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)

Wednesday, July 10, 2013

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 2, Number 5

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

WEDNESDAY, JULY 10, 2013

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

C. James: In the gallery today, taking a break from their usual very active schedule and their winning record, is the Beacon Hill Little League Minor Boys Tournament team, from my constituency. This fantastic team of nine- and ten-year-old boys are district 7 champions, and they'll be representing Victoria at the upcoming provincial tournament starting on Saturday.

[1335]

As the members can see, they're up in the gallery in their team colours. They are: Luke Anderson, Jackson Blanchard, Luca Bolzonello, Jasper Calder, Quinton Horvath, Ryder Knox, James McGhie, Tyler Newby, Jasper Rye, Blake Stolth, Ryan Thomas, Jack Walmsley and Soren Wishart. They're joined by their coaches — John Anderson, Les Horvath, Thor Wishart and Gus Niketas. Would the House please make them very welcome and congratulate them on their winning record.

Hon. T. Lake: It's a great pleasure to have with us in the precinct today — meeting with MLAs, and I'll be meeting with them later — the Interior Health Authority Chair, Mr. Norm Embree, and the president and CEO of Interior Health, Dr. Rob Halpenny, who work very hard on behalf of the residents of the Interior. Would the House please make them very welcome.

K. Conroy: I'm really pleased to introduce some guests today. Our daughter is here, Sasha Batchelor, and with her is her daughter, my oldest granddaughter, Daira Batchelor.

Just so some of you know, I'm going to announce something a little prematurely. The former member for Chilliwack…. I don't know if the member for Chilliwack is aware of the reputation he has to keep up, but John Les, it seemed like every session, came and would announce the arrival of yet another grandchild. We think he was trying to field a football team. Well, I'm happy to say that Sasha is also pregnant, so I'm going to be able to have a hockey team very soon.

Also with them, I'm really thrilled to introduce my cousins from Denmark. Mette and Tina Thor Jorgensen have come all the way to tour through B.C., and they just so happened to get to come here and enjoy the parliament. They tell us that in Denmark the opposition has a lot of opportunity to have input into the budget and actually make changes to the budget. So I just thought I'd let the folks on the other side know that.

I would like you to all join me in making them very welcome.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

CULTURAL EVENTS IN B.C.

R. Lee: When storytellers dress in their Victorian costume and the bagpipers in kilts are surrounded by appreciative tourists on the front lawn of these Parliament Buildings, we know summer is upon us. This summer I've been privileged to attend a number of diverse cultural events throughout my riding and the province.

In British Columbia we are very fortunate to have the opportunity to experience a mosaic of cultures as many people of the world choose our province to work, to play and to have a family.

In the last two months I have had the pleasure of attending many cultural events in my community, including the inauguration of B.C.'s largest mosque in Delta, the Greek Summer Festival, the Taiwanese Heritage Festival, the International Food and Fun at Burnaby Central Secondary School, the Regione Puglia Italy reception, the Italian Heritage celebration at the Italian Cultural Centre, the Italian Days on Commercial Drive and the 16th European Festival at the Swangard Stadium.

At the Scandinavian Cultural Centre we had the Scandinavian Midsummer Night Festival and Indonesia Day. At Michael J. Fox Theatre we had the Colours of Dance and the Hainan Cultural Show. I also attended exhibitions at the International Arts Gallery, the Vancouver Public Library, the Burnaby Arts Council and the Crystal Mall.

Finally, along with all of these great cultural events this summer, I had the honour of participating in Burnaby's largest traditional event, the Hats Off Day, and the well-attended Multicultural Days at the Bonsor Senior Centre.

THE ART STUDIOS AND COMMUNITY-BASED
MENTAL HEALTH PROGRAMS

M. Elmore: I'll be speaking about the value of community-based mental health services, the Vancouver Art Studios. Today I'm pleased to announce that members and advocates of a very valuable community mental health program in my riding achieved a partial victory. An anonymous private donor has stepped forward and will be funding the Art Studios until May 2014.

The Art Studios is a nationally recognized, community-based mental health organization that has peer-based instructors who are also among its 600 members with various mental health issues. The studios offer art therapy
[ Page 322 ]
programs that feature painting and pottery classes. They produce beautiful work, and they have regular exhibits where they sell the art work they've created.

I'd like to congratulate everyone who passionately spoke up, organized and rallied to keep this critical program going. They recognize and appreciate, as we should all, the importance of community-based mental health services and the urgent need for long-term funding.

[1340]

Community-based health services are more accessible to people living with severe mental disabilities. They're more effective than institutions in taking care of their needs. They're better able to rehabilitate long-stay hospital patients. They can implement anti-stigma programs, and they ensure the full participation and integration of people with mental disorders in the community where they live.

These services are recovery-oriented, and they allow people living with mental illness to live productive and meaningful lives. They provide the least restrictive form of care as close to home as possible. They foster social inclusion through the support they also give to friends and family.

At the Art Studios and other similar programs, individuals with a psychiatric disability are not defined by their disability or illness. They are recognized for their strengths, and they have access to resources that allow them to define and live the lives they want, to the best of their abilities.

Community-based services save money. They provide mutual support, a sense of belonging for the clients, their families and providers. And they allow for the sharing of information that benefits the folks they serve.

According to one member, the Art Studios kept her out of the hospital, kept her from relapsing and kept her from addiction. It was a safe place, a second home, and she was accepted there. She says that next to her doctor's office, it was the only other place where she could leave the house for, because it was a safe place to paint. It gave her ongoing therapy behind the doctors and the people she was inspired by.

Funding must be restored to the Art Studios and other community-based mental health services. The lives of their members and the well-being of our communities depend on it.

CHILLIWACK MUNICIPAL AIRPORT COFFEE
SHOP PIE SALES AND FUNDRAISING

J. Martin: While this House has a long and rich history and tradition — being home to vigorous debate and informed, respectful disagreement — there are some things we can all agree on. One of those shared commonalities, I believe, is that we all love pie, right? So "I fly for pie."

"I fly for pie." That's the slogan posted right outside the Chilliwack Municipal Airport, which is just down the street from my constituency office. There three sisters — Judi, Jacqueline and Tracey Good — own and operate the Airport Coffee Shop. Now, this isn't just any coffee shop. This is a Fraser Valley institution with a loyal following throughout the province and beyond, and it has a reputation for serving up the best pies found anywhere.

What was once a tightly guarded little secret among short-haul pilots and locals is now one of the must-see attractions for anyone coming to the east Fraser Valley. Lately there has been a lot more than just pie crust–raising at the Airport Coffee Shop. On June 25, through word of mouth and local media, the Airport Coffee Shop hosted their third annual Pie Day fundraiser.

It was advertised that all proceeds from pie sales on that day would be sent directly to the Terry Fox Foundation in memory of Betty Fox, a longtime Chilliwack resident who recently passed away and was a great friend of Jacqueline Good, one of the owner-operators.

Over 30 varieties of pie were offered on the menu. Due to the tremendous support of the Chilliwack community and supporters, in one day this small little Airport Coffee Shop with one single oven sold more than 330 slices of pie and 216 whole pies to raise a total of $5,445, all of it donated to cancer research.

I would ask all members in this House to please acknowledge this undertaking. And anytime anyone in this House — including yourself, Madame Speaker — is travelling through or to Chilliwack, please give me a heads-up, and I will treat you to a slice of the best pie you are ever going to have.

AGRICULTURAL LAND
IN PEACE RIVER AREA

N. Simons: Today I'd like to talk about the Peace River Valley in northeastern British Columbia, home to First Nations since time immemorial, home of the first permanent non-native settlement in British Columbia and home to a thriving oil and gas sector that helps fuel our beautiful province's economy.

The Peace is also home to vast amounts of agricultural land, including the only class 1 land north of Quesnel. About 6,500 hectares of that land could be alienated from agricultural production if the Site C dam is built for LNG production.

Not all of that land is good agricultural land, but over 2,500 hectares is classified as class 1 and 2. When we realize that the entire province's land mass includes just over 1 percent of this classification, it underscores our responsibility as public policymakers to proceed with land use decisions, not just in our own interests but in our grandchildren's and their grandchildren's interests.

[1345]

There might be more lucrative uses for this land, more popular uses and even some other necessary uses. But our overriding principle should be that land that can grow
[ Page 323 ]
food should be preserved to grow food, especially when that land is scarce.

In this House we talk a lot about how much something is worth in dollars, how many jobs can be created and how we can keep life affordable for families. All of these are laudable goals. But according to climate scientists whose biggest challenge is flat-earth and slow-moving politicians, we need to think about how future generations will be able to feed themselves in a dramatically different and changing climate.

We need to listen to the science and base our land use decisions on what will best serve the interests and needs of future generations, not just short-term political goals. I hope that protecting our water and our soil will be on the top of every politician's list of priorities.

BLUEBERRIES

S. Gibson: I wish I could have a prop here. Apparently, props are not allowed, but if I had a prop here, it would be a little blueberry right here, because I'm talking a little bit about blueberries. You can make a pie with blueberries.

Summertime is blueberry time in the Fraser Valley, and Abbotsford-Mission is probably one of the number one communities for blueberries. We're very proud of them. There are 800 blueberry growers around the Fraser Valley and 27,000 acres in production. Pitt Meadows is a fabulous area for blueberries.

One of the cool things about blueberries is they are very good for you. They help reduce the problems of aging. Anybody have that problem here? We also have antioxidants in blueberries — very useful today to limit some of the characteristics of cancer.

I want to caution you, however. When you go to buy a product in the store — a waffle, a muffin — simulated blueberries. Beware. Do not buy anything with simulated blueberries. You can enjoy blueberries all year around by putting them on a cookie dish. Spread them out and freeze them, and then take them out and use them all year around.

Abbotsford-Mission is the most fabulous area for blueberries. I encourage you: come on out and see us, hon. Speaker. We'll host you, and we'll give you a delicious treat of the finest blueberries in Canada.

LOCAL CORNER STORES AND
McGILL GROCERY IN VANCOUVER

S. Simpson: Many of us will recall the corner grocery store in our neighbourhood. Those stores are truly local, both in ownership and design. While there are fewer of them around today than there used to be, they are still an important local institution that reflects a neighbourhood and are often a saviour when you need that last-minute snack or ingredient for dinner.

I have such a store in my community, the McGill Grocery, which has been owned and operated by the Mah family since 1977. It was started by Fook Wai Mah, known as George in English, and his wife, Oy Hee Mah, known to her friends as Hee. They raised five children — Marianne, Helen, Peter, Charles and Harry — in their home that was attached to the store.

The McGill Grocery continues to thrive today, now operated by Mr. Mah's three sons. For 36 years the McGill Grocery has been a Burrardview cornerstone, meeting people's needs in terms of food and other goods. But more importantly, it has played a critical role for information dissemination, as a gathering place and a hub for what happens in the community. This includes being a centre for the Christmas lights competition and, through Harry's leadership, in the Burrardview Community Association.

Sadly, we recently lost the patriarch of the Mah family. Fook Wai Mah passed away after a lengthy illness. Having arrived from China in 1952, Mr. Mah worked numerous jobs until he could bring his wife to Canada in 1957, and 20 years later they acquired the McGill Grocery. Our community shares in the family's personal loss. Equally, we mourn the loss of a true pillar of our neighbourhood who for 36 years, along with his wife, Hee, provided leadership through their belief in our community as a place to run their business and raise their family.

Thank you, Mr. Mah, for all you contributed to our community. We're truly fortunate that the traditions and legacy of the McGill Grocery will continue through the efforts of your sons, Harry, Charles and Peter.

[1350]

Oral Questions

DRUG REVIEW PROCESS FOR CHAMPIX

M. Farnworth: My question is for the Minister of Health. It's well established that you need to monitor drugs after they are prescribed in significant numbers to determine their actual level of safety for patients — drugs like Champix. It is now being prescribed to over 40,000 British Columbians.

One of your predecessors, Kevin Falcon, recognized this and in 2010 retained the therapeutics initiative to do just this kind of research. Yesterday this Legislature learned that this government, on the same day a class action suit was certified by patients over Champix, blocked the therapeutics initiative from doing this kind of drug safety evaluation.

Will the minister put patient safety first and assign the therapeutics initiative the job to conduct a real-world safety-and-effectiveness study of Champix and B.C.'s smoking cessation program?

Hon. T. Lake: Thanks to the member opposite for giving me the opportunity to put on the record some facts.
[ Page 324 ]
Here are the facts.

There was a research proposal that the ministry received in June 2012 from the therapeutics initiative, and that proposal was to examine the effectiveness of the smoking cessation program and the effectiveness and safety of Champix compared to other smoking cessation medications. A working group responsible for reviewing pharmaceutical research proposals, made up of civil servants in the Ministry of Health, decided not to support this specific proposal for Champix, although two other proposals with benzodiazepines and opioids were approved for the therapeutics initiative.

At the time this decision was made, the ministry had already requested a different but related research project examining the safety and effectiveness of smoking cessation drugs, including Champix. That is being done by the Canadian Institute for Health Information's Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network. The project was first proposed by the ministry in August 2011, long before the other research proposal was received. The research by University of York is expected to be completed later this year, and we look forward to those results.

Madame Speaker: Member for Port Coquitlam on a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: The research proposal that the minister talks about is not a comprehensive, real-world study of Champix amongst the 40,000 people who are currently taking it. It is a review of existing studies and literature. It's not the research that monitors the effect that Champix is having.

That's the kind of work that the therapeutics initiative was proposing. And it's the kind of work that, if the Canadian Institutes of Health Research were doing…. Guess who would be doing it. The therapeutics initiative. That's what they were set up to do: to perform large-scale, real-time drug safety evaluations of drugs, like Champix, for British Columbia.

There are rising concerns that Champix causes suicide and self-harm, and these concerns about its questions must be addressed.

Will the minister do the right thing? Will he ask the therapeutics initiative to conduct what was originally proposed — a large-scale, real-world study that determines the effects Champix is having on thousands of British Columbians?

Hon. T. Lake: There is a process, and I know members on the opposite side of the House do not like process. They think that ministers should get involved and decide public policy on the fly.

These were professional public servants, whose job it is to evaluate proposals as they come forward. They approved two proposals. One was not approved because, in fact, a study had already been requested through the Canadian Institute of Health Information's Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network.

It will look into the safety and effectiveness of this drug. We look forward to the results of that later this year, as we fully evaluate the smoking cessation program we have here, which has made many lives better here in British Columbia.

[1355]

Madame Speaker: Member for Port Coquitlam on a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: I do indeed have a supplemental. I thank the minister for his comments. But I would also note that the Premier has never stopped herself from getting involved or making decisions around public policy over civil servants.

The kind of work that the Canadian Institutes of Health Research needs to do is not just the review of literature, not just a review of studies, but it's to look at the effects on real people, in real populations, as they actually use the drug.

If you go to their website, they will tell you just that. It states very clearly: "More information is needed on the safety and effectiveness of pharmaceuticals when used by diverse patient populations outside the controlled experimental environment of clinical trials."

That is what the therapeutics initiative, which was CIHR's lead agency in this province, was proposing to do with Champix. That was their job. It was recognized by Kevin Falcon as what they should be doing.

Madame Speaker: Member, do you have a question?

M. Farnworth: It was blocked, plain and simple. So the question, again, to the minister is: will the minister ask the therapeutics initiative to do the job it was assigned to do by Kevin Falcon, the job CIHR would expect it to do — which is to do a proper, thorough, real-time review on the people in this province who are actually using the drug?

Hon. T. Lake: I would remind the member that this drug is used in six different provinces. It has been approved by Health Canada through the common drug review. It has been through the provincial process and been thoroughly vetted. We are now engaged in a study, through the Canadian health information Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network, to determine the effectiveness and the safety of this drug.

Now, I am not a medical researcher. I don't think the member opposite is either. These are professional public servants that decide on the best course of action to ensure the safety of the patients here in British Columbia and the effectiveness of our programs. We actually believe in the professional public servants in this province, and we stand by their decision.
[ Page 325 ]

DRUG REVIEW PROCESS AND
ROLE OF THERAPEUTICS INITIATIVE

J. Darcy: The Minister of Health says that professional public servants should make this decision. But I would remind the Minister of Health that the Premier herself was quoted on The Bill Good Show in April, on CKNW. When asked specifically about why her government had cut the funding for therapeutics initiative, she responded in response to this very direct question: "We're trying to make sure that we're managing the cost of drugs as best as we can and respecting the private sector at the same time." That's what the Premier said.

But there are other drugs that need to be evaluated, in addition to Champix — other drugs that have been prescribed to thousands of British Columbians. Drugs like Accutane, to determine its role in causing birth defects, among other side effects…. This is a drug that is already the subject of class action lawsuits, and its manufacturer has already had to pay out millions of dollars.

Kevin Falcon made therapeutics initiative responsible for conducting this kind of research. But TI is currently blocked from answering questions about Accutane's side effects, especially in the wake of the Premier cutting off its funding to serve the private interests of pharmaceutical companies.

Will the minister re-establish therapeutics initiative's role as B.C.'s drug watchdog — yes or no?

[1400]

Hon. T. Lake: As I mentioned yesterday, British Columbia reviewed the drug approval process in this province through a Pharmaceutical Task Force. The task force came up with recommendations. They were fully accepted by Health Minister George Abbott at the time. That process includes a request for proposals for researchers to conduct clinical evidence reviews of new drugs, to expand the pool of researchers.

The therapeutics initiative does good work, but they are not the only ones doing good work. We wanted to reach out to the broader research community, and we accepted those recommendations.

We have a very safe, effective and timely approval process in the province of British Columbia.

Madame Speaker: Member for New Westminster on a supplemental.

J. Darcy: Surely, the Minister of Health would agree that patient safety should be the overall priority concern when we're evaluating these drugs — not political concerns. Surely, the Minister of Health believes that.

There are also mounting concerns that potent blood thinners like dabigatran may be responsible for serious fatalities and hospitalization due to uncontrollable bleeding. TI was planning to investigate this very drug, but now it can't because of how the government is treating it. It is crippling the ability of therapeutics initiative to do research, and the Premier has cut off its funding to serve the interests of brand-name pharmaceutical companies. She said as much on The Bill Good Show in April.

Again, to the minister, my question is: will this government re-establish the world-renowned therapeutics initiative as B.C.'s independent drug researcher — yes or no?

Hon. T. Lake: We absolutely believe that patient health and patient safety is important. That's why we wanted to address the timeliness of getting new medications to patients who could benefit.

Could you imagine someone in your family needing a groundbreaking drug and waiting 2½ years to have approval to use the drug that you knew could make your family member better? That was one of the problems addressed through the task force review.

We have great researchers here in British Columbia, some of whom work for the therapeutics initiative. But we also have people like Dr. Colin Dormuth, Dr. Bruce Carleton, Dr. Michael Hayden — UBC researchers who happen to work for the Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network, who are capable of doing this type of research. That's what we are waiting for. We will use that information to inform decisions going forward.

B.C. PAVCO LEASE AGREEMENT
WITH PARAGON GAMING

S. Simpson: On April 25 the then chair of the Pavilion Corporation, now the Minister of Education, told the CBC that in fact PavCo had signed a 99-year lease agreement with Paragon Gaming. The same minister then, about a week later on May 3, told CKNW…. He back-pedalled from the position and told CKNW that right now there is nothing in place.

Today on the Paragon website Paragon is saying they have a 70-year agreement signed between themselves and PavCo and that they in fact signed that agreement in March, well in advance of the comments on both occasions by the Minister of Education.

My question is to the minister responsible for the Pavilion Corporation. Can he clear the matter up? Can he tell us what the truth is here? Is it the minister's first comments about a 99-year lease, is it his second comment about no agreement, or is it Paragon's comment about a 70-year lease?

Hon. T. Stone: I would like to thank the member opposite for the question.

[1405]

As I think the member knows well, the development of land west of B.C. Place has always been part of the overall revitalization plan at PavCo. In 2011 there was
[ Page 326 ]
an extensive consultation process. The city of Vancouver approved the relocation of the existing Edgewater Casino under the existing gaming licence. PavCo is expected to receive revenue from the lease of land for this development once it has been completed.

Again, to reiterate, the development of those lands is a critical piece of the revitalization plan, moving forward.

Madame Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Hastings on a supplemental.

S. Simpson: I'd note that the minister, somewhere in that answer, didn't provide any direction or clarity to the question that was presented.

The issue is this. There have been significant discrepancies in terms of what the public is hearing. They're hearing two messages: from the Minister of Education when he was the chair of PavCo and a message from Paragon, all of which are somewhat different. That's not acceptable, particularly on a project like this, which the minister will know was very controversial and led to the city rejecting the expanded facility there.

We also know from the Paragon site, apparently, that the amount of revenue coming back is to be half of what was originally anticipated on this site. People have a right to know what the situation is.

My question to the minister responsible for PavCo: will he clear up this mess, and will he release the terms and conditions of the agreement between PavCo and Paragon so that people know what they're dealing with?

Hon. T. Stone: Well, one thing I will clearly state on the record is that this government is very proud of the revitalization that has taken place at B.C. Place. B.C. Place opened on time and on budget. In fact, it was actually $49 million under budget. The new stadium is expected to generate an additional $100 million per year of economic activity right here in British Columbia.

But back to the question. In 2011, after extensive consultations, it was the city of Vancouver that approved the relocation of the existing Edgewater Casino under the existing gaming licence, and PavCo has no responsibility for the operation of the proposed entertainment complex.

J. Horgan: I would like to direct my questions back to the same minister. I know we've got a big Telus sign in a warehouse somewhere, but maybe we can get the B.C. Liberal bus and put "debt-free" in front of the Pavilion Corporation, because it's clearly not on time and not on budget.

Again, to the minister, could he please clear the air and say to the people of British Columbia who is going to pay for that massive overrun at the Pavilion Corporation? Is it going to be Paragon over a 70-year period? Over a 90-year period? Or are taxpayers going to pay the whole bill again?

Hon. T. Stone: Well, if it was up to the members of the opposition, there would be no B.C. Place; there would be no opportunity to generate an extra $100 million into the B.C. economy.

The renovation of B.C. Place was concluded $49 million under budget. The members opposite may not like to deal in the facts on this, but this renovation has enabled B.C. Place to become more than a sports facility. It's now an entertainment complex, and it attracts the likes of Paul McCartney and Taylor Swift. This generates hundreds of thousands of new economic opportunity, not just in Vancouver but across British Columbia.

