previous looks at that work will be useful. Probably at this point, rather than going through the specifics of all those studies, let's just say that we're committed to review those with her. I hope that that would provide a level of understanding of all the stewardship work that is underway.

It is a critical resource, but it's also a critical area for the future economic prosperity of the province in terms of being able to move forward in the development of that industry and to capitalize on those opportunities, particularly around the liquid natural gas opportunities.

V. Huntington: Thank you. I look forward to the briefing very much.

One final question on this, then: do these studies include a scientific analysis of the impact of the withdrawal of water from the water cycle itself?

Hon. S. Thomson: Without going into all the specifics of the work that's underway, I think the short answer is yes. We have a great number of experts and professionals that are working on all of this. Again, I hope that the briefing will bring the member opposite completely up to date on all of that very important work that is underway. But the short answer to the specific question is yes.

V. Huntington: Now I would like to move on to bunnies and bridges. Only the minister will know precisely the importance of the bunnies and bridges. There is nothing I would like to talk about more than to regale this House with the story of bunnies and bridges and the Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Ministry.

However, in the interests of time, I would just like to say to the minister: the eagles have dined, the coyotes have supped. There are no more bunnies in the park that anybody can see or find. The off-leash park is no longer. There are no dogs that can run across the non-existent bridge — or the bridge, should it be replaced. There are no bunnies that are going to cross that bridge.

What we want is the permit to replace the bridge. There are no bunnies. There are no dogs. There's no cost to the province. We just want the permit to put the bridge back. It's the minister's bridge. The province put the footbridge up in the first place. It's maybe 20 feet long; it's maybe two feet wide. All we want after two or three years of trying is the permit to replace the bridge at no cost to the province.

I assure the minister, Mr. Chair, that as I say, the bunnies are gone. We've sat in the park and watched day in, day out. We can't find a bunny. And even if there are bunnies, they were all fixed, so there can't be any new little bunnies. The off-leash dog park never happened, so the dogs can't run into the marsh. We just want the permit for our two-foot-wide, 20-foot-long footbridge. Can the minister oblige us?

[1820]

Hon. S. Thomson: We've met a number of times on this file. I don't want to…. This is a little…. I'm not sure whether to use some analogy of some Beatrix Potter story or something like that in relation to this file. I think what I can advise the member opposite of is that if she is correct in the fact that there are no bunnies there, as she says, then I'm open to the request from Delta and looking to move forward with a permit in place.

Our overall objective has been to make sure that we protect the special wildlife management area — the South Arm Marshes wildlife management area. That's an objective that we have to make sure that we do. But if the member opposite is correct, then let's get this file settled and off my desk. I'd more than welcome an approach from Delta on that.

V. Huntington: My gosh. It's just music to my ears that the minister might consider it. Now, I have to ask the minister: what proof would they need that the bunnies no longer exist? Do they want somebody to sit there 24 hours a day for two days, a week, a month? Do they want motion camera movies of the fact that no bunnies are hopping around?

Does the minister recall — or perhaps his officials may not recall — that they built that bridge in the first place, covering a 20-foot-wide piece of water, to a park known then as Bunny Park. So there have been two roundups of bunnies — two bunny roundups. Now there are no bunnies.

[1825]

I need to know, in order to get back to the corporation of Delta, what would suffice as proof to the ministry in order that we get the permit to have this bridge replaced.
[ Page 300 ]

Hon. S. Thomson: I was going to say what I need is…. How about the personal guarantee of the member opposite that there are no bunnies there, as she says? I'm not sure that's the basis on which we can do it, but I certainly understand her interest in this.

As I said, I'm open to the immediate dialogue with Delta. We'll have our biologist visit the site to confirm what the member opposite has said. I'm not going to ask her for her personal guarantee, but I think the time has come to move this forward. If, as she said, the bunnies are not there, then we'll move forward to get that permit in place.

V. Huntington: I thank the minister for that. I'll be on to the corporation immediately. I assume that they will follow up with the ministry, or I shall follow up with the minister's office, and we shall get this deed done. If anybody wants the full, unbelievable story of bunnies and bridges, just come to me, and I'll be glad to impart it.

Vote 26: ministry operations, $340,367,000 — approved.

Vote 27: direct fire, $63,165,000 — approved.

ESTIMATES: OTHER APPROPRIATIONS

Vote 54: Forest Practices Board, $3,815,000 — approved.

Hon. S. Thomson: I move we rise, report resolutions of the estimates of the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:28 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply (Section B), having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported resolution, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. Polak moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House at its rising stands adjourned until 1:30 tomorrow afternoon.

The House adjourned at 6:29 p.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); M. Dalton in the chair.

The committee met at 2:26 p.m.

On Vote 41: ministry operations, $2,487,215,000 (continued).

The Chair: Welcome, everyone. We are currently concerned with the budget estimates of the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation, and I will start with the minister.

Do you have a statement, Minister? No? Okay.

J. Kwan: Just before the break I asked the minister a number of questions. Then he was wondering which question to answer. Maybe I'll point out the question specifically that I would like him to answer. For the rest of the questions that I put earlier this morning to him, if he could ensure that his staff provides that information to me in writing after the estimates debate but before the House adjourns, I would appreciate that.

Can the minister advise this House if he's received concerns expressed by agencies and the people who actually provide their services on the front lines, with respect to the revised Budget 2013? What's the minister's response to those concerns?

Hon. D. McRae: Since we tabled Budget Update 2013, myself and my staff are not aware of any particular correspondence, but we do receive correspondence. By all means, we endeavour, when we receive correspondence from constituents or advocacy groups, to respond as quickly as possible — if we can, within two weeks. I cannot say definitively that we have received something, but when I talk with my staff and from my own recollection, I'm at a loss to remember a specific example.

[1430]

If the member opposite has a specific example and we have not responded since the budget has been tabled, she's welcome to share that. Chances are we're in the process of responding as we speak.

J. Kwan: Well, I do actually have some of the documentation from the individual groups. Inclusion B.C., as an
[ Page 301 ]
example — I know I've written to the minister with respect to concerns. But they are not the only ones. There are a number of others, and I'm not going to spend time here talking about letters that I know the minister received and concerns that he should have received and so on. So perhaps the minister, then, can gather that information, read those letters and advise this House after the estimates, via writing to me, what his response is with respect to that.

Maybe the minister can tell me this. Since he's assumed his post, what consultation has he undertaken or his ministry undertaken to consult with service providers and front-line workers to discuss whether or not they can deliver the services that are being prescribed by the ministry with the current budget?

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. D. McRae: Thank you very much, hon. Chair. I'm impressed. You're lighting the mikes even before you turn around. You have some skills.

With CLBC there are approximately 3,300 different contractors and individuals which are funded by CLBC to deliver services. If one of these individuals or organizations has a concern with their contract, by all means there is a practice, I'm sure, of contacting CLBC and expressing such concern, and I encourage any such provider to do so if they haven't already done so.

J. Kwan: That wasn't my question. My question was whether or not the ministry or the minister has undertaken and initiated consultative processes with the service providers and the agencies — not whether or not when they ran into a problem, if they have an issue, to bring it to the minister's attention or to the ministry's attention.

Hon. D. McRae: The answer is no, we have not had any consultation. But we haven't seen a need to at this stage.

J. Kwan: Personalized initiatives in the budget are being reduced by 33 percent, and the caseload is going up. And the minister says he doesn't actually see a need to talk to the contract providers who are providing those services to the families and individuals in our communities?

[1435]

Well, to say I'm shocked is, I suppose, in some ways an understatement, although I suppose maybe the minister feels very comfortable that these funding shortfalls are going to take place in his ministry and he doesn't actually see the need to talk to the very people who actually deliver those services on the ground in the community.

Maybe the minister can tell me this. Does he have, actually, any budgetary concerns within his budget relative to the delivery of services in the sector, given the growth in demand that he and his ministry know is coming?

Hon. D. McRae: Just a reminder to the member opposite that the Social Development and Social Innovation Ministry works closely with CLBC. We work with individuals, their families and advocacy groups to make sure we're hearing concerns and addressing them as best we can.

Existing services for individuals and families will be maintained. Changes are made by mutual agreement, and there is no plan to make reductions at this time.

J. Kwan: That stock statement comes in handy. We've heard it several times.

Interjection.

J. Kwan: The minister is very proud of the fact that he says he's going to keep on repeating it. No doubt those words will be quoted back to him from the families when the pressure comes, and it is coming.

To be clear that the Ministry of Social Development…. While it's true that there are other services which the minister delivers through the ministry, CLBC is a separate entity, and the minister knows that. The consultation that I'm talking about is not to do with the other services within the ministry, but rather specifically related to Community Living B.C., and the minister should know that as well — just to be clear so that we're not confused about what we're talking about here.

Interestingly, his predecessor, the former minister — actually, who is now the member for Vancouver-Langara — made this on the public record, actually before the election: "Our government is fully committed to improving supports for people with developmental disabilities and their families. Until that new integrated service delivery model is rolled out, we will ensure CLBC has the money it needs to provide supports and services to individuals and families. We have flexibility within the budget to do this. We will spend the money necessary."

Will the minister make the same commitment as his predecessor?

Hon. D. McRae: That has been what I've been saying for the last two hours in the morning and will continue to say going forward.

J. Kwan: That's good to hear.

Well, then, will the minister make this commitment? It is my understanding that the ministry had actually agreed to pay for negotiated salary increases in the sector. Will the minister commit that additional money will be found for the agencies to fund that salary increase so that they will not have to find money within the existing budgets to pay for that negotiated salary increase from the government?
[ Page 302 ]

[1440]

Hon. D. McRae: The Community Social Services Employers Association, the service providers, are receiving a modest wage increase of 1.5 percent on both April 1, 2013 and January 1, 2014, funded from savings found within existing budgets and net zero trade-offs, as required by the cooperative gains mandate. Savings for wage increases will be found within existing budgets with no impact to services, and right now funding ministries are working on a way to ensure there is a consistent approach for these increases.

