Hansard -- Volume 2, Number 16 -- Tuesday, August 14, 2001

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY



CONTENTS

	Proceedings in Section B
		Time

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2001 (Bill 11). Hon. G. Plant
	Committee stage	1005
	J. MacPhail
	Hon. S. Santori
	Hon. G. Plant
	Hon. G. Collins
	Third reading	1130

Crown Corporations Governance Statutes Amendment Act, 2001 (Bill 14). Hon. G. Plant
	Committee stage	1130
	Third reading	1130

Committe of Supply
	Ministry of Provincial Revenue estimates. Hon. B. Barisoff
	Vote 39: ministry operations	1130
	Hon. B. Barisoff
	J. MacPhail

Proceedings in Section A

Committe of Supply
	Ministry of Skills Development and Labour estimates. Hon. G. Bruce
	Vote 42: Ministry operations	1005
	Hon. G. Bruce
	Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General estimates. Hon. R. Coleman
	Vote 40: Ministry operations	1015
	Hon. R. Coleman
	D. MacKay
	D. Jarvis
	P. Wong
	B. Penner
	R. Lee
	Vote 41: Statutory services	1100
	Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management estimates. Hon. S. Hagen
	Vote 43: Ministry operations	1100
	Hon. S. Hagen
	D. MacKay
	B. Penner
	R. Lee
	Vote 44: Land Reserve Commission
	Vote 52: Environmental Assessment Office

Hon. G. Collins: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, they will be discussing the estimates of the Ministry of Skills Development and Labour and the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General. In Committee B, I call committee stage of Bill 11.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 11; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

J. MacPhail: I have a series of questions, and then I'll be making a few remarks. This is an amendment to the Legislative Assembly Allowances and Pension Act. What consultation did the Minister of Management Services…? What consultation occurred prior to making this change?

Hon. S. Santori: The change into the government caucus committee and its function was determined as a vital role in the decision-making process of this province. It's an opportunity for MLAs throughout British Columbia to bring forth their input and their expertise on the valuable decisions that are made. Furthermore, the remuneration that goes along with the chair of the government caucus committee is consistent with other committees, whether they be legislative committees or, in the past, parliamentary secretaries, and it is consistent with the remuneration that was being paid previously.

Hon. S. Santori: Consultation was done within, in the determination of the need of the program and the importance of everyone having a valuable say. It was very clear, in terms of consultation during the election and in speaking to British Columbia and all of our constituencies, that they wanted representatives at the table when their MLAs were making key decisions that might affect their areas. We and the Premier — in creating these government caucus committees, which was his commitment during the election —felt and saw it as very valuable. The consultation process, I guess we could say, was from the people of British Columbia, who wanted to ensure there was an open decision-making process. The government caucus committee also invites public delegations to come forth to government caucus committees for presentations.

J. MacPhail: Was it announced that there would be government caucus committees that would be paid out of vote 1?

Hon. S. Santori: The vote 1 was not announced during the election, but the government caucus committees were announced during the election period.

J. MacPhail: The minister made reference to parliamentary secretaries, and I've heard others in the broadcast news making reference that this is just the same as parliamentary secretaries. Parliamentary secretaries are defined under the Constitution Act with very specific purposes. Does the minister plan on incorporating government caucus committees into the Constitution Act?

J. MacPhail: I expect there's a reason, and that is that there's supposed to be a separation — not to the same extent that we see, for instance, in republican democracies like the United States, but there is certainly supposed to be a separation — between the Legislative Assembly and the executive council of government. The Legislative Assembly is for all British Columbians and all Members of the Legislative Assembly.

The money that we set aside, called vote 1, is the budget for the Legislative Assembly. The Members of the Legislative Assembly — whether they be Liberal, Social Credit, independent, New Democrat, Green or Marijuana Party — get to determine how that money is spent.

The work of the Legislative Assembly is to be an independent debating and independent examination of the government's duties, separate and apart from the executive council. Under the Constitution Act, parliamentary secretaries form part of the executive council arm of government. They're two very separate things.

I fear today that the blending of the two — the mixing, the stirring up of the two — is very, very troubling news for democracy. Perhaps the minister responsible could explain why he is now taking money away from the budget of the Legislative Assembly, which is to be operated independently from the executive council. Why is he using the massive majority so that he can take money from the Legislative Assembly and give it only to government members?

Hon. S. Santori: GCC chairs are not cabinet members. The government caucus committee gives advice and also monitors cabinet decisions based on

the findings of the government caucus committee. In terms of the debate, the estimates process re vote 1, can we debate it at that time?

J. MacPhail: Well, if somehow this government is coming here and suggesting that it wants to debate vote 1, I'd ask the minister to stand up and make that statement right now, because we'd be happy to. We'd be happy to stand here and debate vote 1. If the minister is breaking new ground and suggesting that, let him stand right now and suggest that. I would expect that that kind of light shone on vote 1 would be welcomed by the public, given this particular initiative where the government is using its massive majority to intrude on vote 1 for its own special use.

Let me ask a question of the minister: what is the global caucus budget of the Liberal government caucus?

Hon. S. Santori: I do apologize; I am somewhat green. I'm not afraid to admit that. Vote 1 is not one for debate. In terms of the overall caucus budget, I will get that information for the member opposite.

J. MacPhail: Well, my information is that the global caucus budget for the Liberal members — just the Liberal members, not their executive council — just to do their business as MLAs in this chamber is $4.3 million. That's $4.3 million.

Can the minister explain why, with $4.3 million, they can't fund their own government caucus chairs out of that?

Hon. S. Santori: In terms of the $4.3 million, the 77 members times $60,000 is how we arrive at the $4.3 million. Had the number of Liberal MLAs been less, of course the budget would have been less. We are creating a statutory position office.

J. MacPhail: The global caucus budgets are determined through a process called the Legislative Assembly Management Committee. It's not something that one side of the House gets to determine separately from the other side of the House. So that budget has been established. It's theoretically done in a way that considers all of the factors necessary to support members of the Legislature in their duties as MLAs. Now this bill is intruding on that process, is using the massive majority of this government to take money out of vote 1, which is to operate specifically for the Legislative Assembly, and it's giving it to only government caucus members, unless the minister was standing up here and saying that you can have a caucus committee that can be chaired by somebody other than a government caucus member. Would the minister stand up and say that?

Hon. G. Plant: Most of the member's questions with respect to the global caucus budget are not helpful to my understanding of the issue. As the member knows, the global caucus budget is a numerical calculation, probably resulting from days when she served on LAMC.

The question the opposition leader raises with respect to whether the recognition of a stipend for the performance of the office of government caucus committee chair should be a matter for the Legislative Assembly or, as is the case with parliamentary secretaries, a matter that ought properly be dealt with under the Constitution Act is, I think, a good question — a good enough question that I think that's where it belongs. So we'll stand this section down and have a look at it, and we'll deal with that in due course.

J. MacPhail: Then I'll ask a question to the Attorney General, if that's okay with the minister. Can you outline for me, while you're standing it down, what you propose to do?

Hon. G. Plant: While this section is being stood down, we're going to think about the comments that the member has made and determine whether or not the appropriate course, from the government's perspective, is to continue with the section as presented, in which case the debate will continue, or to follow some other course, in which case we'll deal with that procedurally when it comes back up. I'm in the Chair's hands, obviously, but we'd be happy to deal with the rest of the bill and then come back to this issue when we've dealt with the rest of the bill.

J. MacPhail: I gather the Attorney General is debating section 28. I would also suggest that we're dealing with section 30 as well.

Under section 28, I recall the Attorney General's opening remarks about there being alternate methods available for people to pursue the matters that may have been pursued under what we call anti-SLAPP legislation. Could the Attorney General repeat those for my edification?

Hon. G. Plant: Let me begin by making this comment. The question of the merits or otherwise of the Protection of Public Participation Act was debated pretty extensively when the government introduced and passed the bill earlier this year. I don't think the member participated in that debate, but I would encourage her to review that debate to get what amounted to, I thought, a pretty extensive discussion of a variety of concerns that I had and that we as opposition had with that bill when it was introduced.

The specific question the member raises is around the argument that there are in place existing processes that protect litigants or at least give them options when they are on the receiving end of court actions that they consider to be frivolous, vexatious, abusive, scandalous or unnecessary. Those are words that are already found in the rules of court. I think the rule in question

is rule 19(24) of the rules of court. Rule 19(24) represents a complete code — at least as complete, I think, as it needs to be for the purposes of this discussion — available to litigants, defendants particularly, I suppose, who believe they have been sued by someone who does not have a good cause of action, whose lawsuit is frivolous or vexatious or abuse of process or scandalous. There's a wide variety of opportunities under the various subparagraphs of rule 19(24) for litigants to make applications to court to have the claim against them or a part of the claim struck out on the basis that it falls within the categories that I've described.

The application that a defendant can make under rule 19(24) — and it's actually an application that a plaintiff could make in the right circumstances, depending on what a defendant does in a lawsuit — can be made at any stage in the proceeding. So it could be made within a day of entry and appearance through a writ of summons, which is to say that within a matter of days after the action had been commenced, and it can be heard summarily by the courts. These applications are often heard summarily by the courts.

There's a body of jurisprudence that exists that judges have recognized that the right of someone to commence a lawsuit in our system of civil justice is a pretty important right, a fundamental right and not lightly to be denied. It's not easy to get an order under rule 19(24), but in my view that's rightly so.

In addition to rule 19(24), there are other procedures available under the rules of court that are put there so that the courts have the tools to decide cases in a summary fashion. Those cases can also be…. Those rules or processes are also available to be used by defendants or against plaintiffs in cases where there are claims made that are without merit. Two other rules that are available for this purpose are rule 18, which is the summary judgment process, and rule 18A, which is the summary trial process. This does not exhaust the options that are available to litigants.

What we have in the rules of court is a body of processes that have been developed by the legal profession and by the judiciary, with assistance from this Legislature from time to time, over many, many years. Our rules of court, I think, are pretty good. They're constantly being reviewed — by the public, by the legal profession, by the judiciary — to make sure that they are responsive to the changing face of civil litigation and the needs and challenges that face litigants in the court system. I think that as a tool basket, if you will, for dealing with litigation that is motivated by inappropriate considerations and does not disclose legitimate causes of action, the rules of court are actually a pretty good set of tools.

J. MacPhail: While I didn't participate in the debate when this bill was introduced, I did research it and reviewed not only the committee stage but the second reading stage as well.

Let me just make a couple of comments. I do think, if memory serves me correctly on this one — although my record isn't stellar in the area of recollecting how the Liberals voted — that the then Liberal opposition voted against this legislation. So it is appropriate, just for the moment, to reflect on what was debated in the spring of this year and to reiterate that debate, as the Attorney General has done very briefly, so that on sober second thought we can reflect on what was the intention and what will be the effect of repealing this legislation.

The Attorney General is very consistent in his comments. The points about the rules of court he made at length in the debate earlier this spring, when the legislation was introduced. But let me just try to iterate for the new members and for the public who may be paying closer attention to this discussion now. This is a piece of legislation that was called the Protection of Public Participation Act, because there were what were called SLAPP suits — strategic lawsuits against public participation — that were brought forward in order to strategically prevent people from participating in a democratic way, particularly around environmental issues. Many people, largely centred around the University of Victoria, had been studying this issue and had come to the conclusion that the best way to protect people's rightful participation — protest, for instance, or making a point that may be alternative to a company's point of view or to the government's point of view — should be allowed to proceed.

The Protection of Public Participation Act wasn't about the interests of litigation lawyers. It wasn't designed, actually, to please lawyers. Maybe the situation is that now we're back to the circumstances where it's lawyers who are determining the future of people's right to participate. The bill wasn't designed for that. It wasn't designed to facilitate lawyers making their living from knowing the Supreme Court rules about making their job easier. It was to respond to a very public need that exists well beyond the community of lawyers and of those who are practitioners of law within the courts.

I recall from reading — I read this last week, but I do recall this — that the now Attorney General said that he didn't think there was a problem. Then he did go on to say that if there was a problem, the rules of the Supreme Court would apply. First of all, this bill is targeted to protect the interests of people who don't have access to the courts on a regular basis, who aren't familiar with the court process, who don't understand how court proceedings can be used and certainly don't have the resources to make good use of those proceedings.

It's a situation where there is a real need for this. In this province, over the course of the last number of years, there are people who have very serious concerns about this issue and have actually faced situations where this act would have assisted greatly in them not being harassed by the use of strategic lawsuits against public participation.