[1410]

KITWANGA MILL OPERATIONS
AND TIMBER SUPPLY

D. Donaldson: The Kitwanga Lumber sawmill is struggling to reopen. That's the mill in the northwest that Premier Clark used for a photo op when it started up but was nowhere to be found when the workers got their pink slips when the mill was shuttered a few months later. Just last month a new mill owner was ready to restart operations, but he had to delay because he couldn't find logs. Forty to 50 jobs were left hanging, a big number for the neighbouring First Nations communities.

At precisely the same time, this government granted timber sales for raw log exports from sites just kilometres from the mill. It's almost beyond belief. Can the Deputy Premier explain why his government continues to promote this shortsighted, job-killing approach to forest management?

Hon. M. de Jong: Notwithstanding the protest the Deputy Premier will offer, I'll take the question on notice on behalf of the Forests Minister.

Madame Speaker: Member for Stikine with a different question.

TIMBER SUPPLY AND FOREST INDUSTRY
JOBS IN KITWANGA AREA

D. Donaldson: Yes, I have another question — this time for the Jobs Minister. People in Kitwanga valley, people in Gitanyow, people in Gitwangak are watching trucks go by with raw logs exported from sites within kilometres of this mill. The problem is that this Liberal government forest policy is preventing the mill from getting all the wood it needs.

The mill employs mostly workers from Gitanyow and Gitxsan First Nations. Those communities rely on nearby natural resources to create economic activity, but the minister's decision to give away the wood means there is great uncertainty about mill jobs in Kitwanga in the future.
[ Page 327 ]

Again, to the Minister of Jobs, can she explain why her government is starving this B.C. mill in favour of exporting raw logs at the cost of jobs?

Hon. S. Bond: One thing we know on this side of the House is that we've worked very hard to increase and create certainty in the economic climate in British Columbia to attract investment. And what we're seeing is a revitalized forest industry in British Columbia….

Interjections.

Hon. S. Bond: One of the things that's absolutely critical to us as we look at the future and see the potential for over a million job openings by 2020…. It is critical to us that First Nations in British Columbia, and British Columbians, are at the front of that lineup. We're going to continue to work constructively and find ways to encourage and support First Nations communities and ensure they are part of the job future in British Columbia.

VANCOUVER COASTAL HEALTH AUTHORITY
NEWBORN HOTLINE SERVICE

M. Elmore: In an attempt to balance the budget at all costs, the government has planned a wave of devastating cuts and fee hikes. We learned about the wheelchair tax just days after the election, and now we learn that Vancouver Coastal Health will cut the newborn hotline, a valuable service that provides parents with specialized support and information on their infants' health. Will the minister reverse the decision and commit to parents in Vancouver and Richmond that the newborn hotline will still be answered after July?

Hon. T. Lake: HealthLink B.C. is a service offered 24 hours a day, seven days a week — 811 by telephone, a very comprehensive webpage. People all over British Columbia have access to dietitians, to nurses, to get information. Especially, expectant mothers and new mothers can access that not just here and Vancouver but all over the province of British Columbia 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

[1415]

Madame Speaker: Member for Vancouver-Kensington on a supplemental.

M. Elmore: Just a news flash for the minister. If he's talked to any families who have newborns who try and access the newborn hotline, the distinction is that they offer a specialized service, nurses who are trained in infant and toddler care — a specialty and expertise that is not available in those other good services that he mentioned.

This hotline is a specialized service that provides new parents with essential information to keep infants safe. In many cases this service prevents unnecessary emergency room visits by helping families manage their newborns' health issues at home.

If the minister won't commit to keeping the service running, will he commit to enhancing the existing 811 nurses hotline to ensure staff receive additional training on maternal and newborn assessments?

Hon. T. Lake: I actually believe that the registered professional nurses that man our HealthLink B.C. line are, in fact, excellently trained and provide a wonderful service to the people of British Columbia. But not only that. New mothers are still contacted by public health nurses by phone or in person, and public health nurses remain on call throughout Vancouver Coastal Health.

And not only that. On this side of the House we are spending almost $2 million to double the number of midwives here in British Columbia. In fact, midwives were paid just over $19 million to deliver over 6,300 new British Columbians.

RECOVERY OF DECEASED PERSONS
FROM B.C. WATERS

D. Eby: Yesterday the Minister of Justice gave this House new information about the concerning case of Raymond Salmen, who drowned in Harrison Lake and whose body has not been recovered. The minister told this house that Raymond's case was "in the hands of the coroner."

Well, Daniela Salmen, Raymond's widow, called the coroner's office first thing this morning. The receptionist told her there is no entry for Raymond Salmen in the coroner's database, and an analyst with the office told her the coroner is not investigating Raymond's case and that the coroner's office is not involved in her husband's case at all — period.

Will the Minister of Justice clarify her remarks, acknowledge that no agency is helping this family and commit to find a way to help families recover their loved ones lost in B.C.'s waters?

Hon. S. Anton: There have been, as I said yesterday, a number of very unfortunate drowning cases in British Columbia this year, and once again, I would like to caution people, particularly those not familiar with B.C. waters, that they need to wear life jackets. They need to know where they're swimming and where they're boating.

Quite a number of drownings. A number of them are in the hands of the coroner — not all, but some. These are terrible cases. They are very hard on the families involved, obviously.

I think our hearts go out to all of the families who have lost loved ones and, certainly, our condolences to those families. It's a terrible thing to lose a family member. I
[ Page 328 ]
think somehow it seems worse when you're on holiday and it should be a happy time and you have this terrible thing happening.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the RCMP because I think in most of these jurisdictions it is RCMP who are performing these rescues and looking for these bodies. They are putting their own lives at risk, and they are putting their own families at risk.

They go above and beyond to try and help these families recover these bodies. There have been a number of successful finds of these missing bodies over the course of the summer — including going back again and again, and waiting until the waters go down and waiting until waters are safe to go back and recover these bodies.

They have been making efforts in Harrison Lake on the case that the member opposite is referring to, and they are making efforts around the province. I don't question the operational decisions of the RCMP. They make those decisions as to when to search. They make the decisions as to when to call off the search, and I think we should all thank them for that.

D. Eby: I'm sure the member didn't mean to be insulting to the Salmen family, but Mr. Salmen, the RCMP believe, was injured on land and tried to swim to safety. This is not a water safety issue.

[1420]

This is also not a partisan issue. Accurate sonar technology now exists to locate the bodies of loved ones deep in B.C.'s waters — technology that did not exist before. B.C. Coroners Service spokesperson Barb McLintock told the Prince George Citizen that the Coroners Service believes the underwater sonar technology "would be something the province could really use." She said: "On those few occasions we need it, it would be greatly appreciated help."

Tragically, as the member noted, we've needed this technology for five cases already this summer. Can the minister please commit to working with the RCMP and the coroner's office to obtain access to this technology to find these British Columbia citizens and put their families' minds at rest? Please, Minister.

Hon. S. Anton: It is clearly not a partisan issue, and I am offended that the member opposite would suggest that. Everybody in this House feels for these families. Everyone in this House feels for the victims and for their families.

It is highly…. You know, the member opposite could have easily come to ask the question. It is being made a partisan issue in this House. These are sad circumstances.

The RCMP are always willing to consider extra methods and extra ways that they can improve themselves. Like most of us, I think, they're always self-critical, self-looking, self-wondering what they can do. But they do a terrific job — helping victims, putting their own lives at risk, putting their own families at risk. I compliment them for what they have done this summer.

I'm very, very sorry for the families. I know that the RCMP are always open to looking at new things, and they will be doing that in this case.

The thought that this is a partisan issue…. It is being raised by the member opposite as a partisan issue, and that's highly offensive.

[End of question period.]

Hon. M. de Jong: I seek leave to make an introduction, Madame Speaker.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. de Jong: In the gallery today a young man who used to work as an executive assistant in these precincts, Mark Grant, is here. I hope the House will make him feel welcome.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Madame Speaker, I call Committee of Supply — for the information of members, in Committee B, the estimates of Children and Families; and in Committee A, the estimates for the Ministry of Environment.

[1425]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
CHILDREN AND FAMILY DEVELOPMENT

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 2:26 p.m.

On Vote 16: ministry operations, $1,345,039,000.

Hon. S. Cadieux: Just before we get started, I'll introduce the staff that are with me here today. Beside me is Mark Sieben, my deputy minister. Behind me is Doug Hughes, ADM, provincial director of child welfare. Anne Sandbu is ADM of finance and corporate services. Bev Dicks is ADM of service delivery. Others will come and go as we need them, but I'll introduce them when they're here.

I am delighted to be able to continue serving in this ministry and to have responsibility for the Children and Family Development programs and improving those services. I'm happy to get started with questions.
[ Page 329 ]

C. James: Thank you to the minister. Thank you to staff who are here for our estimates process. Congratulations to the minister for coming back to this portfolio. I certainly am just as thrilled to take on the critic role for this area. I can't think of anything that is more critical that government does than look after the most vulnerable children and youth in our province.

We will talk, I'm sure, as we go through estimates, about core review and a discussion around core review. But for me, nothing is more core to the role of government and fundamental to the role of government than ensuring that we look after children and families. So I look forward to our discussion and look forward to our future work.

Just to start off with some general budget questions, if we may, Minister. Could the minister confirm that the June budget update is exactly the same as the one that was tabled in February of this year?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Yes, it's the same.

C. James: Does the minister feel that this budget is sufficient for the kinds of services that she believes need to be provided in the Ministry of Children and Families?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Resources are always going to be both a challenge and a priority for this ministry at the same time. Delivering on the services that we provide to children and families are, as you mentioned in your statement, the utmost priority for government. I am confident we'll be able to deliver those well.

C. James: I'm sure we'll have a further discussion around the pressures that I believe are going to be faced in this ministry.

Just continuing on with some basic budget questions, could the minister tell us if this ministry received Treasury Board approval for access to the "Contingencies and new programs" vote? If so, what programs were funded through that route?

[1430]

Hon. S. Cadieux: To clarify, there's no access to contingencies granted to the ministry. There are budget increases — $878,000 for the provincial office of domestic violence, $5 million for caseload pressures for children and youth with special needs and $6.1 million to support the early-years strategy with the early childhood development and child care services.

C. James: Could the minister tell me if there've been any freezes put in place for spending in the ministry. And if so, in what area?

Hon. S. Cadieux: No, there are no freezes.

C. James: Have any grants to organizations or any contracts been cut from this ministry?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Nothing related to the budget, no.

C. James: Are there any existing programs or funding or specific service delivery areas that the minister or the ministry has targeted for review under core review?

Hon. S. Cadieux: No, nothing specific.

C. James: Have there been funds received in this ministry from other sources outside of the provincial government?

[1435]

Hon. S. Cadieux: The ministry receives a number of recoveries from a number of sources from within government as a whole — from the Ministry of Health, related to psychiatric services; and a number of federal government things, like child disability benefit, universal child care benefit or Justice Canada funding.

C. James: Could the minister tell us the number of FTEs that are currently working in the ministry?

Hon. S. Cadieux: We don't actually count FTEs in the ministry. We count staff from year to year. This year the number of staff is 4,648.

C. James: Can the minister tell us how that compares to last year?

Hon. S. Cadieux: That is a very slight decrease of 2 percent — 89 fewer people.

C. James: And could the minister tell us how many FTEs there are in the minister's office — specifically in the minister's office — and the comparison to last year? Yes, the minister herself's office.

Hon. S. Cadieux: Sorry. It's a little confusing having not had this ministry for estimates last year — figuring out people. I think it's six, a change of 0.5. Last year was 5.5 in this ministry. But if I am wrong, I will correct that for you.

C. James: Thank you to the minister. If there are numbers such as that that you want to get back to us, or get back to us with a list…. I don't need names of staff, but if you want to get back with a list of the staff positions and the titles, that's fine as well.

How is the hiring freeze impacting this ministry?

[1440]

Hon. S. Cadieux: When the hiring freeze was imple-
[ Page 330 ]
mented, we obtained approval for continuing to hire in this ministry for critical front-line services and to maintain our staffing levels in those areas. We have managed our staffing and have permanent reductions in place in the provincial office and in corporate services though.

C. James: Just so I'm clear. There is an exemption, then, for front-line staff around the freeze in this ministry?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Yes, we have authority to continue to hire to fill front-line programs.

C. James: I'll come back and talk a little bit about caseload a little bit later. I'd like to get into a little more detail around the freeze and what it means by front-line workers, because I think there are some concerns that we're certainly hearing out in the field. I'll get to that in part of our discussion.

Just continuing on with the structure of the minister's office. Could you let us know how much was spent for travel by the minister's office last year, for minister and staff in the minister's office, and how much is budgeted for this coming year?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Last year there was spending of $34,000 on travel; budgeted for this year is $56,000.

C. James: Could the minister just explain the difference and why the anticipation is for the increase in the travel budget?

Hon. S. Cadieux: The budget for last year was actually $64,000. We only spent $34,000, so we've reduced the budget this year to $56,000. It is an area we are continuing to manage as efficiently as we can.

C. James: Could the minister tell us what the advertising budget is anticipated to be for this coming year and how much it was last year? Again, a comparison between the two years.

Hon. S. Cadieux: There's no advertising budget. All of the government advertising is managed through government communications.

C. James: That includes non-essential, or that includes essential advertising — so things that are required statutorily? There's no budget held in the Ministry of Children and Families for that?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Again, we don't have a line item for advertising. It is all done centrally. If you have a more specific example, we could try to answer that.

C. James: I was thinking of things like adoption, when there's advertising that's going out around adoption or a particular week — child care week, for example, or Child Care Month — that occurs in the province. That's the kind of advertising that I think of as essential, non-political advertising.

[1445]

I just wondered whether there's a budget within the ministry for that kind of advertising.

Hon. S. Cadieux: No, all of that is done centrally. There may be some done additionally through contracted agencies, but it is not directed by us.

C. James: This comes back to the earlier question I asked the minister about the budget, whether the budget would be sufficient for the kinds of services that are going to be provided. In the minister's own service plan it states: "The child and youth population of British Columbia is forecasted to gradually increase each year, producing a greater demand for services."

I'd just like the minister to spend a little bit of time talking about how, basically, the status quo budget, over the next three years, that is presented is going to address what her own service plan identifies as growing pressures in population increase, therefore growing pressures in demand in this ministry.

Hon. S. Cadieux: Demand for services in this ministry, especially with a young population but also with increasing challenges for some of the population that we serve, is going to forever be a challenge. There will always be more desired services than we are able to provide. That said, we've done a good job so far in being able to look, through processes like lean and others, for better ways to deliver services that we do deliver and to look for efficiencies and ways that we can streamline what we do to make sure that the most dollars are going to the front line.

There are some programs that have no wait-list — for example, autism. So regardless of whether or not…. As long as the demand is there, we will provide the dollars. Similarly for foster care — we have a responsibility to provide that. It's up to us to find a way to do it the best way we can, and I am confident that we can do that.

C. James: I understand the pressures and understand, certainly, the demand that will always be there. I'd agree. There will always be requests for more services.

But I think the minister herself has raised a couple of very specific areas where there is a statutory requirement to provide the support. When it comes to children who are taken into care, the ministry isn't able to say: "We're sorry. We've run out of our budget. We're not able to provide that kind of care."

Similarly, as the minister herself mentioned, the issue of autism funding, where there isn't a wait-list. Therefore, as children are diagnosed and come in — and we'll get into a little more discussion about that later — those pres-
[ Page 331 ]
sures increase. Then the population mention that was in the minister's own service plan, where it identified that population, the youth population, was also growing. Those are givens when it comes to a budget.

[1450]

I'd just like to ask the minister…. I understand the issue of looking for efficiencies in existing service. But has the minister had discussions within the ministry about those growing pressures that are known — the population increase, the demand increase — and how that is going to be managed within the flatline budget over the next three years? I guess the basic question is: does the minister believe that she will be able to balance her budget?

Hon. S. Cadieux: I am committed to balancing the budget for this ministry. That said, balancing the budget will be a challenge in this ministry. There is no question. That again follows, though, that my priority is the services that we deliver directly to families and children. Those will always come first. Our commitment, I think, in terms of being able to meet demand is clear in that we have added additional dollars to the CYSN budget this year to meet those needs.

We're investing new dollars this year in the early years, with the recognition that there is more work to do there, certainly. As it relates to foster care, new approaches within the ministry — and how we work with families who may be experiencing difficulties earlier with our family approaches — we're seeing great results, and we're not seeing an increase in the number of children coming into care.

C. James: Both in the service plan and obviously in the letter of expectations to the minister from the Premier it was very clear that balancing the budget is one of the top priorities. Has the minister had those conversations with the Premier about the cost pressures in this ministry, the challenges of providing support in this ministry and how that will be balanced with the Premier's expectations for the minister of balancing the budget, as is the expectation across ministries?

Hon. S. Cadieux: As I said before, the challenges of meeting the budget in this ministry are real. It will take diligent work, but I'm confident in the staff in the ministry and in our ability to do that. Of course, as minister, I am responsible for making the rest of government also aware of the issues facing the ministry and where we need to be providing services and perhaps changing what we do or doing more of something. That's my job, and it's my job to balance those needs, as they arise, with the need to balance the budget.

C. James: I'm pleased to hear the minister say that she sees part of her role as being the advocate for the ministry and an advocate for children and families, because I think it's been a long period of time since we've had a strong voice, and I think certainly this ministry, in particular, is in need of that. I would hope that that voice will be strong, because I think there will be some challenges as we move along, based on the pressures that we've talked about but I'm sure more that we'll talk about as we go through estimates.

[1455]

The minister mentioned various areas that had an increase in this budget, but there is one area of the budget that actually is higher based on the 2012-13 budget, and that's the executive support services. The 2012 service plan listed that budget as $14.9 million for the 2012-13 service plan, and then in this year's service plan that's listed as $18 million. I'd just like to ask the minister…. It may be related to ICM. That's what I suspect, but I wonder if the minister could let us know where that lift is, compared to the 2012-13 service plan.

Hon. S. Cadieux: Yes, that was the additional support provided to front-line staff in responding to the challenges they are facing with ICM implementation — but also implementation of practice changes that I'm sure you're well aware were underway in the ministry.

C. James: Could the minister tell me, then, where the divide is in that amount of increase? Did it all go directly to front-line staff training? Was a portion of that allocated to ICM training? Was a portion of that allocated to practice training? Where is the discrepancy between the increase that occurred?

[1500]

Hon. S. Cadieux: We didn't manage it discretely into pockets. Some of it was for additional staff on the front line, to support our front-line staff while they were learning the new system; some of it was training; some was travel for that purpose. So it was managed globally, as was the finding of the administrative savings to cover it.

C. James: I understand you didn't divide it up into which area it went into, but you said it went into front-line staff. Could the minister tell us: was all of that, then, spent on front-line staff training? Was some of it spent centrally, in the ministry itself, as well, or did it all go into direct front-line staff?

Hon. S. Cadieux: All of the work done there was around child protection, so it was all of the child protection managers and staff that were trained.

C. James: Just so I'm clear, it was used for child protection training, then, not for ICM? Or was part of that ICM training as well?
[ Page 332 ]

Hon. S. Cadieux: The training was around both child protection practice and how that interfaced with ICM as well.

C. James: I'm sure we'll get into more discussion around ICM as we get further along in estimates. There are a number of questions to be raised around ICM, so I'll leave this one for now and come back to that issue when we get into a discussion around ICM.

Could the minister tell me…? I understand, when I asked around the staffing numbers, that you were saying you don't keep FTEs; you keep numbers. Does the minister have an account of the number of social workers who are currently employed by MCFD?

[1505]

Hon. S. Cadieux: The number of social workers in 2012 declined slightly from 2,614 to 2,575 — a decline of 1.5 percent or 39 people. In 2012, 202 social workers were hired, so there's a fair amount of turnover.

Since March of 2013 we have hired an additional 41 social workers, so we're back at around that same number of 2,614, approximately. There are still about 90 vacancies, of which 56 are currently in various stages of recruitment. It is where we are using our exemption — to hire those front-line social workers.

C. James: : Could the minister let us know what the average caseload is for front-line social workers currently?

Hon. S. Cadieux: While we will get that for you, hon. Chair, if you wouldn't mind, I request a five-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 3:06 p.m. to 3:12 p.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. S. Cadieux: The question was on the social worker caseloads. Between '11-12 and '12-13 the caseload per child protection worker increased from 20 to 27.

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

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

M. Elmore: I'd like to welcome to the Legislature today some friends. They are 60 strong. They are members of the 1971-72 graduating class and nurses alumni. They are celebrating a reunion here in Vancouver, from Manila Central University, also attended by graduates from 1970 and 1976.

I'd like to recognize and appreciate the hard work of the B.C. organizers: Mila DeCastro, Violy Leopoldo, Cecile Mijares, Josie Jose, Tessie Bie, Terry Tiapson. We're welcoming friends from not only Vancouver and across B.C., but we have alumni from Calgary, Montreal, Toronto, Chicago, California, Texas and Florida, and it's just a great reunion.

A very warm welcome to all of you here to the Legislature. I hope you enjoy the rest of your visit in Vancouver, British Columbia. I ask everybody to please give them a very warm welcome.

Debate Continued

C. James: Could the minister let us know how they track caseloads?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Caseloads are tracked through our data management systems. That said, we know that the average number of families served by social workers has remained relatively stable over the past few years. With the implementation of the new system, we are tracking data differently, and where the old system counted families, the new system counts each event that occurs within a family, which does account for the difference.

C. James: Just to be clear, is ICM being used right now to track caseloads at all?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Yes, that is the system we're using now.

[1515]

C. James: I think all of us know that the personal connection that a social worker can make with a child or with a youth or with a family has a lot to do with caseload and has a lot to do with numbers and, also, the complexity of the cases that the social worker may have on their caseload — not simply straight numbers but the complexity of the numbers as well.

I just wondered if the minister could tell us what kinds of strategies are being looked at in the ministry to lower caseload or to be able to track the complexity of caseload for particular social workers so that those issues can be addressed.

Hon. S. Cadieux: I know that the member opposite would have great experience with the vital work that social workers do, having been a foster parent for so many years, and know how critical the work is that the social workers do.