J. Kwan: Has anybody within government ever made a commitment to the service providers that the wage increase would not have to come from the existing funding, out of their existing budgets?

Hon. D. McRae: Not to our knowledge.

J. Kwan: When the minister refers to a "consistent approach" to negotiated salary increases, does that mean to say either (a) that every ministry within government would have to absorb the monies with the negotiated salary increases within the existing budget from the existing programming funding or (b) that the additional dollars would be found so that those negotiated increases would be funded outside of funding for existing programs?

Hon. D. McRae: Of course, savings from modest wage increases under the cooperative gains mandate will be found within existing budgets with no reduction to services. The funding agencies will be working closely with contracted agencies across the sector to identify opportunities to achieve efficiencies in providing services while ensuring no reduction of services. The sector and government will continue to look for innovative ways to provide support and assistance to British Columbians while ensuring that government spending is controlled and supports a balanced provincial approach.

Now, to the member opposite as well, I can only speak to the Social Development and Social Innovation Ministry and CLBC. I cannot speak for the other ministries.

[1445]

J. Kwan: The contracted agencies — don't they just get funding for specific programming and administrative overhead, which is a fixed percentage?

Hon. D. McRae: Service contractors receive up to 10 percent for administration. This is on top of program and facility costs.

J. Kwan: So basically, if the negotiated collective agreement wage increases are to be passed on to the agencies, they have nowhere to make up for that money, except for cutting it in services. Or is it the minister's expectation that somehow they can shrink their administrative costs to meet the demand?

Hon. D. McRae: The funding agencies will be working closely with contracted agencies across the sector to identify opportunities, to achieve efficiencies in providing services while ensuring no reduction in services. If we can do things differently, we are willing to work with the agencies or the contractors to see if things can be done.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister and his staff for being here. I know we're short on time. I want to say that some of my constituents in Alberni–Pacific Rim have some pretty grave concerns about the proposed cuts in the budget for client funding for residential services and the day programming funding and, particularly, the personal support initiative.

I'm going to touch on two different families, if I can. There are others, but in the interests of time and expedience, I will stick to the two and maybe provide the minister and his staff with the others as they come in.

[1450]

Cheryl Magnussen is a constituent of mine. As a prelude here, her daughter Angel was under the supported child development program for most of her life. She has multiple challenges. She's also a star in my constituency. She has worked for Variety Club. She has raised funds. She is well known in this place because at one point the Ministry of Children and Families was going to…. They were cancelling her supported child development program funding. I managed to get that turned around, or we managed to get that turned around.

Cheryl's concern for Angel lies in the fact that in one year she falls under CLBC. She's 17 right now. The mandate there…. She needs one-on-one private care. We went through this all before. The pediatrician, actually, at the time was clear that it was life-threatening. The alternative would be that Cheryl would have to sign over her child to the province, which I don't believe is anyone's chosen outcome here.

I'm wondering. Have the minister and staff…? Has there been any risk assessment done, particularly to the clients, those that might be facing these cuts, to the families that might lose their children if they can't afford the cuts that are being proposed to be made? Have there been any specific risk assessments before the budget was brought forward, these potential cuts were brought forward? Or were the cuts brought forward first and without the…? I'm talking about the risk assessment to the client, to the child, to the family.

Hon. D. McRae: To the member for Alberni–Pacific Rim, I know you weren't here this morning, but another member raised a question. There was a statement I used very often in these proceedings, and I want you to share
[ Page 303 ]
them, if you can, with your constituent.

Existing services for individuals and families will be maintained. Changes to services are made by mutual agreement, and there's no plan to make reductions.

This person that you're speaking of…. Obviously, I do not know this person. But if they have not contacted CLBC, they should do so immediately. Once there is contact made, CLBC does do a service demand assessment. That, I think, is what you're referring to as a risk assessment, where we can identify the needs of a specific individual.

Furthermore, to the member opposite, since you are in receipt of this e-mail and I am not, if you would like to share that e-mail with my ministry staff, we'll respond directly to the individual, if you think that would be of benefit for the individual.

[1455]

S. Fraser: I appreciate the comments, although the proposed cuts, the money out of the budget seems…. I don't know how this will work. Angel needs one-on-one private care, to be kept in the home. She needs that for safety. She has multiple issues besides Down syndrome, autism and anxiety disorder. For Cheryl to be able to keep Angel safe, that one-on-one care has to be in the home. That allows Cheryl to still work and be able to afford keep Angel too.

With the cuts that are being proposed to CLBC, I'm not so sure that'll happen. But I will take the minister up on that offer, certainly, and follow up. And I will provide you and your staff with the specific concerns that Cheryl has given to me. Then maybe we can follow up afterwards on that.

One more issue. I'm going to read this right off. This is from Tara Richardson, a constituent of mine. She says: "Hello" — she used my name — "MLA, I am contacting you with great concern over the proposed cuts to Community Living. My oldest son is 20 and on the PSI program." The personal support initiative program is the one that is slated to be cut by 33 percent, again. "I have another disabled son who is coming up to being on the program. How are we as families supposed to support our kids when things are already really tight to begin with? Thank you. Tara Richardson."

That's again another real-life fear, the real fear that is happening amongst families. The spectre, the option of having to maybe lose their child out of the family to be able to ensure that they get care is a real and palpable fear. Can the minister respond to that also? I will provide the minister and his staff with the contact information, also, for Tara.

Hon. D. McRae: I think it's very important, too, that we let the members opposite know…. I think I have seen some tweets where the opposition is talking about budget cuts. I'd like to let the members in the opposition know that you guys are in error. The budget for CLBC has gone up by $30 million, member opposite, since fiscal year 2011-2012.

Furthermore, we have 10 million new dollars for CLBC this year. For the member opposite, that $10 million is for transitioning youth and for the development of employment and related supports. So there are more dollars this year than there were the previous years. To send information that there are less dollars when there are more dollars is factually wrong.

[1500]

S. Fraser: Is it factually wrong, then, that the CLBC per-client funding for residential services will drop by 3.5 percent in real terms in this budget; that day program funding for clients will drop by what will amount to, in real terms, 5 percent in this budget; and that funding for personal-support-initiative clients will drop by 33 percent in this budget?

Hon. D. McRae: For clarity's sake, Community Living B.C.'s budget includes total transfers from the government of British Columbia of $740.8 million for the 2013-2014 year. This is an increase, member opposite, of $10 million from the 2012-2013 transfers, which were $730.8 million.

If member opposite would like to check Hansard, we also talked about how we are actually able to deliver service in a different manner which is more efficient, more fair and more transparent for the client. I think this ministry is doing very much: (a) there is more money, and (b) we are delivering services in a better manner that is more respectful and appropriate for individuals needing services from CLBC.

J. Kwan: I know that the minister is fond of saying those things. We'll see about who is actually factually wrong. The minister's words are on the public record now, and we have documentation to show otherwise. There'll be cases that'll be coming forward to hold the minister to account.

I don't want to belabour in arguing about that, because I know the minister will just get up and read his script again, as though it really is the Bible or something.

That said, I'd like to ask the minister this question. Can the minister tell me: what is the total budget amount for respite care last year, and what does he anticipate that he will be allocating to respite care from Budget 2013?

Hon. D. McRae: For the fiscal year 2012-2013, for respite care, $11.5 million was spent.

For the year 2013-2014, the current year, my apologies to the member opposite. We did not bring those numbers with us. However, we will get those numbers for the member opposite as soon as possible.
[ Page 304 ]

J. Kwan: Thank you very much. I would appreciate that.

Could the minister advise: of the $11.5 million, how many hours of services does that actually provide in terms of respite care? Likewise for this year's budget — how many hours of service does it provide, and to how many clients is it providing services?

[1505]

Hon. D. McRae: The member opposite is asking about number of hours and clients. In a general sense — I'm sure member opposite is aware of this — the cost for respite can vary depending on the needs of the individual that is getting support. However, it is a pretty complex question, and we need to compile the information and get it to the member opposite as soon as possible as well.

J. Kwan: Fair enough. I'm okay with that. Also, could the minister, along the way with that information that he's compiling…? Can he also provide the average number of hours that a client would get so that I could get a sense of what that looks like in terms of respite care?

I'm wondering, on a different question: can the minister confirm that the individualized funding awarded to families has been established at $2,800 per year? I want to make sure this is not a typo. This is what I've been informed. It's $2,800 per year, and this is based on the prior commitment of another one of the minister's predecessors, who is now the Minister of Children and Family Development.

Hon. D. McRae: The member opposite references $2,800. I want to be very clear here. The $2,800 to which she refers is a minimum. It is a minimum of direct-funded respite, and by all means, that's why we do assessments. But it is a minimum number of $2,800.

J. Kwan: Is there a maximum?

[1510]

Hon. D. McRae: In regards to respite funding, it all depends on the individual and the family circumstances. CLBC also provides individualized funding for other services to support individuals and their families.

J. Kwan: I feel like I'm talking to myself, because the specific question that I asked the minister was this. Is there a maximum for the individualized funding? He said the $2,800 is actually the minimum for individualized funding. I asked the question: is there a maximum? He got up and gave me an answer that does not actually answer the question. So let me try it again. Is there a maximum? If so, what is the maximum amount for individualized funding?

Hon. D. McRae: There is in policy no maximum funding for respite.

J. Kwan: So that's the case for both respite and individualized funding? I asked the question about individualized funding.

Hon. D. McRae: Individualized funding is based on the needs of the individual.

[1515]

There is not a policy maximum in regards to individualized funding dollars. This is intended to give individuals and their families greater control over how they receive services.