Just to remind new members, the Union of B.C. Municipalities — an organization that represents people from all different walks of life and all different

political persuasions — felt so strongly about this issue that on a number of occasions it actually pressed governments to bring forward action to deal with the misuse of the courts where people were trying to stifle public participation in debates. So the Union of B.C. Municipalities very much wanted this legislation and supported it when it was introduced and passed.

So there is a real misuse of SLAPP suits; it's real. It exists in Canada, and it exists in British Columbia. The problem isn't about the number or the volume of SLAPP suits that were introduced. The problem lies in the number of cases that aren't brought forward because there is no way in which people have the right to bring them forward. The phenomenon of a SLAPP suit — the threat of this kind of action and the filing of actions that never get to court — is what is most successful about stifling debate on the part of those who fear that if they do participate, they'll be subject to court proceedings or, if they don't cease participating, the court proceedings that are threatened against them will proceed to trial.

I would be very interested to know, given that, what the Attorney General means by saying that the court rules, which he lists, help in actually protecting people from being threatened to not bring a lawsuit forward at all, to not even get into the courts.

I don't think anyone can take comfort in the fact that there's not a proliferation of cases. There are cases that can be pointed to, and the UBCM and environmental organizations and people who live right around this community can point to cases. He'll find plenty of evidence in the courts where there's been a stifling of public participation. That stifling is regrettably very much alive and well in the province.

I want to talk just quickly about the human dimensions of this problem. The sense of intimidation that is felt by a citizen when that citizen receives a writ of summons in the mail to appear at a court proceeding, even as a witness let alone a defendant, is overwhelming. I can't recall…. My memory is still functioning, but I don't think I've ever been subject to that, but I have had association with many people who have. In the labour movement there were many people who had writs of summons issued against them in a very aggressive way, and it was basically to stifle their participation in any sort of action. There was a sense of vulnerability when those writs of summons were issued. There was a sense of vulnerability that all action — all participation in their legitimate democratic rights to raise issues — then had to stop because some great legal action was going to come down upon them. They had to worry about the resources, and they were not lawyers, and they had to find out for themselves about how to proceed to protect their own interest. It's that kind of situation — protecting the democratic rights of British Columbians — that the Protection of Public Participation Act is to address.

So I think that the legislation is not about people just exercising their rights in court, and therefore to remove the legislation and revert to the proceedings of court and the rules of court…. I don't think that answers the question. I ask the Attorney General to address that point specifically. Perhaps he could address the point specifically, walking through for us laypeople, when a SLAPP suit is brought against someone, how that person proceeds on a very practical basis to invoke the rules of court that the Attorney General has outlined.

Hon. G. Plant: If a defendant receives a writ of summons in an action brought against him or her that the defendant feels is not well founded, then the defendant goes to the court registry, asks the registry staff for a document entitled A Notice of Motion and writes on that document that they would like to bring an application to dismiss the action on the basis that it's frivolous or vexatious, relying on the rule that I talked about. That seems to me to be a pretty straightforward process.

I have to say, with respect to those who laboured to try to make the Protection of Public Participation Act an act that would be readable by laypeople, that they laboured mightily but in vain. The Rules of Court in British Columbia is a far more accessible document to the public and a far more comprehensible document to the public than this statute. This statute is an interlocking, intersecting, interconnecting web of multiple opportunities to bring applications that overlap each other, that repeat, that continue — all of which have the effect of shutting down the plaintiff's right to proceed with an action.

You know, I respect that there are differences of opinion about this, but I want to tell people that when I stood up and spoke against this bill and voted against it this spring, I didn't do so because I was a member of an opposition and so it was my duty to oppose. I did it because I thought this bill was wrong in principle. I did it because I was not persuaded that there was a widespread proliferation of the phenomenon that the law professors call SLAPP suits in British Columbia. I did it because I believed that our law already protects the rights of people against frivolous and vexatious litigation, and I did it because I thought that the processes contemplated by this act were simply unreasonably burdensome and complicated.

The member suggests — and this is an argument that her former colleague the former Attorney General made when this was being debated — that somehow I was making an argument all about lawyers. Actually, I'm making an argument all about people — people who sue and are sued by other people — and when they're sued in British Columbia, they're entitled to know that there is a set of rules that governs litigation.

You know, people do know that there are rules that govern civil litigation. Those rules exist in a thing called the Rules of Court, and the rules of court aren't there for lawyers, although there are certainly the rules that guide how lawyers conduct litigation. The rules of court are there for litigants. The rules of court are there for the people who are plaintiffs and defendants and respondents and petitioners in lawsuits in British Columbia, and I think that those rules are fair rules and balanced rules when it comes to this question of people

who are on the receiving end of lawsuits that they believe are an abuse of process or lack any merit or any substance.

The member talks about the preventative aspects of this bill, saying that the Bill 10 which we're seeking to repeal here would prevent people from commencing lawsuits that are frivolous and vexatious. Well, I say to her, with respect, that the rules of court have exactly the same deterrent and preventative effect, no more and no less — certainly no more.

This bill certainly is no more preventative than the rules of court. The rules of court are public. They say to everybody: "If you commence a lawsuit against somebody for ulterior motives and the lawsuit does not disclose any kind of reasonable claim, then the lawsuit will be thrown out and you will have to pay. And in some cases you may have to pay more than just the amount of money that you've thrown away; you may end up having to pay special costs to the person you sued wrongly." That seems to me to be a pretty tough set of rules to govern how litigation is conducted.

Those aren't rules, again, for lawyers. This really fundamentally isn't an argument about what suits the convenience of lawyers. It's fundamentally an argument about things like access to courts in a democratic society and what the controls are that should be placed on the access to courts in a democratic society and whether the controls that exist according to the laws of British Columbia are adequate. My view is that they are.

I want to say — with respect to the member and all those who've made the argument that says that somehow the rules of court are about lawyers and that this bill, the Protection of Public Participation Act, is about people — that that is simply a wrongheaded argument. This Bill 10 creates processes and the right to bring applications and all kind of stuff which in practice is going to be accessible, fundamentally, mainly to lawyers, because only lawyers are going to be able to understand Bill 10. It took me a long time — and I actually consider myself to be still a reasonably intelligent person — to figure out just how Bill 10 worked.

I have to say that it's a marvellously complex set of processes. The rules of court are a way simpler tool for controlling vexatious and frivolous or wrongheaded or inappropriate or abusive or scandalous litigation. The rules of court focus specifically on the types of lawsuits that the member talks about, when she gives her example on the intimidation people feel when they're on the receiving end of a court process.

I know all about that; I've had those people in my office for 16 years as a practising lawyer. I've seen people weep in my office. I've seen people get outraged at what they think is wrong conduct by a plaintiff. I have found the rules of court to be a tool that's available to control the excesses that sometimes occur when plaintiffs commence lawsuits that have no merit, and I don't think this bill that we're going to repeal today, the Protection of Public Participation Act, is going to improve anybody's situation in that respect at all.

J. MacPhail: The Attorney General made reference to the fact that if there's a frivolous claim — and I apologize if I'm not using the correct language — or a claim that isn't proven, costs can be awarded against that frivolous claim. That's how the courts work now. Well, my understanding is that this bill allows for a security to be set aside so that the defendant — I think I'm getting the terms right; the person who the SLAPP suit is being brought against — can proceed knowing that. That person can rest assured that there's a security put aside for costs down the road, so that person knows that they won't have to proceed and pursue those costs separate and apart and that the security is there. Under those terms the person can proceed through court.

With this legislation being repealed, how does the Attorney General expect to fill that gap?

Hon. G. Plant: There is no gap. That right and remedy also exist in the rules of court as they exist already.

J. MacPhail: To be very specific for the Attorney General: the section on the disposition of security under clause 8…. Sorry, I don't have the exact clause there, but the clause that invokes the right to have a security set up is covered by what rules?

Hon. G. Plant: The rules of court provide trial judges, superior court judges, in civil proceedings with a high degree of flexibility to impose or make orders with respect to security for costs in a wide variety of cases, including the kinds of cases that are the subject of the Protection of Public Participation Act. The question of whether you will get such an order depends on the circumstances of the case. That is as true for the Public Participation Act as it is for the rules of court as they now exist. There is no gap.

J. MacPhail: I'm wondering whether the Attorney General sees an opportunity here, given the fact that this legislation is being repealed and that there was great support for it from many environmental and community organizations and the UBCM. Does he sees it as his role to outline in a plain-language initiative and communicate with the public about what their rights are to pursue a shield against SLAPP suits? Does he see it as his role to provide that public information in the form of a brochure or an educational tool?

Hon. G. Plant: There are lots of tools available already. There are public legal education clinics. The Legal Services Society certainly provides the public with a range of information. I think that the Canadian Bar Association has a lawyer referral service, so that if you are presented with a legal problem, you can phone

It actually is remarkable sometimes, when you survey the landscape, to realize how many organizations there are across the province that are willing to give citizens a bit of legal help in the early stages of a matter. I certainly know that many of my colleagues in the bar made a regular practice of ensuring that people who came to them could get the initial bit of advice without having to pay for it, recognizing that if, at the end of the hour, there was an identified need for legal representation, the client would then have to pay.

I'll certainly consider the member's suggestion. I can say to the member that one of the places that would be a useful source of providing this information to the public that I haven't identified is the Environmental Law Centre at UVic. I know that's an institute that cares about these issues. Perhaps they could also participate to ensure that members of the public know that if they're on the receiving end of lawsuits that they consider to be without merit or substance, they do have the right to make application under the rules of court to have the lawsuits dismissed or struck out.

J. MacPhail: I'm sure that those who are listening will examine the Attorney General's advice. What I was asking him for was a commitment that in repealing this legislation, and being so assured — I have to take him at his word — that the legislation is unnecessary, by virtue of the rules that are already in place on behalf of British Columbians…. I was asking him whether he would take the initiative and inform the public himself — in a brochure, a video or a communication through our school or university system, our community organizations or even through the Union of B.C. Municipalities convention coming up in September — about the rights and obligations of the plaintiffs, the defendants and the courts themselves to make sure that people are not harassed when they just exercise their democratic rights.

I think this legislation that the government is now repealing did open the door to greater democratic dialogue. It did make it a little more difficult for powerful interests to use lawsuits to seek action against those who were being critical of the powerful interests. I think that many, many people said that was a good thing, and now that's gone. I would urge the government to do everything it possibly can to inform the public, those that remain concerned, that their interests cannot be protected unless there is this Protection of Public Participation Act in place.

I expect that I will be voting against the repeal of this legislation; I will be voting against section 28. I note that I'm probably the only one in the chamber doing that, so I will make my comments known and vote against it on division.

Hon. G. Plant: I know I should probably wait for the member opposite. I just wanted, though, to draw the attention of the House to this provision in the context of the discussion that we've already had about the Protection of Public Participation Act. This is a transitional provision. Transitional provisions are, I think, not infrequently challenging. What it says is that notwithstanding the repeal of the Protection of Public Participation Act, that act will apply to any proceeding in the courts in which someone had, by filing a document, exercised the rights available to them under that act during the window of time when the Protection of Public Participation Act was the law of British Columbia. Litigants — be they plaintiffs or defendants — who made an application and filed a document that invoked the rights under this act will continue to be able to pursue them. The alternative would be to sort of retroactively remove that entitlement, and I did not think that was the appropriate step to take here. One additional element to the discussion that the opposition leader and I have already had about this, I thought I should bring the House's attention to section 30 and what it does.

J. MacPhail: Just to be clear, lawsuits that have proceeded on the basis of this act being in play will proceed.

Hon. G. Plant: The way the act worked was that you had to invoke the process under the act. You had to make an application or commence a specific process in the context of a larger lawsuit. Where someone had done that, where they had made that application, then they would be entitled to continue to proceed. If they had taken a specific step in a proceeding under this act while the act was in force, they would be allowed to continue to proceed.

J. MacPhail: I'm not exactly sure…. I gather that section 12 is stood down. I wasn't finished debating it, and I'm not sure what the House Leader has in mind for bringing it back. If it's brought back with an amendment, I'd ask for time to consider that amendment. But in this particular one, section 12 is going to be retroactively enforced to June 12, 2001. I'm wondering why that date was selected.

Hon. G. Plant: June 12 is the date that members of the assembly were sworn into office and is probably the date on which the appointment of government caucus committee chairs took effect.

J. MacPhail: When government caucus committee members were appointed, it was announced at the time — because I remember this; I was shocked that my Legislative Assembly money was going to be spent this way — that they would be getting a salary of $6,000. What authority was the minister gathering that money from, or has the payment not started?