We've a done a caseload review of service levels across the province. As expected, in some of the rural and remote communities the caseloads tend to be higher, so we're looking at how best to alleviate that by reassigning
[ Page 333 ]
staff to high-need areas, prioritizing and managing workload with staff. And we did, as I say, hire additional staff during the time when social workers were facing the increased pressure of learning the new system.

C. James: The minister mentioned the additional resources that were put in place to be able to help with managing the new system that was coming in, as well as the issue of child protection new practices. Will that money, then, continue to be spent in that particular area, or is that money being looked at as being reallocated somewhere else? And will that pressure, then, continue to build in subsequent years?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Certainly, there was additional staff added, as we say, during the time we were doing the additional training and work. We are continuing to monitor and do continue to monitor caseloads and the work of our social workers and look at, at any given time, where we need people and how we do that. It's really something we do in a real-time kind of way to address need. It is not something that we take a look at, at the beginning of the year and say: "Absolutely, we're going to need X or Y." We address it as the need arises.

C. James: Just so I have it clear. The intent, then, from the ministry is to leave those resources in front-line workers and then to reallocate those workers, depending on the needs that the ministry sees as the year goes on?

[1520]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Yes, the member is correct. The majority of the staff that were hired on a short term remain in place. Managers are actively looking at all times to reassign or redeploy staff to the areas of highest need. Our strength in clinical supervison supports the team leaders in trying to best prioritize and manage that workload. As I mentioned, we do have a number of vacancies that we are actively trying to fill on the front lines.

C. James: Could the minister tell us: are there specific…? The minister mentioned rural communities — again, no surprise, having worked in rural communities in the area of child welfare — as one of the areas. Are there specific offices and particular regions that are having more difficulties than others right now and have larger vacancies than others? I wonder if the minister could share that information with us.

Hon. S. Cadieux: Yes, there are. More challenges tend to be in the more rural or remote areas, of course, or in other service areas that are more rural or remote service delivery. So the number of places that we are working on actively right now — Prince Rupert, Port Hardy and Princeton areas.

C. James: Could the minister tell us, then…? The minister mentioned that they're working on recruitment. Are there any specific tools or any specific strategies that are being used right now by the ministry to look at filling those vacant positions that are there — in particular, with an eye to those offices that are understaffed right now?

[1525]

Hon. S. Cadieux: First of all, we look to redeploy people from other areas where we may have more staff, looking to offer people who are hired as auxiliaries a permanent position in some of these other areas.

Our hiring is all coordinated through the PSA. We're looking at targeted strategies with them to advertise in, for example, Northwest Territories or the Yukon for the north, for people that like the rural lifestyle, knowing that we want people to stay once they come. In addition, we are also working with the School of Social Work on strategies to advertise that we indeed are looking for good people.

C. James: Has the ministry looked at other tools that you certainly see in the health care field and perhaps have been done in the ministry, as well, around student loans — looking at a number of years' service in a remote community or in a rural community and having some of your student loan addressed? Has the ministry looked at those kinds of strategies or examined those kinds of strategies for rural and remote communities?

Hon. S. Cadieux: As is similar to the rest of government in trying to recruit into rural and remote areas, working with the PSA, we are looking at those types of strategies.

J. Rice: You spoke earlier about the communities that have high caseloads — Prince Rupert, Port Hardy, Princeton. Specifically, could you let me know how many staff are down in the Prince Rupert office?

[1530]

Hon. S. Cadieux: To the member: welcome.

We don't have it here by individual office or town. What I can tell you is that for the northwest service delivery area, there are 104.25 FTE positions. Ten are vacant at the moment, and we are recruiting for 11.

C. James: One of the issues we often hear, obviously, is from workers who are in offices that have less than full complement who are concerned about staffing issues and staffing levels. One of the areas that we've heard is that the ministry doesn't look at hiring replacements until the ministry office reaches a certain level below service. Ninety-two percent is the rumour that we've heard. That
[ Page 334 ]
level is set, and the ministry isn't hiring replacements until the complement drops down below 92 percent.

I just wanted to check with the minister whether that was accurate or not and whether the ministry looks at any kind of level before they look at hiring replacements.

Hon. S. Cadieux: Thank you, Member, for the question. We are absolutely not aware of where that number came from. That isn't a policy. In fact, we are actively recruiting for vacancies whenever they appear. The only thing that might impact that is when we are trying to shift resources from an area that has more staff than required to one that is not.

C. James: Good to hear. Thank you.

Just to move on now to an issue that is an issue across government but certainly would have an impact here in the Ministry of Children and Families as well. That's the issue of the wage agreement that has been reached with the community social services sector. As we know, the ministry itself has a large portion of its services that are provided by social service agencies, both union and non-union, in the field.

The agreement that has been reached has a wage lift for staff. So my question to the minister would be, first off: what's the cost of that wage increase to the ministry itself?

[1535]

Hon. S. Cadieux: I know that the member opposite will agree with me that the employees in this sector certainly deserve the wage increases that have been negotiated. We'll work with the agencies. The pressure on this year's budget is estimated to be $8.5 million.

C. James: Yes, I couldn't agree more with the minister's comments that this has nothing do with whether a wage increase was deserved or not. In fact, as many people know, the social services sector is underpaid when it comes to balancing off with other wages. They are lower than many of the government employees providing the same kind of work, providing front-line work. It's a great difficulty when it comes to recruiting and otherwise for many of those agencies to be able to keep staff.

So $8.5 million across the sector from the Ministry of Children and Families is a huge amount of money. My question to the minister would be: how is the wage lift going to be covered?

Hon. S. Cadieux: We have already started reaching out to the agencies individually to let them know that we will be working collaboratively with them to ensure that we can help them find ways of achieving this.

As well, in a few weeks the representatives from funding ministries will be working with the employer agencies, CCEA and BCACDI — I think that's the acronym — to discuss how to use the cooperative gains framework in this sector, which is a little different, of course, from other areas of government.

[1540]

We've got this fiscal year to find the savings. It'll be a challenge, of course, but we're very committed to working with the agencies to ensure that we can assist them in finding those without reducing services.

C. James: Did the ministry inform the employers when they signed this agreement through CCEA that the ministry would not be providing additional funds to cover this wage increase and that they expected the agencies to cover this increase?

Hon. S. Cadieux: This ministry has been very clear with our contracted agencies that there were not going to be additional dollars to fund this and that, indeed, we were operating in a cooperative gains framework, where the savings would have to be found within the existing contracts. We are very committed to working with the sector and with the agencies individually to ensure that we do that without impacting services.

C. James: I certainly would say that there has been a lack of communication or a communication problem in this particular area, because that is not the impression that the agencies have. That's not the impression that contracted agencies have. They certainly did not believe that they were going to be expected to fund.

I'd just like to quote for the minister from a letter from the federation.

"Your proposed plan and process presumes that no additional funding will be provided by the ministry…. If this is the case and funding for wage increases must be found within existing contract budgets, it must be recognized that…this will mean a reduction in service levels…. Most agencies in the sector have already achieved whatever savings they could through internal efficiencies in order to manage accumulated cost pressures over the last number of years of flatlined contract funding."

Just to come back to the minister's point that the ministry will work with agencies to find these savings, I think it's very clear that agencies have had to reduce their service levels, have had to look at reducing any kinds of overhead costs, etc., within existing contracts already because of the flatline contracts that have happened over the last number of years.

I just ask the minister again: wouldn't the minister agree, then, that agencies that provide services on behalf of the ministry…? If they're expected to find $8.5 million in their sector, will that not mean cuts in services?

[1545]

Hon. S. Cadieux: We certainly respect all of the work that the agencies have done to provide services in a difficult fiscal environment. We are obliged, as a part of this process and with the cooperative gains mandate, to begin by looking at the individual contracts but agree
[ Page 335 ]
that much of that work has already been done.

More can be done, however, in looking at efficiencies between agencies and also, most importantly, by looking at the fact that — the ministry itself and across ministries — we often have multiple contracts with the same agency.

C. James: I understand that the minister is trying to explain this amount of money, but I don't believe there is an explanation, other than that the agencies are going to see a reduction in services to pay for this wage increase of $8.5 million, which is basically the government cutting programs and services. Even, as the minister describes, contracts that are shared between ministries…. To get rid of one of those to be able to save resources is going to mean a reduction in service, a reduction in supports in the community.

I just have to ask again. Surely the minister doesn't believe that there is $8.5 million worth of extra money in the community social services sector that can be cut with no impact on clients who are receiving the service.

Hon. S. Cadieux: We are both obligated and challenged to not reduce services through this process. We don't have to eliminate contracts to do that. Ministries may find the opportunity to fund agencies jointly, or agencies themselves may find ways to share administrative operations that will identify savings.

Agreeably, this will be challenging work, but our commitment is to not see this end in any reduction in services.

C. James: We're already seeing changes. We're already seeing reductions.

[1550]

The Okanagan Boys and Girls Club has already stated that they are "financially unable to fund the wage increases without service reductions." In Kelowna the boys and girls club has announced that they're looking at service reductions to be able to try and cope with the wage lift being passed on to contracts.

The minister talks about efficiencies within agencies. I certainly have to say that — having met with social service agencies over the years that I've lived in my community, including in my role in Social Development as the critic — I have seen efficiencies already with agencies. I have seen agencies come together. That has been a push that the government has made over the last ten years in requiring agencies to look at efficiencies, to look at combining resources, to look at shared services.

That's exactly what has happened over the last number of years. I just need to state again and ask the minister again how the agencies are going to be expected, through their contracts…. The minister says they're going to work with agencies. How is that going to happen?

Ultimately, will the ministry be keeping track of where those savings are coming from in each contract? I expect that we will see reductions in those agencies, in services. It's unfair to the staff, who deserve that wage increase, to be expected to pay for that through reducing services to the clients that they provide support for, but ultimately, these will be cuts to clients, the most vulnerable clients.

These are not extra agencies. These are agencies that provide support to vulnerable clients. To find $8.5 million in that sector will have a direct impact on clients. I would like to ask the minister how on earth she believes that couldn't happen.

Hon. S. Cadieux: As I stated before, we had previously made agencies aware that we were going to work collaboratively with them. Unfortunately, the difficulties that the boys and girls club has expressed…. Unfortunately, they did not express that to the ministry. As soon as we were made aware of that, we immediately contacted them to set up an opportunity for us to have a conversation about how they saw that and what we could do to assist.

Those conversations will continue with agencies. We need to look at the contracts. We will be tracking. As I stated, I am committed, as is the ministry, to working with the sector to make sure that we find the savings without reducing services.

C. James: Will the minister commit to releasing that tracking of where the cuts in programs and services are coming in each of those contracts so that the public has an idea of where those reductions are coming?

Hon. S. Cadieux: As I will reiterate, there will be no cuts in services. We will be tracking the work that we do with the agencies in finding the savings.

C. James: Will the minister then commit — and perhaps it will come out in the budget at the end of the fiscal year — to release the report, the tracking, as the minister says, of where the reductions will come from, then, from each of those contracted services agencies?

Hon. S. Cadieux: We, again, are not anticipating that this process is going to result in reductions in individual contracts. The reality is that we're going to work with the agencies and find a way of doing this collectively as a sector. We committed to doing that with them. I'm very committed to that. As we do the work…. We have the fiscal year to do it. At the end we'll be able to tell you what the result was.

[1555]

C. James: It's sad to say, but I think the communities will know before anyone the impact of $8.5 million coming out of the community social services sector. That's a huge amount of resources that are coming out of agencies that provide direct service to clients.

Although the minister believes, or says she believes, that they can find those kinds of savings without any im-
[ Page 336 ]
pact, I think we will see the impact, and we will feel the impact. Unfortunately, as I said, it will be the most vulnerable in communities who are going to feel that.

Could the minister let us know what the practice is in other ministries? We have heard that the Ministry of Health is actually providing the funding to their non-union sector and to their community contracts for their wage lift and not expecting the contracts to be reduced to provide the amount of money that is in the collective agreement.

Hon. S. Cadieux: As I'm sure the member is well aware from her many years in this House, the mechanisms by which contracts are delivered in various ministries are different, which means the opportunities for working to find solutions are also different.

In this ministry we're going to work collaboratively with individual agencies on a contract-by-contract basis to see what we can do as a ministry and as a sector. That said, the $8.5 million is inclusive of both the union and non-union contracts.

C. James: On another issue related to contract services from the ministry, the social service providers within the ministry were assured that they'd receive the funds for the new Family Day, the statutory holiday, and that those funds would be coming to their contract.

In fact, I believe the Premier herself and others made those comments — that they would be receiving the funds to cover off that Family Day. Could the minister inform us if those funds have gone to any contracted agencies?

[1600]

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Hon. S. Cadieux: The short answer is no. But yes, we will. The reason for that is that we have over 10,000 contracts with over 6,000 service providers and no central contracting repository to know how many staff were eligible in any particular agency. As we are going to be working with all of the agencies and reviewing their contracts as a part of this process for looking for the cooperative gains, we will be able to get that information and provide that to those agencies.

C. James: Just to continue on with contracted services, one of the big challenges that is often heard of in the contracted services is the reporting requirements. Often duplication in reporting requirements occurs not simply with the Ministry of Children and Families but, in fact, across government. Many of these agencies, as the minister would know, contract with two or three areas in government, two or three ministries in government, and often are required to submit the same kind of information, the same basic forms.

Given how stretched not-for-profits are, in particular, and given how stretched the community social services sector is, has government ever considered, or is the government looking at, any kind of opportunity to be able to streamline that process? Perhaps, provide a common reporting process across government to be able to alleviate some of the workload that is carried by the social services sector, where you have executive directors who are executive directors, budget managers, contract writers, service providers — direct service providers, often.

I wondered whether the minister has looked within the ministry at anything in that area.

Hon. S. Cadieux: Yes, absolutely. In fact, I'm sure the member knows that in my previous life I, as well, had experience in the not-for-profit sector in contracted agencies and in reporting to multiple funders on the same services. I understand very well those challenges. This is actually the sort of example I was trying to articulate in an earlier answer when I said these are the types of opportunities for savings we do still see in the sector.

If we, the ministries of government, are able to simplify what we require of our contracted service providers, which do such a good job providing services, and give them an opportunity to not spend so much time and energy on the reporting requirements or on the initial contract bid…. Those sorts of things, I think, are going to see opportunities as well. That is something we're looking at within this cooperative gains framework.

As well, I'll mention that my deputy is also a co-chair of the GNPI initiative within the sector. That is work that was already underway and is continuing.

[1605]

C. James: I would certainly agree with the minister around the work that's being done. I'm glad to hear that. I think it's something that's long overdue for the sector.

I would disagree strongly on whether savings can be found in that area. I think you have individuals who are already doing 12 different things. To be reducing the amount of time they spend on contracting reporting will be a positive thing, because it'll mean they'll be able to take on the other 11 tasks that they have. So I would disagree around the savings issue.

The other discussion…. It may relate to the work that your deputy is doing. There has been discussion about a social policy framework across government for community agencies. This is something that we've seen occur in Alberta. It's something that has occurred in Nova Scotia as well, where government — across government, across ministries — has looked at how to provide a social policy framework for services now and into the future — long-term planning around how that service will be provided.

I just wonder whether that had been any of the discussion that had gone on in the ministry when it came to the
[ Page 337 ]
social services sector.

Hon. S. Cadieux: I am aware of the examples raised by the member and also of the interest or conversations that are being raised by the Federation of Community Social Services, Board Voice and other agencies. The solution may be similar or different in British Columbia, but the GNPI and similar forums are the places where those discussions are happening.

C. James: I wouldn't expect that it'd be the same model for anywhere. I would expect that it would be unique. But I certainly think it's a conversation worth having. I think it's an area that provides an opportunity to be able to look at the social services sector — how the social services sector provides supports to government and to the ministry and how that's going to change and evolve over the next number of years. I think there's real strength there.

I'm pleased to hear that there's an opportunity, I take from the minister's comments, for Board Voice, for the Federation of Community Social Services — planning agencies and associations — to be involved in those kinds of discussions.

[1610]

A question to the minister, then, about the social innovation work that's going on across government. Social enterprise, social innovation — it has a number of different names that people know it by. How is the Ministry of Children and Families involved, and how does the minister see that work impacting the ministry itself?

Hon. S. Cadieux: The Ministry of Children and Family Development is not taking an active role in social innovation — or in that file, particularly. That said, I certainly have a personal interest in social innovation and social enterprise and see potential there. But by its very nature, the efforts in that regard would require partners from outside government to come forward with ideas and opportunities. I'll certainly be interested in looking at them.

That said, the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation is the lead for government on that file.

C. James: Thank you very much to the minister. Just moving on, then, to some of the program areas within the service plan and some of the specifics in the service plan itself.

Just starting off with the area of child safety. The ministry service plan talks about addressing child and youth safety as well as making sure that they use the family development response approach.

I think all of us would agree that providing support to families to be able to care for their children, and whatever is necessary at certain times in their lives, is a positive direction and is the right approach. I think that certainly has a lot of strengths, and I think it's an opportunity that all of us would agree is always a first step when there aren't issues of abuse and neglect that are putting the child's safety at risk.

Given that, given that the ministry has set that as a direction, could the minister explain, then, what services and supports are in place for those families? If we're putting a family response in place, what services and supports are available to those families as part of this strategy?

[1615]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Primarily, what this means is that the social worker is not just a broker of services, particularly up front. Instead, they spend much more time directly with the family, are more involved in working with the family on the issues that are presented and, then, in assisting and navigating the system and connecting directly with the other services that are available in other ministries — perhaps mental health or addictions programs or working on resolving conflict or skills for the parents in resolving conflict with their teens.

Then, of course, the other opportunities to connect may be provided through community service providers, as well, including connecting with support groups or parenting classes or homemaker services or support services like that.

C. James: So taking on the role more of navigator — support for the family but also navigating the system rather than providing directly the services. Not to come back and harp on it, but all the more reason to look out for those community social services, because this program that the ministry has set as a goal will not work if those community social services are cut. You will need those community social services to provide for these kinds of supports that are there.

I also wondered if the minister could tell us whether the social workers who work in this area carry a smaller caseload than other social workers? Is there any adjustment made for the amount of time and energy that is going to be required to provide this kind of support to families?

[1620-1625]

Hon. S. Cadieux: In this case, we don't have a specific tracking of caseloads for the family development caseloads because they're relationship-based, primarily, and the workers work in teams and share the work. They may have the initial contact with the family. Of course, they reach out to members of their team to provide expertise in areas of family development response, family group conference coordinating, mediating, child and youth mental health workers, etc. So there's a team approach, a wraparound approach, to support both the family and the caseworkers.

C. James: Continuing in this particular area and look-
[ Page 338 ]
ing at the response models, the only performance measure that's listed under this section is looking at the ratio of investigations versus the new model of response — of family development response — and measuring that ratio.

While I take that that's an important measure to look at — whether you're doing less investigations, whether you're able to support the family unit as a whole — it doesn't really tell us success. It doesn't really tell us outcomes for children. It really tells us whether we're doing one type of investigation or not, but it doesn't really report out on what the success has been for that child, for that family.

So is the ministry looking at other performance measures? Is the ministry looking at success rates? Is the ministry looking at long-term placement with families, family reunification, longer progress reports on those families? Is the ministry looking at some other performance measure than simply looking at the rate of response to a family?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Yes, the service plan only has a couple of measures, but certainly, that's not all we track. We did recently, just this spring, post the first of the performance management reports for the ministry, which lays out a number of other tracking mechanisms. We will be continuing to post those on a regular basis as we go but, as well, add to the depth and variety of measures that we track as we go.

[1630]

C. James: I appreciate the minister says that they're looking at other tracking measures, and as you mentioned, they will be added, but are they going to be added as performance measures in the service plan? Will they then become part of what gets reported out as part of the service plan? Will that evolve next year, for example, to include more measures that the minister said she's looking at in the ministry?

Hon. S. Cadieux: The service plan is always, just by the nature of it, limited in what we can provide there. That's exactly why we're providing a much more detailed performance management report, available on line. If you don't have a copy of that, I'd be happy to get one to you, but that is where we list in much more detail a number of things that can be tracked and are tracked publicly now.

C. James: Thanks to the minister for that. I think that it's important, particularly with the kind of turmoil we've seen over the last ten years in the ministry when it comes to changing structures, when it comes to reorganization, when it comes to new practice methods. I think the more opportunity for the ministry to be clear about what it is tracking, to be clear about what it is reporting out on and to be consistent over time on those areas will hopefully start building some of the confidence that is needed so badly in this particular area.

It doesn't do anyone well, particularly the vulnerable children that are served, to not have public confidence in the ministry. I certainly would hope that we'll see more reporting on a regular basis and a more consistent approach and less reorganization to be able to build some of that confidence up in the ministry.

Moving on to talk, then, a little bit about plans of care, if we can, as the minister knows and as the ministry knows, the Representative for Children and Youth tabled her report that was called Much More Than Paperwork this past spring. It looked at a review of plans of care for children and youth. To read one line from the report…. I think it really described the challenges that are faced in this area, so I'd like to take a bit of time with this.

A quote from the representative is: "There is only one word to describe the findings of this audit — unacceptable." That was shocking. The report was shocking. I'm sure it was shocking to the ministry itself and to ministry staff.

My first question to the minister would be: could the minister explain why the compliance for plans of care was so low in the ministry?

[1635]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Before I get into the detailed answer on the plans of care, following up on your comments after my last answer, we are in agreement. There needs to be more focus on practice and less on structures. Certainly, our motto moving forward is simplify, clarify and prioritize. I am confident we're going to be able to bring that stability to the ministry.

Now, as it relates to the plans-of-care audit that the representative did, I think her recommendations were very thoughtful. Clearly, it didn't mean work wasn't being done with children, but we do have a duty to ensure that the documentation and the proactive planning is done.

We have a number of things that were already underway in the ministry at the time that that plan was released and a number of things that are ongoing and underway. The first thing was that we had appointed a new associate director of adoptions, guardianship and permanency, whose role is to ensure that compliance in care plans and focus on permanence.

We reintroduced the compliance-based audit system to measure success against the standards that we set for ourselves, because clearly, that was not happening in a consistent way. We've developed a new standardized plan-of-care template which places an emphasis on the rights of children in care. And we have identified as a priority of our review of the foster care system — which, of course, was complete just before this report as well — that we needed to set a goal of reaching 100 percent compliance by 2014 — which is, of course, lofty but, I believe, achievable.