J. Kwan: Good. So we have established that the minimum baseline is $2,800 a year and that there is no maximum. That was, I thought, a relatively easy answer for the minister to give, which we finally got.

Let me ask….

Hon. D. McRae: Chair, may I clarify that?

If I may, for clarity, we already know, with individuals…. We want to make sure that they are getting clear answers here. The $2,800 is for dedicated respite funding. Individualized funding is a different story.

J. Kwan: I would ask the minister to go back and read Hansard. My first question to him on the $2,800 that his predecessor — the now Minister of Children and Family Development — said on the record is $2,800 for individualized funding…. I asked him if that was the right number or if that was a typo. He got up and answered.

He's now saying that answer is for respite care. So I feel as though I'm talking to my daughter sometimes, which I say to her….

Hon. D. McRae: Hon. Chair, I take exception to that. Seriously.

The Chair: Okay. Okay.

J. Kwan: I actually take exception to the fact that I'm not getting answers to relatively simple questions that I'm putting to the minister. I thought I'd made it quite clear, and we can check the Hansard record. Thank goodness that there is Hansard to see what question was asked and what answer has been given.

We've been going around the clock for 15, 20 minutes now, trying to get the answer on this basic question, and we seem not to be able to get it.

Maybe the minister can clarify one more time the $2,800, which was referred to by his predecessor — now the Minister of Children and Family Development who referred to $2,800 for individualized funding. Is that the correct amount? Is there a minimum or maximum for individualized funding?

Hon. D. McRae: For clarity, I will give the answer from
[ Page 305 ]
this minister, because this is who is speaking today.

[1520]

Direct funded respite, yes, is $2,800 minimum. Individualized funding has no minimum or maximum. It is a payment method. I do not have the Hansard report, which the member opposite is referring to, in front of me. However, I'm sure it's very important to the member opposite, and thank you for bringing it up. I'm giving you the answers from this ministry now.

J. Kwan: Hallelujah. Thank you very much. That was the answer that I was looking for. It wasn't a trick question. I was trying to establish if there were basic minimums or maximums for respite care and for individualized funding. Yes, 20 minutes later we got the answer. Thank you very much.

I'd like to ask the minister this question. When the bonuses were eliminated for excluded employees, the report that came back from the government was that those bonuses had been rolled into salary increases for the excluded employees. So could the minister please tell this House, or maybe he can provide it in writing at a later time: what is the percentage of the salary increases for these excluded staff or employees, and also provide the actual dollar amounts.

Hon. D. McRae: Bonuses for excluded employees were ended in April 2012. We're talking about the budget process going forward, not looking backwards.

J. Kwan: Then, on the salary increases that took place, the minister does not want to provide that information on the public record because he does not want to provide that information so that British Columbians can know. His excuse is to say: "Well, sorry. That was last year's budget, and we can't give you that information."

Well, maybe he can give me a breakdown, then, of the salaries for his excluded staff for Budget 2013. Maybe I could actually have that information. No names should be attached to that, for privacy reasons; I don't need to know specifically. But if I could get the positions and the salaries for excluded staff from the minister for this year's budget, then I can make my own comparisons.

Hon. D. McRae: Yes.

J. Kwan: For an open and accountable government that doesn't want to provide the information to the public, thank you very much. I wonder why the government doesn't want to actually show that information. Maybe because they have something to hide. That said, we will try and endeavour to find out that information.

I have a case, actually, from a woman named Christina Singh, which I would imagine the ministry staff will be familiar with. This has been the ongoing case of a person who actually would like to move back to her own home, her mother's house, which, of course, needs renovation and other support services for her care for her to successfully do that.

It's a complicated case. I don't wish to actually engage in a debate about this particular woman's case. However, she has given me the authority to raise this in the estimates debate here and to also ask for the minister to commit to a meeting with this family so that they can resolve the many issues that she has, so that she can live a full and, I hope, happy life in her hopes to transition back to her mother's home. She faces many difficulties at this moment because the ministry is not providing her the necessary supports that are required for her to make that transition successfully.

[1525]

Would the minister commit to provide that meeting for the family and to work on a resolution so that this woman can, in fact, move back home with her family with the kind of supports she needs?

Hon. D. McRae: I've been an MLA for…. This is now my fifth year. One of the things I try very hard to do is to meet with as many people as possible, both constituents and stakeholder groups — and, if I'm in a ministerial capacity, as a minister. There are a lot of demands, obviously, on time and such. But the reality is that if a person, like Christina Singh, would like to meet with me, I'm more than willing to do so.

J. Kwan: Excellent. I'll pass that on to the family, and we'll endeavour to organize that meeting and to get her issues resolved, I hope, and the supports that she needs so that, in fact, she can move back home with her mother and live out the life that she is hoping to attain, and the quality of life that she wishes to attain. Just to note that she did actually have a meeting with her MLA, and clearly, there needs to be ongoing work.

Before we close, I do want to acknowledge the former critic for Community Living B.C., the MLA for Powell River–Sunshine Coast, who's done quite a lot of work in this arena and actually driven the government to do the review — although not an independent review; I almost said an independent review, but I think that was wishful thinking — for the excellent work he has done to represent the interests of the community, to advocate on their behalf and to hold the government to account.

There is much work to be done. I'm just learning this file, and I'm working with all of my colleagues to pursue that with the government.

I hope for what the minister says — that there will in fact be no cuts to the ministry in terms of this programming and, more importantly, that the clients of CLBC will not see program cuts and will be able to access the services that they need. They are, I would argue, some of the most vulnerable people in our society, and I think we all have an obligation to address the concerns and needs
[ Page 306 ]
that they have.

I don't believe for a moment that this budget actually will meet their needs, especially in light of the fact that there is going to be tremendous growth in caseloads in the sector. I have no idea how the government is actually going to make good on that commitment that the minister repeatedly read on the record.

With that, though, I do thank the minister for his time — and the staff, for their time. I fully anticipate that we will be having an ongoing dialogue.

And finally, I look forward to receiving the information that the minister has committed to during this estimates debate. I would like to ask the minister to commit, though, that the information will be passed on to me before the House adjourns so that I can actually receive the material, finally, and to also ensure that, anticipating that there will be follow-up questions arising from the responses, the minister commit that I will be able to arrange with his staff for further discussions or meetings, briefings if you will, with respect to issues and questions that I would have in the CLBC sector.

Hon. D. McRae: The answer to that question is yes.

C. Trevena: I have a letter here from a constituent. It came into the office during the election campaign. While it is addressed to his predecessor — in fact, I think, the predecessor before, but to a preceding minister — I'm sure it arrived on his desk. I'd like to read it into the record and then ask for a response from the minister on it.

[1530]

The constituent is Angela Shaw. She lives in Campbell River. She has a son. She writes:

"As a recipient of disability, PWD, due to breaking my neck in a head-on car accident, after rehabilitation I was physically ready to get a place of my own again, along with my young son, and be independent again.

"So last summer I looked for a two-bedroom apartment with a shelter allowance of $590. It was impossible to find. It was very rare to find anything even in the $700 range. In fact, the older, run-down apartment buildings start at $815 and up."

[G. Hogg in the chair.]

I'm sure the minister knows Campbell River well and knows the accessibility to apartments and the pressure there is. I'll continue. She writes:

"Seven years ago the ministry bought me a nebulizer at $130 for my very young son so that I didn't have to take him to a medical facility or the hospital — causing more hardship getting there — and saving the government money, which was excellent.

"After seven years of use, the nebulizer broke, and the medical store said it was too expensive to fix, so I asked the ministry if they could help me purchase an AeroChamber to help him inhale the medication. The Ministry of Social Development said no, due to cutbacks. It costs $35. Where do I get the money from, when I don't even get enough to pay the rent?

"My glasses, that I need desperately, were the cheapest pair at Wal-Mart, with a total cost being $498. Social development paid $179.80. It took me six months to pay that off, having my family put money towards them for Christmas and birthday money and going without being able to see properly in the meantime."

I continue. This letter is addressed to the minister's predecessor.

"I'm wondering how you configure the rates for social development and if there will be a much-needed rate increase, especially for shelter and medical needs. I have enclosed" — and I'm happy to table these through the Chair — "some statistics from CMHC, Canada Mortgage and Housing, for our area.

"I don't understand why the government doesn't use the statistics they pay to get to help configure the shelter rates in our province, which would help everyone — 'everyone' there being including the government, which I mentioned earlier.

"I look forward to hearing from you."

I'd like to ask the minister two questions. I'm assuming he has received this letter. I hope he has read it. They're whether he will be looking at the issue of the rate levels, and whether, as he has offered to meet with other constituents, maybe he would like to sit down with Ms. Shore and talk through some of the problems that she's facing. We can arrange that meeting if the minister would be willing to do so.

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. D. McRae: Thank you very much, hon. Chair, and good to see you, sir.

To the member for North Island: obviously, I was not minister at the time. There was an election ongoing. I cannot say whether that letter was received by the ministry or not, but I will assume that it was. However, it would be a great benefit if the member opposite could make sure we have another copy of that letter forwarded to my ministry staff. We'll respond directly to the individual and do that very quickly if we can.

In regard to arranging a meeting, you know what? I will do my best to meet with individuals and groups across the province of British Columbia. I know the member opposite is very familiar with my community.

I have a very large population for a riding in British Columbia. I have 65,000 residents, which makes us one of the most populous ridings in the province. And I endeavour to also spend time with my own constituents as well. But it is a balance as a cabinet minister. You try to spend time with your own constituents, and you try to spend time with individuals and groups from around the province in the ministry for which you serve.

Yes, by all means, please make sure that the individual knows that I am willing to meet with her. If it can be arranged in the near future, we will do our very best.