Hon. G. Collins: I don't know whether the payment has started or not. I would assume not, until the legislation is passed, but…. I'm seeing a shaking head from one of the members involved, so I'm assuming it's awaiting the passing of the legislation. That would be the reason for it. I'm prepared, whenever the member is, to go back to section 12, I believe it was.

Hon. G. Collins: I'd like to address this issue. I must say I didn't hear the first comments of the member opposite, but I've been advised what they were. There is some concern about where this funding comes from.

There are a couple of places it could be. One is the Legislative Assembly Allowances and Pension Act. The other is the Legislative Assembly Management Committee — LAMC — Act, which is there as well. Those two acts describe…. In fact, the items that are in the Legislative Assembly Management Committee, which lists House Leaders, leaders of other parties, leaders of third parties, caucus, etc….

Hon. G. Collins: Well, my understanding is that in this House you have to elect four members. That was something that was determined by previous Houses, so if the member wants to pursue that, I suppose she can take it up with the Speaker.

Those items for the Speaker, House Leaders, ministers, government caucus chairs, Opposition House Leaders, caucus chairs, Whips, etc., were all moved from one bill into the other at some point, I assume, because I can see the deletions that were there. I don't think that which act they end up in is as important as the comment the member was making, which is: why would one fund government caucus chairs' allowance out of vote 1 as opposed to some other place? The reason is the same reason why, historically, in this House a government caucus chair or a Whip or an opposition person is funded out of vote 1. What these individuals do is chair a committee of that caucus. That committee includes ministers as well as non-ministers, private members of government. That's exactly the same job that the caucus chair currently plays. The caucus chair chairs all of caucus. These members chair part of caucus — a policy committee of caucus. The same logic that one would use to fund the government caucus chair or an opposition caucus chair, as was previously the case when we were in opposition, is used here. The same logic applies; the same argument applies.

The government will be supporting this section, but I do appreciate the member raising those questions. I know this is an issue for her — not just this, but the global issue of funding for caucuses. That is something between the member and the Speaker, and I understand that the Speaker has made his decision.

J. MacPhail: Let me be clear. This particular section has nothing to do with the circumstances in which the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and I find ourselves — absolutely nothing. They're not related at all.

My position here, to the minister, is: why is it that the government caucus, with their 76-to-2 majority — I leave the Speaker out of it — feels that it can set up committees and pay themselves for it out of vote 1? That's the issue here.

The positions that the Minister of Finance listed are traditional positions within the parliamentary system. You will go to any parliament and find those positions funded. Government caucus committees have existed in this Legislature. I don't know the internal workings of the Liberal caucus when they were in opposition, but I expect they had caucus committees. I know our government caucus sure had committees; we had committees that worked their tushes off. They did that as part of their role as MLAs. They weren't paid for it. We didn't exercise our authority or majority to pay extra money to MLAs doing just government caucus business. That's what's happening here. Tomorrow, can we rise up and expect that there'll be a government caucus committee for convening social events and that they'll get paid $6,000? This is work that is strictly work of a government caucus.

When the announcements for ministers of state were made by the Premier, he said — because the ministers of state are getting paid $25,000 a year — that ministers of state are to replace parliamentary secretaries. That's exactly what he said. And now we have some members of the government standing up and trying to say: "Well, these government caucus committee members, chairs, are replacing parliamentary secretaries." Well, tomorrow what are we going to do? Have an expansion of chairs and government caucus committees and say they're meant to replace parliamentary secretaries? Well, I say not. This may be useful work for the government caucus, seeing how there is very little debate amongst the government caucus taking place here in the chamber. There is very little openness and accountability that is occurring in this chamber. It may be useful work for government caucus committees to go out and travel the province, but do so out of your own global caucus budget, which is the way it has always been done.

Let me ask this: why not have the money come out of the minister's budget? If it's doing government work

that will then be reporting to the executive council…. Sorry, I've had so many explanations of this. I think it might have been the Attorney General on radio, where I get a lot of my information, saying that these are fantastic committees. They are doing fabulous work — I think was the direct quote — because they'll be then assisting the executive council in making decisions. Well, if that's their role, then why aren't they paid out of ministers' budgets?

Hon. G. Collins: For the same reason the government caucus chair wouldn't be paid out of ministers' budgets. What we are trying to do as a government is move the policy-making process down to the members of the Legislature as much as possible and not have all the power centred around the cabinet table with them making all of those decisions.

I understand this is a new way of doing things. I understand it may not be done in other jurisdictions. We're doing many things that are different and innovative in an attempt to change the way government works. The reason we are doing that is because, personally, I saw how government didn't work. I saw how it didn't work for ten years. I saw how all the power was centred around one individual: the Premier — the member from East Vancouver, not Mr. Harcourt, but Mr. Clark — and there was really no involvement. I had cabinet ministers of the previous government complain to me as a member of the opposition that it felt like they didn't have anything to do. They had no control; they had no involvement. Nobody asked them about these policy decisions. It was strictly being driven out of the Premier's office. We saw the result of that type of governance, and the people of British Columbia suffered under that type of governance.

So the new Premier, the member for Vancouver–Point Grey, set out, prior to the election, that he wanted to do things differently. We talked about government caucus committees prior to the election. We talked about how we were going to try and move decision-making and power and influence and advice and all of those things to the members of the Legislature as much as we possibly could. We understand that at the end of the day, cabinet has to make the final decision. But our members are involved in policy decisions way before it ever gets to cabinet, and that's revolutionary across government. It's not done anywhere else. The member is right. Not only am I not apologizing for that, I'm proud of that. It's a very different way. I know it's different, I know it's unusual, and I know it will take some time for people to understand how this is working. To be honest, it takes us some time to understand how this is going to work, but we're taking some chances. We're trying to create a different way, involve the representatives of the people of this province in a more inclusive way, get their advice and input far earlier on.

It is different, it is unusual, and it's not done everywhere else. We know that. We think it's something different — just like the Premier has appointed four ministers to be involved in health care. That's something that isn't done anywhere in the country, but I can tell you that in my discussions with other Ministers of Finance and other Ministers of Health and at the Premiers' conference, they were all very intrigued by the structure that the Premier has set up in order to do that. I can tell you that the Ministers of Health from other jurisdictions like the idea of having a minister whose job is to provide health services and a minister whose job is to try and plan and solve the problems and look beyond the day-to-day crises. That's revolutionary. Nobody else in the country is doing that. I think it will give us huge benefits over time as we start to plan beyond next week in health care, because what I saw for the last decade is that there was no planning being done in health care — none, nothing. Every day was crisis to crisis. For example, we had the House come back last September and grant a whole whack of cash, hundreds of millions of dollars, to health care. We were told that everything was going to be fine and that the system was solved. Then we were back in December. Let me see; that's October, November, December. Three months later we were back in the Legislature for an emergency session for more hundreds of millions of dollars for health care. So, yes, it is different; it is innovative. We're trying to do things differently .

The previous government had…. I can't remember the exact figure. I think that at one point it was eight or nine parliamentary secretaries. It may have been more than that. What the Premier has tried to do is create different responsibilities for people. There are ministers, and there are ministers of state, which are sort of like parliamentary secretaries but beyond that, in that they actually have responsibility for programs and are expected to deliver and are going to be held accountable for them. They're not just there to carry the briefcase for the minister. They're actually going to have a job, and they're going to be accountable and be responsible for it. Then we have government caucus chairs, who are designed to help the chair of the government caucus work with those policy issues and develop them and make sure that government is listening. We don't have five policy committees of cabinet. We have government caucus committees. That's where we start the process. It is very different. It is sort of being done in Alberta, but it is very different from what's being done everywhere else. It's innovative; it's new. We believe it's important.

We believe it'll change the way government works. Government is proud about that. I understand that the member may not quite see how that's going to work yet, and we'll try and keep her involved so that she gets a sense of how stuff moves through the system. We're all learning that as well, but the amount of work that those members are going to be doing is going to be significant. They're going to be held accountable for the results. They're going to be expected to deliver. They are going to be chairing the committees that review government service plans and budget plans as we go through an annual process. It's a huge job. It takes away a significant amount of the clout from Treasury

Board and puts it onto those committees as well. So it is a different way of doing things. We're proud of that.

The question of where it should go was a good question. We've reviewed it. We believe this is the appropriate place for it to go. We believe it's the appropriate way for it to be funded as well.

J. MacPhail: Well, it certainly is different. There's no question that the Premier has created layer upon layer of consultation and busywork for his cabinet and his government caucus. We have the core services review. We have a minister responsible strictly for planning health, although her budget is incredibly small. I'm not sure how she's going to do that. We have a Minister of State for Deregulation. We have legislative committees that have been established, but they haven't been called. I have no idea why that hasn't taken place. So here we have what are legitimate all-party committees that are inactive, have not been called, because the government is too busy putting in place its own government caucus committees first, which are totally under their own control.

Yes, we'll see whether the Liberal Premier operates differently than past Premiers about centralizing power. We'll see whether the Premier actually isn't putting absolutely all responsibility into his own office. We'll see whether the Premier's office is engaging in the minutiae of government and approval so that only his office can approve the minutiae of day-to-day operations of government because he wants centralized control. We'll see whether these government caucus committees are actually going to function in the way that the Minister of Finance suggests or whether they're just the government using its authority in this chamber to take money away from the Legislative Assembly and pay it to its own caucus members to do government work, to do the busywork of the Premier. That's exactly what's happening here.

This government appointed the most expensive and largest cabinet in the history of British Columbia. If you tally up the number of payments going to ministers' offices, it's outrageous — absolutely outrageous. Maybe that's why they can't afford to have this as a line — government caucus members, I guess, who are staffed by public servants. I don't know; I think they are. They're not having their own independent staff; they're staffed by public servants. I guess it is a way that the government wants to bury that money in vote 1 and take it away from the Legislative Assembly.

If they didn't do that — if they were honest about it and put it directly into ministry operations — the public would then be able to tally up: "Oh my God. The largest cabinet in history. The most expensive cabinet in history. Here's what it's costing us as taxpayers." And then they'd have to add on government caucus chair work, which is doing just the work of government, not the Legislative Assembly. They'd have to add that to the tally. And then the public may say: "Gee, I thought the Premier was going to offer cost-efficient, open, accountable government, but look how much it's costing. What did he mean when he said that?"

Mr. Chair, this is not where these government caucus committees should be funded. They get $4.3 million to run their caucus operations. Pay for it themselves out of that. Don't take it out of what is supposed to be a Legislative Assembly budget meant for all members. And don't try to stand up and say that this is innovative and that it's breaking new ground but has the same value as a caucus chair or a Whip, positions that have been the tradition of the parliamentary system for decades. Don't insult the public's perception by suggesting that.

Hon. G. Collins: I just want to comment on a couple of things that the member said. First of all, I don't know how she did it when she was in government, but you can't just take money from the caucus budget and pay it to MLAs. That would be against the law, so that can't be done. I just want to clarify why that is not being done. That's why we're doing it the legal, transparent way: changing the legislation. I don't know what they did, but we're not doing it that way.

Second of all, the member talks about how much it costs to do this. This is $36,000 a year. If we improve the policy-making process of government one-millionth of 1 percent, we will save ten times that much. Perhaps if the government caucus in the prior administration had been involved in the way they managed government, there wouldn't be three fast ferries sitting rusting over in Vancouver, which don't work. There wouldn't be a whole bunch of expenditures that the people of British Columbia are paying for now and will pay for next year and the year after and the year after. They'll be paying for the fast ferries for 30 years. So it's a little much to hear the member talk about that.

I believe this will improve the way government works. I think it will improve the ability of people to speak to their MLAs, who will in turn be part of that decision-making process, and we'll get better decisions that are more in touch with the people of the province. The party that was in government for ten years and gets thrown out of office the way the previous government was clearly wasn't in touch with the people of British Columbia in any way, shape or form. Perhaps if the previous government had tried to do things a little differently, a little innovatively — actually listen to the members of the caucus and have their members of caucus go back to the ridings and listen to the people that put them there — they wouldn't have been in this position.

I don't know if it was that member, but it was certainly members of the previous government that talked post-election about how much they'd lost touch with the people of the province and their own supporters, in sort of the examination of the remains of the last election. This is an attempt to try and make sure that we stay accountable, that we stay in contact with the people of this province, that we're dealing

with their priorities and that their members, which they elected, are going to be involved in those decision-making processes. I think it's innovative; I think it's great. I know there's great enthusiasm from our caucus members about that.