We're examining, of course, workload for social work-
[ Page 339 ]
ers through this process and increasing training on writing the quality plans with the focus on permanency.

Certainly, we're making progress and are committed to ensuring that we get there. Those results will be made public as we go.

C. James: To get into a few of those specifics and the timelines around those, because I think that's important, the minister mentioned a plan-of-care template, a new template. Could the minister tell us how that was developed? Where was the model? Is it a proven model? Is it a model that would meet some of the recommendations within the representative's report? Where did that model come from, and when is it being implemented?

[1640]

Hon. S. Cadieux: In planning for this, we looked cross-jurisdictionally, including the Looking After Children model in the U.K. We considered, and very much included, the "Rights of children in care" under section 70 of the CFCSA. We consulted with our staff, the youth-in-care networks and the delegated agencies. We've shared them all with the representative's office, and we are currently training staff. In the first phase, we're training all of the staff who work with the children on continuing custody orders and children with special needs agreements, and then we'll move that out to the rest of the staff after that.

C. James: When are you expecting that the ministry will have the new template and we'll all be using the new template? What's the timeline around that implementation?

[1645]

Hon. S. Cadieux: The staff are using the model and the software associated as they are trained, and that should all be complete by the end of the year.

C. James: The minister mentioned training as part of this as well. So the training is ongoing and also will be completed by the end of the year? The timeline is the same?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Sorry. I wasn't clear. Yes, they are using the new template and the software associated as they are training on it, and it'll all be in place by the end of the year. We're getting some good feedback so far.

C. James: Thank you very much, Minister. I think, probably, Hansard is grateful that we didn't take nodding of our heads as a response — to give you the opportunity to actually get it on record.

One of the areas in the representative's report that was raised was the concern about face time, to use new language — the opportunity for social workers to actually meet in person with children that are in their care and on their caseload. The majority of meetings have taken place on e-mail, or contacts on e-mail and phone, and there weren't opportunities for the social worker to be meeting on a regular basis with the children.

My question to the minister is: how is that recommendation and concern within the report being addressed in the ministry?

The Chair: We'll recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:46 p.m. to 4:53 p.m.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Thank you, hon. Chair, for your indulgence there.

In response to the member, as it relates to ensuring that social workers are spending that necessary time with the children, certainly, we don't see the new methods of working through e-mail and these sorts of things as negative. It certainly is providing another opportunity for that connection to continue to occur.

Because of the work we've been doing on the foster care system redesign, we are looking at creating caring communities around the children so that there are, in fact, more caring adults involved with the individual youth at any given time.

As well, we do recognize — through the social workers themselves — that in order to have adequate time with the kids, there is a necessity to consider the opportunity to work beyond the hours of nine to five. So those discussions are happening at the table.

C. James: I think that the caring communities — and I'm sure we'll get into some discussion of those issues as we go along — are all good initiatives. I would agree that e-mail and, particularly, texting, as we all know, for youth is the communications vehicle where you're often able to make that connection with young people. But I think when it comes to plans of care, when it comes to talking about specifics with youth, particularly those youth in care, the opportunity for face-to-face is critical. I do think it's important.

[1655]

We talked earlier about performance measures. The minister mentioned the tracking of plans of care and what compliance there will be with plans of care. Will the ministry be looking at tracking things like contacts between social workers and youth, recognizing that this was a concern within the report?

Hon. S. Cadieux: While it's not a performance measure as such, it is in the standards that children will be visited every three months. That is part of the reason we've reintroduced regular audits, and that is so that we can track and ensure that that is happening. In fact, the new
[ Page 340 ]
care plans actually track those visits right in the plans.

[1700]

C. James: The next question was around standards, so I think it fits. It may roll into the next piece around audits themselves as well.

The report was very clear about how few of the plans of care met the ministry's own standards, and there were concerns about the ministry's standards not being included — five out of 100 files, for example.

The minister mentioned audits. That may be the response, but perhaps she can give a little more detail around how the ministry will now ensure that its standards are being met, what kind of tracking is being done and what the timelines are around ensuring that there's improvement around meeting the ministry's own standards, as identified by the representative in this report on plans of care.

Hon. S. Cadieux: I'd just like to say that through the work that was underway in the ministry over the last couple of years with the previous deputy and looking at the residential redesign project as a whole, a number of things had already been identified by the ministry as things that weren't up to snuff and needed to be worked on. These were identified and foreshadowed in the work that was underway in the ministry and then very much rearticulated by the rep's report, because she found the same things.

So we had already instigated or started work on reintroducing the audits on a regular schedule to ensure that we were getting accurate information and the work was being done. The target had been set for making sure that those plans of care were in place by the end of 2014. It definitely all falls together well, and we are very committed to the work.

C. James: Just to talk a little more about audits, could the minister tell us how many audits were done last year in the ministry and how many audits are planned for this coming year?

[1705]

Hon. S. Cadieux: In 2012-13 we did one provincial audit, provincial in scope, to a 90 percent confidence level. In 2013-14 we plan to do three audits, three separate service delivery areas. It includes all of the offices in those areas — randomized files, hundreds and hundreds of files per area to get to that 90 percent confidence level.

C. James: The minister mentioned earlier, at the beginning, when we were talking about audits, that the audit system has been strengthened and that the process has been strengthened. I wonder if the minister could tell us a little bit about that. What was changed with the audit system? How was the audit system reviewed? And how was the decision made to look at the audit system that's currently being used within the ministry?

[1710]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Historically, there was a fairly strong audit mechanism in place through the early 2000s, and it was as a result of a change in philosophy in the ministry at the time. It was discontinued from 2008 to last year.

We feel it is very worth going back to and, as such, have reinstituted it. We did that with the establishment of the provincial director of child welfare as well as the overseeing body on that. So each audit results in a comprehensive report with findings, analysis of data and an action plan. The reports are signed off by the provincial director of child welfare and are shared with field staff and senior ministry staff responsible for field operations. And we post them.

C. James: Thanks to the minister for that. The minister mentioned three program areas or three audits that were going to be done. Does the ministry say what those program areas are? Is there a rationale for not saying which program areas are going to be audited?

Hon. S. Cadieux: The audits that will take place this year are in three separate service delivery areas or regions of the province. Within that, the service delivery areas of child safety services, guardianship, residential resources and adoptions will all be audited.

C. James: Continuing on with the audits, just another question. It's great to hear that they're expanding. I would agree with the minister that they're critical. I think they provide opportunities to be able to be utilized. I guess that would be my next question.

How, then, will the audits be incorporated into making changes that need to occur in the ministry? We can do all the auditing in the world, and if nothing's done with those reports, then we don't see them actually being utilized. So how are those audits then going to be used within the structure in the ministry to actually improve services for children and youth?

[1715]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Just to reiterate, each audit results in a comprehensive report with analysis of data and an action plan. It's signed off by the director of child welfare and then shared with the field staff and senior ministry staff responsible for those operations. The quality assurance branch of the ministry will then track and monitor the progress on the implementing of each action in those plans.

C. James: Thanks to the minister for that response. Just continuing on, then, with the plans-of-care report from the children's representative.
[ Page 341 ]

We talked a little bit about audits. One of the other recommendations was around resources. I recognize that it's not the representative's job to set resources for the ministry, but there are recommendations often around resources. One of those recommendations was that the ministry fully invest in resources necessary to enforce its own standards, to enforce its own accountability and its own compliance with the acts that are in place.

I wonder if the minister could give a response to that recommendation around resources to do with compliance. We've talked a little bit about specifics but now about resources as well.

Hon. S. Cadieux: While we could all agree that more resources are always welcome, we think there's actually a different way to do some of the work that we're doing and that we haven't actually done all of the work we need to do within the ministry to ensure that we are doing our work effectively. Some of that is evidenced by the improved training — in fact, more training for staff — and the improved tools, like this new plan of care and a new way of documenting that plan of care.

[1720]

So there are a number of things — that — and then the audits, which obviously need to be done to be able to track, if there are problems, where there are problems. So we have to do that work first. Our primary resource is our staff, and certainly, we've demonstrated our commitment to that by maintaining our staffing levels and filling positions as required.

C. James: The recommendation around resources and making sure that the ministry was enforcing its own standards and accountability also asked for a report to the representative by the end of September. Could the minister let us know whether that report will be coming to the representative?

Hon. S. Cadieux: As I mentioned as certainly coming out of our own work in the ministry and this report, we did set a couple of goals — first of reaching 100 percent compliance by 2014 and, as well, making all the results of the audits public, which of course, we will do as we get to those dates that they're complete.

As for reporting to the representative, we work with her on an ongoing basis to provide updates on all of the recommendations that the representative has provided to the ministry over all of the reports over time. We do that on an ongoing basis, and we are committed to keeping her informed of where we're at with all of these.

C. James: There are some specific recommendations that do have specific dates in the report, as part of the recommendations — where the representative asks for a report by September 30, for example, on this recommendation. I understand the minister is saying that the ministry updates on a regular basis. Is the minister saying that that will be just provided as part of a regular update? Will that be done by the end of September, as requested by the representative, as recommended by the representative in the report?

[1725]

Hon. S. Cadieux: The work that the representative has suggested be done, through the report…. Certainly, the things pointed out are valuable. It complements the work that we already had underway. All of the recommendations in the report of the representative we are looking to incorporate into our ongoing work and into our operational strategic plan as we move forward.

That said, we also have those targets that I've mentioned, in terms of doing the three audits this year and the 100 percent compliance on those plans of care, which I feel are incredibly important for the children, by the end of the year.

So while we will be providing regular updates to the representative and I will have regular meetings, as well, with the representative to talk about progress and issues, we, the ministry, feel that providing a written report specifically on this issue would actually take away from the important work that we have committed to do, and so we will do those reports more orally.

C. James: Well, I appreciate that. I appreciate, in fact, that the representative makes the recommendations and the ministry determines what to do with those recommendations. They aren't requirements, they're given as recommendations, and it is up to the ministry to determine how they fit with their existing work, how they can make improvements on their existing work.

I don't think any of us, myself included, would expect that a report back would detail exactly how a recommendation was implemented, because you may or may not, as a ministry, decide that that's a recommendation to follow. I certainly wasn't expressing a belief that a report would go back on each detailed recommendation to say: "This is exactly how we're implementing that recommendation."

I think part of the challenge around building support for the ministry and the work of the ministry is…. When recommendations are made and reports are requested back to the representative, the public has then seen the representative's report, knows that it's there and is asking where those recommendations are going. So I certainly would encourage the ministry to look at — if you're not going to meet those timelines or give a progress report at another opportunity — there being some way of getting that back to the public around accountability.

Because the representative's office is accountable to the public, people will be requesting and wondering where those recommendations went. I think there is some strength in responding back.
[ Page 342 ]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Just to touch on, again, the work of that report and one of the other recommendations. There was a great deal of discussion in the report around the challenge of aboriginal children in care and the lack of culturally appropriate plans of care for aboriginal children. I know the minister mentioned the 100 percent compliance when it comes to plans of care, which is good, but I wonder if the minister could tell us a little bit about the specific strategies that are being put together to deal with the cultural component of aboriginal children in care?

[1730]

Hon. S. Cadieux: The cultural plan for aboriginal children is now incorporated right into the plans of care, so it's no longer a separate document. I think that's a really good first step in ensuring that it's done right. But there are a number of other things the ministry is doing to ensure that that work, when the plans of care are developed, is done right.

A number of those things are…. We are implementing a training program for all the ministry employees, foster care givers, social service agencies that contract with MCFD to provide services to aboriginal children. We're actively working with our aboriginal stakeholders to promote culturally appropriate permanency planning and culturally appropriate adoption of aboriginal children.

We're redesigning the provincial offices of aboriginal services to ensure that delegated agencies are supported in delivering child safety services, child-in-care services and residential services to the standards that are expected of all of our agencies. And we're working with the community partners to clarify outcomes and measures of success for aboriginal children and youth.

C. James: Thanks to the minister for that response. Just continuing with the recommendations in the plans-of-care report, and we'll come back to a little bit more of a discussion around delegated agencies as we go along.

One of the other recommendations within the report was related to youth transition. As we know, and as I'm sure the minister knows, this is a large challenge — a large challenge in the ministry and for young people who are aging out of the system.

One of the recommendations was to develop policy and guidelines to support youth who are transitioning out of care and consider how best to support them after they turn 19. I wonder if the minister could tell us whether the minister agrees with this recommendation and what the progress is on this recommendation.

[1735]

Hon. S. Cadieux: I do agree that we need to enhance the services that we provide to young adults that are aging out of our care. We are their parent, and we do need to do what we can.

I feel it's important that we look at the programs that we do provide at this point with the youth agreements as well as the YEAF fund, the supports for education for students. I think it's important that we look, going forward, at what more we can do in that regard — looking, as well, at opportunities to develop, with other partners, mentorship opportunities for these youth through this process. As we all know, we need somebody to lean on during this time.

We have a number of things that we've been working on. We've launched the youth engagement toolkit, which is an opportunity to provide resources, actually, to ministry staff and partners to strengthen how they work with youth as they're growing up.

We're working closely with the Federation of B.C. Youth in Care Networks to provide advocacy and support services to youth transitioning. Their Dream Fund bursaries have been enhanced so that we can reach more kids with those, and we've provided additional funding to them to help develop a youth-friendly tool to help engage young people in the process of developing the care plans.

We've provided some additional funding, as well, to the Adoptive Families Association of B.C. to help reach out to former youth in care, to offer referrals and consultations and develop other supports for those kids.

[1740]

We are working, as well, with the service to transitioning adults with developmental disabilities working group, a cross-section of ministry partners, because of course as youth are transitioning, it is essential that the various ministries of government that are going to be providing supports to these individuals as adults are at the table to work at how we do a better job of supporting that transition process. We are very committed to continuing that work.

C. James: This is an area that I believe needs a fair amount of work. I appreciate the areas that the minister mentioned — the tool kit, the youth engagement, the Youth in Care Network and working with them, bursaries, etc. — but I think there are few of us as parents who, once our kids turn 19, expect that we won't be involved and engaged in their lives anymore.

That's a pretty rare thing for most of us, particularly of this generation. Most of us stay quite closely engaged, and in fact, most kids are still at home over that time period. I think it is an area that's going to need a greater focus in the future for those youth.

Has the ministry looked at tracking youth who leave at 19? Is there any kind of tracking done of youth who've been in care after they leave at 19 — successes or challenges or failures — so the ministry could then learn from what has been successful and what has not?

Hon. S. Cadieux: To date, most of the tracking has
[ Page 343 ]
been fairly ad hoc, not nearly as comprehensive as we'd like to see. As a part of the residential redesign work that we've been doing and are doing, we have designated a manager responsible for starting to look at the tracking of that data.

I think it's important that we have a really good understanding, both of the folks we're working with today and into the future. Unfortunately, it's difficult to go back, but there is some work that has been done over the years with the universities and other ministry partners, as well, that has some ability to track some of the outcomes.

I think, as well, with some of our partners — the Youth in Care Network — we do have some of that anecdotal feedback, which has been very valuable. But I do think there is room for more here. I think it is an area that we need to place some additional focus on, going forward, and I'm committed to getting that done.

C. James: I'm glad to hear that. I'm glad to hear that that's something being explored. You know, resources and supports are put in place, and then to imagine that all of a sudden when you turn 19, all of those are gone. I think it is impossible for most of us to even imagine, so I think that kind of work and that kind of tracking is going to be critical.

[1745]

The minister mentioned, as part of the youth transitioning, the work with education and the support with education. That was also a recommendation in the report from the representative — to have the Ministry of Children and Families work collaboratively with the Ministry of Education to look at achievement and at supporting educational outcomes for children in care.

I wonder if the minister could tell us what kind of link the ministry is looking at with the Ministry of Education. Has that work begun already, and what specifics are in place to be able to ensure that those links occur?

Hon. S. Cadieux: There has been recognition, of course, that this area is fundamentally important — that children are getting the education that they need. As such, there is a measurement in the service plan around educational outcomes for children.

There is an agreement in place between the Ministry of Children and Families and the Ministry of Education to track and share data, as required, on this. It is one recommendation that was made in this report just in March which we haven't acted on in great detail to this date, given the other things that happened this spring.

[1750]

That said, it is fundamentally important, and we'll be looking, through the following months, to enhance the work that we do at the local level in this regard.

C. James: It's certainly an area that I think there are lots of possibilities and opportunities for, but I also believe it'll take a lot of work. It's not something that's going to occur easily. It's going to take, from my perspective, not simply the two ministries working together.

That's going to have to come down to school boards. It's going to have to come down to individual trustees and people recognizing — boards of education recognizing — the importance of making their own strategies around how they address the challenges, recognizing privacy issues and recognizing issues for children in care, but making it a priority within school districts as well.

I certainly would encourage the ministry to look at that. I think there are lots of opportunities through provincial school trustees associations to look at beginning that discussion and dialogue, to raise the awareness with the political officials who are there within school boards, who then can carry that message down as well.

Again, I think no one these days can manage without an education. Certainly, from my personal experience, there are a number of children in care who really have struggled in the education system, who have not received the kinds of supports and then are aging out of the system at 19 without their education and with no one, then, to do the kind of follow-up and tracking that needs to occur.

Rather than all of us having struggles, dooming children to leave without that education and having to play catch-up, I think it's all of our responsibilities. I think there are lots of opportunities there.

Just moving on to a discussion around aboriginal children in care and the delegated agencies, if we may. The service plan for the ministry talks about working in partnership with aboriginal communities and improving service and outcomes for aboriginal children and families and youth.

Could the minister start off with just a few facts around the number of aboriginal children in care, based in the general children-in-care category?

Hon. S. Cadieux: There are approximately 4,500 aboriginal children in care, which is about 55 percent of the total children-in-care caseload.

C. James: Does that vary from region to region? I know there are more children in care in the north. Is that divided up between regions?

[1755]

Hon. S. Cadieux: I don't think we have that here, but we'll be happy to get it for you and forward it.

C. James: Thanks to the minister, I'll get that information.

I mentioned earlier the strategy, as the ministry has said in their service plan, to work with aboriginal communities. Could the minister talk about what specific strategies the ministry is undertaking to do that work, to improve outcomes for aboriginal children?
[ Page 344 ]

[1800-1805]

Hon. S. Cadieux: The ministry has a number of things underway. First of all, there are 17 indigenous approaches that are providing community-based focus on culture, language, traditional parenting, community decision-making and things like that — bringing elders and youth together to share and pass on culture.

As well, we have a renewed focus on our delegated agencies, the 23 of those, in ensuring both the support from the ministry, in terms of ensuring practice standards, but also looking at and supporting the traditional dispute resolution models and so forth that they bring to the table.

The provincial office is also focused on ensuring that there is culturally appropriate care provided for the aboriginal children who are not with a delegated agency but who are in the care of the ministry.

We have an aboriginal strategy blueprint which lays out a plan for our aboriginal services going forward that is in conjunction with our operational and strategic plan. We'd be happy to provide a briefing for you on that in a more fulsome way.

One other thing that we've been working on is cultural competency training for staff, and 100 staff have been trained to date.

C. James: Maybe just a little bit more discussion around the work with the delegated agencies. Perhaps the minister could speak a little bit more about the work. She mentioned that they were looking at renewed focus on delegated agencies. I wonder if the minister could tell me a little bit more about what that means and what specific strategies are being put in place. Are there timelines and measures related to that, as there are in other areas in the ministry?

[1810]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Part of what we're doing in sort of reinvigorating or re-energizing our work with delegated agencies is…. There are structured meetings set with the directors of the ministry, but also with the directors of the agencies, a number of times a year to look at the management practice, budgeting, case transfer, recruitment, training. All of the agency staff have had ministry training and taken advantage of that.

Notwithstanding the hiring freeze that is in place across government, in our case we have been hiring and been able to hire into practice-support positions in the aboriginal services branch that provide support for case practice to agencies.

We have a joint policy table where we are developing policy for the ministry that will cross both the work of the ministry itself and the agencies. The audit process is the same. Delegate agencies will be subject to the same audit process as we are doing for the rest of the ministry.

We have an aboriginal-practice framework in development with the delegated agencies, which will provide direction on both how we work between the ministries and the agencies and across all six service lines, and work with the community and the parents and so forth in all of those six service lines.

C. James: The minister mentioned earlier, when she talked about the focus on delegated agencies, the renewal of practice standards. I just wondered if there has been change in the practice standards for aboriginal-delegated agencies? Are there new practice standards? Are they the same practice standards as other ministry agencies are using, or have there been changes?

[1815]

Hon. S. Cadieux: At this point the delegated agencies are using AOPSI, the aboriginal operational and practice standards and indicators — wow — which have been in place for many years, as I'm sure you are aware, Member. But work is now underway with the delegated agencies, in collaboration, to try and develop a common set of standards based on the UN convention on the rights of the child, which will bring a higher level of standards that is more outcome-based as opposed to the procedurally based standards that AOPSI provide.

C. James: Is there a timeline for developing those new standards? If so, what's the timeline?

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Hon. S. Cadieux: The second part of your first question which I did not answer last time…. The hope is that we will get to an agreement on a new set of standards as quickly as possible. We don't have a date set because we understand that we need to work collaboratively with the agencies and come to an agreement on a new set of standards. In the meantime, we will continue to work based on the standards that are in place.

C. James: Just continuing on the goal in your service plan around working with improving services and outcomes for aboriginal children. Could the minister talk a little bit about the work that the ministry does with aboriginal communities who don't have a delegated agency — friendship centres, urban aboriginal communities, communities that don't have a connection to a delegated agency? Could the minister talk a little bit about the work that the ministry does to reach out to those communities as well?

[1820]

Hon. S. Cadieux: In communities where there isn't a delegated agency, MCFD, of course, provides the child protection piece of the ministry. But across the province
[ Page 345 ]
we have numerous contracts with other agencies, like the friendship centres with different bands and with Métis agencies, to provide all the services and all the other service lines — family support, the early years and ECD, CYSN and others. We are a partner in the off-reserve action plan with the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation.

C. James: Just to look for a minute at the challenges of on-reserve, off-reserve and the difficulties both with providing service but also with the funding model and the challenges with the federal government when it comes to funding and not providing equality in funding and the work of Cindy Blackstock.