C. Trevena: I thank the minister. He knows it's just a half-hour drive from Courtenay to Campbell River, so I'm sure we'll be able to fix something up there. I'd appreciate it.

I'd like to ask a second question to the minister, again just to put it on the record. This again is something that I raised with his predecessor, about access to child benefit.
[ Page 307 ]
I'll read the letter I wrote to his predecessor, and I'd like to get a response from him.

[1535]

As he said in response to an early question, he is now the minister, and it is now his ministry. Hopefully, his approach will be a little more open and forthcoming on some of the issues that really are hurting a lot of families.

This is a constituent of mine, Aaron Kushner, who is on CPP disability and on, provincially, people with disability, PWD. He is married and has a young son. He receives a family bonus and benefit for the child of a person receiving a CPP disability benefit.

He's allowed to keep the family bonus, but the other benefit of approximately $224 a month is deducted from his PWD payment. It's understood that the payment that is deducted is intended for his child and is directed to Mr. Kushner as the adult. He doesn't pay any tax on it. He doesn't receive a T4 for it, as is the case for family bonus. He gets a T4 for that, not for this one.

I wanted to ask the minister what the explanation is for the difference in approach. He wants to work within the system, but he feels very frustrated when he's getting such glaring inconsistencies. He gets one. He doesn't get the other. He gets it clawed back.

Obviously, his income is very low. He's on people-with-disabilities benefit. I've just cited how low that is in the previous instance. He does feel that this cheque would really help him and his family out. I wonder if the minister is going to have a more open response than his predecessor.

Hon. D. McRae: I have the letter from the member for North Island, which we received, it looks like, on January 30. Not that the member opposite cares, but it is my birthday on January 30.

Interjection.

Hon. D. McRae: Thank you very much. I turned 43 last year.

We responded to the MLA for North Island on March 5, and we responded to the individual in question on the same day, sending it, I would assume, to his home address. The policy has not changed since March 5, 2013.

B. Ralston: I have a couple of questions involving individual cases. As the minister said, this ministry is focused on individuals.

The first one. I choose not to give the name of this person, but this is someone I know, who I've met with personally. I'm quite confident that what she's saying is accurate.

She's a single mother of two. Her children, two daughters — one is in her late teens, and one is in her early 20s. She was employed, then received unemployment insurance benefits. Then those ended. She's been looking diligently for a job and can't find a job. Her last job was earning $9.25 an hour. She does own a very modest condominium, on which she's paying the mortgage using some of the little savings she has left.

[1540]

She has applied for welfare benefits and has been told that the operation of section 14(1) of the Employment and Assistance Act means she has to dispose of — in other words, sell — her apartment and make herself homeless before they're prepared to support her.

Can the minister advise me on what I should tell this person in answer to her question as to why this policy is in place?

Hon. D. McRae: I don't know if you're aware of this, Member, but the primary residences are an exempt asset for income assistance eligibility. However, obviously, this is an individualized case, one which I'm not familiar with. If either yourself would like to get the information and forward it through the ministry or have that individual contact my office directly, we will endeavour to give an answer as soon as possible.

B. Ralston: I appreciate that response. Certainly, it was her view that that was the advice she was receiving from the office she dealt with. It is the one in north Surrey — which I understand, being one of the high-volume offices, has very expert and skilled people running it. So I'm surprised by that, but I'm also…. I will pass that on, and we'll get a response to the minister in due course.

The other individual case I have is a constituent who came into the office very recently. His wife died in 2004, but he has two daughters. He's a single father of two. The children are aged 15 and 13. He was employed as a sheet metal worker but was recently laid off and has exhausted unemployment insurance benefits and has applied for welfare.

He was told he was required to go to Service Canada and have a certificate prepared as to what benefits he's receiving from CPP, Canada Pension Plan. He receives a survivor's pension of $242.92 a month and children's benefits of a total of $457.32. He was informed that all CPP benefit types are considered unearned income.

Obviously, he's been using some of that income to support himself and his daughters. His expectation was that the application for welfare would help him, provide him with some income to continue on raising his family and supporting them while he continues to look for work and, hopefully, will get back to work.

But he was told that all of that would be deducted from any payment that the ministry was willing to make to him. He came to my office very bewildered by this policy, because it really left him with almost no benefit at all and, really, no assistance at all. Can the minister explain the rationale for the policy and advise me as to what I should say to that constituent?
[ Page 308 ]

[1545]

Hon. D. McRae: I have a list of all the correspondence I've received from MLAs. You said it was recent. When I go back as far as August of 2012, I don't see any request from the member for Surrey-Whalley in regards to this issue. But that's okay.

I think it's really important. I think one of the things that can happen is…. When you have…. I think the word you used was bewilderment. In this ministry and as a minister I try very hard to prevent bewilderment both for my MLA colleagues on both sides of the House and for constituents.

There are two things that could happen here. One, we could actually have…. If the individual — I'm assuming it's a he, but he or she — wishes to contact us directly, we can deal with the circumstance. Or if the member for Surrey-Whalley or other members have questions in regards to clients, to prevent bewilderment, please contact our office, and we'll do our very best to give an answer that is consistent, appropriate and timely. They may not always like the answer we're able to give, unfortunately, but we'll do our very best. Without knowing the information in advance, it's hard to respond accordingly.

However, that being said, we were talking about the Canada Pension Plan and pension plan disability. For the member opposite, some points for the record, for him and for other individuals.

The B.C. Employment and Assistance program is an income- and asset-tested program of last resort. Clients are required to pursue all other forms of income before relying on income assistance, including income from the Canada Pension Plan and the Canada Pension Plan disability. All applicants and clients must apply to the Canada Pension Plan or the Canada Pension Plan disability benefits if they're eligible to do so. This includes applying for early Canada Pension Plan benefits at age 60.

As in other provinces, the ministry will top up a client's monthly income to cover the difference when income received through the Canada Pension Plan or the Canada Pension Plan disability is less than the ministry rates.

Hopefully, that is of help, and I look forward to hearing something either from the member for Surrey-Whalley or his constituent. That's something that I think we'll do our best, and if you ever have a constituent who has not heard back from my office in a timely manner, please do not hesitate to let us know, and we will try to track down and find out the problem and respond quickly.

B. Ralston: Probably I didn't make this clear, but I had not written a letter to the minister. This person just simply came into the office very recently and spoke with my staff. The reason that he's here and the reason that he's bewildered is because he has been to the ministry and had his claim evaluated and doesn't understand the rationale for the policy.

I actually have a letter here from — I won't give the name, but a ministry official, Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation — the Surrey North office saying that all those CPP benefits are considered unearned income and will be deducted. I suppose the issue for him is the basis for the policy. The decision has been made. He wants to know the basis for the policy because, in practical terms, he's really going to be not very much further ahead having made the application and receiving what benefits are left after those deductions are made.

Hon. D. McRae: Like I said earlier, by all means, if either yourself, the member for Surrey-Whalley, or the constituent wishes to…. Obviously, he's talking to some staffer within the SDSI ministry. That is fine, but if he would like to have a response directly from the minister's office, I'm more than willing to do so as soon as possible.

B. Ralston: So I'm clear, I'm trying to frame this as a broader policy question. What I'm looking for from the minister at this time is not an individual response, but I'm looking for the minister to give a rationale for the policy, given the situation that my constituent finds himself in.

[1550]

If the minister is not willing to or not prepared to give it at this point, then I'll pursue it further. So I'm clear, I hope, that's what I'm looking for from the minister right now.

Hon. D. McRae: I think the broad-based policy which we're referring to…. I think I answered it already, but I'll answer it again. Hopefully, it will suffice. The B.C. Employment and Assistance program is an income- and asset-tested program. The key words here: "of last resort." Clients are required to pursue all other forms of income before relying on income assistance, including income from the Canada Pension Plan and Canada Pension Plan disability.

As in all other provinces, the ministry will top up a client's monthly income to cover the difference when the income received through the Canada Pension Plan or Canada Pension Plan disability is less than the ministry rate. This is consistent across all provinces in Canada.

M. Mungall: I'm very glad to be back. I have some questions about the Ombudsperson's report. I don't know if we have all the…. Yes, okay.

Sorry. Looking across the way, I see that there's a request for a recess, a quick break. Just five minutes. Hon. Chair, I leave that decision to you.

The Chair: We shall take a five-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 3:52 p.m. to 3:58 p.m.
[ Page 309 ]

[G. Hogg in the chair.]

The Chair: Member for Nelson-Creston.

M. Mungall: I thought you had to call us back.

The Chair: Yeah, okay. We're back. [Laughter.]

Hon. D. McRae: I love the formality.

M. Mungall: Yeah, I appreciate the formality of the proceedings, hon. Chair.

My question is pertaining to the Ombudsperson's report. I'm sure the minister will have seen…. It was in the news recently that the Ombudsperson's annual report was released. In that report the Ombudsperson noted that nearly 20 percent of the files that the office received in 2012-2013 involved the Social Development Ministry. Specifically, they had 983 files pertaining to the Ministry of Social Development, which is considerably higher than any of the files they opened in reference to any of the other ministries.

I'm wondering if the minister can comment about the number of complaints that the Ombudsperson is receiving about the Ministry of Social Development and if he plans to conduct any file reviews of those received by the Ombudsperson or conduct any audits evaluating the compliances with legislation and the ministry policies.

[1600]

Hon. D. McRae: To the member opposite: thank you very much for raising this. I also want to thank the Ombudsperson for the work that she and her office do for British Columbians. I had the opportunity to meet with the Ombudsperson just last week for the first time in this capacity as minister, and I was very pleased to do so. I think it was a very useful conversation for both of us.