There was one of our members — I think it's the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast — who served in a previous government from 1986 to 1991. It was not an NDP government but another government. We were sitting in one of the government caucus committees, and he leaned over to me and said: "You know, I served for five years in a government, and the first time I was in the cabinet room discussing any policy of any circumstance was the day we were voting to get rid of the previous Premier, the day they were having to make that decision." That was the only time he was invited into the decision-making process after five years.

We are doing things differently; we are doing things innovatively. We're not taking money from the legislative budget. We're not taking money from someone else. This will be put into the process, and we'll try and make sure it manages.

If we want to talk about the expense of government, some of the things we've done to try and keep costs under control as well…. Previously, ministers had an executive assistant in the constituency offices, so there were 20-some ministers and 20-some executive assistants, each probably getting paid more than the combined amount of these six government caucus chairs.

Hon. G. Collins: There's a million dollars. The member's done the calculations for me. Our ministers have no executive assistants in the constituency offices. They were eliminated.

So we are trying to keep things under control. We think, better than having an executive assistant sitting in an office trying to keep in touch, that it's the job of the MLAs and the members and the ministers to keep in touch. That's what we're trying to do. That's part of this process. So we are trying to save funds as well. It's not just to try and expend as much money as possible. We're trying to find ways to take resources and allocate them differently. So we save a million dollars in that process, and we spend $36,000 trying to get our government caucus chairs to involve MLAs in the process. I think that's very possible.

Hon. G. Collins: Well, we did raise ministerial assistant salaries, and the reason was that we expected to have better people, more talented people than we had before. And so far I think every indication is that we do have better and more talented people.

I want to address the comments of the member opposite on the legislative committees of the Legislature. She complained that they're not active yet, and what's the government taking so long for? I'm getting a little whipsawed here, because one day the member's standing up and telling us we're moving too fast. The next day she tells we're not moving fast enough.

Hon. G. Collins: Imagine a government wanting to move on its agenda — imagine that.

Hon. G. Collins: If I can remind the member opposite…. I know she was Government House Leader for a number of years, so if she thinks back really hard and goes way, way back in her memory, she'll recall that legislative committees were usually appointed at the end of session. In fact, if I can think back to 1991, the previous administration was elected on October 17, the House sat in March of the next year, and it wasn't until July of that year — almost a full year later — that the legislative committees were even struck.

We are going to name the members of the legislative committees soon. They will all be receiving their directions from the Legislature. The motions to charge them will be occurring here in the Legislature. I know that the member opposite will be playing a role on any of those committees that she or her colleague wish to be involved in. They will certainly have ample opportunity to play that part. As well, one of them will be chairing the Public Accounts Committee and the work that they do. So there will be great opportunity.

Let me say this: I certainly hope that there's a better attendance record by members of the NDP looking forward than there was in the last ten years on those legislative committees, where it was almost impossible to get a quorum. Meetings were regularly cancelled and rescheduled because enough government members wouldn't show up to come to them.

I'm encouraged by the new-found enthusiasm from the NDP for these committees to actually function. I'm encouraged. I hope that she'll grab the reins of the Public Accounts Committee, or perhaps her colleague will, and make sure that it does the good work it has done in the past. And I'm sure that I will see at least one of them attending every meeting of the other legislative committees as they move forward and discharge the House's business.

Without getting into a much longer debate than perhaps we've already engaged in, I think I've justified very clearly what the government's agenda, desire and vision are in making these changes. I think I've outlined some of the ways that we are trying to make savings to ensure that's included as well. The member opposite may not like it. I must say, I haven't seen as much passion on any other issue that's been debated so far in the Legislature, other than this one. But I am encouraged by it, and we'll see what the member has to say.

	YEAS — 60

Falcon	Coell	Hogg
L. Reid	Halsey-Brandt	Hawkins
Whittred	Cheema	Hansen
Bruce	Santori	van Dongen
Barisoff	Nettleton	Wilson
Masi	Lee	Thorpe
Hagen	Murray	Plant
Collins	Bond	Stephens
Neufeld	Coleman	Jarvis
Anderson	Orr	Harris
Nuraney	Brenzinger	Belsey
Bell	Long	Chutter
Mayencourt	Trumper	Johnston
Bennett	R. Stewart	Hayer
Christensen	Krueger	McMahon
Bray	Les	Locke
Nijjar	Bhullar	Wong
Bloy	Suffredine	MacKay
K. Stewart	Lekstrom	Hawes
Kerr	Manhas	Hunter
	NAYS — 1

	MacPhail

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

Bill 11, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2001, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 14; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

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

Bill 14, Crown Corporation Governance Statutes Amendment Act, 2001, reported complete without amendment.

Bill 14, Crown Corporation Governance Statutes Amendment Act, 2001, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Collins: I call Committee of Supply, and for the information of members, we'll be beginning with the Ministry of Provincial Revenue.

Hon. G. Collins: The member for Vancouver-Hastings has indicated that this is one of the estimates that she has some questions for. Perhaps the House can recess for just a moment to allow her time to be available for questions — just a few minutes, five minutes perhaps. That should give her time, I think.

Hon. G. Collins: Perhaps we can start now. I understand all members are present that need to be.

Hon. B. Barisoff: It is my pleasure to introduce today the estimates for the Ministry of Provincial Revenue for fiscal 2001-02. Before I begin, I would like to introduce the members of my staff who are here with me today: Deputy Minister Chris Trumpy, on my right, and Marcus Barthropp, on my left.

My ministry plays an important supporting role over our province's public services. The Ministry of Provincial Revenue is the province's primary tax and debt collector — the money that pays for the important services like health care and education. Provincial Revenue also administers the province's major tax and resource-revenue legislation, ensuring that it's applied fairly and consistently.

The ministry does not, however, have the responsibility for developing revenue policy, like the recent personal and business tax cuts that have given B.C. a competitive tax environment. That is the responsibility of the Ministers of Finance, Forests, and Energy and Mines for our major revenue sources.

My ministry's divisions have a strong record of encouraging voluntary compliance with tax laws. Their efforts to communicate clearly, consistently and courteously with those who remit payments are ongoing. The spirit of courtesy and fairness is also evident in my ministry's enforcement and collection activities.

Some of the key projects. Much of my ministry's activity is administrative in nature and carries on from year to year. However, its staff is consistently involved in efforts to make activities more efficient, innovative and user-friendly from the taxpayers' perspective. This year my ministry's key projects fall into three broad categories, which the Premier outlined in his initial letter to me as minister: first, integrate major sources of resource revenues; second, maximize revenue collection within principles of fairness and equity; and third, examine the cost-effectiveness of collection methods and, in cooperation with the chief information officer, seek opportunities for electronic transactions.

Integration. The first theme is to integrate major sources of resource revenues. This relates to the very reason the new ministry was created. In the past, revenue-collecting responsibilities were shared amongst the Finance ministry and several resource ministries. With the unification of tax-collection activities, I am certain that many opportunities to streamline service provision will come to light.

Our government is committed to cutting red tape and regulatory burden by one-third within three years. My ministry is also working to integrate its Internet-based information and services on one site. The goal is to bring all revenue-related items under one virtual roof, just as we've united these activities in one ministry.

Maximizing revenue. The second category of key projects relates to maximizing revenue collection within the principles of fairness and equity. I want my ministry to continue to be recognized for fairness, efficiency and innovation, and for providing access to high-quality and knowledgable, helpful staff. As I mentioned earlier, maximizing revenue collection involves efforts to encourage voluntary compliance and efforts to enforce tax legislation.

In June the consumer taxation branch introduced a new social service tax return, which it developed in consultation with stakeholders. The new forms are easier to complete and should reduce errors, thereby helping to ensure fair and consistent tax collection. The forms also simplify information collection for the ministry. My ministry will continue to support the implementation of this and other streamlined forms in the year ahead.

In another move to maximize revenue, we've implemented the recommendations of the auditor general to improve collection of outstanding government debts. At the auditor general's recommendation we have centralized collection activities. With the change, a small core of dedicated professional staff of the Ministry of Provincial Revenue will collect money owed to non-tax-receivable ministries, like the Ministry of Human Resources and the Ministry of Health Planning. This improves and consolidates the previous method where staff from individual ministries collected revenue owed. Centralizing this collection process has a number of advantages. It utilizes the collection and loan management branch staff's expertise, realizes the economies of scale, generates revenue and helps ensure consistent and equitable treatment of debtors.

Turning to enforcement activity, my ministry is working with the national underground economy working group to combat the growth of the underground economy. This black market activity steals from all British Columbians. That's why I am pleased my ministry is working with the federal, provincial and territorial governments on a number of new efforts. These range from tax ed programs in high schools to improved data-sharing practices to efforts to identify non-registrants and non-filers who are in business.

Of course, maximizing tax collection will continue to require old-fashioned investigative work. The efforts of auditors in my ministry is noteworthy. For the first quarter of this fiscal year audit assessments related to corporation capital tax and insurance premium tax totalled $14.7 million. That's a 236 percent increase over last year.

Out-of-province audit trips have also been fruitful. For example, 13 auditors recently spent four weeks in Toronto working on 62 files with a payoff for taxpayers of a potential recovery of $4.1 million.

Cost-effective collection. The third category of the ministry projects relates to examining cost-effectiveness of collection methods and, in cooperation with the chief information officer, seeking opportunities for electronic transactions. This is in keeping with our government's promise to cut the cost of paper flow by digitizing all government data, forms and information possible. It also reflects our drive to give all British Columbians and businesses better on-line access to core services.

Recently the consumer taxation branch finished implementing a major system that allows it to perform virtually all its compliance and tax administration on line. This improved tax processing and reporting. Not only was this system concluded on time and on budget, it was so successful that my ministry is now

working to determine if the system can be applied to meet the needs of the property transfer tax section. The ministry is also pursuing a four-year project that will see many of its services delivered electronically. A feasibility study completed last year indicated that many tax remitters would like to do business on line, and consultation on such aspects as electronic payment options has been helping to shape the project's initial service offerings.

Our taxation branches are not the only branches that are looking at cost effectiveness and efficiency of collection. Our mineral, oil and gas revenue branch recently updated their computer system and simplified filing for their clients. Clients can now file change-of-well status forms through the Internet, changing only a few information fields on their computer screen instead of resubmitting information that the branch already has. This branch has also begun implementing invoicing for gas royalties. Previously clients had to fill out complicated royalty reports. By invoicing them, the process is now quicker and easier electronically. Electronic service delivery will remain the key focus for making tax information, filing and payment more effective and efficient for all concerned.

In conclusion, I'd like to thank the staff throughout my ministry — from the visionaries who are working to improve tax collection and information delivery to those involved in the day-to-day administration and processing. All have a role in ensuring funding for programs that British Columbians value. They have taken up the new challenges that this year's ministry budget will fund: integrating major sources of resource revenues in one ministry, maximizing revenue collection within the principles of fairness and equity, and striving to make collection methods as cost-effective as possible.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I'd be pleased the respond to any questions by the member opposite.

J. MacPhail: Thank you for those remarks. Of course, I've visited your website, so I fully appreciate that much of that information is on the website. Prior to the creation of the Ministry of Provincial Revenue, where were the tasks performed?

The Chair: I'm sorry, member; we're having some difficulty with the question. Please repeat.

J. MacPhail: Prior to the creation of the Ministry of Provincial Revenue, where were the tasks performed? What ministry performed the tasks that you are now responsible for?

Hon. B. Barisoff: They were performed by the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations, the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

J. MacPhail: So there has been an amalgamation of operations under the one roof, the Provincial Revenue ministry?

Hon. B. Barisoff: The collection agencies…. Those collections from all those three ministries are now focused into the one new Ministry of Provincial Revenue.

J. MacPhail: The minister is responsible for the collection of the social services tax, as I understand it.

J. MacPhail: One of the things that I had difficulty understanding in the budget was the economic forecast for growth to increase to 3.8 percent in the year 2002. The reason for that was that pretty much everybody else was predicting a maximum growth of 3.2 percent.

Believe you me, Mr. Chair, I'm going to make this relevant to the minister, because I certainly appreciated him starting off by saying what it was he wasn't responsible for. So I will make this question relevant. I'm just worried about the House Leader running in here and fretting that I may not be making this relevant.

So we had people throughout the province, basically the leading economists, suggesting that the growth rate for the year 2002 would be anywhere from about 2.9 percent to about 3.2 percent. Yet the economic forecast for the year 2002 that was tabled in the budget of July 30 came in at 3.8 percent.