I wonder if the minister could let us know whether her ministry has been involved at all in any kind of advocacy work or pressure or discussions with the federal government around the work that's going on with Cindy Blackstock and looking for some kind of equality of funding, because the children who are impacted are British Columbia children. This isn't a federal government issue; this is a ministry issue, as well, when it comes to the funding model. I wonder if the minister could let us know of any work that has been done in her ministry.

[1825]

Hon. S. Cadieux: As I'm sure the member will know, we have signed off on a bilateral agreement with the federal government related to the funding to provide services to kids from reserve who come into care off reserve. We do continue to have dialogue with the federal government relating to funding for prevention services on reserve, given that, historically, funding has been limited to children coming into care.

C. James: That is certainly the issue. Aboriginal agencies can get funding to take kids into care; they can't get funding for the family supports. They can't get funding to keep kids reunified in community, which is an equality issue, an equity issue — no question. I would certainly hope the minister will continue to push on that regard with the federal government and express British Columbia's belief that those funding models should be matched and that there should be equality in the province.

There continue to be some challenges around families who are moving on reserve and off reserve — to be able to get supports. You see it in the area of children with special needs, where there may be one model of funding and a different model of funding, or access to supports when they are on reserve isn't the same as when they're off reserve.

It's a particular issue around transitions — in particular, when young people are turning 19. I know the minister said that they're looking at how they look at transition, so I wonder whether this was an issue that was on the agenda, where families who live on reserve can get services until the child turns 19 and then aren't able to get services after they turn 19 on reserve.

They have to move off reserve to be able to access Community Living support, etc. — which I recognize is another ministry. But because this ministry is looking at those transitions, I wondered if the minister had had any discussions with First Nations or aboriginal groups around those challenges and where the ministry was looking at doing any work in that regard.

[1830]

Hon. S. Cadieux: I certainly understand the concern the member is raising. There is ongoing dialogue between our ministry, delegated agencies, other adult service agencies and ministries around this issue. It's important to note, of course, that in the children-serving ministry, MCFD, we don't differentiate. Services — for example, children and youth with special needs services — are provided equally.

But as well, as we were chatting about a little earlier, in relation to post-majority supports generally, there is work to be done in those transitioning years to look at equity. There's certainly a desire and a common goal to seek that equity.

C. James: Thanks to the minister. I certainly would hope that that'll be an issue that'll be on the table as the ministry looks at how they deal with the transition issue and how they're going to put a focus on that issue.

It's certainly something we hear loud and clear from families who've received good services and supports until their child turns 19 when they're on reserve, and then they have to either move away or look at putting their child — then adult — into another home or another service to be able to get any kinds of supports that they were receiving the day before the child's birthday. I appreciate the minister being aware of that and making sure that it's part of the ministry approach when they're looking at transitions.

If we can move now to talk a little bit about the province's poverty reduction plans that are in place, I think the minister knows my approach and our approach on this side. We certainly believe that a better approach to poverty would be to take on a provincewide comprehensive poverty reduction plan. We have seen other provinces move in that direction, and we certainly believe that that would be a much more effective approach and a much more focused approach.

So I guess my first question for the minister was: what consideration was given to a provincewide poverty reduction plan versus the pilot model that the ministry is looking at?

[1835]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Of course, the government is aware
[ Page 346 ]
of the different strategies that are being put and are in place in other jurisdictions, and we monitor them as well. All of them do have similar components — for example, a commitment in some fashion to the early years, some sort of child benefit and so on. It was our choice to move and focus on action.

So while we look at enhancing our support to the early years and to child care, we also looked at and did raise the minimum wage, and we provide affordable housing — all of these programs that are in place and are making an impact. We also focused on, of course, employment and economic development, which I know the member is well aware of. Ultimately, we all know that the best poverty reduction plan is a job.

C. James: The minister raised it first. Just to state that while I think all of us would agree that employment is important and jobs are important, we just need to look at the child poverty rates in this province and the fact that we've now had, for nine of the last ten years, the highest rate of child poverty in this country. I think, recognizing that the jobs plan has actually lost jobs since it was implemented, it's not exactly giving a lot of hope to families right now who are struggling and hoping that they can receive the support that they need.

I think it's also important to recognize that many families living in poverty are working families. These are not families who don't have jobs. Many of these families already have jobs. It's not an employment issue for them. It is a poverty issue, a cost issue. I think that's important to recognize.

To speak specifically about the pilots that the ministry has undertaken — and it's mentioned, obviously, in the service plan — could the minister give us an update on those seven pilots that were started under the ministry?

[1840-1845]

Hon. S. Cadieux: As the member is well aware, we are working with seven different communities at this time — Port Hardy, New Westminster, Surrey, Kamloops, Cranbrook, Prince George and Stewart — with staff and with partners in the community, developing structured plans that are unique to those communities and to the issues in those communities.

While we were undertaking this work, one of the things that became apparent was that we really needed to work with the families individually in those areas and develop personalized plans. We've been working with 72 families that have, with the staff, developed action plans supported by the ministry staff. The decision has been to embed that work into the ministry's work overall across the province to provide additional support to families and really look at the issues that are holistically presenting or affecting families when they are working with the ministry.

We're looking at all sorts of barriers that are presenting for these families — education, child care, transportation, food security, employment, housing, an inordinate number of health issues that are presenting, a lack of awareness of community services or how to access those services.

For example, many families were connected to the Healthy Kids dental programs; mental health or addiction services; receiving supports to access housing; as well as connecting with programs from MCFD, including the child care subsidy; child and youth mental health services; and some very basic information and counselling services for families related to how to access a tax subsidy for a child with a disability, how to open a bank account or how to complete child support or maintenance applications. And families were connected to legal aid for assistance.

There are a broad number of things that are being raised. It's developing an opportunity for us within the ministry, as we continue to work with those seven communities, to look at the barriers that are faced by these families as they interact with government and how we can remove those barriers and assist them to have better outcomes.

C. James: Is that 72 families in all seven communities — total?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Yes, at this time that is the number that has been identified. It is not something we can go out and recruit families for, for privacy reasons, of course. So we put it out there that we want families to come forward so that we can work with them on issues, and so far we've had 72 families come forward to work with us. I believe 61 have moved on and have received the services that they needed.

C. James: Could the minister tell me the budget for these seven pilots?

Hon. S. Cadieux: We are using existing staff to work with the communities on their poverty reduction strategies and to work with the families. We're just assigning staff to do this as part of their job.

[1850]

C. James: If there is no budget for these pilots, then, staff are being taken out of existing duties and being asked to take on these additional duties to their regular job that they do for the ministry?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Well, as this work is community development work that social workers actually want to take up, we've had no problem having volunteers want to take on this work with their communities. That said, we haven't left any positions vacant. We have filled positions.
[ Page 347 ]

C. James: Could the minister tell me how many staff are working on these seven pilots?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Seven.

C. James: So one staff person in each pilot? I'm getting a nod from the minister. One staff person on each pilot is working with these families.

The minister mentioned that they asked for families to come forward. Could the minister tell me how that was done? What approach was used?

Hon. S. Cadieux: That was done through the work of the community tables that were developed in the communities, reaching out to the families they worked with. It was done casually through that mechanism. In fact, there were no files kept specifically in relation to these families, because they were clear that they wanted to have their circumstances remain anonymous.

The Chair: Member, noting the hour.

C. James: I'll just ask a final question, then, hon. Chair.

The ministry stated, when they developed these pilots, that they would each develop strategic plans, measurable plans, in the seven communities. Could the minister tell me if that has been done, and if not, what the timeline is for those seven projects?

The Chair: Minister, noting the hour.

Hon. S. Cadieux: Thank you, hon. Chair. I will keep it short.

The poverty plans that are under development in each of the communities at the community tables are underway. A lot of work has gone into them. There are what I would call fruitful drafts, for sure, in each community that are being continually worked on.

At the request of the UBCM, in February we held a forum, a summit, with the ministry staff and the communities to discuss the work to date and the go-forward. As a result of that, a decision was made to embed the work of the poverty strategies into the work of the ministry on an ongoing basis, to continue the work with these communities. At that point we made the ADM responsible for services responsible for those poverty reduction plans and the ongoing work.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:55 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. B. Bennett moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House at its rising stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 6:57 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); M. Dalton in the chair.

The committee met at 2:28 p.m.

On Vote 20: ministry operations, $99,946,000.

The Chair: Minister, do you have an opening statement?

Hon. M. Polak: In the interest of time, I'll simply introduce staff whom I have behind me and beside me: my deputy Wes Shoemaker, Deputy Minister of Environment; Shauna Brouwer, assistant deputy minister of corporate services; Anthony Danks, executive director, strategic policy branch; Jim Standen, assistant deputy minister, environmental protection division; Mark Zacharias, assistant deputy minister, environmental sustainability and strategic policy division; Lori Halls, assistant deputy minister, B.C. Parks and conservation officer division; and James Mack, head of the climate action secretariat.

With that, I'm happy to begin with questions.

[1430]

S. Chandra Herbert: Thank you to the minister. I, too, will try and keep my questions brief and keep the speechifying to a minimum, as we are limited on time. I would just say that I'm joined here by the member for Saanich North and the Islands, who is the deputy Environment critic. We will be going back and forth together over this period. We will be joined periodically by other members as their schedules permit, with a free-for-all tomorrow
[ Page 348 ]
afternoon on a wide range of questions.

I have provided a list of potential subjects as we go through. I'll try to stick to that list, to my best ability. However, as the Minister well knows, with the Ministry of Environment, one topic quickly leads to another topic, and it's hard sometimes to separate them out.

I'll start with some general questions around the budget, just so we can go through those. Then we'll go to more specific subject areas of interest.

I guess I'll start with: does the minister know of any planned asset sales from this ministry budget? I know that the government is looking to pursue a set of asset sales to balance their budget.

Hon. M. Polak: We're not aware of any.

S. Chandra Herbert: Within this ministry there are Crown corporations. There are a number of sections, departments. I'm curious if the minister is able to share with us if there are any planned expenditure cuts within the ministry over this fiscal year that have come about after the tabling of this budget document. I understand that the government's looking for about $30 million in cuts this year. Are any of those cuts going to take place within this ministry?

Hon. M. Polak: As far as we're aware, everything is as the budget was presented.

S. Chandra Herbert: If something changes after today or after tomorrow, would the minister be willing to share information with the critic around potential cuts that do take place after the estimates process?

Hon. M. Polak: In the manner in which budgets operate in this place, if there were reductions to any ministry or department subsequent to the blue books, the budget books, being provided, then, that would be a decision of the Ministry of Finance. It would be revealed ultimately in the reporting of public accounts.

S. Chandra Herbert: I guess the short answer is no, that we will get this information, should it happen, in July next year, a year from now, after the introduction of a new budget.

That's too bad, because there are a number of programs that I think people would be interested in hearing about as they go. If there is the ability to say, "Well, we found more money here; we don't need it," I would appreciate being able to have that shared with me. I know the Finance Minister may decide to use it in another place, but it would still be useful to know if it was not being used by the Ministry of Environment. If that's possible, that would be excellent.

Have there been any fee increases or fee decreases within this ministry, with this budget?

[1435]

Hon. M. Polak: There are no new fee increases, as a result, in the Ministry of Environment.

S. Chandra Herbert: I'm curious as to how many vacant positions there currently are and how the ministry has been affected by the hiring freeze.

Hon. M. Polak: We do not track the vacancy rates and FTEs in the ministry. That's handled centrally. I can tell you that in terms of core positions in the areas of biologists, conservation officers, park rangers — those that are very key — they are a priority fill for us whenever they become vacant.

S. Chandra Herbert: I'm curious if the minister can provide the number of conservation officers by region. I believe they're broken into regions.

[1440]

Hon. M. Polak: We have it broken down, actually, far more specifically than by region, so I'm not going to take the time to read all that out. But I will ensure that we get you a grouping by region. In total, we have 124. Of those, 29 are supervisors, and 95 of those are full-time.

S. Chandra Herbert: If possible, it would be great to have that fuller breakdown beyond even by region. I don't need it read out here, but if it's possible to get a copy of that, that would be really useful.

I see the minister nodding her head. Thank you for that.

I think the other question is…. These are questions which, as well, are pretty specific, so I'll just read them out, and if the minister is able to provide them in writing to me in a week or two, that would be great.

Interjection.

S. Chandra Herbert: Yeah. So these are just…. As I go through here on the general questions…. How much is planned to be spent on contractors providing service to the ministry? How much, compared to last fiscal? How many of these contracts were tendered? How many were direct-awarded, and which ones? So maybe the top ten that had been direct-awarded. Those would be some useful things, as well as how much has been budgeted for contracts in the coming year. I'll just put those out on the record.

I guess the question is: can the minister list all the staff positions being paid for by the minister's office budget?

Hon. M. Polak: There are six full-time-equivalent positions. The budget is $561,000. That's an increase of $83,000 from the prior year as a result of adding the pos-
[ Page 349 ]
ition of chief of staff.

S. Chandra Herbert: Can the minister list the titles for this committee here?

Hon. M. Polak: There's a chief of staff, a ministerial assistant, an executive assistant, an administrative coordinator and an administrative assistant. And myself.

S. Chandra Herbert: Can the minister tell us how much is budgeted for advertising for the ministry?

[1445]

Hon. M. Polak: We have a statutory advertising budget of $18,000.

S. Chandra Herbert: I'm understanding that to be, then, that there is no non-essential or political advertising in STOB 67.

Thank you. I see the minister nodding her head.

Can the minister tell us of any audits done of any area of the ministry, ministry programs or agencies? Is it possible to get a list and reasons for the audit?

Hon. M. Polak: Mr. Chair, can I clarify?

Do you mean those being undertaken currently or in the past? What range is the member asking?

S. Chandra Herbert: I'm asking for this last year and then any new audits which the minister knows are now being undertaken currently.

Hon. M. Polak: We'll provide you that list — happy to do that.

Could I also ask for clarification? Is the member seeking those conducted by external agencies or internally? If you could give us a sense of range, that would help.

S. Chandra Herbert: I know that the Auditor General often does audits, and quite often we don't know what those are until they're completed. What I'm curious about is any audits the ministry itself has decided to undertake, whether or not that means hiring an external auditor or somebody else to look at the proposal, or if they're doing them internally as well.

Hon. M. Polak: Ones that we've generated.

S. Chandra Herbert: That's right. For last year and this year, as far as you're aware, as well as the reasons why they're being undertaken. That would be useful.

All right. I guess the final question is…. I know the minister is going to provide me with the audits, so I guess that answers my question: if the audits will be made public. But if they're going to provide me with the names, I guess maybe I should just ask, to get it on the record, whether or not those audits will also be made public once they are completed.

Hon. M. Polak: Those would be made public, with one exception. Those, I'm sure the member would understand, would be the routine monitoring that we do, as any ministry does, around fraud investigations, things like that — monitoring that processes are occurring as they should.

S. Chandra Herbert: I'm curious if the minister could share the salaries of the CEOs of the Crown corporations that are under the Ministry of Environment and if they received any bonuses in the last year.

Hon. M. Polak: There are no Crowns within my responsibility.

S. Chandra Herbert: So I'm guessing that the Pacific Carbon Trust issue, then, is not within the ministry's ambit. I'm curious about that because there's a discussion in the ministry service plan and in the letter of expectations for the minister to say to look at the Pacific Carbon Trust specifically.

[1450]

If the minister could confirm whether or not the minister has any direct control or responsibility for the Pacific Carbon Trust, that would be helpful.

Hon. M. Polak: While the Pacific Carbon Trust is not under the direct control of the Ministry of Environment, nevertheless, as reflected in my mandate letter and in many other ministries, it's clear that while one ministry may have the lead on a certain area of endeavour, we are expected to be working across government and across multiple agencies. That would be the case here as well.

S. Chandra Herbert: We're getting close to wrapping up the specific budget questions on the numbers themselves.

I'm just curious…. The climate action secretariat was cut by about $852,000 from the plan last 2012-2013 budget — about 20 percent of their total budget. I understand that the restated budget makes it look much smaller, going down to about $3.3 million. That's about a $12 million cut from 2008 levels.

Can the minister explain what programs will disappear — what analysis, what services to fight climate change are not going to be performed any longer due to this cut?

[1455]

Hon. M. Polak: This really reflects the evolution of our work with respect to climate action. When the secretariat was established in the fiscal year '07-08, it retained within itself many of the responsibilities that have subsequently, over the years, been transferred onto ministries. That
[ Page 350 ]
represents one of the largest portions of the dollar figures that you're referring to.

I can also advise the member that there are other things that came to a natural end — for example, the carbon tax review, some significant cap-and-trade projects, a $5 million advertising campaign. In addition to that, there was a conscious reduction made in the budget of the climate action secretariat, to the tune of $600,000, in order to make sure that the budget for B.C. Parks could be kept whole.

All in all, I think, very positive decisions showing the work we are doing to have an all-of-government approach to climate action. I'm quite confident that the kind of work the secretariat undertakes hasn't been negatively impacted.

I should also advise the member that the work of the climate action secretariat is around providing information and support to ministries. It is the ministries themselves that provide the services and the activities that those represent.

S. Chandra Herbert: Can the minister share the total cost of the carbon tax review — how much it cost the ministry to do that?

Hon. M. Polak: We don't have that level of detail with us, but we'd be happy to follow up with you and provide that information.

S. Chandra Herbert: I would love to have that detail.

I think some have raised questions about why the climate action secretariat was running a consultation which led to a decision not to do further carbon pricing in B.C., to freeze the carbon tax for five years, when many believed…. Certainly, in the climate action plan itself it talked about the possibility of further increases to the carbon tax and further increases in carbon pricing with the cap-and-trade system as well.

To see the ministry, through the climate action secretariat, decide not to do that…. Of course, cap-and-trade has its own challenges right now. Some would take the view that their climate action is becoming climate inaction. Certainly, I can think of a number of places where a certain amount of money, which has been cut, could lead to much greater action by government and further reduce climate change emissions.

I want to move on to the general field of climates and climate action in this province. Of course, we have seen the results of climate change already in our province and across Canada and the world. I'm going to try not to speechify too much, but it's our future, and it's our grandkids' future. Unless we act now, it's only going to get costlier.

[1500]

My question is…. Numerous scientists, non-governmental organizations, community members and businesses have looked at the B.C. climate change targets and goals and have questioned whether or not we will be able to achieve them.

There was a report published by the government in 2010 which talked about how they felt that they would be able to meet their 2012 targets. I'm curious if the minister can share with us if we are going to meet those targets and when a report is going to be made public about the 2012 targets.

Hon. M. Polak: We did release a report last year. We are now looking at 5.8 percent in lower GHG emissions than 2007 levels. That puts us well within reach of our 2012 interim target of 6 percent below 2007 levels. That report will come out in summer of 2014, I believe. Yeah, summer of 2014.

S. Chandra Herbert: Sorry. I'm trying to understand this. The report last year said we were at 5.8 percent. If it was put out last year, I'm guessing two years back would be in 2010 — that we were 5.8 percent lower. There is a gap between when reports are produced and when the measurement actually takes place. If I could get some clarity there.

Hon. M. Polak: I apologize. I didn't make it very clear. We put out our report, and that would have been in 2010. Then StatsCan puts out their report, and that's 2011. That's where we get the 5.8 percent number — which, as I said, leads us to believe that we are very close to achieving our 2012 target of 6 percent.

S. Chandra Herbert: Can the minister tell us what actions in this year, new actions — not previous, like the carbon tax which is already in place — the government is taking to further reduce climate change emissions in the province and whether or not they believe that they're also now on track to meet their next emission target date?

[1505]

Hon. M. Polak: Not an exhaustive list, I will tell you, but since the climate action plan, there are some key new actions that have been implemented or are being implemented.

There is, of course, the $14.3 million clean energy vehicle program, which provides incentives for clean energy vehicles and new vehicle charging infrastructure.

There is ongoing work with local government on the climate action charter. That might not sound new, but in fact, the work results in constantly innovating in those municipalities and, of course, then results in new initiatives that they are undertaking.

As we look ahead, we also have the low-carbon fuel standard. Compliance will be expected as of 2016, same with the landfill gas regulations. We will be seeing compliance and then the resulting effects of that as of 2016.
[ Page 351 ]

S. Chandra Herbert: If possible and if the minister is able to provide, in writing, a more exhaustive list of the newer actions as well as what the goal is for each action in terms of how much reductions and emissions are expected. Certainly, many have said the targets are one thing but that the plan to reach the targets is another thing, with real questions about if it is even possible to meet the 2020 goal.

Many have pointed out that they felt the climate action plan showed that we might be able to meet 70 percent of the emissions but that the 30 percent — or two-thirds — we might be able to get to under the previous assumptions, before the big expansion in natural gas and the big push on liquefied natural gas. So it would be great to see what the ministry currently thinks we can do in the different areas.

I guess I want to speak specifically around a couple of projects. This was the 2010 report that Mark Jaccard put out through the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions. It talked about the EnCana's Cabin gas plant and further development in the Horn River Basin.

[1510]

It talks about the expectation that if they proceed to the magnitude that they plan on, vented GHG emissions, greenhouse gas emissions, could reach a level of 4.3 metric tonnes a year in 2020. That's an expansion of where we expected to be, based on business as usual. That's an expectation that…. Of course, we need to be 33 percent below our 2007 levels, which is 45 metric tonnes of CO₂ each year. To get there, we have to get rid of 33.6 metric tonnes a year.

I'm curious. With the expansion of the liquefied natural gas, the proposed expansion as well as the very real expansion with Spectra Energy and the Cabin gas plant, does the minister believe that we can still meet those targets when we're talking about almost a 10 percent increase in provincial emissions, compared to where we should be in 2020 under the legislated emissions target?

Hon. M. Polak: As I'm sure the member would appreciate, there are very many unknowns at this stage with respect to the development of liquefied natural gas in the province.

I do want to read two very short sections from my mandate letter. The first section: "British Columbia is an international leader in the fight against climate change and global warming. I expect this to continue." The second one, No. 5 in terms of my mandate expectations, is: "Working with the Minister of Natural Gas Development, ensure that LNG operations in British Columbia are the cleanest in the world."