As the new minister, I actually raised this question as well. I want to point out to the member opposite that we serve about 180,000 individuals in the province of British Columbia. With so many clients, sometimes — well, many times — we will have multiple transactions per client. So with 180,000 individuals being served, it is not overly surprising that it does take a large percentage of her work.

M. Mungall: Going back to some of the comments made by the Ombudsperson in her report and to the media, one of the things that she was particularly looking at is the recommendations that were made about four years ago in a report that she provided.

In that report, called Last Resort: Improving Fairness and Accountability in British Columbia's Income Assistance Program", and it was done in 2009, there are 28 recommendations. However, six of those recommendations, she said, are relating to the Persons with Persistent Multiple Barriers to Employment program. Those six recommendations were accepted, and they were committed to be implemented four years ago, but they have yet to be implemented.

My questions, then, to the minister are: what is the plan for implementing these six recommendations, and what has been the reason for the delay?

[1605]

Hon. D. McRae: The ministry accepted 27 of 28 recommendations in the 2009 report referred to by the member, Last Resort. Fourteen of the recommendations are fully implemented, and another six recommendations involving persons with persistent multiple barriers are being reviewed as a whole and are in progress. The remaining seven recommendations are of an ongoing nature, and regular updates are provided.

I spent about an hour with the Ombudsperson when I had a chance to meet with her. While we did refer a little bit to this, it was not a major part of the conversation. However, both senior ministry staff and the Ombudsperson agreed to meet in the near future in regards to this issue, and I also did encourage an opportunity to speak with the Ombudsperson if her time allowed in the fall sometime or earlier if necessary.

I think there was a good understanding that there's some more to be done but also that a lot of work is being done as we speak.

M. Mungall: I'm sorry. I didn't hear an answer to my question of what the reason was for the delay, though. It's been four years that these recommendations — these six recommendations that the Ombudsperson highlighted — haven't been implemented. I was curious to know: what was the reason for the delay?

Hon. D. McRae: To the member opposite, the 28 recommendations that we received from the Ombudsperson were fairly comprehensive in nature, and it has taken some time for us to work through the 28. We prioritized the PWD recommendations. Many of the recommendations came with timelines, and we wanted to make sure those ones were completed first.

The ones that are still being worked on — the line I think I used earlier was that they are in progress — did not come with specific timelines, not that we want to take any longer than necessary to implement them. We are working on those recommendations right now.

M. Mungall: Very quickly, when can the public anticipate that those recommendations will be implemented?

Hon. D. McRae: Staff recommends that it will probably take about a year to a year and a half to fully implement these. However, if the Ombudsperson is not happy with our progress, if she has concerns over the time
[ Page 310 ]
frames, I'm sure — because we will have regular meetings, either from minister to Ombudsperson or senior staff to Ombudsperson in her office — that we could do things perhaps a bit more efficiently or prioritize the ones that are not yet completed. We can work with her office to do our best.

We are by no means dragging our feet on this whatsoever. We're just trying to work through our recommendations and still provide the great services we need to, to the citizens of British Columbia.

[1610]

M. Mungall: I'm going to move on to an issue that the minister will be familiar with. I raised it in question period. That's the community volunteer supplement.

I was reviewing the estimates process from last year. As the minister knows, in August 2011 the government, the then-minister, committed to reviewing the community volunteer supplement program. They had frozen any new applications at the time while they processed the wait-list and got everybody from the wait-list into the actual program. But they continued to not accept any new applicants despite it being very successful, saying that there was going to be a new program coming.

Last year in estimates the minister said about the community volunteer supplement program that a review was underway "as to what that program might look like in the future. I am anticipating to be taking recommendations, on what this program may look like in the future, to cabinet within the next couple of months."

My question to the current minister is: if those recommendations were indeed taken to cabinet, what were the resulting decisions in terms of a new program for people with disabilities? And when will that program be announced?

Hon. D. McRae: Obviously, I'm not the minister of the day, but I think what the minister was referring to in estimates was the October 1 policy reforms that came out. I know that the member opposite…. We did talk about them the other day. They are things like earning exemptions for persons with disabilities of $800, a $200 monthly earning exemption for all employable clients, tax returns, family bonus retroactive payments, asset levels to be increased, trust disbursement levels to be increased for PWD clients.

The thing, as well…. I know we did touch on this yesterday when we were talking about various issues. There is in my mandate letter a white paper that needs to be created, and we are going forward to talk to PWD individuals.

I'm looking forward to, sometime in the fall, going forward and having that outreach. I did talk yesterday about how we're going to have some of this conversation with individuals, community groups and advocacy groups around the province. I'm sure the CVS, or the community volunteer supplement, is an issue that will come up as well.

[1615]

I think there's also some opportunity. Speaking as a minister about some things that I would like to see…. Are there ways we can use a new program to help people with PWD transition into more employment? That's something that we could use for them. We could get some tangible results that we didn't have before. But again, we are not ready to come forward with a new program to replace CVS in the very near future.

M. Mungall: So the minister finally got to the answer, answered the question, which is that the government is not ready to implement a new program replacing CVS at this time, despite the minister last year….

It was very specific. I quoted that the minister was speaking to the community volunteer supplement program last year, saying that there was a new program that would be coming forward and that recommendations were being made for that program. She was bringing forward those recommendations to cabinet.

The reason why I think she was being very specific is because, actually, the provincial government receives federal dollars for volunteer initiatives for people with disabilities in the labour market agreement for persons with disabilities.

In the 2012-13 planned expenditures, in the annual report 2012, they anticipated to spend a total of $7.278 million on volunteer initiatives. It goes on, further in the report, that this is specifically for the community volunteer supplement.

So the money is there. It's going to the community volunteer supplement. The government has decided that they are going to discontinue this program at some point and replace it with a new program. To that effect, they have frozen all new applications.

My question is, again, to the minister. If there is no program ready, and it's two years after the initial commitment for a new program, what's the holdup?

Hon. D. McRae: The federal government gave the province last year $7.1 million under the LMAPD agreement. Last year the CVS program, which you're referring to, supported 6,279 individuals across the province of British Columbia at a cost of $7.1 million. So the money that the federal government gave us and the money we spent balances out.

M. Mungall: I'll ask this question again to the minister. What's the holdup on the new program? A new program was promised. It hasn't come forward. Why?

[1620]

Hon. D. McRae: The member opposite, I think, is asking, you know: why do we not replace the CVS pro-
[ Page 311 ]
gram? I want to make sure the member opposite is very aware that the ministry wants to continue to work with the B.C. coalition and other disability groups to see what community inclusion initiatives people are interested in.

We are, with the white paper, going forward in having a consultation with individuals and advocacy groups and their families across British Columbia. We want to make sure we get that white paper completed and have those conversations with the disability groups, as we have been doing it.

The other thing too, I think, is the concept behind the $100 a month that will to go to individuals on CVS is to defray the costs of things like transportation and work clothing, perhaps — those kinds of expenses to actually get to and volunteer to do the work in the community that they enjoy. In fact, I actually have a member in my constituency office who has, for the last five years, been on the CVS program and receiving that but also doing great work in my constituency office, and I want to thank him for that.

Going forward…. Again, it comes down to that we're not ready to come forward with the program until we have that conversation with the individuals of British Columbia.

M. Mungall: I have to say, after two years of originally promising to do a new program and still not having had conversations with stakeholders and people affected, it's quite a delay, and the government should be a bit ashamed of that. I think that it's very disheartening for people with disabilities to be put on the back burner in such a way.

[M. Bernier in the chair.]

But I will ask a few questions that maybe will help the government in moving forward as they decide on what kind of new program. I would suggest, and I know that many people who receive the community volunteer supplement and their advocates would suggest, that this is an exceptional program. It should be continued. There's funding for it, and we should continue on.

I know, though, the government's focus is around employment. You know, I applaud that. I mean, of course, if someone can have an opportunity for employment, that's wonderful. That's good news, and we should do everything we can as a government and as public servants to facilitate that.

However, the fact of the matter is that when we look at the service plan and the numbers for people who have declared earning exemptions — therefore, people who are on PWD and have a job as well — it's only 14 percent of those on PWD, right? Saying that we're going to be able to ensure that everybody on PWD or everybody who was previously receiving the community volunteer supplement is now going to be able to move into paid employment, I think, is a bit stretching the reality.

That being the case, I want to look at some numbers around the community volunteer supplement and, specifically, how many new applicants the ministry was receiving each year prior to discontinuing the acceptance. We're going to have to go back to 2009-2010, since you discontinued receiving new applications in 2011. If we can look at those numbers, then we can maybe start having an understanding of how popular this program was and how much value it has to citizens in British Columbia.

[1625]

Hon. D. McRae: My apologies for taking some time. It's an awkward one. I'm saying that because there's been a wait-list for this program for 20 years, since 1993.

I don't think this is directly what you're asking for, Member, but I'll give you some numbers here. Hopefully, it is. If not, we can try to work with what we have here.

In 2009-10 the number of cases in receipt of CVS at any one time during that fiscal year was 6,467. In 2010-11 it fell to 5,027. On October 11, 2011, we opened up the wait-list, and it climbed dramatically to almost 2,000 more individuals, to 6,988. In 2012-13 there were 6,279 individuals. But the wait-list has been sort of a historical issue for, like I say, 20 years.

M. Mungall: To clarify, the numbers that the minister was saying were the people who were receiving the CVS, not necessarily people who were on wait-lists.

[1630]

Hon. D. McRae: Yes.

M. Mungall: Okay, thank you.

Then my next question is: with this new program and the emphasis that the government is placing on employment, are they expecting those who are currently volunteering to move over to paid employment, or is the CVS still going to continue for those who are currently receiving it?

Hon. D. McRae: It is possible, but there are some people right now who are receiving the CVS supplement and actually working as well. There will probably be individuals who are quite happy volunteering in their community, wherever they do so, but, for whatever circumstance, they're not able to work. It is not one or the other. It depends on the individual.