I understand that there was actually an element of deflation built into the economic forecast. One normally has a nominal GDP growth and then a real GDP growth, and the real GDP growth is less than the nominal GDP growth. It's because an inflation factor is taken, and you subtract that. But in this particular forecast there was a deflation factor put into effect, so that raised…. The real GDP growth rate was higher than the nominal rate.

Given the fact that there's an element of deflation built into the economic forecast, is the minister concerned that his revenue collections around the social services tax will actually decline, because deflation means prices decline?

Hon. B. Barisoff: The retail forecasts continue to grow. If you're looking to see what the forecasting is, of course, then you'd have to talk to the Minister of Finance.

J. MacPhail: I fully appreciate that there's a separation of responsibilities, but I also know that there's an overall executive council responsibility, and part of the job of the Minister of Provincial Revenue is to account for the collection of provincial revenue. So it's on that basis that we'll be discussing it.

Well, then what is the forecast for collection for social services tax? How much will you be collecting? What is the growth rate that the minister refers to, and could you point it out to me in the document?

Hon. B. Barisoff: If the hon. member opposite would like to look on page 10 of the estimates binder, it would show as $3.664 billion.

J. MacPhail: And the growth rate — the increased rate percentage — is…?

Hon. B. Barisoff: We can provide you with that information. We just need a calculator to figure it out.

J. MacPhail: What do you anticipate the social services collection rising to next year?

Hon. B. Barisoff: Again, forecasting that projection would be something the Finance minister would be dealing with.

J. MacPhail: Is the minister concerned about the fact that there's a deflation element built into the economic forecast for the year 2002? Is he concerned that that may wipe out the projected, if any, increase in growth for collection of social services tax from increased retail sales?

Hon. B. Barisoff: The retail sales are driven off the consumer expenditures, and that is projected, actually, to grow over the next year.

J. MacPhail: I've got most of the documents here. It would just be helpful if the minister could point to the documents, name the documents and then the page.

J. MacPhail: I'm referring to table 1.3. The social services tax is driven off the consumer expenditure. Is that what the minister's saying? Just nod if…. Yes. And I note that the forecast for the consumer expenditure is going to increase by 2.9 percent in the year 2002. Has the deflationary element been taken into account in that forecast?

Hon. B. Barisoff: Those are actually real dollars, so the answer would be yes.

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

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

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

Hon. G. Bruce: I'd like to introduce the staff that are with me: my deputy minister, Lee Doney; the assistant deputy minister of management services, Tom Vincent; and my director of policy, Jan Rossley.

I'm happy to introduce the 2000-01 budget estimates for the Ministry of Skills Development and Labour. Today I'll set out our objectives for the upcoming year. First I want to briefly outline the role of our ministry.

The Labour ministry's mandate covers a very broad spectrum of responsibilities. These include employment standards; labour relations; workplace safety; workers compensation; pension standards; skills development, including industry training and apprenticeship; and industrial adjustment services.

Our government considers economic growth to be the critical determinant of our ongoing quality of life in British Columbia. It is the key to our ability to provide for our families, to sustain our communities and to adequately fund crucial public services like health care, education, child protection and public safety.

Renewing our economy is our top priority, and my ministry is playing its part in this renewal in a number of important ways. We know that to enhance the competitive playing field upon which all businesses seek to prosper, we must restore flexibility and rights in the workplace for employees and employers alike. Restoring flexibility will encourage innovation and productivity without undue government intervention. We must also work to modernize and streamline employment standards to make sure that all workers are treated fairly and equitably.

We are already committed to a measured legislative agenda that will balance the needs of all parties, workers, employers and the public. Included are changes to the Labour Code that will restore education as an essential service, that will restore workers' rights to secret ballots, that will eliminate sectoral bargaining in the construction industry and that will restore pensions to workers where these have been withheld.

Our ministry is also participating in the core services review. First, to make sure that every function has a compelling public purpose and reflects our current fiscal situation; and second, to find ways that our services can be delivered more cost-effectively, efficiently and in customer-friendly ways. Most important here is to make the Workers Compensation Board more accountable, cost-effective and responsive to the needs of injured workers and employers alike.

To achieve our goals, we have committed as a government to reducing red tape by one-third within three years. In consultation with those affected we'll be looking hard at our employment standards from this point of view, as well as to see how they can have greater flexibility to help British Columbia's workers and companies compete and prosper, especially in the new economy.

The other part of my ministry is skills development. We've made it clear that a top-notch education system is the key to the future for British Columbians, as well as for our economy and society. My ministry has responsibility, along with the Ministry of Advanced Education, for the apprenticeship agency, which is now able to provide skills in more than 150 trades and occupations. It, too, is being reviewed as part of the core services review.

For our economy to achieve its true potential in the years ahead, we are required to anticipate and manage the changes that transition to the new economy will bring. We will need to meet and beat the skills shortages now looming in a number of sectors. The retirement of the baby boom generation, new technology and economic growth are causing shortages of trained people in health care, in information technology and engineering, and in some construction and industrial trades.

There will also be the need to respond to changes in our existing industries. I'm glad to say that my ministry is now responsible for the industrial adjustment services, which are specifically targeted at helping businesses, workers and communities to anticipate change and provide quick and flexible responses.

Finally, my ministry will develop a human resources planning strategy in cooperation with the Ministry of Competition, Science and Enterprise, to change threatening skills shortages into opportunities for British Columbians of all ages.

This gives a brief overview of my ministry's activities for the year ahead. Some activities represent fixing past mistakes, some are aimed at unlocking our economy, and some will plan for new opportunities. But taken together, Mr. Chairman, they will start a new era for British Columbia's skills and labour portfolio.

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm pleased to present the estimates for my office, the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General. As all of you know, enhanced public safety was one of the key commitments this government made in promising a new era of leadership in British Columbia. It's on page 3 of our

The government has a fundamental duty to protect its citizens and maintain law and order. In many ways, public safety is the foundation of our quality of life. Over the last decade British Columbians have seen that foundation erode. Although the overall crime rate in B.C. is declining, our violent crime rate is still 27 percent higher than the national average. The people of this province deserve better. The public deserves more when it comes to dealing with their government. They deserve a government that is open, honest and accountable and one that honours its commitments.

I am proud to say that along with our ongoing work to enhance public safety, my ministry has already taken steps to honour other new-era commitments made by this government. We promised to eliminate photo radar within 90 days, and with the cooperation of the Attorney General, we've done that. Photo radar was a cash grab that did nothing to improve safety on B.C. streets and highways. The money and police resources that had been diverted to this failed public safety program can now be better utilized.

Speaking of our police, I'm here to say today that police services are a key priority of this government. As the Premier said to me in a conversation the other day, he created a Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General so that someone would wake up every morning thinking about corrections, public safety, consumer protection and policing. We do that in this ministry.

In the next few months and over the coming year, my ministry will review the funding and training of municipal police and the funding of the RCMP. The RCMP will be asked to be more accountable to this government relative to its expenditures both during and after the end of a fiscal year, as has not been the case in the past. We will review policing resources for communities of under 5,000 people, we will review the training and arming of auxiliary police per our New Era document, and we will review the status of the agreement between British Columbia and the federal government regarding the RCMP.

This government and this ministry are committed to ensuring that the policing we have is the most cost-efficient and most effective possible. As directed by the Premier, my ministry is undertaking a core review of all its programs to assess clearly and logically what our business is, how we are going to do it and whether we can do it better. On the regulatory side of my ministry, I am committed to streamlining and modernizing all our legislation and regulation. We are working to bring fairness and equity to our justice system.

While this is a far-reaching review and is undertaken as part of the government's core review of the public service, there are a couple of highlights that I will touch on today. Right now we are reviewing the B.C. community programs to make sure that they meet the needs of the people in the province, that dollars are targeted as best they can and that the resources are being used in the most efficient manner possible.

We are also committed, as we were in the New Era document, to modernizing the Residential Tenancy Act. Within the first weeks of my ministry, I made it very clear that we should move on this immediately. We are going to put it in plain language and clearly explain the rights and responsibility of both tenants and landlords within the new act. As many of you may know, this has been a bit of a hobby horse of mine for some time. I was promised a plain-language rewrite of this act by the previous Attorney General in 1997. It is now 2001. There is no plain-language rewrite. There is no work done on it, and it is time to move forward. We made that commitment in our new era, and we're acting on it.

As well, as part of the governmentwide core review, I've already begun a review and restructuring of the gaming sector. I intend to streamline the management of gaming in British Columbia, make it more accountable and make government operate better within this sector. We will ensure that gaming is managed in a responsible manner, in the public interest. We will address the needs of families and the public in doing so.

My ministry and I have taken the lead, as part of the government's overall core service review, to review the gaming sector, its governance and management, and the policy environment in which the industry works. A first step was taken on July 13 in replacing the board of directors of the B.C. Gaming Commission with my deputy minister and introducing a CEO to manage the commission operations. We are well into our review, which deals with the entire gaming sector. I plan to announce a new, streamlined framework for the management of gaming in early September. I anticipate comprehensive gaming legislation to support this framework in the spring session of the Legislative Assembly.

Another issue you may have heard me talk about a few times in the last two weeks is consumer legislation. We are almost set to present, within this session of the Legislature, a couple of new bills which will help streamline the area of consumer protection and cut red tape. At the same time, I have before me a comprehensive plan to consolidate a lot of the work to be done by this branch. It all stems from a conversation I had a few weeks ago with a senior bureaucrat in the branch who told me how we could reduce regulation and red tape and actually improve the enforcement of consumer protection by combining some 13 separate acts into one fair trade act. I looked hard at the plan. I liked its structure, and I took it forward. We're working to make it a reality.

This is just some of the work that's already in process. We're also taking steps in key areas to help protect B.C.'s children and families. I will be working with my colleague the Minister of Children and Family Development to fight child prostitution — which, for everybody who thinks of child prostitution, is also child abuse — and youth crime and to develop specific legislation aimed at greater protection for children at risk. I would develop legislation that would provide

We've also begun the groundwork on a domestic violence prevention act, as promised in our New Era document. This act would help police better protect families from violent offenders. The conclusion is safer streets and schools in every community. That is a great and laudable vision for the province of British Columbia. That's what we talk about when we care about our community. It is what we believe in and what we're willing to fight for and work for.

As you can see, we're doing a lot of work, and we have a lot of work to do. British Columbians have told us that they want a government that says what it will do and then does it — one that lives up to its promises and one that the people of this province can trust. The blueprint for change that this government has put forward on this basis, for building a better province, is ours. As Solicitor General I am pleased that my ministry is part of our vision. Together we can rebuild this province so that all of us can once again be proud British Columbians.

D. MacKay: I heard you mention the photo radar program, which has now been scrapped. I think it was certainly the right move to take. I wonder if the minister could tell me what the savings are projected to be with the elimination of photo radar. And does he have any idea what the costs will be back to the government through the sale of the equipment that was in the vans and the vans themselves for the photo radar project?

Hon. R. Coleman: There is no savings to government from the closing of photo radar. In actual fact, there was effectively a cost to us of about $5.9 million, a portion of which was given to us through Treasury Board. We had to find the other portion within the operations of this ministry and this budgetary cycle. The equipment and the vans were not owned by government. They're actually owned by ICBC, who are themselves responsible for their disposal. They have not provided me with any numbers as to what they think they might be able to receive out of that.

There are a number of outstanding fines which we are still pursuing. We said that we would pursue all outstanding tickets that were issued prior to the effective date of the closure. Some of those revenues will accrue to the consolidated revenue fund through the fines sources, but those funds don't accrue to the ministry. So we are the ones who will actually be accepting the costs, and the revenues would go to government.

D. Jarvis: I wanted to ask the minister a few questions about a document I received in my office from constituents in my riding. It pertains to the police commissioner's office, and it's about different situations that have occurred in Saanich and Abbotsford and two or three instances in Vancouver. The purpose of the document, when it was originally submitted to me, was to ask for a legislative review of the Police Act, and I'm pleased to hear that the minister is now going to have this act. Just for the record, I thought — if he wouldn't mind — I would like to enter into the record a few statements that have been made in this document, to see if there is any issue that should be looked into a little more than normal.

Not knowing what kind of review this may be…. In the past three years there have been about six public hearings ordered. Only two or three of them have gone through, and the rest have been declined. There is a situation, I guess, occurring that the commissioner should not have the whole jurisdiction to proceed with these hearings, and in his role of oversight, that not laying the charges…. There is an apprehension of institutional bias related to the commissioner on the order of investigation and overseeing the investigation and the laying of charges and the hiring of the prosecutor and the adjudicator. There's a lot of detail to this document. I thought that later on I'd give the minister a copy of it in order to look into it when he's going through his legislative review of it. I myself do not quite understand the whole procedure that is going on here. Although I do not want to admit it, MLAs do not know everything.

One aspect here states that although the B.C. Court of Appeal ruled that the commissioner has the power to override the process, beyond simple oversight, the commissioner in effect becomes the disciplining authority and not the chief constable. The contracts could be amended to overcome those bias concerns. This decision may be the subject of an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

One aspect is the discipline hearings. Under the act the only evidence that can be called is that provided by the internal investigator. That means that the officer is not allowed to defend himself according to the principles of natural justice. This is quite a concern. As I said earlier, this is not just from one police department; this is based on situations throughout British Columbia. They say that the fact that the officer is not permitted to cross-examine witnesses or introduce evidence when they're being investigated seems to be a travesty. It is causing great concern among the rank and file and has eroded the average police officer's confidence in the fairness of the system. This is wrong. It has been said many times that justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done, and this evidently is not happening.

Under the fairness aspect, there is a question: did the Legislature intend the commissioner to have the power that the B.C. Court of Appeal has in effect given to him — that is, to override the chief constable, the disciplining authority under the act, and create his own charges? That's probably my first question to you, and I'll wait for your answer.

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm pleased to hear this member finally admit that he doesn't have all the answers — for the first time, probably, in his political career.

I sat on the committee that actually selected the police complaint commissioner three years ago, and we also all debated that act in this Legislative Assembly. The act sets out that at about a three-year deadline, which just came up recently, we would have to set a committee of the Legislature that would allow for a legislative committee to be struck to review the operation of the commissioner's office and the act and how it's performing within the environment. It was set so that we could see three years out just how this particular piece of legislation was working in British Columbia and how the process was working.

That was probably a very good process, because we'd never had a police complaint commissioner set up in British Columbia before. People should know that the police complaint commissioner only deals with the 12 municipal police departments and does not deal with the police complaint process of the RCMP. Some of the public are very concerned that there's a separate process for the RCMP. That may come under some discussion, but because they're a federal force and governed under a federal statute, the jurisdiction doesn't sit there for us.

That legislative committee will be selected by the Committee of Selection of the Legislature. Last week I presented a motion in the House to establish the ability for that Committee of Selection to be established and then to select the committee that will do this. There's a number of issues that we want to discuss as we go through that. One is obviously how it's working. We want input from people like your constituent — to be able to come through a public consultation process with that committee so we can get that feedback. That's what we're looking for. If the member wants to provide me with the documentation, I'll make sure that it goes to whoever the committee chair is as soon as that committee is struck.

The other side of that coin is that we need, as we go through that process, to also look at the process around other police complaint issues, probably more relative to special constables. We have a number with special constable status in the province in various different jurisdictions that may not be caught in this act as far as a review. That's one of the things that has been brought to our attention that should probably be considered as part of this process. I think the member's questions and the ability for him to be involved in that exists if the member wishes. I would suggest that he speak to the chair of the Committee of Selection if he wishes to sit on that committee. He could be part of the process and bring his points to the table as part of that review process. Therefore, you have that direct input right to the committee as part of the review of the act and the review of the commissioner's office.

D. Jarvis: I probably should be involved in that in some way, and I will do that. This document has been expunged, I guess, so that it's sort of an overall view of things without any specifics in it, essentially. From what I understand, specific officers that have contacted me are somewhat worried about discipline charges coming up before their own different detachments and all the rest of it. I'm wondering how this hearing is going to come about if you want to get specific officers involved in it, because they do feel that there's a great prejudice out there towards them. Most of our police officers do a very fine job in this province regardless. Being an ex-police officer — of course not a B.C. officer but one of these federal officers — I'm sure the minister would understand that there's a situation out there that could become kind of dicey in the sense that our policemen do not feel that they are protected themselves. Hopefully, this review will give them some kind of solace in that end of it.

On that premise, I'm not going to go into further details on this, but I'll take it up directly with the minister and that review that he's going to have.

Hon. R. Coleman: The police associations will have an opportunity, as I understand it, to have input. Specific member cases would probably not be discussed by this committee, given that they are individual cases that go back and forth, and people wouldn't necessarily want that to be the case as far as a public discussion is concerned. When the committee is struck, I'll also make sure to provide the member's document, if he wishes to provide it to me, to whoever the chair is so they can have that in their files as well. I look forward to this process working.

I think it's important that we take a look at our different agencies, boards and commissions, including the police complaints commission process, on a regular basis to make sure that they're serving the public as well as the police agencies in British Columbia and that they're working for all parties — remembering, of course, that it is an agency that has to look at sometimes very difficult cases that some people may have particular opinions about. But it's very important that we ensure that the professional operation of our police agencies is taking place as well.

So I look forward to the member's document. I will make sure it gets to the right place.

D. MacKay: To the minister, to do with RCMP policing costs, can the minister tell me if the RCMP received an uplift in their budget for this fiscal year? If so, how much did they get? There are two reasons I ask the question. First of all, you mentioned being 27 percent above the national average for violent crimes and the huge vacancy rate that the RCMP detachments throughout the province are experiencing. I believe that the last time I looked into it, they were about 400 members short throughout the province. I'm just wondering if the minister has in fact pressured the RCMP to fill those vacancies. If the funding lift is there, does it cover those vacant positions that we presently have in the province?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, the total complement of the provincial police force is at its peak as far as all positions being filled. Having said that, that doesn't necessarily mean that's the optimum number, one way

or the other, for the operation of the provincial force in British Columbia, which I will have under review in the next few weeks as I look at the budget and at long-term operations for the police agencies.

As a result, obviously, of the increase in the complement one year over the other, which is a substantial number of police officers added in British Columbia, yes, the budget was increased in the last fiscal year, and budget allocations were made to continue that in this fiscal year. The reality now for us, though, looking at the entire package of accountability around the RCMP, is whether we're getting value for money, whether the complement of officers is being properly designated within the field so that we're actually receiving the standard of policing we want per man. One of the mistakes I think people make in policing, very often, is they just base it on numbers and not effectiveness.

Certainly how the entire infrastructure of policing operates in B.C. will be something that I intend to spend a great deal of time on. I've already met with the assistant commissioner once. I've met with the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police. I intend to continue to meet with those. I've met with them on a number of bases, both on an accountability level and on a performance level, and I continue to do so.

P. Wong: I'm very pleased to have received information from the minister regarding community safety day on August 11, last Saturday. As a result, I went out to visit some of the policing centres in my riding. These centres are manned by volunteers. The reason for setting up these centres is very obvious. They raise the awareness of the police and also give more educational background to the people in the riding. But a coordinator told me that they have only four months' reserve, and then they cannot survive anymore. Can the minister tell us how much money we assigned for community policing centres?

Hon. R. Coleman: Thanks to the member for the question. First of all, I should just touch on Safe Communities Day. It's actually a very cost-effective program. There was some question from members of my caucus that this looked to be a pretty expensive and glossy program. We actually had events in over 80 communities that day, at a total cost to us of about $4,500, plus $100 per community, which we gave them for their event. For around $15,000, effectively, we had safe-community events all across the province that raised awareness. I think that was probably one of the more effective uses of money that we have.

It also brought back to me the whole issue around the delivery of programs in British Columbia relative to all of these issues. We have the community programs division — we're going to be reviewing it as well as our community programs on the victim side. The reality is that at the present time in British Columbia, only one jurisdiction receives any ongoing funding for their community policing offices, and that's the city of Vancouver, because there was an ongoing agreement established. Other than that, the provincial government only provides startup costs to community policing offices and not ongoing funding for operations. That's been the policy up to now. Given the recent discussions I've had and looking at our programs, I'm not at liberty to say one way or the other whether we'll be able to provide ongoing funding, because of budget pressures for those offices.

I think the work that community volunteers do in community policing offices is incredibly valuable to communities. The ongoing funding responsibilities have been left with municipalities to continue to fund their community policing offices, because they actually pay their policing contracts as well. We don't pay the policing contract, for instance, in Burnaby. That's paid for by the municipality in a contract with the RCMP. That's basically considered a municipal contract. We would like to, anyway we can, enhance the involvement of volunteers in crime prevention, and we will be looking at that long term to come up with a strategic plan relative to that. But the fact of the matter is that today we don't give ongoing funding to community policing offices, and we haven't done.

P. Wong: If, because of lack of funding, the community centres have to close, does it give a bad image — that the province is not going to look after the continuation of this volunteer operation?

Hon. R. Coleman: I don't think it's a question of image; I think it's a question of where the responsibility lies in relationship to community policing offices. That relationship lies between the community policing office in Burnaby and the city council of Burnaby, and I can't really comment on what their priorities should be on a local level.

We have always committed to provide the startup costs to encourage these to happen, in conjunction and relationship with municipal and local government. We'll continue to do that. But we are not in a position, either financially or, frankly, from a program perspective today, to make any long-term commitment to start providing funding to community police offices across the province. That's a staggering number of offices. In the city of Vancouver alone there are 21 of them. If you start to add them up from community to community across the province, you can understand why it's so important that at the local level, where the volunteer is and where the local government's input into their policing cost is, that relationship should exist very strongly between those agencies.

P. Wong: I understand that you have funding to train auxiliary police, but does the ministry have any funding to train youth?

Hon. R. Coleman: There are a number of programs within the ministry. All programs are under review. We do have some programs right now that we already fund for youth. We actually fund, I believe, a provincial youth crisis line, which is in the riding of Burnaby. That's where we have it located. It's the one

that's used across the province for youth in crisis, and we fund that. We fund a number of other training programs for youth, in bullying tactics, etc., in conjunction with different levels of the Ministry of Education, along with some programs within our ministry. Our review right now will include a look at: are we doing it effectively? How are we handling our resources as we put them in there? Can we get better use of the resources we have?

We already do a number of youth programs in conjunction with communities. There's a number of other programs you may have come across, like Nights Alive and Weekends Alive, that are initiatives of this ministry back to communities to deal with youth. We'll continue to review those programs and see that we can deliver them in the best way possible, so on the youth side we're already quite involved in funding in those particular areas. But as part of the core review of government, we still have to go back to answer the core questions: should we be doing this, is it effective, and are we delivering it in the best effective manner? We will apply that litmus test to all the programs in the ministry.

P. Wong: I understand marijuana-growing activity is quite a concern in our riding. It also extends from residential to industrial areas. Does the ministry have any measures to stop it or get rid of it?

Hon. R. Coleman: Grow-ops are an issue that actually don't isolate themselves to any geographical area of British Columbia, whether it be Burnaby, the Fraser Valley, the Okanagan or the Kootenays. We have police resources. The police continuously work on this particular issue. Make no mistake about the fact that the grow operations in British Columbia are the basis for a lot of other crime issues that exist out there. Our grow-ops become the trading of cocaine across the border back into our economy, which then can be turned into cash to buy land in another country to launder money. But to come back into this country, it's all part of an overall organized crime situation with a number of people involved.

We have the Organized Crime Agency of British Columbia, which we established about 18 months ago. I've had briefings from them on their progress. I've sat down with the RCMP on their priorities relative to this, as well, and the city police departments. We should understand that they're applying their resources as best they can, but this is a big issue. Frankly, I leave it to the police agencies to outline to me their strategic plans in these areas. We try and fund them within our budget so that they will be funded for the ability to do it. We expect them to implement and enforce the law, which is their job. The ministry doesn't actually sit here and give direction as to how they will go about doing it.

We have very professional police forces in this province that understand the issue and that are working hard to deal with grow-ops and a plethora of other issues in and around crime. It's an ongoing briefing, communication between the ministry and them, to make sure that we're moving in the right direction. I'm comfortable that they have plans and strategic plans as they move forward. There are some issues that we're looking at that we can deal with to help to facilitate their ability to do their job better or quicker relative to search warrants and that sort of thing. But the fact of the matter is it's an ongoing working relationship with regards to illegal drugs and crime in the province as to where government fits and where policing agencies fit and what government can do to make it easier or more effective for police agencies to do their job.

B. Penner: I'd like to take this opportunity to publicly congratulate the minister on becoming Solicitor General for British Columbia. As a person who's been around this place for the past five years, it's refreshing to see people who are actually qualified in their areas of expertise to take on the role of minister. That's a refreshing change, not just for me but for other British Columbians: to know that we now have ministers who know something of which they speak.

I'd like to ask the minister for an update or status report on the auxiliary police program in British Columbia. As the minister will know, the previous government made a decision to dramatically change the auxiliary police program in British Columbia, which had been the most successful program in the country. As a result of some of those changes, including disarming auxiliary police, we went from having between 1,100 and 1,200 auxiliary and/or reserve police officers in British Columbia to somewhere around 500. That was a tremendous shame, in my view.

I note that the B.C. Liberal Party, in the most recent campaign, made a commitment to properly arm and train auxiliary police in the province and to restore that program. So I wonder if the minister can enlighten us as to what progress, if any, he's making and what the prognosis is for the auxiliary police program in the province.

Hon. R. Coleman: As the member knows, I debated this issue in the Legislature with him relative to auxiliary policing when the disarming took place. It was an initiative by a former Attorney General, through his ministry, which saw fit to do this. In so doing, it opened a door for police agencies to change how they operated — and they grabbed it — and to change how they would manage their auxiliary police forces in the province.

In my opinion, it was an attack on the volunteer. It was an attack on people that had committed many hours and many years to helping their community police in this province to do a job. We all felt that at that time and continue to feel that. There are a number of issues now as we try to resurrect a program that has been gone for a long enough period of time, with the cost of the firearms that were disposed of or sold or moved off, with the cost of training, with the level of training. Those issues are all on the table.

I've made it very clear in my meetings with the RCMP that we intend to meet our commitment in the New Era document and that I want them to work with us on finding the solutions to their concerns and our concerns so we can come up with an auxiliary force that works for British Columbians. We're going to continue to do that. They will continue at the same time with a community program on an auxiliary level for people that do not want to be in the armed portion of the police agencies, because there has been some success on the community volunteer side with policing in British Columbia.

I think there's a fit for certain people in the community that want to do community policing, bike patrols and that sort of thing, relative to their involvement with police agencies in their community. There's also a fit to augment your provincial police force with people that are capable of backing up a police officer and reducing the stress on the front line relative to being alone. It's a huge issue in certain areas of the province, where you have small numbers of police officers who are taking care of large geographical areas without assistance from a lot of members. It's also a huge issue among certain people on the front line relative to who should be armed and how they should be armed and that sort of thing.

That's a challenge, but I do have a commitment. I made it very clear shortly after I became Solicitor General. I do have a commitment from the assistant commissioner for E Division that we will work on a solution that will meet our new-era commitment and enhance auxiliary policing in British Columbia. I take that commitment at its word, and I will continue to work with that agency to find that long-term solution. That's something we plan to do. It's ongoing, as I've told members that have asked me. I think that we've actually made some progress relative to ideas on how we can handle it, and I think that we'll get there.

R. Lee: I have just two simple questions. One is that I saw in the budget estimates that in the corporate services there's a reduction of 96 percent in the budget over last year, from $5.8 million to $340,000. I want to have some elaboration from the minister on what kind of a reduction that budget is going to be.

Hon. R. Coleman: Actually, in keeping with our commitment to have shared services between ministries, the corporate services side of the ministry is reflected in the budget of the Attorney General for both ministries. That reduction is actually a line item that was moved to the Attorney General's ministry, because the corporate services are a joint relationship between us and them. By having shared services, our intention is to save substantial dollars over time so that we're not duplicating. The amount that's in there is just the budget for the deputy minister's office.

R. Lee: Another question. We, the B.C. Liberals, made a commitment during the election that we were going to channel 75 percent of local traffic fines to community policing and youth services. So I just want to see how soon that commitment will be carried out.

Hon. R. Coleman: That was not a 90-day commitment in the New Era document; it was a commitment to take place in our first term of office. The time line has not been set. As I understand it, at a point in time as we move through, a plan will be presented to cabinet for implementation of that particular commitment in the New Era document. Frankly, in the last 60 days it has not been a priority of this ministry to deal with because of the gaming issues and the issues in and around our budget and the new-era commitments that we had to meet within the 90 days. We will, at a point in time, sit down with the ministries affected, and we will take forward something for presentation which will probably go through a government caucus committee.

The issue around it is that in actual fact, we may be the ones that initiate that discussion, but the calculations of the revenue side and how they'll be determined and affected will be by Treasury Board and the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Provincial Revenue, who will deal with their implementation plan relative to that. I would suspect we may be asked to come up with the time line and a plan or a recommendation, but at the end of the day, it will be those ministries that would deal with that particular issue.

Hon. S. Hagen: I am very happy to rise today to introduce the budget estimates for the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management. I'd like to introduce the staff here with me today, including my deputy minister, Jon O'Riordan. There's no telling what kind of good work a couple of old hands with a new vision like Jon and myself can do in this ministry. Also here to assist me today are Dana Hayden, Bill Valentine from the B.C. Assets and Land Corporation, Sheila Wynn from the environmental assessment office, and other senior staff in the audience.

As I said in my response to the Speech from the Throne, the Premier's decision to entrust me with the responsibility of this new ministry is a source of great pride and excitement. In our new-era platform, we committed to introducing a new era of environmental

stewardship, including the adoption of a scientifically based principal approach to environmental management that ensures sustainability, accountability and responsibility. In this estimates debate, I look forward to discussing how the ministry's goals, objectives and strategies will help us fulfil that commitment.

The ministry mandate. The Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management was created to provide provincial leadership to achieve sustainable development of the province's land, water and resources while maintaining environmental values. Specifically, the ministry's job is to provide corporate leadership to land, water and resources policy and planning; to consolidate land, water and resource information, tenures, rights and values; to lead development of timely and sustainable decisions for land and water allocation and management; and to gain public trust in land use, resource planning and decision-making. Simply put, the ministry is here to show leadership and make sure that information and decision-making about land, water and resources are coordinated to benefit our economy, our communities and our environment.

Let me stress that bringing all of these diverse programs together is a major shock to the system. I want to salute the professionalism and dedication of ministry staff who have gone the extra mile to begin to make this concept a reality in a very short period of time.

Our goals. The ministry is focused on five goals: sustainable economic development, strategic land use planning, integrated resource information and business development, sustainable use of lands and water, and organizational excellence. I would like to briefly outline how we are going to work towards these goals and some of the key strategies we will undertake this year.

First of all, sustainable economic development. This is the key to our economic and environmental future. Achieving the goal of sustainable economic development is all about creating a vibrant economy, supporting responsible decision-making and being held accountable for those decisions.

Secondly, vibrant economy. Creating a vibrant economy means encouraging sustainable economic development of our province's tremendous natural resource endowment. This will generate economic opportunities, increased wealth in our communities and benefits for all British Columbians.

Then, we are to encourage sustainable development that enhances our economy. Some of the ministry's key activities will include assisting in developing economic development strategies for a range of industry sectors, including mining, agriculture, forestry and recreation, through land use planning, information systems and allocation of Crown land tenures; developing consistent environmental assessment guidelines, standards and policies and a streamlined decision-making framework for environmental assessment; establishing a working forest land base that provides greater stability for working families and improves the long-term forest management as per our new-era commitment; examining the feasibility of establishing a 20-year plan for infrastructure rights-of-way, hydro lines, telecommunications, fibre-optic cables and gas or oil pipelines that responds to community needs; and lastly, developing land, water and resource policy relating to aboriginal rights and treaty negotiations so that we can support the government's commitment to negotiating workable, affordable treaty settlements that will provide certainty, finality and equality.

Several of the agencies that fall under the responsibility of the ministry contribute to a vibrant economy. These include the B.C. Assets and Land Corporation, which makes Crown land and assets available for environmentally responsible economic growth and public benefit. BCAL is the lead agency in our commitment in the New Era document to eliminate backlog and delays in Crown land applications. As you can appreciate, this is no simple task, but the BCAL leadership, from CEO Bill Valentine on down, have grasped the nettle, and I will be announcing action on this priority issue in the coming weeks.

We have to reduce the backlog, but that's only half the battle. We also have to provide faster approvals and greater access to Crown land and resources to protect and create jobs in tourism, mining, farming, ranging, and oil and gas production, as we have said in the new-era platform. The land belongs to the people of British Columbia, and they expect it to be managed to benefit local economies and create jobs, as long as it is not at the expense of the environment.

Other agencies under my ministry include the environmental assessment office, which facilitates assessments of the impacts of major development proposals, and the Fraser Basin Council, which is a joint initiative of the federal, provincial and local governments to address air, land and water management and promote sustainable development in the basin. Clearly all of these agencies will be subject to the core services review over the coming months. This does not detract in any way from the valuable services that they provide. Our goal is to ensure that we do business better and give British Columbians maximum value for their taxpayer dollars.

Responsible decision-making. A second way the ministry is working towards sustainable economic development is by ensuring responsible and responsive governance. This means accountability, timely decision-making and earning and keeping the public's trust. Key activities that will further this goal include ensuring that major land use decisions, including cabinet decisions on any new parks, are made in public.

One of the key decisions this ministry will be making in the near future will be how to move the central coast land use strategy forward in a balanced fashion. This is an absolutely critical issue to the future of British Columbia's forest industry, our relations with first nations and our commitment to environmental stewardship.

Our government is using timely completion of land use plans as a major part of our economic recovery strategy. I'm talking about land use plans that bring people together and provide a solid foundation for us to move forward to strengthen B.C.'s economy. We will also work with the federal government to streamline legislation and regulations to avoid overlap and duplication. We're reviewing legislation to ensure that land and resource use decision-making is clearly linked to accountability. If cabinet is accountable for the outcome, then a cabinet member should be the ultimate decision-maker on the issue.

Sustainability reporting. The third area of focus in working towards sustainable economic development is sustainability reporting. Our plan is to clearly define sustainability, identify ways of measuring our success in achieving it, carefully monitor those measures and consistently report our progress to British Columbians. Key activities this year will include establishing clear sustainability principles so everyone will be aware of the principles and benchmarks that guide decisions about the use of Crown land and resources; identifying indicators that can be used to measure our progress towards living up to those sustainability principles; and working closely with other jurisdictions so we avoid reinventing the wheel where there are useful lessons from what's been done in other places.

Strategic land use planning. The ministry's second goal is to carry out strategic land use planning, preparing the comprehensive land and resource plans that are needed to promote the sustainable use and management of our province's resources. All of these plans will be developed using a results-based approach so that we get plans that will work on the ground, not just in a newspaper headline or in a government press release.

One of the key agencies in the field of strategic land use planning that reports through this ministry is the Land Reserve Commission, which is an independent provincial agency dedicated to ensuring that resource lands are available for British Columbia's working farms and forests. We are working to fulfil our new-era commitment to make it more responsive to community needs. Another important agency is the Muskwa-Kechika Advisory Board, which provides advice on how best to balance environmental, economic and sustainable development interests in this spectacular area in our province's northeast.

Integrated resource information and business development. The ministry's third goal is to provide integrated resource information and enhanced business development. By providing, for the first time, integrated information on provincial resources, tenures, titles and rights, the ministry supports the sustainable use and management of our province's resources. By consolidating these registries and this information in one ministry, we will be able to save taxpayers' dollars and establish consistent standards for both government and the private sector to use.

One of the key agencies in our ministry for providing this sort of information is the B.C. Assessment Authority, which provides the provincewide property assessments for local and provincial taxation. In addition, our ministry can help promote business development through information technology development, public-private partnerships and enhanced client services.

The sustainable use of lands and water. The ministry's fourth goal is sustainable use of lands and water. We continue to eliminate red tape and unnecessary regulation in land and resource decision-making, and we will do it without compromising the principles of sustainability that are at the core of our new ministry.

I mentioned BCAL earlier, when I talked about sustainable economic development. They will also play a central role in ensuring that our resources are properly managed with a focus on results, not regulation. We're going to move forward more efficient decision-making by streamlining decision-making so decisions are reached more quickly and by eliminating regulation in the areas of lands and water that are not essential to the goal of sustainability use.

We're following through on the New Era document commitment to develop a living rivers act, in conjunction with Water, Land and Air Protection, to protect and improve British Columbia's river systems with scientifically based standards for watershed management, enhancement to fish habitat and a ten-year program to repair past damage. To this end, I am pleased that the B.C. Heritage Rivers Board, which promotes local stewardship efforts, reports to this ministry.

Organizational excellence. The ministry's fifth and final goal for the year is to achieve organizational excellence. This is a goal that's focused on making sure that we have innovative and responsive programs and staff working to better serve the public of British Columbia. This means following through on the New Era document's commitment to accountability, including three-year service plans and performance targets. We have the best ministry staff in government to help us meet this challenge.

To sum up, our job is to break down silos within government, to view land and resource management as a whole rather than just a collection of disconnected parts. I realize that this change won't be easy, and I know that some decisions will always be contentious. But by adopting a scientifically based approach to land and resource management and by making the link between economic and environmental sustainability, I know that we can make a positive difference. I look forward to working closely with my cabinet and caucus colleagues, and I am proud and excited to have responsibility for this important work. I look forward to discussing our plans during the estimates debate.

D. MacKay: To the minister. My riding, Bulkley Valley–Stikine, is dependent on resource extraction. One of the big complaints I constantly hear from my constituents is the lag time it takes to get any project underway, with all the red tape and regulation that they must face. So the goal to provide faster access and

approval to Crown lands and resources is a very laudable goal for the new government and for your ministry. I wish you well on that endeavour.

As water is one of our natural resources, I wonder if the minister can tell me whether or not his ministry is involved with Alcan and their attempt to dredge the Tahtsa Narrows to increase the water flow to the intake for the power that is being used at Alcan and I understand also being exported from the province. I wonder if the ministry is involved in that Tahtsa Narrows project, and if so, could you update me as to where the province is with that project?

Hon. S. Hagen: That apparently requires statutory approval. We have a staff member involved with that. We're not the lead agency, but we are involved with it.

B. Penner: I would like to congratulate the minister on his appointment. I believe he does have a big task on his hands, but it's certainly a worthwhile objective, to try to break the various silos between ministries and to try to get the government as a whole thinking about how to approach problems in a way that will resolve differences rather than create them.

I'd like to ask the minister about an issue that has created differences amongst people in the general public. That pertains to the Heritage Conservation Act and its provisions. I believe this ministry now has responsibility for that piece of legislation, which has been around in various forms in the province of British Columbia for several decades. However, it underwent a significant rewrite in the 1990s and, partly as a result, has led to some problems for private landowners in the province. Specifically, more than 20,000….

B. Penner: Just before the bells rang to call us in to a vote in the main House, I was addressing the minister about the Heritage Conservation Act and its provisions. As the minister is no doubt aware, more than 20,000 properties in British Columbia have been identified by government staff as having some form of heritage value within the meaning of the Heritage Conservation Act. The result of that determination is that private landholders lose considerable rights with respect to their property.

This issue gained considerable notoriety just over a year ago, when a farmer in my constituency of Chilliwack-Kent, Melvin Vander-Hoek, discovered, much to his horror, that some land he had purchased had been deemed to have been of heritage value for many years by people working within the heritage branch of the previous ministry. The upshot of all of it was that he was prevented from embarking upon some development plans on his property, which were the basis upon which he had bought the property. So he had this property, had the debt and wasn't able to go about creating economic activity to help pay for the property, as he had planned.

I wonder if the minister can provide us with an update as to where his ministry staff are at in terms of potentially listing these designated sites on the land titles registry, which is one way of giving the public advanced notice of whether a particular piece of property they're interested in is in fact deemed to be a heritage site. I note that the current legislation does allow for heritage sites to be so registered on the land titles registry, but it was the practice of the previous government not to do so. In fact, out of the more than 23,000 sites, I think, that have been deemed to have heritage value, less than five were ever registered with the land titles system.

When I talked to lawyers — I'm a lawyer myself, and I talk to other solicitors who engage in the practice of conveying land titles — they say it's not part of their standard procedure to phone a ministry staff person to see if, in some dusty filing cabinet, there's a notation that perhaps, at some time, something of heritage value was found on that land. Yet, if there is such a notation in somebody's filing cabinet in Victoria pertaining to a piece of land, that can greatly impede the development, use or future sale of that land.

I guess a short-term solution is to try and get these properties registered on land titles. Perhaps a bigger question to be asked is whether the current act needs to be changed or whether we need to have a more stringent test or criteria applied before we go ahead and deem certain properties to have heritage values that are sufficient to justify greatly impeding any development of that land.

Hon. S. Hagen: Two things with regard to the Heritage Conservation Act. One is that the ministry has started, and is presently, recording those 20,000 pieces of property. The heritage designation is being recorded in the land titles branch or on the land title of the property. Secondly, I'm aware of some of the issues that have come up in the past with regard to the act. That act is going to be going through a very strenuous core review process. After that core review is done, we'll take a look at the results to make sure that we're satisfied.

B. Penner: I thank the minister for that answer, and it's reassuring to hear that the act will be reviewed.

Last year I had an occasion to speak at some length with the previous minister from the NDP government, Bill Barlee. He was the minister at the time that the act underwent its most recent revision, which was a dramatic expansion of the legislation. He expressed quite candidly to me the view that far too many sites

have been deemed to be heritage sites and that some form of greater public scrutiny needs to be applied to this decision-making process.

At present it's left in the hands of staff people within the ministry, a very small number, to decide at their own initiative whether a certain piece of property should be deemed to be a heritage site. Once it is, it falls within that Heritage Conservation Act, and nothing anybody here says about it can change that. That I find remarkable, and so does Bill Barlee.

He was encouraging me last year to encourage a B.C. Liberal government to take a serious look at the legislation that he introduced. In other words, he was feeling remiss for the legislation that was introduced. He indicated to me that he had assumed staff would not simply go about designating sites as heritage sites without greater consultation or input. That has not turned out to be the case, according to Mr. Barlee.

One of his suggestions that I'll just leave with the minister is appointing — I hate to even suggest growing a bureaucracy — a board or a panel of people who would take a look at suggested sites and evaluate whether they have the criteria necessary to be deemed a heritage site. Yes, there may be a broken pot or some bone or other ancient artifact found on a certain acreage, but is that sufficiently valuable to warrant shutting down that property for future use? I think he asked that question to me rhetorically, suggesting the answer might be no, in some cases.

That's a suggestion from a previous minister. I think he made that comment to me in good faith, and I accepted it as such. I'll leave that with the minister.

Hon. S. Hagen: Thank you very much. We'll certainly make a note of that suggestion.

I want to talk to you about something that happened in my riding with a commercial development site when an instrument purported to be from ancient first nations use was found on the site. It just happened by accident that the manager of the museum recognized this as a piece that had been stolen out of the museum two years previously.

So what we're talking about here is very, very serious. But I think the good news is that our government believes in private ownership of land and the rights that go with that. There's a balance there that we'll certainly be looking at.

D. MacKay: The question I'm about to ask now is going to cross over several different ministries. I would suggest: the Attorney General's ministry, the Ministry of Energy and Mines and your ministry. It has to do with a small placer claim up in the Atlin area.

I have a constituent who's had several placer claims under his name for a number of years, and he continues to meet the obligations that have been placed on him by the different ministries to keep his placer claims current and up to date. In other words, he has to spend money and do work on those placer claims every year to keep those claims current and under his name. Just recently the natives in the north decided to build a cabin in the middle of his placer claim. The claim is one that he wanted to work this spring and fall. Now that has come to a standstill because of the natives exercising their right, as they see it, to build a cabin on a placer claim that was under my constituent's name.

This issue now has been going through the governments, through lawyers, through the Attorney General's ministry and Energy and Mines. I'm just wondering if the minister can tell me if his ministry is involved in that issue. Where does he see this going so far as my constituent is concerned — his access to Crown land, which he was entitled to, with his placer claim?

Hon. S. Hagen: I am personally not familiar with that issue, but my staff is somewhat familiar. I'm told there are some serious infractions of trespass in that part of the province. Obviously this is another reason to get on with the settlement of native land claims. But I would be happy to deal with that specific case through BCAL and provide you with whatever information we can.

On the broader perspective, when our ministry is dealing with land use and LRMP processes, we are making a lot of effort to involve the first nations in the process so that we can stay away from these sorts of situations developing. In the central coast it seems to be working, and I hope that will translate to the north coast as well.

R. Lee: I would like to ask one question. We all know that this is a very important ministry in terms of the future of this province, because we need scientific research and data on how to manage this province's natural resources. In terms of renewable resources, I think it's very important for salmon fishery. We have different species of fish in the sea. To achieve some kind of balance of sustainable resources is important there and also in forestry — to renew the resources so that we can have a harvest cycle that will benefit the province in the next 200 years. Research and development are very important in this area. The scientists can have models, and they can collect data through other channels and surveys and that kind of thing, to establish some kind of real planning for the future.

My question to the minister is: how many scientists and researchers are working in his ministry, and how will that develop in the future?

Hon. S. Hagen: Good question, because I didn't know the answer to that until just now. We have approximately 100 scientists out of the 1,500 employees in the ministry. But I think that the important thing here is that we also interact very closely with Forests; Mines; Water, Land and Air Protection; and Agriculture and Fisheries, who also have scientists. But the other thing that I think is important, and I think this is probably new from a government perspective, is that my deputy and I have been meeting with the

university presidents and deans. When we get into situations where there is possibly a difference of opinion between a government scientist and a group's scientist, we want to be able to go to the universities to get an objective opinion on dealing with that issue. So while we have our own scientists and we have scientists in the other ministries, we're not going to be confined to that. Where we need to we'll get third-party scientific information.

R. Lee: I think to have an overall understanding of the different industries — for example, there are tools available in mathematics; there is specific research done in certain fishery departments in the universities — probably some kind of an interdisciplinary approach to this kind of research would be beneficial to your ministry. I hope that in the future there will be more cooperation, as you said, between the government ministries and the academic institutes so that we can develop B.C.'s sustainable resources better.

Hon. S. Hagen: If I could just continue to comment, it's really, really important to understand that we interact very closely with line ministries, but also…. Earlier this morning I had a meeting with the federal Minister of Fisheries in Vancouver. That's important for us too, because we interact so closely with the federal government with regard to water. He assured me, at that meeting, that he was committed to cutting out duplication and to working together with his people and the province so that when we're dealing with salmon, for instance, or aquaculture or shellfish farming, there would be less red tape and we could move through the applications more quickly.

B. Penner: I'm just interested to hear the minister say he'd met with the Minister of Fisheries, I believe, earlier today. One issue that I've already discussed with the minister pertains to gravel removal in the Fraser River. It's a bone of contention like no other in the Fraser Valley. Just this past weekend I met with the Seabird Island Indian band council, and they, too, are extremely upset at restrictions, driven in part by the province but also by the federal government through the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, preventing the extraction of gravel from the Fraser River. There had been a three-year moratorium, and now, essentially, that three years is up, but the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is finding more excuses to impede and hinder the removal of gravel.

I hasten to point out that when the gravel is removed, it has been removed at times of the year when the water is low, and there is no impact on the fish. The Seabird Island Indian band, for example, points out that without being able to remove the gravel, they are losing considerable amounts of agricultural land because of erosion. There is a particular sand bar or gravel bar that has built up that is redirecting the flow of the Fraser River against their unprotected, undiked farmland, and they're losing many acres of prime agricultural land every single year, getting washed down the Fraser River and emptying out into Georgia Strait. This is a prime example of how one environmental decision has a major impact on other ministries or other sectors of the economy. Everyone, from the Seabird Indian band to farmers in Chilliwack to residents of Agassiz, is worried about the level of the river bed rising up and floodwaters coming ever closer to their door. They're wondering when on earth our government's going to get a sense of reality and understand that we have to manage the Fraser River. Simply allowing it to go wild is not an option 100 years after a decision was made to manage the river.

That point was made very clearly by the Seabird Island Indian band. They said: "You folks came here 100-and-some years ago. You decided you're going to keep the river within its banks. Now we have to manage the river, and it's not good enough to simply turn your back now and walk away and wash your hands of your responsibility."

Of course, there's the flood plain regulation, which also ties into this. That's a ripple effect of having the ban on the removal of gravel. One arm of the government says now, "You have to build your houses and other buildings several metres off the ground" — using, by the way, material from I don't know where, since we can't get it out of the river any more — "because we might have a flood." Well, the most obvious solution to reducing the flood threat in the Fraser Valley, I think, is to permit the extraction of gravel along the lines of environmentally responsible methods, which can be done.

I think the minister knows my point, but I wanted to register it here just to report to him that particularly first nations people but also many others in the upper Fraser Valley are frustrated at inaction about gravel removal. I know that the minister will do his best to deal with this issue.

The Chair: Minister, noting the time, we have to adjourn before the House. If you'd like to deal with the member directly on this issue.

Hon. S. Hagen: I move that this committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.