We have acknowledged that reaching the 2020 targets is certainly going to be a challenge. It is a challenge that we will be working toward across government, and certainly, as we follow along our mandate letter, ensuring that we do that work with the industry, with the Minister of Natural Gas Development and ensuring that we do the very best job possible to provide for the cleanest operations of liquefied natural gas in the world.

S. Chandra Herbert: We'll be getting to a more fulsome discussion of liquefied gas in specific in a bit. I want to go back to the question of the targets.

There are proposals being promoted by this government now where it can be estimated how much emissions they will be putting into the atmosphere. We know about some. The Encana gas plant, for example, is one that already went through the environmental assessment process. It's very clear that about 10 percent will be CO₂. Some, including the New Democrat opposition, argued that that should be put under the carbon tax, because cap-and-trade has not been achieved yet. Maybe it will in the future for B.C., but B.C. has not bought into it yet.

I guess I'm hoping for a more specific answer around how we're going to deal with those emissions, because if natural gas plants which are already on the books aren't accounted for, if we already know that there is a 27 percent gap which the ministry has not identified how it's going to achieve…. There is a real question if it can even achieve that, and we're then adding even more on top. There has to be a solution somewhere.

The 2008 climate plan talked about a $12 billion increase in transit expenses. This government has decided to put, at least in the Lower Mainland, a referendum on any new transit expenditures, pushing back any potential increase in transit by at least a year, if not much more. Could the minister be more specific around what the ministry is doing?

[1515]

I know there are unknowns, but we know…. The government certainly claims to have the answers around how many jobs, around how much money this is going to be bringing in. It would be helpful if they could also provide numbers on how much emission increase this will be and what they plan to do about it.

Hon. M. Polak: Again, it is still too early to be drawing conclusions with respect to projections of GHG emissions. We acknowledge it's going to be a challenge, because we know that it is an energy-intensive operation. Nevertheless, we are still in negotiations with proponents as to the types of technologies that they will employ. As a result, it's impossible for us at this stage to project with any specificity.

I would draw the member's attention to the natural gas strategy that's produced by the Ministry of Energy and Mines. It does lay out many of the concrete actions that we intend to take in order to help us in addressing that challenge of meeting the 2020 targets and maintaining our leadership on climate action.

S. Chandra Herbert: I'm still waiting for specifics in
[ Page 352 ]
terms of how we're going to meet that extra 27 percent which has not been identified, let alone how to meet new emissions which have come after the initial planning was done.

I've got a specific question around the reporting side. Can the minister explain how the government has come to the conclusion that fugitive emissions of methane are only about 0.3 percent of the emissions in the production of natural gas?

[1520]

Hon. M. Polak: The regulations require industry to report those figures, and those are verified by independent third parties.

S. Chandra Herbert: Is the minister willing to look into the huge discrepancy between what international observers say are fugitive emissions in natural gas — which they say are at a factor of 3 to 8 percent, not 0.3 percent? Many people are saying that B.C. is dramatically under-reporting its emissions of methane, that independent studies of fracking and of natural gas sites show that it's 3 to 8 percent, depending on the site.

I have not seen another jurisdiction in the world which reports such a low figure of fugitive emissions, of 0.3 percent. Can the minister provide us with the study which shows B.C. is at 0.3 percent? And can the minister explain how others report 3 percent to 8 percent when B.C. is reporting such a drastically lower number of 0.3 percent?

Hon. M. Polak: With respect to the reports of industry, when they do the reporting, those reports are all publicly available from those industries. Most of them these days have them on websites, etc. They are publicly available.

With respect to those who have concerns about the science, the methodology we are using, or who have produced different results and are wishing for us to incorporate that into the work that we undertake, I am advised by the climate action secretariat that they have, over time, met with very many of those who have a differing view.

In some cases they are able to take some learning from that and improve our systems. In other cases it becomes apparent that the studies and the research being presented were not relevant to the British Columbia context. So we rely on the third-party verification of the reporting, but at the same time we're always happy to engage, as this is an emerging science, becoming more certain by the day.

It's certainly one where we are quite willing to hear from and pursue new information as it's available. We always want to be improving our capacity to report and report accurately.

[1525]

S. Chandra Herbert: I'm just trying to understand. The companies that are producing the fugitive emissions are then required to find somebody to find out how much fugitive emissions they're producing. Is that correct, or is it an independent, arm's-length review to ensure that there's no undue influence from the person who's providing the money and making the benefit?

Hon. M. Polak: It's similar to what happens when a company provides financial statements, and then they would be audited by an independent third party. The company is responsible for providing the information and reporting on their emissions. They report that to us. They are required to be verified by an independent third party, just as an independent auditor would in the case of financial statements.

S. Chandra Herbert: Has the ministry ever done an independent analysis of fugitive emissions? Can they provide a written or a full response on why they believe 0.3 is appropriate when most every other jurisdiction says the minimum is at 3 percent rather than 0.3? Actually, many say it's as high as 8 percent. Has there ever been an independent analysis done by the ministry as opposed to by the companies who are reporting 0.3?

Hon. M. Polak: The methodology that we employ was developed in conjunction with our work with the Western Climate Initiative and also with the U.S. EPA.

In terms of the discrepancy in numbers, I would certainly be interested, and I know the climate action secretariat would, if the member has information he could provide around where the jurisdictions are that are reporting these numbers or seeing them as minimums. Indeed, we would certainly be interested in reviewing that information. But again, I would simply reiterate that the numbers that are reported…. While they are reported by industry, the verification takes place through an independent third party. That is what we base our information on with respect to our numbers.

S. Chandra Herbert: I can certainly provide that information, and I will.

I'm curious. Has the methodology that was developed…? Was it peer-reviewed? Is it consistently peer-reviewed as new technology is brought on line, as new measurements are able to be taken?

For example, I know that the Cabin gas plant and others were not initially considered for the carbon tax because they weren't sure how to really measure what was being done. Since that time, of course, things have improved, and there's a lot more ability to measure these things. So is it peer-reviewed, and is it updated yearly?

[1530]

[J. Yap in the chair.]

[J. Sturdy in the chair.]
[ Page 353 ]

Hon. M. Polak: This is, of course, a new regulation. It came in, in 2010. We have engaged in significant quality assurance endeavours since that time. We have worked toward continuous improvement, working with industry, working with information from stakeholders.

We do want this process, though, to continue to be transparent. If there are suggestions and ideas that people have for how we could make this better, we certainly want to hear that.

I can tell the member that the work is ongoing as we attempt to develop the best practices around how this reporting should be undertaken. We do engage in quality assurance, and we certainly depend on our independent verification to ensure that the numbers are accurate.

S. Chandra Herbert: Quality assurance is one thing, and maybe it's a term that could be spelled out — what that exactly means. My question was: is there consistent review of what the methodology is currently, and is it changed actively each year to reflect new understanding of climate science, new abilities to measure and those kinds of opportunities that exist?

Can the minister confirm that that's done yearly — that the methodology is improved every year, that there are consistent reviews? I understand that there will be people who approach the Minister of Environment and say: "Hey, maybe you should improve this, or maybe you should improve that."

What I'm asking is: is the ministry involved in proactive improvements every year to the methodology to ensure that they're actually properly accounting for every emission, rather than just basing it on the methodology that was earlier set up?

[1535]

Hon. M. Polak: The short answer is yes. The little-longer answer is that we have a director who is named under statute who constantly monitors and updates the numbers and the mathematical equations we use in order to calculate and reach our numbers, which we then expect to be met in terms of the regulation. That, in turn, is work that continues with the Western Climate Initiative and U.S. EPA to ensure that jurisdictions across the piece are not only sharing best practice, best information but are in concert in the work that we are attempting to accomplish.

S. Chandra Herbert: I'm going to let my colleague from Saanich North and the Islands ask his first question in an estimates process, and I thought I'd introduce him.

G. Holman: A naive question. The reason, of course, that we're asking about methane…. You know better than most that it's a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO₂ — 20, 30, many times more potent. That's why we're asking these kinds of questions.

The naive question I have is about the regulation that requires producers to provide estimates of fugitive emissions. Does that regulation require them to measure that on the site or to simply use best estimates, best practices in terms of assumptions about fugitive emissions? Or are they actually required to measure emissions at specific facilities on site?

[1540]

Hon. M. Polak: I don't think it's a naive question at all. In fact, it is the history, if you will, of this regulation. In 2010 when the regulation was first established, it was largely around estimation. The short answer is yes, that's where we're getting to with the phase-in over the next two years. But the history of this is that in 2010 much of this was based on estimation.

We utilized methodologies that we had developed together with the Western Climate Initiative partners and the U.S. EPA. Also, we now, as we move forward, are requiring a complete inventory of the technology that they're using and, as I mentioned, that phasing-in of on-site measurement. So it has been changing and will result, we believe, in the next two years in completion of that transition.

G. Holman: Just to clarify, you are moving to requiring on-site measurement. The minister is nodding. What is the timing of that requirement, then?

Hon. M. Polak: The expectation is that it would be complete in two years. The requirement is for on-site measurement or equivalent standards.

G. Holman: Thank you, Minister. To complete my contribution to this discussion, I have been forwarded a scientific study by the learned member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head from the journal Climactic Change entitled "Methane and the Greenhouse Gas Footprint of Natural Gas from Shale Formations," by Howarth, Santoro and Ingraffea. I'm probably not pronouncing that right. It's estimating that the greenhouse gas footprint of methane ranges from 3.6 to 7.9 percent of methane from shale gas production escaping to the atmosphere in venting and leaks over the lifetime of the facility.

There is an example of presumably peer-reviewed science that's providing a much, much higher estimate of fugitive emissions. When you are talking about methane, that's extremely significant. I'm sure the member would forward that study to the minister.

S. Chandra Herbert: I assume that means the minister would like to see the study and that her staff would as well.

To continue on the question around targets, I'm curious if the minister could comment on if the climate action secretariat has had to redo any of their modelling after the government made the decision around transit
[ Page 354 ]
funding and whether or not that means there will have to be emissions reductions in other areas, given that Metro Vancouver has been so delayed in expanding transit.

There is still the very real possibility that next fall, when they get the decision, that the choice on transit may not go ahead. Even if it does, it certainly is a much longer time period for them to expand transit from what was earlier expected in the climate action plan.

[1545]

Hon. M. Polak: First, to the issue with respect to the expansion of transit, TransLink is on record as being able to meet their budget targets with respect to what they had planned. In respect of the referendum, I know from my past role that, in fact, the timing of the referendum doesn't delay at all when there would have been potential legislation to implement new funding. The chair and vice-chair are aware of that from discussions that we've had. There is no delay in when they would be funded.

Having said that, the 73 percent was based on not just ridership in terms of public transit but on very many assumptions and aspirations. What we have focused on in the climate action secretariat is not projections. In fact, the climate action secretariat has never conducted modelling with respect to public transit. What they have focused on is the reporting and the reaching of those targets — real results. In this case we've talked about what we have seen in terms of GHG emissions. Again, we are aware that there are challenges ahead.

[1550]

S. Chandra Herbert: I'm a little confused. The climate action secretariat, the minister asserts, has never done modelling in terms of potential future emissions.

Interjection.

S. Chandra Herbert: Okay, of public transit emissions.

That being said, maybe it was a general category of transportation, but certainly a huge amount of the emissions come from single-occupancy vehicles. If we're going to deal with those emissions, then we have to find a way of either getting people to ride bikes, getting people to car-pool or getting people to ride transit, as many want to do but are unable to.

I think back to when Kevin Falcon was the Minister of Transportation and talking about how we'd have a SkyTrain past the current stop in Surrey and how we'd have massive transit expansion all over the place. That was in 2008. It's 2013 now.

Certainly, the climate plan was brought through in 2008-2009. Transit certainly would have been part of that when talking about emissions reductions in traffic in general, in vehicles and transportation.

If there has been no modelling done on transit in specific, I'm curious how we've achieved targets if we don't have specific modelling for specific uses. Certainly, if it is just a general category of traffic and transportation, I'm not sure how specific programs could be designed if we don't actually look at specific categories of transportation so that we can develop ways to lower those emissions.

Maybe the minister can provide some clarity there. I'm new to the file. I know the minister has had it a little longer than I have, and certainly from her time as Transportation Minister, as well, she'll be able to provide some clarity on this for us.

Hon. M. Polak: The good news is that over the last ten years we are seeing and we are reporting that we are bending the curve down in terms of personal transportation emissions that result from that. We're doing that as a result of a wide range of initiatives. I will just rhyme off a few.

Rapid transit to Langley, connecting to SkyTrain for the first time — the first time ever for connecting to SkyTrain and certainly for transit across that corridor, for the first time in 25 years. I can tell you, as a Langley resident — a huge change in my personal GHG emissions, that's for sure, and I know for hundreds, probably thousands, of others.

Investments in cycling infrastructure — $148 million. It has been significant in terms of its breadth, because it has been delivered in communities all around B.C., not just in the Lower Mainland.

The Evergreen line — significant investment that is going to see major improvements, again, at bending down this curve.

Improvements to park-and-rides. It doesn't sound very glorious and exciting like a SkyTrain, but when you expand the opportunity for people to leave their cars behind and be able to take public transit, that has a huge impact.

Of course, we've already spoken about the clean energy vehicle initiatives and many other incentive programs we have for people to convert their existing vehicles or purchase vehicles that are lower in their emissions.

[1555]

We are bending that curve down, and we'll continue to look at a multifaceted approach like that. We recognize that it's going take many, many features in order to achieve this.

S. Chandra Herbert: Through that promotion for transit and for park-and-rides and for cycling, I'm curious if the minister, as somebody who's dedicated to reducing climate change emissions — and, obviously, transportation is a big part of that — will be working to ensure a yes vote in a referendum around transit expansion.

Hon. M. Polak: We don't have a single point of responsibility. We have a cross-government approach to
[ Page 355 ]
our climate action initiatives. That's one of the reasons why the secretariat exists: to provide information to ministries and support. We also, of course, work with local governments, with school boards, so it truly is a cross-government approach. We believe every ministry should be responsible, and indeed, they are.

We've seen those changes. If anyone has watched the evolution of the Ministry of Transportation over the last ten years, it's obvious that there has been a shift in approach to a greater emphasis on transit and on green technologies and on promotion of a cleaner way of doing things.

With respect to the referendum, the Premier, the Transportation Minister and, indeed, the former Transportation Minister made it very clear that this referendum is not a yes-or-no referendum. It is about choices. As such, we respect that the voters will make a choice as to the best means of going forward and funding their transit future.

S. Chandra Herbert: If it's not a yes or a no — just to understand that — it could be this kind of transit expansion, or it could be slightly different transit expansion. Is that the kind of referendum? Or is it, "No, I don't want to see any transit expansion," as an option?

Hon. M. Polak: As I don't want to give the Minister of Transportation's estimates answer for him, I'll only say this — then maybe we can move closer to Environment — and that is that the referendum is to take place related to the choice of funding option, recognizing that there needs to be expansion and maintenance of service. I think it's likely that there will be some information provided by TransLink as to what their plans may entail, but the referendum is about the funding method.

S. Chandra Herbert: Thank you, Chair, for providing me that latitude.

Around other possibilities for reducing emissions, one of the options, of course, that had been mentioned is carbon capture and storage. Just curious if that's an option the ministry is considering and considering enforcing by regulation or some other means.

[1600]

Hon. M. Polak: We have not yet made any decisions as to how we will go forward. We are continuing to work with industry quite actively to investigate what would be required to ensure the safe storage of carbon. Of course, that work is quite complex, and we will continue to pursue it.

S. Chandra Herbert: Can the minister provide an update on cap-and-trade and where the ministry is at in terms of becoming part of a potential cap-and-trade system? I know Quebec and California have already signed on.

Hon. M. Polak: We certainly support the work that is being done and has been completed, where we see Quebec and California moving forward with their cap-and-trade system. We, of course, still participate in the Western Climate Initiative. We won't at this time be implementing on the same timeline as Quebec and California. We are being cautious, in part because we currently have an effective carbon tax which puts us into a somewhat different context than them, and of course, with California being such a large economy, we do have to be careful about where and when we might enter into a cap-and-trade system.

So at this stage we're supportive of what they are doing, but we are watching and waiting to see when the right circumstance would be in place for British Columbia to participate in a cap-and-trade.

[1605]

S. Chandra Herbert: Some have argued — I think most notably the federal government — that a cap-and-trade system is the same as a carbon tax. It's academic for some, but there are certainly distinctions. I guess my question is: if we're still considering joining the cap-and-trade system, does the minister feel that that is separate from the pledge to freeze the carbon tax and to freeze any new carbon pricing? Or is that a separate distinction? Certainly, some might be surprised that this is still being considered, given that argument by the government.

Hon. M. Polak: I suppose, from a different vantage point, one could argue that they're separate or they're connected. Really, the key here is that we are continuing to monitor what takes place in the world. All of these decisions have to be made within the context of what other jurisdictions are doing. So for the current time it does not make good sense for British Columbia to be part of what Quebec and California are doing. Impossible for us to say if the context will be different in a number of years.

Insofar as the decision around the carbon tax, we do have the highest price for carbon in all of North America. As has been stated when the announcement was made, we are freezing the carbon tax, and we are, in a sense, watching and waiting to see how it is or when it is that other jurisdictions catch up or implement similar types of initiatives.

S. Chandra Herbert: The minister, of course, will be well aware that Washington and Oregon are now considering carbon pricing. Maybe it's too hypothetical at this stage, but is it possible that the minister would consider moving off of the commitment around the five-year freeze if they should happen to move within that period?

Hon. M. Polak: Our commitment was clear: to re-
[ Page 356 ]
main with the five-year freeze to the carbon tax. We're certainly pleased to see other jurisdictions coming closer to implementing it. That, as my critic will know, is part of my mandate letter, in terms of encouraging other jurisdictions to develop carbon pricing in their area, so we're encouraged by that.

We will work to see other jurisdictions taking equal responsibility for carbon and for participating in a means of pricing carbon and therefore, hopefully, seeing those GHG targets being met in jurisdictions around the world.

S. Chandra Herbert: If we're not going to see action on the carbon tax itself, is there the possibility of potential action around expanding the amount of emissions that are covered? If we're not going to do cap-and-trade…. The commitment, of course, had been that if the public had to pay the carbon tax, polluting industries would have to pay the cap-and-trade. However, cap-and-trade has not yet happened, and the public continues to pay the carbon tax while many of the big polluters in the province are not paying a carbon tax or cap-and-trade.

[1610]

Is there a possibility of an expansion of the carbon tax to take in some of the bigger emitters like the Encana gas plant that I mentioned earlier?

Hon. M. Polak: The commitment around the carbon tax includes not only the price but also the application of it as well. That commitment is clear, and it will remain over those five years.

S. Chandra Herbert: Does the minister think it's fair that the public pays the carbon tax for emissions that they make, sometimes unavoidably, yet some of the bigger polluters in the province do not have to pay the carbon tax on their emissions?

Hon. M. Polak: First of all, I would remind the member that the way in which the carbon tax is designed, anyone who is responsible for the combustion of fossil fuels…. The majority of emissions in B.C. are as a result of the combustion of fossil fuels. Anyone, be it large industry, small business, families…. Everyone pays when they are responsible for the combustion of fossil fuels.

I'd also remind the member that the carbon tax is revenue-neutral. That means that we have seen significant reductions in taxation, most notably in personal income taxes, which of course offset any increased costs that the families and individuals are experiencing.

S. Chandra Herbert: The minister talks about combustion which leads to carbon emissions. In the case of the gas plant that I have mentioned, 10 percent of the gas is expected to be carbon which will have to be released. Those emissions go straight into the atmosphere. They are not covered by the carbon tax, as the minister knows.

Why should that carbon emission, which is equally damaging to the environment as a personal carbon emission from a driving a vehicle, for example, not be taxed and have no penalty for increasing climate change in our province and in the world?

[1615]

Hon. M. Polak: I acknowledge quite openly — and I think we all do — that there is much more to be done on the emissions side of things. There is much more to be done with respect to climate action, but there is no question that the carbon tax, when it was implemented in 2008, was a huge step forward.

In fact, it was such a huge step forward that we have been rather disappointed with the lack of progress in other jurisdictions in coming forward with action on their part. That has left us in a position where we have been cautious about proceeding further. Certainly, that's one of the motivations behind the freeze in terms of the carbon tax, in its pricing and also in its scope.

For the time being, we made a choice, one that has been acknowledged to be a leadership position around the world, to target what was quite tangible, easily measured and — as far as we could see it, for the time being — the fairest way for us to apply the price on carbon.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, the leadership position the minister talks about included cap-and-trade and its application to big industries, polluting industries that are harming the climate. It's not fair to tax people for their personal carbon emissions, meanwhile turning a blind eye to emissions happening in other industries — not taxing those industries or not actually actively trying to incent them to reduce those emissions in this way.

They are easily measured — the emissions coming through carbon emissions in the natural gas fields. It wasn't in 2008. It's 2013 now, five years on. You can do that now.

I don't understand why, when there has not been a leadership position taken…. There's been a lack of leadership, in terms of the private industry side, around emissions. Partly, for the first while, it was okay because we understood that cap-and-trade was coming.

There's no timeline for cap-and-trade for this province. There's no timeline now for any carbon pricing on big polluters. So in the end, what you've got is a leadership position which says that we tax people, but big business that has to pollute and that does pollute will not be taxed. And there are no plans for five years to do that.

I'm not sure how that's a leadership position at all and how that's fair at all for the people of this province, who believe that everybody should pay their fair share when it comes to carbon emissions. So I hope the minister will take a look at that position, will consider it.

I understand that there has been much debate about the carbon tax over time. Many people have learned
[ Page 357 ]
things and potentially changed positions as they have understood it better and as they've argued for improvements to it.

I guess at this point, since there is no plan for either cap-and-trade or a carbon tax on big industries, maybe the minister could explain what kind of leadership is possible to reduce those emissions. If there's no pricing mechanism involved, what is the government doing, in the absence of taking any leadership on carbon tax or cap-and-trade for those industries, to make sure that they are reducing their emissions too?

[1620]

Hon. M. Polak: Although we are not charging the carbon tax based on the emissions of large companies, nevertheless, when you consider that 68 percent of our emissions in British Columbia are resulting from the combustion of fossil fuels, they are paying for their emissions because they are purchasing carbon, which they then combust.