M. Mungall: Just to clarify, is it a yes from the minister that the CVS will be continuing on for those people who are currently receiving it and that if they are not able to access paid employment, they will continue to receive CVS once a new program comes in?
[ Page 312 ]

Hon. D. McRae: I did quote to the member opposite the 2012 and '13 number of individuals, 6,279 — the number of cases in receipt of the CVS during the year. They are able to stay on the CVS program as long as they so desire, providing that they continue to volunteer and do their obligations in terms of the program.

M. Mungall: Then what will the ministry plan on doing with the funding they receive from the federal government as people move off of the community volunteer supplement, off of the CVS, and move into paid employment? That money is still there, however, from the federal government for volunteer initiatives. That's what it says. So what will this government do with that funding?

[1635]

Hon. D. McRae: The LMAPD agreement with the federal government, I'm sure member opposite knows, goes until March 31 of next year, and we'll continue to meet our commitment. I can't sort of guess and look into the future and see how the federal government is going to respond going forward, but we have worked well with them in the past. However, we have as a ministry committed to continue to fund the CVS program, regardless of how the agreement with the federal government goes forward.

The other thing is that as individuals perhaps decide to leave the CVS program and there are dollars available…. That's one of the reasons why we're having this consultation period for the white paper as we go forward — to see what individuals in British Columbia would like in terms of allowing them to volunteer and work within our communities. If there is an opportunity, as well, for that volunteerism, if the individual so desires, to better engage into the workforce, that's something that I think would be beneficial to employers across British Columbia.

M. Mungall: As the minister and staff go forward, listening to what stakeholders and people with disabilities have to say about a potential new program, I have no doubt that they will hear the praises of the CVS and be persuaded to reinstate acceptance of applications.

Before I move on from CVS, I do have a question that I picked up from last year's estimates. Here the minister was explaining how there was $10 million referenced that year to move people from the wait-list into the program but that the actual expenditure was less than the $10 million. At the time she said between $7 million and $8 million is what the cost was.

I am wondering: what, indeed, was the cost of moving people from the wait-list into the program, and if it came in under budget, what was done with that slippage?

Hon. D. McRae: Last year we budgeted $7.3 million. We spent $7.1 million. There was an approximately $200,000 difference. Those dollars went in to support other programs within the ministry.

M. Mungall: I'm going to ask some questions now about the Minister's Council on Employment and Accessibility. My first question is if the minister sought their advice on the community volunteer supplement — the freeze of the applications for that program. And will the minister be seeking advice from that council on a new program?

[1640]

Hon. D. McRae: We're talking about the Minister's Council on Employment and Accessibility. This is no excuse, but I have been minister now for approximately a month and a week. I haven't yet had a chance to meet with this group, though I look forward to meeting with them soon. I would expect that sometime between now and September I'll have a chance to meet with them.

So no, I haven't had this raised, but we will consult with them on the white paper as we go forward. I'm looking forward to talking with them as well. The member opposite, I think, probably knows this, but just in case, the council's main priority is in regards to employment, not the CVS program. But by all means, I'm looking forward to any thoughts they may have and wish to share with us.

M. Mungall: Still on the minister's council here. According to the minister in last year's estimates, a minimum of 25 percent of the council seats are reserved for people with disabilities and their family members. I want to be sure that that is being adhered to with the current makeup of the council.

Hon. D. McRae: Yes.

M. Mungall: Considering that people who are receiving persons-with-disabilities social assistance are greatly impacted by decisions made by this ministry, I'm wondering if any of the seats on this council are reserved for people receiving PWD.

Hon. D. McRae: There are 13 members currently on the Minister's Council on Employment and Accessibility. Five of the current members on the council are individuals with disabilities, but out of respect for the individuals, we haven't asked them whether they are PWD recipients.

M. Mungall: I did notice, in terms of the biographies of those who are on the council, that the board has a rep from Telus International but nobody, at least identified on the website, that's affiliated with the B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities. I'm wondering why no one from that organization has been approached to sit on this council.

[1645]

Hon. D. McRae: We have not reserved a seat for any
[ Page 313 ]
specific organization on this council.

M. Mungall: I didn't anticipate that the government would reserve a seat for any particular organization, but I'm wondering why government has not approached this organization, as they are B.C.'s coalition of people with disabilities. They are a tremendous advocate voice for people with disabilities as well as people who have disabilities who are also living in poverty. Their voices are so critical to be providing advice to the minister, particularly when it comes to employment and accessibility.

I'm curious why the ministry has not approached someone from that organization. Perhaps they have and they declined, but let's just know that, for the record.

Hon. D. McRae: To the member opposite: I do apologize. Obviously, we were able to give you a briefing yesterday and the ministry…. Not everything was able to be canvassed.

But before I answer your question, are you familiar with the Supporting Increased Participation — SIP — group as well? If you don't mind, I'm going to take a few minutes and I'm going to give you a bit of detail, which may answer your question about why certain groups are not represented in certain places but they are being listened to. Again, my apologies for the briefing, if we weren't able to highlight all the groups that we work with.

For the record — and by all means, we can provide the member opposite more details about this organization as we go forward — there is a group called the Supporting Increased Participation group. It has a meeting on a monthly basis, since late 2011, and consists of both government and community members who have a mutual interest in policy and programming related to persons with disabilities.

Community members include people from the B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities, Inclusion B.C., the Social Planning and Research Council, the Community Legal Assistance Society and the Canadian Mental Health Association.

[1650]

The common purpose of the group is to look at ways to support increased participation for persons with disabilities in British Columbia through community inclusion, employment, volunteering and social connections.

A main focus of the group is on information and data sharing, particularly about the disability assistance caseload, to promote discussion and about opportunities. The community members also function as a consultation body, as required, on policy issues.

Again, too, I am relatively knew to the ministry, but I gather that this SIP group works very well and provides great input to us as a ministry.

M. Mungall: I appreciate that. That was exactly my concern — that different groups in the province are having input into the ministry in a very formal way, and particularly on key issues that are important to them. I know that employment and accessibility are very important and that that council needs to have a diversity of perspectives on it. So I appreciate the minister's response.

I am going to move on to another area — and I anticipate this will involve a staffing change for the minister here — to the employment programs and issues coming from the labour market agreement. So I'll give the minister a couple minutes to make that switch.

My first question pertains to the equipment and assistive technology initiative. This is a question…. I would like to thank some of the stakeholders out in the community around British Columbia for bringing this issue to my attention and putting forward this question. On behalf of them, I will ask it.

The EATI provides funding to assist British Columbians with disabilities to access the equipment and assistive technology they need to achieve their employment goals. This includes funding for assessments, trialing, training and repair. Using the person-centred participation model, the EATI assists people to plan and implement their personal strategy for overcoming functional barriers to an employment goal.

Since 2009 the EATI has provided over $5 million of assistive technology to more than 800 British Columbians with disabilities. Funding for the EATI comes through the federal-provincial labour market agreement, which expires on March 31, 2014.

The question is: will the minister ensure that the EATI is an integral part of the renewal of the labour market agreement?

[1655]

Hon. D. McRae: The province and this ministry recognize that, by providing assistive technology, we are supporting persons with disabilities to lead the lives they choose.

To the member opposite, as well — I think she also knows this, but for clarity for the general public — the Jobs, Tourism Ministry is responsible for the LMA negotiations, and these questions would be better directed to that ministry. As far as I am informed, we have not formally received a negotiating offer from the federal government at this time. But your time frame is correct, and the information you did say was factually correct.

M. Mungall: Then, moving on to some of the employment programs and looking at the service plan, I noted in the performance measure No. 5 — percent of employment program of B.C. case-managed clients who receive employment and/or community attachment — that the 2012-13 baseline has yet to be developed. We'll start with asking the question: has that baseline been developed?

Hon. D. McRae: So we're talking about performance
[ Page 314 ]
measure No. 5, and that performance measure is the percent of employment program of British Columbia case-managed clients who receive employment and/or community attachment.

[1700]

You're right, member opposite. We have the words in there: "Develop baseline." If you look at that, it is for the 2012-2013 year. So we're going to take the actual number from last year, which we have not received yet, add 2 percent to that, and that will become the baseline.

We think we'll have the actual number probably within the next month or two. If you would like, as soon as we have that number we will do our best to share it with you. It will be based on last year's numbers, plus 2 percent.

M. Mungall: The reason I'm asking is because, if we look at the target numbers for 2013-14–2014-15, we see 30 percent this year and 35 percent next year. So while the baseline has not been determined, we still do have target numbers. The 30 and 35 percent did strike me as quite low. My question, then, is: why are we aiming so low to ensure that people who are accessing services are actually getting employment?

Hon. D. McRae: We're feeling fairly confident that we are exceeding 30 percent. I mean, we're probably exceeding 35 percent, but what we're going to do is work with the actual numbers we have, like I said, plus 2 percent. We will adjust the other targets according, but I'm fairly certain that we will exceed the 30 percent for this year quite easily.

We're not purposely keeping the number low. We just want to have some actual data from which to base our targets, and we will adjust.

M. Mungall: I'm going to move on to some questions about the LMDA. For viewers at home, the LMDA, the labour market development agreement, is, yes, a different agreement than the labour market agreement, which is also a different agreement than the labour market agreement for persons with disabilities. So for viewers at home, if you're feeling like you're in acronym soup, welcome.

My first question around the LMDA: how will the ministry address the federal funding reduction in the LMDA agreement and possible staff reductions?

[1705]

Hon. D. McRae: Thank you to the member opposite for the question and also to the viewers at home talking about LMA, LMDA, LMAPD, etc. For the member opposite, and to assure the viewers at home, under the LMDA, there will be no reduction of services. But I think I understand, perhaps, why this may be a concern. I think I'll do my best to answer the question.