So while it doesn't capture all emissions or doesn't put a price on all emissions, it's not correct to say that industry is not paying the carbon tax and that there is no incentive for them to clean up their act. In fact, we're already seeing the positive results of the carbon tax, in that our GDP is up and our emissions continue to go down. We are seeing the results.

We have to remember that when the carbon tax was implemented in 2008 we were way out in front. We have seen progress in other jurisdictions but not to the extent that we would like to see yet, and certainly not to the extent we expected it. We will wait to encourage other jurisdictions to proceed and to monitor the context in which we make our decisions. Of course, British Columbia doesn't exist by itself. It exists in a global environment both in terms of the natural environment and of the economic climate.

We will wait those five years. We will continue to monitor what takes place in other jurisdictions. We will, of course, according to my mandate letter, encourage other jurisdictions to take action and to move forward.

[1625]

It is not correct to say that we don't remain in a leadership position in the world. We certainly do.

S. Chandra Herbert: Certainly, I understand that an industry pays the carbon tax if they're driving a truck to and from a natural gas site. But as is clear, they do not pay the carbon tax if they're venting CO₂ straight to the atmosphere. With the suggestion that an expansion of natural gas to take place could come about 10 percent expansion upon where we should be in terms of carbon by 2020…. That is a big concern.

I certainly think that the industries that are considering potentially setting up in B.C. would be interested to know: if they're going to go into operation by 2018, five years from now, will they be paying a carbon tax? There is a certain amount of investor confidence that is required when planning a major project like that.

With 32 percent of emissions in British Columbia not covered, and with the government saying it's a leadership position to not cover them for five more years, I think we have a problem here, particularly when we have 73 percent of the emissions found to reach the 2020 goal but still 27 percent short.

That's in addition to the new emissions that are going to be added on with the expansion of natural gas facilities. So there is a real problem here, and I'm not sure how the government plans on dealing with it. When 32 percent of emissions are not covered. that's one-third of emissions that is not covered in this province.

Now I'd like to move on — because there are more than enough questions in this ministry — to questions on the environmental assessment office. I think there will be a few more questions which come up around carbon and emissions in the liquefied natural gas and fracking section.

For now if we can move over to the environmental assessment office, that would be very helpful. I'll just give the minister a moment to shift out staff.

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

Hon. M. Polak: Just to introduce staff newly joining me, we have Doug Caul, my assistant deputy minister for EAO; John Mazure, executive lead, EAO; and Michelle Carr, executive director of policy and quality assurance at EAO.

S. Chandra Herbert: Thank you to the minister and the staff for joining us.

I'm curious if the minister can provide us an update on what steps have been taken to deal with the results of the quite shocking, really, Auditor General report in 2011, which made the argument that information currently being provided to the public on environmental mitigation efforts is not sufficient to ensure accountability.

It also argued that the government was not following up on the certificates, that compliance was not being checked. When it was, oftentimes groups were found to not be in compliance. Also, they were not penalized. There was no penalty for being out of compliance.

[1630]

I'm just curious if the minister can provide an update on the issues that were found by the Auditor General.

Hon. M. Polak: The government supports the recommendations of the Auditor General, accepts them. The environmental assessment office has completed the implementation of four of the recommendations, and the last two are nearing completion.
[ Page 358 ]

S. Chandra Herbert: I know one of the arguments was that the public should be able to see what the violations were, that they should be able to get a sense of how the company was responding. There was a debate around the possibility of a database or a website which would show the continuing evolution of that. The former minister discussed that in a previous estimates. Can the minister update us on where that project is at?

Hon. M. Polak: That is one of two recommendations that are nearing completion.

S. Chandra Herbert: For the benefit of those who don't have the Auditor General's report right in front of them or who may not even be familiar with what we are discussing, can the minister tell us what six conditions the ministry is working to fulfil — four, I understand, that the ministry has said it has fulfilled, and the other two which they're still working on? Can the minister provide that information?

Hon. M. Polak: "Ensure commitments are clearly written in a measurable and enforceable manner." That is complete and ongoing.

"Continue to work with…Environment to finalize a policy framework that will provide provincial guidance on environmental mitigation." That is complete and ongoing.

"Clarify the post-certification monitoring responsibilities and compliance mechanisms for each commitment." That is complete and ongoing.

"Develop and implement a comprehensive compliance and enforcement program that includes an integrated information management system to monitor project progress and ensure compliance." That is complete and ongoing.

"Conduct post-certificate evaluations to determine whether EAs are avoiding or mitigating the potentially significant adverse effects of certified projects." This is one of the recommendations that is near completion.

Then No. 6 is "Provide appropriate accountability information for projects certified through the EA process." Again, as was just discussed, this one is near completion and ongoing.

S. Chandra Herbert: I remember I was on Public Accounts when the Auditor General's report came out. I had the opportunity to ask some questions at the time.

I was given the impression that if people were not following through on the certificate and on some of the measures required of them, oftentimes the environmental assessment office would work with them to say: "Here, we'll give you some help, give you some time so you can follow up."

I'm curious if the minister can share penalties, fines, examples of times when companies have broken the rules and have actually been penalized for breaking the rules.

[1635]

Hon. M. Polak: I hope I will be providing what it is the member was after here. Let me first just advise the member with respect to our process as we now come into responding and implementing the recommendation from the Auditor General. It begins with every attempt possible to try to bring the proponent into compliance. It starts with a verbal notification, goes to an advisory letter and then, after that, a warning letter.

I can tell the member that since we have begun the new processes, we have conducted 30 inspections. Of those, ten resulted in a verbal notification, and then there were two advisory letters and one warning.

We will always try to bring people into compliance first. Having said that, we anticipate that we will not always be successful, so once a warning is issued, there is then the potential for a minister's order. After that, it would move to the court system, and there would be a Supreme Court order. The certificate could be suspended or amended. There could even potentially be prosecution.

That is the path that we follow here. We do not at the current time have the authority to issue tickets, but of course, the minister's order would have significant weight. We have, to date, not had to do that, but again, this is a recommendation where our implementation is not quite complete.

S. Chandra Herbert: If I get this straight, if somebody is breaking their commitment to the public and to the ministry, they are first told…. Maybe it's by the phone, or maybe it's somebody coming by and saying: "You're breaking the rules." Then if they continue to break the rules, they get a letter staying: "Stop breaking the rules." Then if they continue breaking the rules, they get told: "We're warning you. Stop breaking the rules." Then they continue to break the rules, and then there's a minister's order. So four stages before it goes to the courts or enforcement.

What weight does a minister's order have? What does that actually mean?

Hon. M. Polak: A minister's order actually has some fairly significant consequences. When a minister's order is pursued, then the action that the proponent is undertaking must stop. If it does not, I have the power to impose sanctions or impose fines, and actually, there is potential for jail time if they are to disobey a minister's order.

[1640]

S. Chandra Herbert: I'm just trying to understand. In what kinds of cases — you know these are hypothetical; I'm not asking for real cases — would a verbal warning or advisory letter warning kind of thing take place? Would
[ Page 359 ]
it be something like if an IPP was not providing enough water through the system or somebody was working in an area that was an ecologically sensitive habitat when they had been supposed to not work in that area? What kinds of examples are we thinking about here?

Hon. M. Polak: I apologize if I implied, through my description of our process, that those stages were required prior to getting to a minister's order. They are not. They are our usual practice, and we consider them best practice. However, our compliance officers have full discretion that if they believe that the action of the proponents is severe enough, they don't need to begin with verbal warnings and letters. They can immediately recommend that the minister consider an order.

S. Chandra Herbert: Please correct me if I'm wrong. Did I hear earlier that the minister had said that the ministerial order had never had to be used? Or when has that been used before?

Hon. M. Polak: As far as we're aware, it has never been used.

S. Chandra Herbert: Can the minister, as I requested earlier…? I understand she was trying to clarify some earlier remarks. Can she give me examples of where compliance officers would go in and tell somebody that they needed to get their act together?

Hon. M. Polak: It very commonly occurs with respect to their compliance on the administrative side — so if they have not filed compliance reports, things like that. Very often it has to do with very low-level lack of compliance as opposed to something that might cause some kind of significant environmental degradation.

S. Chandra Herbert: In terms of IPPs, the run-of-river projects, there's obviously been a lot of concern with a process called ramping, which has, in a number of cases, left fish to die and wiped out a number of fish.

[1645]

I'm just curious why a ministerial order, in that case, would not have applied or what was done in those circumstances and what would be done today if such a thing occurred.

Hon. M. Polak: In the case of the circumstance that the member describes, while that would engage…. I'll back up. We're responsible for enforcing the conditions of the environmental assessment certificate. There are other permits that are required for an IPP, for many other projects. That compliance and enforcement is the responsibility of other ministries, such as Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. In this case, that would be the reason why the environmental assessment certificate wasn't the operable permit.

S. Chandra Herbert: The minister will know about a recent study which was done, I believe, by the Hatfield Consultants looking into independent power projects. It argued that a very high percentage did not meet the new requirements of how IPPs are to function. I'm just curious if the minister would share her thoughts around compliance issues. In relation to that specific study, what kinds of actions is the ministry taking to ensure greater compliance with the rules?

Hon. M. Polak: With respect to our own compliance and enforcement around the environmental assessment certificate requirements, we have found that the IPPs that have gone through EA have been largely compliant.

However, some context. The report that the member references was looking at compliance with the federal Fisheries Act authorizations, and not all of these projects went through the environmental assessment. Of the 22 projects that are mentioned, only five of them would have proceeded through our EA, simply because of the threshold.

Nevertheless, we are reviewing the findings of the report. We will then be evaluating those that did go through the EA process, and if there are any concerns raised about compliance, we will certainly be acting.

[1650]

S. Chandra Herbert: Since we're on the question of compliance — and it's not necessarily specific to the environmental assessment office — I'm just curious if the minister might be able to share the number of enforcement orders or fines, penalties — whatever you might call them — that the ministry has had to issue in the last year.

I ask that now…. I know there's a website called Compliance and Enforcement from the Ministry of Environment which quarterly provides a report. However, that website has not been updated since last fall, so there is no fourth-quarter report, and there are no reports at all for this year.

Hon. M. Polak: I apologize with respect to the website. Part of that is the result of the interregnum period. But we are just about to release our fourth-quarter results. I can tell the member that for 2012 there were 22 orders, 196 administrative sanctions and 1,955 tickets.

S. Chandra Herbert: I'm just curious how often and how quickly that's updated — given that, yes, we are in the interregnum period. I can understand that that would delay it about a month. But we're in July now, and the period that I'm referring to is the fourth quarter of last year.

Hon. M. Polak: Part of it is just managing the technology, and we're trying to improve all the time. The re-
[ Page 360 ]
ports are still public; the website just hasn't been updated.

S. Chandra Herbert: Can the minister help me understand where the public would get the reports, if the reports are public but they aren't on the website?

[1655]

Hon. M. Polak: I apologize for the delay. It turned out I wasn't exactly asking the question the right way. I inadvertently said we are about to release our fourth…. It's the first quarter. I apologize. Even when you've been in government this long, you can forget about fiscal years as opposed to actual years.

We are about to provide our quarterly report. The last one, as the member mentioned, was the fourth quarter. So we haven't missed a report. It is only available on line. We will be having that updated very quickly. Then, as a matter of course, we should be regularly updating the website, as we have in the past.

S. Chandra Herbert: No, I understand the first quarter. The fourth quarter is also not up on the website currently. That's what I was asking about. But it's good to know that both the fourth quarter and the first quarter will be updated together.

My colleague from Delta South has one question around enforcement, and environmental assessment as well.

V. Huntington: It has to do with the South Fraser perimeter road and the reports indicating that the ministry — or, at least, the environmental assessment office — had not been following up on major projects and the enforcement of the lists of compliance on the major projects.

We've just been informed that some significant flooding has occurred in our reservoir, which was developed by the Ministry of Transportation along the SFPR, and that a significant portion of what's locally called Sherwood Forest has been flooded and a number of the mature Sitkas have perished.

[1700]

I'm just wondering if the ministry has any investigation going on in that regard and whether it's reviewing the list of compliance to determine whether there has been a problem here with regard to the construction.

Hon. M. Polak: It has not come to our attention, as far as those of us here are aware, but we will certainly look into that for the member and get back to her about that.

S. Chandra Herbert: Thank you to the member for the question. I'm sure the member will follow up with the minister with the specifics.

I'm curious around the environmental assessment office. The government has been criticized for many years for not considering cumulative impacts of projects, whether that's independent power projects, natural gas, mines or a number of other areas. I know a pilot project in the northeast was going on. However, as far as we know, it has not led to any big changes.

Is the minister able to share how the pilot projects have been going and what lessons have been taken to change the way environmental assessment is done to ensure cumulative impacts are considered?

Hon. M. Polak: As is often the case, there are multiple ministries involved. In this case the role of the Ministry of Environment is to set the policy framework, but the actual compliance and enforcement activity in the pilots, in fact, takes place under the auspices of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. So you'd have to find out from them.

S. Chandra Herbert: Those pilots may be going under FLNRO. However, the results should impact the environmental assessment, which is under the Ministry of Environment.

What kind of timeline does the ministry have in terms of ensuring that all environmental impact studies and all environmental assessments are actually done with a cumulative understanding? I know, for example, there is a lot of discussion in Kitimat right now around air quality and the need for cumulative impact studies there.

[1705]

Hon. M. Polak: Just to be clear and not to leave the impression that, with these pilots ongoing, we are not currently considering cumulative effects…. We do. However, we recognize that there's a need to develop a rigorous provincial policy framework to guide that decision-making.

So we do have these pilots underway through FLNRO. When that is complete, then we will be, of course, incorporating the information and the guidelines into that provincial policy framework. That will inform decisions on the land base. Not just environmental assessment decisions but all the many other types of permissions and authorizations that are granted on the land base would be informed by that policy framework.

We expect, probably, this work to be complete in a year to 18-ish months, maybe heavy on the "ish." No. It's probably about a year to 18 months. That is likely the timeline.

S. Chandra Herbert: Is there any consideration that that could lead to legislative change?

Hon. M. Polak: That's not a decision that we've made at this point.

S. Chandra Herbert: I'm curious in terms of the environmental assessment and in terms of work around fish and waters. There was an article, of course, today which
[ Page 361 ]
regarded the federal changes to the Fisheries Act which make it so that people can permanently alter streams or watercourses if the fish does not have a commercial value. This, of course, could mean destruction of habitat of fish which are not fished but are certainly fish and are certainly a species we should care about.

I'm just curious. That legislation was passed, but the regulations have not been brought into force yet. What actions has the ministry taken to ensure that we are protecting fish? What actions have been taken in terms of the costs that this could put onto British Columbia? What does the minister think about those federal changes in terms of her mandate to protect species and wildlife as well?

Hon. M. Polak: We have, through ministry staff, coordinated a provincial review and a response to the changes that are related to the Fisheries Act.

On behalf of the province, our ministry provided comprehensive comments outlining our concerns with the proposed legislative, regulatory and policy changes that will result, as was requested by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. I can say that DFO has responded quite positively to the feedback that we've sent them, and we're very confident that they are working to address the issues that we've identified for them.

[1710]

S. Chandra Herbert: Can the minister provide the information that she has sent to DFO for their information? I think the public in British Columbia is very concerned about our watercourses, our fisheries and the fish and would be interested in what position the government took on the changes and any proposed changes the government itself here may make after the federal government acts.

Hon. M. Polak: We can provide that.

S. Chandra Herbert: I guess the other one, of course, is the Navigable Waters Act. There were certainly changes there which have raised concerns. I know there have also been changes to heritage rivers, with a number of people arguing that their rivers are heritage rivers and should have the same amount of protection as they used to receive.

Through the Navigable Waters Protection Act, we're now limiting that protection to 62 rivers, 97 lakes and three oceans. In B.C., of course, that is much smaller. It's only 14 lakes and seven rivers under that act.

Freedom-of-information requests indicated that the previous Environment Minister of B.C. had not, at least to our knowledge, consulted with the federal Minister of Transport or the federal minister of natural resource operations. I'm curious if that is indeed the case, or was the Ministry of Environment involved in that change?

Hon. M. Polak: The member may have meant one of two things in his question, so I'm going to answer both and hopefully cover them off and save him an additional question.

If what the member is asking is, "Were we consulted with prior to implementation or prior to them bringing the legislation forward?" the answer is no. With respect to further actions once the legislation was brought in, we were responsible, as is our mandate within our ministry, to respond and work with respect to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Fisheries Act changes.

It would be the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure that would deal with the federal government with respect to the navigable waters.

S. Chandra Herbert: Thank you to the minister for that answer.

I guess the Navigable Waters Act has environmental implications as well as transportation implications. It is curious why the Ministry of Environment was not consulted on those or did not take a position on the changes in the Navigable Waters Act that impact environmental issues.

[1715]

Hon. M. Polak: I'm advised that staff did, nevertheless, review the changes to the Navigable Waters Act and did not find, in their view, anything of concern with respect to the Ministry of Environment to be communicated on our behalf.

G. Holman: A more general question. We've had a series of questions here about rapid expansion of LNG exports, of resource developments throughout British Columbia and the pullback by the federal government of regulations around fisheries. The minister indicates no environmental concerns around the navigable waters legislation, but in general, the federal government — it appears to us, anyway — is pulling back on environmental regulation.

In that context, a general question I have is…. The budget for the environmental assessment office is flat in nominal terms, which means in real terms, accounting for inflation. Costs do tend to go up. The EAO budget actually has declined slightly, despite this context of rapid resource development and the pullback of the federal government in terms of their environmental regulations.

I guess my question to the minister is: are you confident that the budget for the EAO, within that context, is adequate, given the circumstances?

Hon. M. Polak: Of course, we're always interested in continuous improvement in the work that we conduct with the environmental assessment office. I should point out that we have also received an additional $720,000 focused on the work that we do through the office, so that
[ Page 362 ]
also helps.

I think, more importantly, our confidence is one that is gained through constant review. In fact, in my mandate letter I am asked once again to review the EA process. I can tell the member that our staff have been actively engaged in restructuring the work that they undertake within the EA to make sure that it is more effective, more efficient. That means new ways of doing things.

We certainly believe that in an environment where we've been asked to control spending and where taxpayers are increasingly concerned about the growth of government, it's important for us to always ask the questions: is it more money that's needed, or do we need to rethink how it is we're structured and how it is we operate?

That's the choice that we've made with respect to the EA. I am certain that as we conduct the review, we will uncover other areas where we might improve the processes that we have in place through the EA.

S. Chandra Herbert: The Vancouver Airport Fuel Facility Corp.'s Vancouver Airport fuel delivery project proposal — that's a mouthful. That is the jet fuel pipeline proposed to transport jet fuel from a station on the south arm of the Fraser River to Vancouver Airport on Sea Island. It has met with a bunch of regional and municipal opposition.

On January 25, 2013, the previous Environment Minister extended the time limit for making a decision on an environmental assessment by 30 days. Then, on February 25, 2013, he suspended the decision until after the provincial election. I'm just curious if the minister can explain this decision and indicate when the EA process is expected to resume.

[1720]

Hon. M. Polak: The previous minister put in place the suspension, pending the outcome of the work that is underway by our ministry on the land-based spill preparedness and response. So going forward, the environmental assessment office has received the Ministry of Environment's spill preparedness and response report. It's an interim internal report and an assessment of B.C.'s marine oil spill prevention and response regime.

Within 75 days of the results of that work coming available, the environmental assessment office must prepare a supplemental report and submit it to the ministers. We will then decide whether to issue an environmental assessment certificate, which would include any conditions that we might feel are necessary.

It'll just be helpful to add that the end of the 75-day period, then, would be September 17.

V. Huntington: Recognizing that the report is on the land-based response initiative, what has the ministry done to determine what the marine response would be like? Is the ministry capable of an adequate marine response, and has that been examined?

Hon. M. Polak: I know I was stumbling over all the names of the reports, but it is not just the land-based one. I'll read it again, and I apologize. I don't want to get these incorrect.

There's the environment spill preparedness and response interim internal report and assessment of B.C. marine oil spill prevention and response regime. So it includes both. This is an interim internal report, and a draft of that was delivered to the assessment office on July 4.

V. Huntington: Could I just briefly ask, then, what level of assessment has been undertaken on the impact of a spill on the foreshore and the estuary itself?

Hon. M. Polak: The supplemental report that the EA will produce will deal with the assessment of those very things.

S. Chandra Herbert: In terms of the environmental assessment process, this one is kind of different. I guess they all are.

I've heard concerns that in this spill response discussion — the land-based spill response and marine-based — that kind of information is being provided into the environmental assessment process without the opportunity for public discussion of those documents. In fact, people will be surprised that these draft or preliminary reports have been provided.

They had a deadline. They had to provide their comments on this proposal and have asked and questioned why others can continue to provide reports without any ability for them to comment or even see the reports in some cases.

[1725]

Is this usual? Is there going to be an opportunity for public comment? Can the public receive copies of these reports? Can the opposition receive copies of the reports? Certainly, there is a lot of interest in land-based spill response and marine-based spill response right now.

Hon. M. Polak: If the findings were to be significantly different, if the information was to be significantly different, if there was significant new information resulting from this, then the EAO could make the judgment to receive additional comment.

That would be at the discretion of the EAO as to…. If the information is relatively the same as what they previously had for public comment, then there would be no need. That will be their discretion as to whether or not the information that they're receiving is new or significantly different.

[M. Bernier in the chair.]
[ Page 363 ]

S. Chandra Herbert: We are going to be moving into discussion of oil, oil tankers, oil pipelines, LNG, that kind of thing now. That seems kind of fitting that we're moving there already in our questioning.

The question was around land-based spill response — that there had been a preliminary or a draft. I can't recall what the minister said in terms of this specific project.

Obviously, world-leading standards are what the minister and the government have committed to. Is it possible to get a copy of what the minister is considering a world-leading response in regards to this specific proposal?

[1730]

Hon. M. Polak: First, to be clear, the report that we're discussing is not the broad report on world-leading spill preparedness. It is specific to this one project.

The release of it…. It would become available in due course. The timing of the release, whether or not it's before the minister's decision or after, would be at the discretion of the EA, in part based on what we just discussed in the last answer as to whether or not there was a need to inquire further — from the public.

S. Chandra Herbert: On April 12, 2013, a news release from the Ministry of Environment stated that phase 2 of a report on international best practices for marine oil spill prevention and response and a gap analysis comparing the current state of preparedness in B.C. with method studies in jurisdictions in Canada, the United States and Europe were going to begin with Nuka Research — that it was in progress.

The government said the report was expected to be completed in June, yet it has not been made publicly available yet. Has it been completed? When was it submitted to the ministry? And when will it be publicly released?

Hon. M. Polak: First, I neglected to introduce staff who have joined us. Jim Standen is my assistant deputy minister for environmental protection.

The report has been delayed as a result of the need to conduct further vessel traffic analysis, but we expect we will receive it in about six weeks, and it will be made public.

S. Chandra Herbert: Has phase 1 been made public?

Hon. M. Polak: They will be released as a package.

S. Chandra Herbert: Phase 1 was, I believe, looking at our current capability to respond. I'm just curious: does the minister feel, with the current amount of tanker traffic in and out of the Port of Metro Vancouver, that we would be able to respond currently? Are we a world leader now, or where do we stack up in terms of our response rate should a disaster occur?

[1735]

Hon. M. Polak: To state for the record: of course, marine spills and marine spill response are a federal responsibility. We certainly, though, have expressed our concerns to the federal government surrounding their capacity to respond in the event of a major spill. It is, indeed, why we have begun the analysis and the work that we have undertaken in order to discover what needs to improve.

In terms of the question as to whether or not we are currently a world-leading jurisdiction, one of the things we are finding out is that there is no jurisdiction that is world-leading in every area. So as we embark upon this exercise, we are looking at very many jurisdictions and taking the best information from each one.

In some cases different jurisdictions will be leading the pack in terms of their capacity and ability, and in others it'll be a different one. We are engaging in our due diligence to ensure that we gather the best information and best practices from around the world.

S. Chandra Herbert: If this is a federal responsibility, as the minister says, I'm curious. What kind of ability would the province have to take the information to enforce what the province wants to do around world-leading if the federal government could and does have the jurisdiction over the oceans? What kind of weight, what kind of power does the province have in this case?

[1740]

Hon. M. Polak: Thankfully, the federal government is interested in the work that we are doing. We have regular engagement with them on this. We are sharing information as we gather it, and we are receiving good cooperation from them. It appears to me that they certainly share the goal of achieving that world-leading capacity to respond to a significant oil spill in the water.

It is often the case, when it comes to work between the federal and provincial government, that not only do matters cross over one another — in this case, marine-based and land-based spills…. Once that water drifts to land, then it's provincial. You are often faced with having to find ways to work together. Thankfully, in this case the federal government has shown good cooperation in terms of wanting to achieve the same goal.

S. Chandra Herbert: The minister has said that in a number of cases, looking at B.C.'s current ability to respond, we're not exactly world leaders, but there may be certain cases where we are. I'm not sure what those are. I'm sure the minister is going to be releasing that information as well — I'm hoping with the release of the other report. I believe she said in a month's time or so.

I'm curious. In terms of our ability to respond to a
[ Page 364 ]
current spill, if that happened, given the information the minister now has, would any of these conditions apply to the current Kinder Morgan facility that's operating now — and if so, when?

Hon. M. Polak: I may have missed part of the question. If the member is referring to the five conditions, they absolutely apply to the Kinder Morgan pipeline. They would apply to any heavy-oil pipeline.

But maybe I misunderstood the question.

[1745]

S. Chandra Herbert: I'm sure the blood sugar is getting low at the time of day it is.

What I'm trying to refer to is that there is a current pipeline that exists. There are current tankers that go in and out of the Port of Vancouver. The minister has been looking at our current ability to respond. Of course, there's a federal government responsibility, as the minister has mentioned.

But understanding that we may have deficiencies now, what are we doing now to fix those deficiencies, given that there's already an operating pipeline and tankers through the Port of Vancouver?

Hon. M. Polak: I don't want to leave the impression — I hope I didn't — that we don't have any capacity to respond to a spill at the moment. I'll just perhaps provide some information with respect to that.

During a marine spill, our ministry would be doing a number of things. Making sure that there is equipment, expertise and trained personnel available, we would be providing information to the public, and we'd also be ensuring the safety of the public and the response personnel.

The ministry currently has ten full-time and three backup environmental emergency response officers. They're located in ten offices around the province. They're highly trained in hazardous materials assessment and response. At any given time, two of them are on call to provide swift response in the case of environmental emergencies. We could also deploy our Incident Management Team. That's comprised of more than 15 technical specialists to provide additional support.

Of course, the bulk of the work when it comes to a marine spill is the responsibility of the federal government. The work that we are undertaking now…. And forgive me; I can't provide a hard and fast answer as to when we would see improvements with respect to our existing ability to respond to existing pipelines. The work we're doing now is identifying where we do have the need to improve, where we do have gaps.

Truthfully, until we finish that work and identify the gaps, it would not be possible to estimate the length of time to achieve that world-leading level. In fact, as I'm sure the member would understand, it's likely that some aspects of that improvement would be easier to achieve than others and, therefore, quicker.

Once this work is complete and it's released, there will be a plan outlining how we intend to get to the goal of having a world-leading response regime.

S. Chandra Herbert: Just to confirm, it's expected that both the land-based and the marine-based research is to be released in about a month's time. Is that right? Or is there a broader timeline for that?

[1750]

Hon. M. Polak: I hope, in the time it's taken to gather the right information together, that I haven't forgotten some of the question.

There is a different timeline for the marine spill response reporting, or analysis, and the terrestrial, because they are somewhat different in terms of the process that has been unfolding. We've spoken about the marine one being complete and ready for release in about six weeks' time.

When it comes to the land-based spill preparedness and response, that has taken a somewhat different pathway. There was the intentions paper that was prepared and put out for consultation and engagement. We held a three-day symposium, and there's now a working group that is comprised of First Nations, industry, all levels of government, stakeholders. They are developing recommendations for the ministry to consider. I expect that those recommendations would be ready for some broader public feedback — likely in the fall, but later this year.

G. Holman: We've had questions of the intent to develop a world-class spill response regime. My question is: what if a major spill does occur? Would B.C. taxpayers be on the hook for cleaning up part of the spill?

There was a recent announcement by the federal government around additional insurance requirements. Could you explain to us: does that apply to both the marine and the terrestrial component of, say, a Kinder Morgan project? I believe the requirement was for $1 billion. There's also an industry fund in place to deal with marine.

[1755]

I guess, ultimately, my question is: is the minister convinced that these requirements, both existing and new, are going to protect taxpayers in the event of a major spill on the coastline?

Hon. M. Polak: In British Columbia we hold to a polluter-pay model. That means that the spiller is responsible for all costs associated with cleanup, including any costs incurred by the province, such as equipment or contractors, staff time. The Environmental Management Act sets out the penalties.

The spiller also could face charges under federal legislation, and the identity of the one responsible would be
[ Page 365 ]
the one who is in possession, charge or control of a spilled substance. They have to take all reasonable and practical action to stop, contain and minimize the effects of the spill. So our Environmental Management Act operates on a polluter-pay model.

The Chair: My apologies for not introducing the member for Saanich North and the Islands. Go ahead.

G. Holman: Just to follow up, though. Is there no upper limit on the liability of private operators in terms of the polluter-pay principal that you have mentioned? There is no upper threshold for liability for private operators?

Hon. M. Polak: Under the Environmental Management Act in B.C., there is no limit to the liability of the polluter. If they were to dispute what they are being asked to cover, then that would be something that they would have to dispute in court.

S. Chandra Herbert: Of course, one of the problems with some of the ways these systems operate is that while we may hold the person responsible, the tanker company itself may not have the ability to pay and may end up just going bankrupt.

[1800]

We have seen that happen in a number of communities in the world, where it is a small subsidiary which, due to legal reasons or due to convenient factors, is not connected to an organization which would actually have to pay. The small organizations don't have the ability. Then the people pay, not the polluter, because of the way that the system has been rigged. But we'll leave that for now.

I'm curious if the minister could tell us what she determines or what the government determines as world-leading versus what sometimes is used, world-class. Is it to say that we would be ahead of other jurisdictions, or is it that we equal other jurisdictions?

Hon. M. Polak: That actually is a very good question. Discussion of that question was one of the primary areas of focus of the three-day symposium that we held, because there are differing opinions from around the world from many other jurisdictions on what constitutes world-leading. Part of the work that is ongoing is to determine how we would define that and be able to understand what it would take to meet that.

S. Chandra Herbert: If it's possible to get a copy of the report that came out of the symposium or colloquium or whatever it was, that would be excellent.

I also wondered, and the member for Delta South, as well, inquired about getting a list of who is on the working group looking at terrestrial land-based spill issues as well as the groups involved in discussing the marine-based spills and providing advice on that. That would be useful for both the member for Delta South and myself.

Can all of that list that I just gave you be made available to us?

Hon. M. Polak: Yes.

S. Chandra Herbert: In the final submission of this province to the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project Joint Review Panel, the province stated that "the province cannot support the approval of, or a positive recommendation from the JRP regarding, this project as it was presented to the JRP" — the joint review panel — given the fact that "northern gateway plans for terrestrial and marine spill response remain preliminary and that it cannot, today, provide assurance that it will be able to respond effectively to all spills."

However, the province also states that "should the joint review panel recommend approval of the pipeline, the joint review panel must impose clear, measurable and enforceable conditions that require northern gateway to live up to the commitments that it has made in this proceeding." That was on page 3 of the submission.

Under these conditions, what would the province do if the federal government did approve the northern gateway pipeline?

[1805]

Hon. M. Polak: I would hope that throughout this process we can continue to work collaboratively with the federal government. I can tell the member that we have seen significant movement on the part of the federal government from where we began, when we first released our five conditions, to where we are now, where they are actively engaged with us in pursuing the development of world-leading spill response, for example.

When it comes to the eventual recommendation of the joint review panel and what the federal cabinet decides, I would prefer not to speculate as to what decisions we may need to make and rather, at this stage, work with the expectation that they will continue to work collaboratively with us and would be, indeed, interested in providing conditions to any approval that would meet the expectations that we have and the goals that we've set.

The Chair: At this point, I'm just going to ask the floor…. We are looking at taking about a ten-minute recess if everybody is okay with that. So we will recess for ten minutes.

The committee recessed from 6:06 p.m. to 6:15 p.m.

[M. Bernier in the chair.]

S. Chandra Herbert: The question I've got now is regarding the five conditions. One, of course, we have
[ Page 366 ]
talked about — the land-based spill response, marine-based spill response. The minister talked about other discussions that have been ongoing with the federal government. I'm curious where we're at with the condition that relates to financial compensation for risk.

Hon. M. Polak: It's not an area where the Ministry of Environment is engaged on the file.

While I'm up, though, I do want to correct some information that we provided to you earlier with respect to the conservation officer service. In the spirit of continuous improvement, the numbers are even better. There's actually a total of 156.5 total FTEs. They are broken down as follows.

There are 148 sworn conservation officers. That is made up of 106 uniformed COs and 22 plainclothes officers, so that's 128 people that we have as boots on the ground. There are 16 management, two training sergeants, one predator control coordinator, one staff sergeant in charge of quality assurance, and 8½ civilian positions, so the total is 156.5.

S. Chandra Herbert: Thank you for that update, and I know I'm going to get an update of even more detail down the road.

On June 26, 2013, the Yinka Dene Alliance issued a cease-and-desist order to Enbridge stating that they are not permitting entry onto the collective territories of the Yinka Dene Alliance for work on unsanctioned activities. They say they've banned the Enbridge northern gateway pipeline project from their territories.

This relates in some regards to the Ministry of Environment in terms of, obviously, the Enbridge pipeline but also their concern about environmental impacts of LNG on their territory. I'm just curious what the ministry's plan is to deal with this concern.

Hon. M. Polak: It's not something that our ministry is engaged with, but certainly, one could put the question to the Minister of Aboriginal Relations.

S. Chandra Herbert: I'd like to move on to LNG fracking and some emissions issues that relate to that area. Is it possible for the minister to define what "cleanest in the world" means for LNG?

I know the government redefined natural gas as clean energy when it hadn't previously been called that before. I'm just curious what "cleanest in the world" means in relation to LNG operations in British Columbia.

[1820]

Hon. M. Polak: That work is currently underway. It is one of my accountabilities in my mandate letter. The very first thing we need to do is develop, together with industry, with stakeholders, just exactly what would constitute the "cleanest in the world." That, of course, entails gathering significant amounts of information from operations around the world.

S. Chandra Herbert: Could we get a timeline on that work?

Hon. M. Polak: I can't give the member a hard-and-fast date. I can tell you that we recognize the need to have that work completed in time so that it is useful for those who are determining whether or not they're going to make the investment in the plants and infrastructure that they have proposed. We recognize that they need to have that work completed in order for them to proceed. While I can't give a hard-and-fast date, I can tell you that that's the target we're aiming to meet.

S. Chandra Herbert: Thank you for that very, very precise answer.

I'll read some words here. The hon. Chair, the Peace River South MLA, was quoted, in the May 2013 election, putting his support behind a plan for a scientific review of fracking. He stated: "I absolutely have no problem with doing a review. In fact, prior to the election I know there were MLA candidates with the Liberal Party themselves who were saying: 'Should we be looking at doing a review?'" This was to Sun News.

He also said, "I'm all in favour of doing a review," and noted that the important issue was "how we do it properly while we continue doing the work in the area."

[1825]

I know the previous Minister of Energy Blair Lekstrom also supported a review of fracking. I know, certainly, the industry has spoken about the need to do it, as well, arguing that if they are to have a social licence to do the work, they need independent scientific evidence, whether it be on how water is used or on other chemicals and other issues.

I'm curious if the government will be supporting an independent review of fracking in British Columbia, in particular as there is a desire to see a large increase in the use of the practice.

Hon. M. Polak: Of course, fracking also factors into my mandate letter. In fact, the tenth point of focus I am to have is to create an annual water use report for companies involved with hydraulic fracking to ensure public awareness of the water conservation strategies being undertaken by upstream natural gas companies.

Now, fracking is regulated by the Oil and Gas Commission. Nevertheless, the Ministry of Environment is participating in the development of a shale gas hydraulic fracturing water strategy. In addition, we are working with other agencies to develop a northeast water stewardship coordination plan. That plan, we think, will help better coordinate the ongoing multi-agency water management initiatives.

In addition to that, there are some other things that have
[ Page 367 ]
been happening. The Ministry of Health has a study that will assess the potential health risks of oil and gas development in B.C. The Ministry of Environment is participating in this study and will review those results closely.

There are studies in the Horn River Basin and the Montney area that will further the collective understanding of the relationship between water and natural gas development. And building on the regulatory foundation that was put in place in 2010 under the Oil and Gas Activities Act, such as launching a mandatory public disclosure registry for hydraulic fracturing, fluid composition…. All of that will increase the transparency around what is happening in the natural gas sector.

S. Chandra Herbert: There are a number of studies, it sounds like, that are looking into specific aspects, whether it be water or looking at oil and gas in general. Of course, there's water usage. There are other issues, whether it be seismic, whether or not it be the emissions themselves — toxins, the potential for sour gas and other things.

I'm just curious: does the minister think that with all these other studies, the ministry is going to pull together — maybe it's in partnership with the oil and gas ministry, or the LNG ministry — kind of a comprehensive, "Here is the government's work on hydraulic fracturing in general" — an independent look at the practice in B.C.?

I know many have looked to the northeastern United States, where they have done some of this work. In some cases studies have been stopped, and in other cases studies have required changes. I think the people of British Columbia want to see that this has a rigorous study and that there are decisions made based on those studies. To go back to my earlier question, what's the timeline?

Hon. M. Polak: Government, across the piece, including the OGC…. There are other ministries involved, and you've mentioned some of them. As a result of that cross-ministry work, pretty much every area — in fact, I think every single area that you've mentioned — is being looked at.

[1830]

It won't be pulled together in one individual study, but the work of each of those ministries and agencies will be available on their websites, etc., as it is completed.

S. Chandra Herbert: Just to continue on the theme around water, there's been a requirement that the amount of water use in terms of hydraulic fracturing be made public. I'm curious why the government has not decided yet, and I'm hoping they will decide at some point, to make all water use in the province, or at least major use of water, public because, of course, it's not just hydraulic fracturing operations that use water.

Given that we know water is going to be more and more precious in the future, will the government consider creating a website or a database of all water extraction activities in the province?

Hon. M. Polak: The short answer is yes. Under the water sustainability act that we propose to modernize the existing Water Act, you would see, then, measuring and reporting of non-domestic water use.

S. Chandra Herbert: I understand there's been another pledge to have the water sustainability act brought forward. Of course, it's been a long, winding process with many ups and downs. Hopefully, it will finally come to light. I'm sure the minister would agree.

What is the status of it? I understand it's potentially spring 2014, but what outstanding work is there to be done? When can the public expect to either see draft legislation or be involved in that process again?

Hon. M. Polak: We intend to have a white paper out later this fall and then move to legislation in the spring of 2014. I'm sure the member will have noted that that's also part of my mandate letter.

S. Chandra Herbert: There does seem to be a theme to some of my questions. I'm not sure how we're coincidentally ending up discussing similar topics.

Thank you. I think people will be looking forward to seeing that white paper. There have been many, many people who have put a lot of time into it. It will be a great step forward once we get to see the legislation. Then of course, hopefully, it's effective, and we can bring it into law.

[1835]

That's the end of my questions around water at this point. They all kind of come to a water sustainability act in the end.

I have some questions around Kitimat Clean, the Kitimat refinery proposal. Can the minister tell us what the precedent is, if any, for the government to spend ministry funds on a feasibility study such as the Navigant report for a private proponent — in this case David Black, hoping for the approval of the Kitimat Clean refinery?

I would think these kinds of projects are typically funded by the proponent themselves. I'm just curious if the minister could comment on why the government chose to fund this report.

Hon. M. Polak: Sadly, I have to respond that it's not the Ministry of Environment, so I'm afraid that I don't have any information for you with respect to that.

S. Chandra Herbert: I thought I'd give it a try. I'll try it again later. I think it's important. I know that my colleague from Kitimat, from the riding of Skeena, certainly has raised concerns about the potential air-quality impacts of LNG facilities and the expansion within Kitimat, as proposed.

I know the ministry has suggested that private proponents should fund that kind of thing. It just seemed curious to me that the government would pay taxpayers' money on a private individual's study to see if it made
[ Page 368 ]
sense for that private business, which is looking to make a profit from it, yet is not supporting the community's efforts to ensure their airshed is getting mapped out and is ensuring that a cumulative look at the airshed is not being handled in this case.

Now, if that's incorrect, if the government is willing to support the local community to get their airshed mapped out, to have that kind of understanding so that they can get a real understanding of what kind of impact — of whether or not its current expansion of facilities in the Kitimat area…. Certainly, I know there is some discussion around the aluminum smelter, I believe it is, there — that that may have an impact already.

Then there's, of course, the suggestion of further increases in liquefaction plants there, which would have big impacts on the air quality in the Kitimat and Terrace area.

Can the minister explain what the Ministry of Environment's position is on that and what steps they're going to take to make sure the air quality remains good or better for citizens in that region?

Hon. M. Polak: We're certainly alive to the concerns with respect to potential development in the Kitimat airshed, especially considering that the standards that might be set have to consider, in some way, what the totality of the development is ultimately going to be. We are currently wrestling with that.

[1840]

I can tell you this, though. We have been paying very close attention to Kitimat already. Kitimat has one of the densest air quality monitoring systems in the entire province. We actually have five air quality monitoring stations, and they can be accessed 24 hours a day, seven days a week at bcairquality.ca.

We're also utilizing the extensive air quality assessment work that was done in preparation for the Rio Tinto Alcan upgrade, and that is informing much of our work in this area. I also want to emphasize that any new industrial operation that would be proposed for Kitimat would need to submit very detailed emissions modelling to the ministry as part of that process.

We are indeed looking at Kitimat very closely right now. Our intention is to come up with a strategy that can allow us to set standards that can manage on a broader basis, not just individual proposals.

S. Chandra Herbert: I think that's vital. It seems right now to be not a gold rush mentality but a bit of a "whoever got their application in first," which could potentially limit the government, the people of Kitimat and others from getting the best proposal. Should one come in early that puts out a lot of emissions, of course, that could crowd out a later one which might actually be better for the community than an earlier proposal.

I think that's what I'm interested in, and it goes back to our earlier discussion around cumulative impact. We kind of need to have a sense of the totality, as the minister says, before we can make decisions in some regards in this area and certainly in other areas of the province that deal with other issues, whether or not it's to do with air quality or otherwise.

Obviously, people are working now to get applications in, to get proposals together, to get money together. I'm curious. What is the timeline for this work to be complete?

[1845]

Hon. M. Polak: Right now we are evaluating for the purposes of determining the scope. We really won't be able to give an answer on timeline until we come to grips with that. Then we can assess exactly what work needs to be done.

We are utilizing the information that we already have from our work with Rio Tinto Alcan to work with proponents for LNG to give them a sense of the very detailed information that they are going to need to provide to us. So work is already underway with the proponents to make it very clear to them that the work they need to do and the information they need to provide to us is quite extensive. That's where we're beginning. Once we have that scope nailed down, we'll then be able to target some timelines. But we recognize that time is of the essence with this.

S. Chandra Herbert: I understand that the minister is gearing up fast in the ministry portfolio, and there are many, many things that need to be decided. I guess the question that I have is really about: what do we do now if a proponent is coming forward?

Let's say they get a deal with a buyer and they come forward and say: "I want to enter into the EA process. I would like to move as quickly as possible." Does the government then say: "Wait, wait. No, you can't, because we're trying to figure out what 'cleanest in the world' means and what the airshed in Kitimat, for example, could handle"?

How does that work? How do we make sure that work is complete? How do we make sure that we provide certainty? How do we make sure it is cleanest in the world — and not approving projects willy-nilly as we try to work through the process?

Hon. M. Polak: What's likely to occur is that we wouldn't handle this in the EA process. We would likely handle it through subsequent authorizations that they need through the OGC. We would have conditions in place in terms of levels that they were not to exceed, and those would be dealt with through an authorization through OGC.

With that, noting the hour, I move that we rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:49 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