The member opposite may be referring to the transitional funding, which is purely for administration, not to services that received from the LMA, which does expire on March 31, 2014. But the LMDA — there are no reductions to services, but there is some reduction of the LMA funding, which will help us transition into this program.

M. Mungall: Yes, I was talking about the transitional funding that the federal government had provided. I'm sorry if I got it wrong between LMA or LMDA. I'm sure people will be very understanding of why it might be confusing.

With that reduction in transitional funding, I would anticipate, then, that there may be resulting staff reductions as well, and that's basically what I'm trying to get at. Will there be staff reductions, and how will the ministry address that? How will it impact services overall?

Hon. D. McRae: This is something we've been working on, this transition, since 2008-09. It's all about reducing administrative costs as we transition forward. When we do that, we're talking about reduction of facility costs — car leases, office expenses and, yes, sometimes staff. We've lost about 20 percent of our staff through attrition. In the last year of this agreement we will continue to reduce admin costs down through attrition as well.

[1710]

Again, I want to be very clear to the people at home and the member across that this is purely an administration cost. It's something we planned for — something we knew was coming, something the staff knew was coming. This is something we were working towards because we knew there'd be some extra expenses from the time of 2008-09 till today. This is coming. I don't think of it as a surprise to anybody, yet I want to be, again, very clear. There is no reduction of services in the LMDA.

M. Mungall: My next question is: what is the proportion of the LMDA budget that is going to pay for costs associated with ministry administration versus the client services portion?

Hon. D. McRae: To the member opposite: we received — for lack of a better way of saying it, my apologies — two pots of money. The first pot is program dollars which we receive from the federal government. We receive annually about $280 million for the LMDA. The second — pardon my expression — pot of money is $20.535 million that we receive annually from the federal government as long as we administer the LMDA, and this does not change.

M. Mungall: In some of the feedback I've heard from the employment contractors, the people who are delivering employment services, whether they're the prime contractors or the subcontractors under the new model, are feeling that they're spending a lot of their time, more time than in the past, doing administrative work rather than what they would normally have been giving to
[ Page 315 ]
client service.

I'm wondering if anyone is analyzing the cost benefit of the increased administrative requirements for the prime and sub-contractors delivering employment services, and what impact this is having on client service.

[1715]

Hon. D. McRae: In April of 2012 the Employment Program of British Columbia was founded. Several months later, in September 2012, we created 11 working groups, consisting of the contractors and ministry staff, to take in recommendations.

Some small recommendations were made from that point on, but I'm pleased to say that as of July 2013, obviously this month, we announced significant changes that would ease the administrative burden for the contractors, and we will continue to work with contractors as we move forward to ensure that individuals receiving services receive the best possible service possible.

M. Mungall: I'm glad that the minister and the ministry are aware of this and looking into it. On that, though, I'm wondering if some of the administrative problems were related to complaints around ICM.

Hon. D. McRae: There were some, and we've been working around that issue as we go forward.

[1720]

M. Mungall: I will be asking more questions around ICM later on, as I'm sure the minister's staff anticipated, it being quite an important issue.

For now, continuing on in this area, I'm wondering if there is any slippage in the 2012-13 budget that was sent back to the federal government, any slippage from, I guess, the LMA or LMDA — whatever — that went back to the federal government.

Hon. D. McRae: The short answer is yes, but I'll give some detail as well. We did send back $60 million to the federal government during last year. On a positive note, to the member opposite, we did serve the same number of clients as before, and we actually had better outcomes.

Our intent this year is to serve more clients and send less dollars back to the federal government because we can actually better reach out to individuals seeking assistance and make sure that we help them engage better.

M. Mungall: I heard $60 million. That is a significant sum to be sending back to the federal government. I'm sure that nobody wants to ever give money back to the federal government. They have the most ability to raise revenue in the country, and so when it's devolved to the provinces through transfer payments or through these types of agreements, we want to be able to retain that funding and deliver services to the best of our ability.

I know that the minister said that they were looking at that and looking to improve services to retain more of that funding here. I want to express how important that is. At the end of the day, I think the people at home, and I know myself, are very concerned that we are remitting $60 million back to the federal government.

That should have been dollars going into…. It was in fact budgeted by the federal government for programs here in British Columbia. We want to keep that money here and deliver programs here. So I encourage the government to find ways to keep every dollar of that in British Columbia.

My next question is: what steps will the ministry take if the new fee schedule changes implemented July 1 still do not cover the contractors' cost of delivering programs?

[1725]

Hon. D. McRae: This is an issue raised by the contractors, and it is one that was worked on by one of the working groups. In fact, we finished work on it this month. The result is that we simplified the administration practices, and the fees are related to the actual in costs incurred by the contractor.

We are confident now that we are in a far more fair place, but we will continue to have conversations and consultations with our contractors if there are areas they feel they are concerned about and troubled with. We'll make sure that they are able to deliver services to individuals across British Columbia in the best means possible.

M. Mungall: The question was specifically about…. I guess we're looking at the funding levels. There's a new fee schedule that's been implemented for July 1. The contractors — and the minister has noted that they've been in discussion with contractors — obviously want to know whether the new fee schedule will cover the costs of delivering the program. A little bit of trepidation that it may not.

Maybe I'll ask very specifically if there is a contingency plan, if there is a contingency fund, just in case the new fee schedule isn't covering the costs associated with delivering the program.

[1730]

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. D. McRae: Hello, Chair. Things change when I'm in conversation here. Very nice to see you, hon. Chair.

We are committed as a ministry to ensuring that our contractors remain financially stable so they can deliver programs to individuals. We will continue to have conversations and consultations with service providers as issues arise.
[ Page 316 ]

M. Mungall: I'm sure the minister realizes that if we had a few more MLAs here, we might be able to have a 2009-2010 Finance Committee reunion here with our new Chair.

Moving on, though, to the issues at hand here, one of the things that I've been hearing back from some of the contractors for employment services is…. I mean, changes inevitably come along and we have to work out the kinks as we go along, and one of the things that is happening between the prime contractor and the subcontractors of employment services is that there's concern — and this has kind of been happening in some places in British Columbia — that the prime contractor, rather than referring clients on to the specialized services subcontractor, is starting to deliver some of the employment services to a client who really should be referred on, right?

Then what ends up happening is they'll provide service and bill government, and then eventually that person will get moved on and referred to a specialized subcontractor. That organization will essentially provide a similar or the same service and bill government or find difficulty in doing so because of the ICM way in which things are managed.

So either the government is getting double-billed for a service that should have been only provided right from the get-go by the specialized subcontractor…. I hope that the situation that's happening is clear to the minister. The concern is…. Again, it's because there's change. You have to work out the kinks.

Is government monitoring the relationship between the prime contractor and the subcontractor so that taxpayers are getting the best value for their dollar and clients are getting the best value for their needs from the service delivery?

Hon. D. McRae: The answer to the member opposite is yes, we are actively monitoring the situation.

[1735]

M. Mungall: I'm wondering if the ministry has any initial results from the rollout in terms of the new service delivery model for employment services and for Work B.C. centres. We've talked a little bit around that but, very specifically, if there are any initial results, any initial reports, and so on, on how the rollout is going.

Hon. D. McRae: Again, there's a lot of newness here — yourself, myself as well. The member opposite may not be aware, but we actually publish an EPBC monthly management report, and it's rather informative. There are things like stats, including the number of service plans, categories of clients, labour market updates, active client types, specialized population information. In the very near future, though not today, we plan to actually have this available on line for everyone to take a look at.

Since I don't think you've seen this before, if you would like, I'll give you a copy of this particular one today before we leave. And as we go forward, if they are not actually on line in the near future, you can always get them from us. But we want to make sure we can share these with the general population, if individuals are so inclined. This is actually a pretty comprehensive report, and I think you'll find it very informative.

M. Mungall: Yes, I will grab that on the way out once we wrap up here this evening.

My next questions are going to focus on the integrated case management. I don't know if there needs to be a staff change, but….

Interjection.

M. Mungall: There does? While that change is occurring, I do want to thank the staff from this section of the ministry for being patient all day and waiting for their opportunity to help the minister answer some of these questions in the public interest.

To them: thank you very much for doing such a great job.

[1740]

My first question is: what has been the impact of the cost overruns on the MSD budget?

Hon. D. McRae: In regards to the ICM, there are no cost overruns. The original budget of $182 million is still on track.

M. Mungall: I'm sorry. My understanding was that the original budget was closer to $100 million and that, due to some of the problems, the ministry — perhaps it was coming out of the Ministry of Children and Family Development — has had to hire more staff and address some of the issues around data input and the way in which data is managed and privacy concerns and so on. Perhaps the minister can clarify.

Hon. D. McRae: The project was approved in January 2010. We started the project ICM in March of 2010. We — and "we" being the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation today — implemented three phases, and we're more than halfway complete. The system is functioning well for this ministry, but I do want to note it is a big project. We have made lots of progress. We are moving to completion by the end of 2014 — so, obviously, next year. I'm pleased to say at this stage we are on budget and on schedule.

M. Mungall: My understanding was that the original estimate for the project was about $170 million and it was increased to $182 million in 2010. In July 2012 the government added another $12 million to deal with the
[ Page 317 ]
serious technical issues, which brings the total to $194 million.

I guess I'm wondering if that $12 million came out of the Ministry of Social Development or if it was found within the Ministry of Children and Family Development. The reason being is that my understanding has been that the problems are, yes, in MCFD but that it's been the MSDSI that's taking the lead on the procurement and so on with the ICM.

[1745]

Hon. D. McRae: In January 2010 this ministry — which was Social Development at the time, and it's Social Development and Social Innovation today — had $182 million approved for the ICM project. SDSI today is responsible for the ICM project. I am pleased to say, like I said earlier, we are on time and on budget.

M. Mungall: Well, if the minister is saying that government is on time and on budget, then, how do we account for the $12 million that was added last year to deal with the problems that the Ministry of Children and Family Development is experiencing with ICM? I mean, if you're adding $12 million, I don't understand how you can come to the conclusion of "on budget."

Hon. D. McRae: The $12 million was an MCFD announcement. Questions regarding that announcement should be directed to MCFD. But I am pleased to say that no moneys were added to the ICM capital budget, which is run by Social Development and Social Innovation. We are, I'm pleased to say, on time and on budget.

M. Mungall: Thank you very much for that.

My next question. The interim assessment of ICM was released in January 2013. Can the minister tell us if a final assessment will be done by Queenswood? If so, when will it be completed, and will it be available to the public?

Hon. D. McRae: I'd like to say that that question would be best directed to MCFD, if that's okay.

[1750]

M. Mungall: My next question, then, is that we recently received reports of emergency shutdowns of ICM that took place on June 19 and 20. I'm wondering if the minister can explain why the system was shut down and if this impacted MSD staff as well.

Hon. D. McRae: I remember this issue well because I actually happened to be touring SDSI offices at that time. ICM recently did experience some intermittent slowdowns related to high usage. This is not unusual in a large, complex new system. But in response to this, we put on a 24-7 technical response to speed the system up.

The system at this time was slow but was fully functional. I will admit it was slow, and I am pleased to say it was a temporary issue that we were able to fix. There was a period…. Maybe I was in the building at the time when this was happening, or not. But it was shut down for one hour.

While we were correcting this issue, we had plans in place to ensure that people who were seeking services from the ministry had minimal disruption to service, but yes, there was a slowdown. I am pleased to say this technical glitch was dealt with, and we are moving forward.

M. Mungall: There are certain performance metrics that are associated or to be associated with the integrated case management system. Recently we did a freedom-of-information request on documents related to performance metrics — namely, the number of clients serviced per social worker per month, the average time to service a single client, the number of complaints documented in the ICM system for clients and the number of complaints from service providers.

We were told when we did an FOI that those metrics have yet to be built into the system. I'm wondering if the minister can tell us if these metrics have now been built into the system, and if not, when they will be built into the system and if they are included in the system with respect to B.C. employment programs.

[1755]

Hon. D. McRae: I would like to tell the member opposite that I am aware of this FOI request. I have now known about it for a grand total of about three minutes.

ICM helps us, though, capture a wide array of data. The data from ICM is used for the program areas to measure performance. But again, since the member is new and ICM is sort of evolving — like I said earlier, we're on phase 3 — if the member opposite would like to have, basically, a tour of ICM and what it can do and what it does provide, we are more than willing to provide that as we go forward as well. I think it would be very useful to yourself, and we'll arrange that at your request.

M. Mungall: Well, excellent. I'll be sending that request in very shortly, and I appreciate the minister's offer.

I want to move onto a few questions around social innovation. Yesterday, in the ministry briefing, the ministry staff did confirm that the social innovation side of the ministry is very much in its infancy, so I didn't set aside an incredible amount of questions, noting that fact. But there are some things I do think are worth canvassing for the remainder of this evening.

I don't know if there is a staff change. I'm kind of filibustering here a little bit so that can happen.

[1800]

My questions for social innovation pertain to what I'm assuming is the ministry's building block, essentially the foundation of their plans to move forward on
[ Page 318 ]
the social innovation agenda. That's the Action Plan Recommendations to Maximize Social Innovation in British Columbia, which is a March 2012 report compiled by the B.C. Social Innovation Council that, at the time, was established by the member for Surrey–White Rock while he was Parliamentary Secretary for Non-Profit Partnerships. There are 11 recommendations in total. I am wondering if the ministry plans to — or if they already have — adopt all of the recommendations.

Hon. D. McRae: Thank you to the member opposite for the question, and yes, we have the document, the Action Plan Recommendations. There were, as the member said, 11 recommendations that were brought forward. There are sort of five key areas.

The five areas are: supporting social enterprise, legislative enablement, social innovation lab, engaging communities, and learning and research. Some are under the purview of government; some are not. But it is an action plan for us to work forward on, to continue to become a leader of social innovation in Canada and North America. There is no time frame attached to some of them, and some of them definitely are asks of government. We are using this as a blueprint to move forward.

M. Mungall: With the minister saying that they're using this as a blueprint to move forward, I'm assuming that they are adopting all the recommendations. In the interest of time, I'm going to move on to one of my questions around one of the recommendations. That's the first recommendation, which is the social enterprise investment tax credit which the Social Innovation Council…. My understanding is that it is now called Partners for Social Impact. Not that it's the exact same body, but that is now the body that's taking the lead in moving the social innovation agenda forward.

[1805]

The first recommendation…. Being that the tax credit is anticipated to cost government $5 million, I'm wondering if the government's intention is to adopt this recommendation. If so, when can we anticipate it'll be in the budget — if not this year, perhaps in future years?

Hon. D. McRae: This is a conversation that I believe is ongoing between the group called Partners for Social Impact and the Minister of Finance. While we do want to champion social innovation, in regards to the tax credit, that question would be best asked of the Minister of Finance.

M. Mungall: My second question is around the second recommendation, then, around the social procurement requirements in government purchasing. I have to give credit to the Social Innovation Council. They identified the power of government to make decisions in terms of its procurement policies, looking at the social requirements of procurement and the social benefits that can result from government procurement and purchasing.

I'm wondering if the government does intend to adopt this recommendation. If they do, what is the impact that they foresee in reference to some of the free trade agreements that British Columbia has signed, namely TILMA?

Viewers at home already know that we're in acronym soup, so no surprise that another acronym has just arrived. But I'm looking at free trade agreements like TILMA and how that might impact such a recommendation.

Hon. D. McRae: The Partners for Social Impact continue to have conversations in regard to procurement, and I thank them for doing so. Procurement could include government, but it also could include private business, or it could include foundations as well. The member referenced TILMA, but there are also things like NAFTA and the new west partnership.

The lead ministry for these agreements is the Ministry of Finance. So again, not because I want to waste the member's time, but it's best to direct those questions towards the Ministry of Finance.

M. Mungall: Then another recommendation, No. 4, was to add social enterprises to government-sponsored business development programs. Again, I understand that the ministry has not fully implemented these recommendations, but I'm wondering if that is one of the recommendations that they're considering for implementation and if they've done any cost analysis for that.

[1810]

Hon. D. McRae: We continue to work with the Jobs Ministry to ensure that social enterprises are included in the small business accord. I know that they'd be more than happy to discuss this with the member opposite as well. They've put a lot of work into it.

M. Mungall: I've noticed that, despite the title of this ministry now being the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation, I've been directed to different ministries on my questions around the social innovation agenda, which, as the minister pointed out, in this report is essentially the blueprint for that agenda.

I guess I'm wondering, then, how much of social innovation is actually going to be housed within the ministry that has the title for it?

Hon. D. McRae: By definition, I'm sort of the champion or the quarterback for this. But there's no way that one ministry, at all, within government could look after all the necessary pieces for this.

For example, something like social impact bonds would be a Ministry of Finance question. Same thing with procurement. We talked about the Ministry of Jobs
[ Page 319 ]
playing a major, important role. Community contribution companies — again, Ministry of Finance. That's a piece of legislation that they needed to help go forward with.

The engagement processes with the federal-provincial government can be many different ministries. However, like in this ministry, we did work with the social innovation labs, the B.C. Ideas competition.

Obviously, No. 9, the social innovation capacity of First Nations — that's both a bit of us but a bit of MARR. We also had a role to play, obviously, in No. 11 — establish partners for social impact.

The post-secondary community is No. 10, the community-based research and learning network. However, because it is a cross-ministry initiative, we just continue to quarterback. If the member opposite would like, we can bring in some ADMs from the various ministries who are helping us move forward.

I think the vision, though, was — because there are so many pieces of social innovation that exist either now or potentially into the future — that you needed to have someone to, again, quarterback it, though not necessarily be responsible for all the pieces. It is literally beyond any one ministry to be all-encompassing in this area.

I am excited that both as a Minister for Social Development and Social Innovation…. The Premier, as well, and my colleagues — we are committed to going forward and making sure that British Columbia is a leader in social innovation. Again, not one of us can be a leader by going by ourselves. We need the assistance of all ministries and government to go forward, and entities outside of government as well.

[1815]

M. Mungall: I appreciate that the minister is the champion for social innovation and that, often, initiatives come forward that government wants to take on that impact a variety of ministries and work has to be done horizontally through a variety of different ministries. But one minister has to be accountable at the end of the day for that work and to champion it, as the minister said.

This government has chosen social innovation. The call-out in the public during the election and prior to the election — in fact, since 2008 — is to do something very similar around a B.C. poverty reduction plan. That is not the direction, unfortunately, that this government has taken, but maybe it will within the next four years.

With that, hon. Chair, I am noting the hour and that we are coming to the conclusion of the estimates to debate for the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation.

With that, I would again like to thank all of the ministry staff for being here in the last couple of days and providing their assistance so that we could get some answers to questions that are in the public interest and that British Columbians want to know more about. I appreciate their time. As I said earlier, at the beginning, I'm sure that the minister — and I know I did — made every effort to make this a little bit more entertaining than perhaps if it was a bit void of some humour in here. Again, thank you very much.

With that, I leave it to the minister to close.

Vote 41: ministry operations, $2,487,215,000 — approved.

Hon. D. McRae: I would like to thank the members opposite for the thoughtful questions and their time. I would like to thank all the staff in the ministry that have participated, both in person and on line, and provided support to myself during this process.

With that, I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:17 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2013: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada