Hansard -- Volume 3, Number 22 -- Thursday, March 7, 2002

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY



CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page


Committee of the Whole House		1603
	Medical Services Arbitration Act (Bill 9) J. MacPhail Hon. C. Hansen

Report and Third Reading of Bills		1615
	Medical Services Arbitration Act (Bill 9)

Royal Assent to Bills		1615
	Vancouver Island Natural Gas Pipeline Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 5) Medical Services Arbitration Act (Bill 9)

Tabling Documents		1615
	Management of the Information Technology Portfolio in the Ministry of Attorney General, report No. 5, 2001-02

	Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		1615
	Estimates: Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management (continued) J. Kwan Hon. S. Hagen B. Bennett B. Penner R. Hawes

Hon. G. Collins: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, they'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, followed by the Ministry of Education. In this House, I call committee stage of Bill 9.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 9; H. Long in the chair.

Arbitration. It says here that the arbitration process was initiated on November 14, 2001. Could the minister give the background? As I understand it, that's when actual meetings started. Could the minister please put on record the background leading up to that?

Hon. C. Hansen: The member is very correct. While the arbitration process started in a very formal way on November 14, in fact there was a process leading up to this. If you go back to when it originated, it was on February 28, 2001, with the signing of the second master agreement. There was negotiation which followed that. In the early part of the summer Allan McEachern was appointed as the arbitrator. He started a process with mediation to be followed by arbitration, but in reality much of the work was a continuum that really started at the negotiation stage and evolved into a mediation process, which in turn evolved into an arbitration stage. But in a technical sense the formal arbitration started on November 14.

J. MacPhail: Could the minister please describe the structure of the arbitration board and how it was chosen, including the arbitrator himself?

Hon. C. Hansen: I gather this was a rather conventional approach to establishing an arbitration. There is provision in the master agreement for both parties to mutually agree on an arbitrator. Failing that mutual agreement, the person would be selected by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

In this case, several names were put forward by either side. Those were not acceptable in the end. I think very close to sort of a deadline — not a formal deadline — it was mutually agreed on Mr. McEachern assuming that position, so it did not have to go to the head of the Supreme Court. Following that selection of Mr. McEachern, both parties then chose a winger to work with Mr. McEachern throughout the mediation and arbitration process.

J. MacPhail: Can the minister please name the wingers and also name the time frame over which…? When was the agreement reached for Mr. McEachern to be the arbitrator?

Hon. C. Hansen: Mr. McEachern was selected as the mediator/arbitrator in June. The two wingers who were selected were Dr. Charles Wright representing the government side and, representing the B.C. Medical Association, Dr. William Orovan.

J. MacPhail: So it was under this current government's regime that Mr. McEachern was selected as the arbitrator and that the wingers were appointed. Is that correct?

J. MacPhail: In June 2001, I gather the mediation part of the mediation/arbitration process started. Can the minister please describe how that process worked and how frequently meetings occurred amongst the parties?

Hon. C. Hansen: As this process evolved, in the first stage Mr. McEachern took a considerable amount of time just to brief himself on some of the issues. The mediation process started almost immediately, but in terms of formal meetings that started taking place, they were really started in the fall. There was a considerable amount of time that was taken just to make sure individuals were up to speed before there were formal meetings, but there were meetings scheduled by mutual agreement throughout the fall. Even once the formal arbitration process started on November 14, the first formal meetings of the arbitration actually didn't take place until into December. Certainly, the process was evolving. The process was underway throughout that whole time frame.

J. MacPhail: Did the government winger, the government member of the arbitration board, participate in the mediation process, the meetings and briefing the arbitrator? Did the government winger participate in that process?

Hon. C. Hansen: It's our understanding that the mediation process was not as structured. The wingers

may have been part of some meetings during that mediation process and may not have been part of others during that process. I don't have the details here of exactly when the wingers were part of individual meetings, but if the member's interested, I can certainly get that schedule if she would like that.

J. MacPhail: Let me just be clear on where I'm going on this line of questioning, so that perhaps staff can help get the minister the answers to this.

The arbitration process was commenced under this government's regime. Yesterday I heard the minister say that the terms of reference weren't followed, or he was upset or displeased with the inability of the arbitrator to meet the terms of reference, so we have this legislation here that does away with the process completely and replaces it with nothing. The reason why I'm so curious to know the process from the appointment of the arbitrator in June through to the commencement of the hearings of November 14, 2001, and the role that the government and the government's winger — government member of the arbitration board — played is because I think there was an avenue available that was much different than this draconian legislation.

During the course of this time, the government was very well aware of the deterioration of its finances — very well aware of the deterioration of its finances. The July 30 budget was brought in. Clearly, the arbitration process for the doctors hadn't even begun. As I recall — and I apologize; I'm doing this a little bit from memory, and the photographic aspect of that memory fades daily — sometime in September the second quarterly report was brought in by the Minister of Finance, and the government had flipped into a deficit position. The economic forecast had deteriorated substantially, revenues had fallen, and the deficit had ballooned to $2 billion. That was from the deficit being $1.5 billion in the July 30 budget.

What direction did the minister give to the government winger — I'm sorry I'm using that term; that's an old labour relations term — or the government member of the arbitration board to bring that to the attention of the arbitrator?

Hon. C. Hansen: We were approached directly by Mr. McEachern. We did not rely on that information being communicated through the winger.

The Minister of Finance and I met directly with Mr. McEachern in probably late August or September. If she wanted to know the exact date, I could probably find it on my PalmPilot in the next couple of minutes.

We had a very good meeting. It lasted about three hours in total. The Minister of Finance presented to Mr. McEachern a very comprehensive overview of the state of the province's finances. Neither of the wingers was there. There was no representatives from the B.C. Medical Association at that meeting. I informed the B.C. Medical Association that this meeting had taken place. The Finance minister and I subsequently met with the executive of the B.C. Medical Association and made the exact same presentation to them so they would know the context in which we had communicated that information to Mr. McEachern.

J. MacPhail: Was the presentation that the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Health Services made to Mr. McEachern current information? If so, what was the current information that was presented?

Hon. C. Hansen: Basically, it was as current as it could be on that date. Certainly, the Minister of Finance was very open and very frank with Mr. McEachern. It was a very good discussion about the state of the province's finances and the challenges we're facing.

J. MacPhail: This is the first time I've heard about this meeting taking place between the arbitrator and the executive council. Let me ask this question: were there subsequent meetings between any members of the government or the government member of the board with Mr. McEachern to give further financial information to him?

Hon. C. Hansen: Not that I'm aware of, although there was certainly a formal presentation made by government during the arbitration process with regard to the government's ability to pay and the state of the province's finances.

J. MacPhail: Was the information the government gave to Mr. McEachern presented in written form? Is that available for public purview?

Hon. C. Hansen: It was done on slides. I know the slides still exist. It was the kind of slides the Finance minister uses in different presentations. Whether we have the exact slides we presented that day…. Certainly, if the member would like to see them, I could try to undertake to get copies of those.

J. MacPhail: This is the first time I've heard this information — that the Finance minister had a direct meeting with Mr. McEachern, the arbitrator. I'm sure it is on the public record, but it's the first I've heard. It's very curious to me why the minister then, as recently as yesterday, would say Mr. McEachern didn't take into account the finances of the province. Was the minister saying that Mr. McEachern forgot about that meeting?

Hon. C. Hansen: I can't speak for Mr. McEachern, but certainly it was a very thorough presentation made that day by the Minister of Finance, which I was present for. There was also a very thorough written presentation made to the arbitration panel by government officials. I was not present for that; neither was the Minister of Finance. If you read the arbitration report, which I'm sure the member has done, you will recog-

nize that there is a reference in here to that particular term in the terms of reference — the requirement to reflect the province's financial circumstances. I guess what bothers me, and where I believe we would actually have grounds for appeal, is the fact that Mr. McEachern writes about it in his report and then dismisses it as being a significant factor that should determine the outcome of his arbitration award.

J. MacPhail: I was dismayed by the fairly serious accusation that the government was alleging, that Mr. McEachern — and I hope I'm not offending Mr. McEachern by calling him "Mr."; I would hope the minister would advise me if I am, because I don't want to be on record offending him — hadn't taken it into account.

Perhaps the minister could put on record this morning which part of the four-part terms of reference it is that the minister says Mr. McEachern didn't live up to his responsibilities in taking into account.

Hon. C. Hansen: I will read the section. It's actually out of the framework memorandum, article 4.2.6. It reads: "The terms of reference of such an arbitration will include the objective of being consistent with the law and the terms of the master agreement, reflecting the financial circumstances of government, the need to provide reasonable compensation to the physicians for the services rendered, and the operational and medical resource needs of the health authorities."

J. MacPhail: So Mr. McEachern had the terms of reference. The government board member had the terms of reference. The B.C. Medical Association member had the terms of reference. Not only did the board have the information from the government in a formal sense but also in an informal sense — and I don't mean that's any less legitimate — from the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Health Services, and Mr. McEachern wrote his arbitration decision. Where did Mr. McEachern go wrong in not being fully informed of the financial circumstances of the province? Where did Mr. McEachern make his mistake — that we now end up with this legislation?

Hon. C. Hansen: My understanding is that I don't have the ability to phone up Mr. McEachern and say: "Why did you write the report the way you worded it? Why did you not give adequate consideration to two of the four items in the terms of reference?" That's not my purview.

Our response to that would be to appeal the report. As I said yesterday in my closing remarks on second reading, that would have been the worst of all possible options because that would have been much more destabilizing for physicians in the province and for ensuring that there was a continuity of care for patients throughout the province.

J. MacPhail: There was another approach that the government could have taken, and that is to make every effort possible for Mr. McEachern and the government board member to be fully informed of the province's financial circumstances and actually let a neutral, independent third party give weight to that. It seems to me, unless I'm missing something, that that is what the government did. They seized every opportunity to put forward their financial case, and Mr. McEachern, the government member and the BCMA member considered that and made a decision.

Is it not that the government didn't like the fact that they gave a different weight than the one they would have had to the financial circumstances? Mr. McEachern does address that issue. He says the government gave tax breaks, and the government is saying that's going to generate an economic recovery. Mr. McEachern did that in the full light of day of the government's own information.

Again I ask: where is it that Mr. McEachern didn't give full weight to the government's financial circumstances?

Hon. C. Hansen: First of all, I just want to point out to the member that one of the things Mr. McEachern did at the start of the arbitration process was indicate to both of the wingers on the arbitration that they were prohibited from communicating with government or with the B.C. Medical Association. There was no ability for us to communicate with Dr. Wright any messages other than through the formal process.

I expect that Dr. Wright was there when the government made its presentation around ability to pay. If anybody reads through the report, I think they would find it difficult to find evidence that Mr. McEachern gave adequate weight to either the second or the fourth items in the terms of reference. Those are the financial circumstances of the province and the fourth item, which is the operational and medical resource needs of the health authorities.

J. MacPhail: I think the government is actually now attacking Mr. McEachern directly and personally, given what the minister has just said. Here's what we have. We have an arbitrator selected by the government of the day, the Liberal government. Mr. McEachern was appointed on June 19 with great accolades from the government itself and, I think, from the BCMA. I didn't see their news release, but the BCMA as well.

Mr. McEachern was very familiar with the terms of reference. Mr. McEachern entered into a very detailed process of gathering up all the information before the formal hearings that commenced on November 14, to the extent where he met with the Minister of Finance. He met with the Minister of Health Services. He conducted a very thorough investigation process, it sounds like, for months before the formal hearings came.

The meeting with the Minister of Finance occurred as the province's financial circumstances were deterio-

rating, I assume, and Mr. McEachern was fully informed. Somehow, the government says Mr. McEachern didn't do his job. "We gave him all the information, and he ignored us." Is that not how the public and the doctors would have to interpret what the minister is saying? "Mr. McEachern ignored us."

Hon. C. Hansen: I have to apologize to the member. I didn't catch the last sentence where she actually posed her question.

J. MacPhail: I said that Mr. McEachern had the most current information directly from the person's mouth, from the Minister of Finance. He conducted a very thorough investigation, it sounds like, for months as the province's finances were deteriorating. He had all the information there. How can the public and the doctors interpret it any other way than what the minister is saying now? "Mr. McEachern was given all the information, and he ignored us." Is that not what the minister is saying?

Hon. C. Hansen: I certainly can't try to explain what Mr. McEachern's reasoning was. All I can go on is what's actually written in the report. Were we to have gone the route of appealing it, that's what would have counted: what's actually written in the arbitrator's report. I can only surmise, as the member can, as to what Mr. McEachern may have been thinking in response to the information he was given.

I just want to point out that I give the former government full marks on this particular one. In the way the framework memorandum was worded — and it was agreed to in early year 2000, I guess — they actually went into this agreeing to a binding arbitration process but not without terms of reference. Even the previous government did not abdicate its responsibilities to the taxpayers by putting in terms of reference that were vague.

They were fairly specific — that the arbitrator had to make an award reflecting the financial circumstances of the province and had to take into consideration the operational and medical resource needs of the health authorities. I give the previous government full marks for making sure that was actually written into the agreement as protection for the taxpayers in British Columbia. Our concern is that we don't believe the arbitrator's report adequately reflects those two terms of reference.

J. MacPhail: Yes, I fully understand that. Previous governments have lived with arbitration awards that were very expensive, over and over again. There was an arbitration award for health care workers in terms of pay equity that cost over $100 million. There was the Munroe arbitration process, which cost over $100 million annually, I think. We lived with that as well. This current government overrode that, but of course, that's what a fair dispute resolution process is all about.

I'm trying to think of — and I'm not good at it — some sports analogy. I couldn't come up with one, you'll be happy to know. It would have been warped and convoluted if I had put it on.

When you have a situation where there are two sides and there is an outcome at stake, you have to have some way of having fair rules that everybody understands. They enter the process with the rules clear, balanced and fair. There is a way of interpreting those rules, and the outcome is interpreted in a fair way based on those rules.

What the government is saying is that Mr. McEachern failed to interpret those rules fairly. I don't know what else the government could take to court, frankly. I'm not a lawyer, but I know, from recalling, that there's a very limited avenue on which one can appeal an administrative procedure. It has to be that the judge or the independent review agent failed to take into account a rule of law, not that he ruled against someone. I'm sure that in a court of law in an appeal process you can't reintroduce evidence and say: "We gave the arbitrator this evidence, but he didn't give full weight to it." That's my understanding of the law. Perhaps the minister can clarify that for me. If the minister were going to appeal this, on what grounds would he appeal? He made it very clear yesterday in second reading that that was an alternative for him.

Hon. C. Hansen: Basically, the terms of reference, in our view, were very clearly set out in the framework agreement signed by the previous government. It is our view that the arbitrator did not adequately take those into consideration. You can appeal in terms of what evidence is not brought into a court case in terms of the normal court proceedings. In this case, it's my understanding that we would have had grounds to appeal this particular report based on the fact that Mr. McEachern did not give due weight to the items in his terms of reference.

J. MacPhail: I feel free to discuss this fully because, of course, the government has said this will never go to court anyway because of this legislation. The minister is dead wrong on that being an ability on which to appeal an arbitration award — dead wrong. You cannot have a judicial review because you don't like the weight an independent agent gave to a certain part of one side of the case. You can't do that. Our whole judicial system would break down completely if at every appeal level one party was allowed to re-argue its case from scratch. You can't do that.

Really, when the minister stood up yesterday and said, "Oh, this was an alternative," it wasn't an alternative, because they wouldn't have any grounds to appeal the case on. No wonder we have this legislation before us. You know what? If that's what this government is doing in terms of how they apply administrative justice rules, I fear greatly for what the results will be of the administrative justice review that the Premier is conducting.

What we'll probably have now is all sorts of administrative justice procedures that basically say: "If the outcome disagrees with what the government wants, oops — into the chamber to legislate against it." This is an administrative justice procedure that makes perfect sense for resolving a dispute. The government didn't like it. They had no grounds to appeal, so they had to bring in the big hammer of law.

Let me ask another question. I was thinking about when the minister said we had no choice, or the alternative of going to court was worse. I'm not quite sure what he means by that. I guess it was worse for the government, because they had no grounds to appeal on, so they'd be thrown out of court. Yes, I can understand how that would be worse.

What about this? The process started in June. Meetings took place in July, August, September, October, November. The issues facing the arbitrator were dealt with over those months. The ministers themselves clearly had access to the arbitrator directly. The finances were plummeting so badly in this province that it was almost a daily story about how the economy was growing worse. The Minister of Finance was out there weekly describing the deterioration of the economic and financial situation of this government. The second quarter report was released. The Economic Forecast Council, mandated by law, was meeting. Did the minister ever consider going to the arbitrator and saying: "We're going to change your terms of reference"?

J. MacPhail: Believe you me, I don't agree with what I'm proposing. You can't go into a hockey game halfway through and change the rules, but I'll tell you something. I bet you the doctors would say that maybe they would have preferred the hockey game to conclude even with different rules that everybody understood before the end of the game, rather than having the game nullified completely. If the government knew their finances were deteriorating so much — and they knew, because it's on the public record that the Minister of Finance was aware of the range of the pending pressures of this arbitration award — why didn't the government consider that?

Hon. C. Hansen: The terms of reference were clear. As I said earlier, I give the previous government credit for making sure the terms of reference were in place to protect the interest of the taxpayers of British Columbia. It says quite clearly that the award had to reflect the financial circumstances of government. That was comfort to me, and it was comfort to the Finance minister last fall, realizing that there was this huge liability out there around this arbitration. The comfort to us was knowing that the arbitrator was obliged to consider the province's financial circumstances.

J. MacPhail: It's a matter of the public record that the Minister of Finance had a ballpark figure that the arbitration award would cost $400 million — the initial stages of it. Is that true?

J. MacPhail: Well, for the record, the Minister of Finance did say that speculatively. That was for stage 1. The government was very well aware of the cost of phase 1 of the arbitration. Is it a fact that the government got its own economic agenda so wrong — its economic policies have failed so miserably — that the reason why they had to nullify the process was an admission that they couldn't possibly guarantee that the economy was going to recover with their tax-cut-and-economic-growth kind of theory, so they had to bring to an end any future compensation for the doctors?

The Chair: Member, I'm getting a bit concerned. We're now considering the definitions section of Bill 9. Over the last approximately 45 minutes we've had a series of questions that really are on the principle of the bill, and the principle was passed upon second reading. We should now be focusing questions on the specific sections of the bill. We seem to be getting further away from that as time goes on, so I'd ask the member to please align her questions with section 1 of Bill 9.

J. MacPhail: I thank the Chair for the direction there. I appreciate it. Just so that the Chair knows where I'm going, I need to understand the arbitration process and the part of the arbitration process that needed to be cancelled in section 2. I could ask these questions under section 2, if the Chair so directs, but I will be asking them.

Hon. C. Hansen: Sorry, I wasn't sure where the member wanted to go next with this. If she could restate her question….

J. MacPhail: I take the guidance of the Chair. I'm trying to figure out the necessity for cancelling the arbitration process, which is section 2. I can wait for that section, if the Chair so directs.

Just so the minister can remember, it was: was the necessity for the cancellation of the arbitration invoked by the failure of the economic agenda of the government, as we look forward into '02-03?

The arbitration award. Under the definition it says: "Interim Arbitration Award (Phase 1) issued by the arbitration board under the arbitration on February 8, 2002." I assume if it says phase 1, there must be other phases. Could the minister outline what those were?

Hon. C. Hansen: The understanding was that phase 1 was to deal with all of the compensation issues and that phase 2 was to deal with procedural and administrative issues. What Mr. McEachern chose to do in his phase 1 report was to only deal partially with the compensation issues. As I mentioned yesterday, there were a lot of those compensation issues. The fact that

they were deferred until phase 2 became extremely problematic and actually would have been quite destabilizing for doctors in the province.

J. MacPhail: Could the minister specify what those matters were that would have been destabilizing?

Hon. C. Hansen: Well, the one case in point was issues around the remuneration for salaried and sessional doctors in the province. There are many doctors, an increasing number of doctors, who were choosing salaried positions rather than fee-for-service. We felt it would be quite destabilizing to provide significant retroactive increases to fee-for-service doctors, as provided for in phase 1 of the arbitration, but not to deal with the salaried physicians at the same time. Mr. McEachern had deferred that till phase 2. We felt that would be quite inappropriate.

Hon. C. Hansen: Some additional examples are that in phase 1 he did not deal with the rural and remote agreement, which is necessary, and as the member knows, there's certainly lots of anxiety among doctors practising in some of the northern and remote parts of the province. We want to be able to deal with that in a timely fashion, not waiting for phase 2. He also signalled that further increases that would come down later and that he might consider fees for filling in forms, fees for attending meetings — that type of thing.

The other thing that's important to note is that in phase 1 of his arbitration, what he does, in many cases, is call the parties back to negotiate rather than him arbitrating those. That is, in fact, what we have committed to do: make sure that we sit down and negotiate with the BCMA to resolve many of these outstanding and confusing issues.

J. MacPhail: So what I understand is that Mr. McEachern got phase 1 wrong because he included too much in it in certain aspects, and he also got it wrong because he didn't include certain aspects in it, and he referred the parties back to negotiate. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Hansen: Phase 1 was intended to deal with all of the compensation issues, and there were so many issues that were left hanging. There were issues that had not been dealt with. There were issues he referred back for further negotiation. There were issues that he triggered but then didn't discuss how to implement them and left the opportunity for confusion of interpretation. Much of the language in the arbitration report became very problematic for us in trying to put together a comprehensive remuneration package for physicians throughout the province and in different types of practice.

The route we're taking is to make sure we can deliver on a fair compensation package for all physicians, one that's integrated, one that covers all of the bases. We want to get on with that and bring that certainty to physicians in the province, so they know exactly what they're dealing with and we as government know exactly what we're dealing with in terms of cost going forward.

J. MacPhail: I gather the minister is very clear on what was supposed to be part of phase 1 and part of phase 2. Were these written agreements? Were the guidelines or the rules for what was phase 1 and phase 2 set out and agreed upon?

J. MacPhail: I gather that the government member and the BCMA member of the arbitration board understood phase 1 and phase 2, because they were written. Is that right?

J. MacPhail: We have written rules, and the arbitrator got that wrong too. Mr. McEachern couldn't follow phase 1 and phase 2 rules. Is that what the government is alleging here?

J. MacPhail: I'm not asking that; I'm saying that's what the government's alleging.

Hon. C. Hansen: I'm not alleging anything. I'm just pointing out, in response to the member's question, that there was a clear understanding that phase 1 was to include all of the compensation issues, and Mr. McEachern's report leaves lots of those issues dangling. Many of those issues were not complete, were not dealt with in a way that would actually provide for implementation. Many of them were just sent back for further negotiation.

J. MacPhail: It sounds to me like that's an accusation that Mr. McEachern got it wrong. Tell me this; I just thought of this question: is the government going to pay Mr. McEachern for the arbitration work that he did, or are they unhappy with it to the extent that they won't be paying him?

The Chair: Member, I'm having a bit of difficulty seeing the relevance of those questions to the definitions section of Bill 9. We're canvassing matters that were more properly canvassed in general on second reading of the bill. I'd ask the member to keep her remarks and questions specific to the definitions section of Bill 9, because that's what we're dealing with at this point in time.

J. MacPhail: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I always appreciate the advice of the Chair.

I think this is the time, though, for me to get details. I'm trying to understand the necessity for the legislation on a detailed basis. When it says phase 1 here, I'm trying to figure out what phase 2 was. I will be asking, as a consequence, under section 3, "Provisions declared void or amended," whether the provision to pay the arbitrator is made void as well. The minister can anticipate that under section 3.

Under the issue of "association," meaning the B.C. Medical Association, I understand that not all doctors in the province are members of the BCMA. Is that true?

J. MacPhail: Is it possible that the doctors that aren't covered by the association have an ability to determine compensation in another fashion other than through the BCMA? The definition specifies it's the BCMA — not all physicians in the province but the BCMA. What happens to the compensation for physicians who aren't members of the BCMA?

Hon. C. Hansen: Actually, I'm surprised at the question coming from this member, when she was Minister of Health. She would know very well that the previous government, in their agreements with the BCMA, indicated that the BCMA would be the only body in British Columbia with which the government would negotiate, regardless of the fact that they did not have membership comprising 100 percent of doctors in British Columbia.

Any compensation awards that come out of those negotiations and discussions apply to all physicians in the province.

J. MacPhail: Physicians who haven't put their faith in the BCMA are captured by this legislation as well. What percentage of physicians aren't members of the BCMA? Is the minister aware of that?

Hon. C. Hansen: I'm sure she could put that question to the BCMA, and they'd be more than happy to answer.

J. MacPhail: Actually, I did several years ago, and I couldn't get an answer.

I assume that with the government, for the very first time, legislating BCMA as the bargaining agent — because that's what this does — the government must have been aware of the impact, the range of their membership. The minister is saying that the BCMA is legislated as the association representing all doctors, without knowing what the impact of that is on physicians.

Hon. C. Hansen: That was a provision put in place by the previous government. We do not have access to the membership list of the BCMA.

J. MacPhail: I understand that we have limited time left on this, so I understand the necessity of making my questions succinct. Why is there a definition that isolates out the rural practice agreement? What is the intent of that as it relates to the rest of the legislation?

Hon. C. Hansen: There are interest arbitration provisions in the rural practice agreement that are affected by the provisions in section 3.

J. MacPhail: What is the effect of this legislation on the rural practice agreement?

Hon. C. Hansen: What we are doing throughout these three agreements is removing the specific language that requires the government to go into binding arbitration as a method of resolving disagreements.

J. MacPhail: By specifying the master agreement, the rural practice agreement and the arbitration award, all three now have no dispute resolution mechanism available to the parties.

Hon. C. Hansen: There is a negotiating framework that is set out in those agreements. That continues, and also any rights-based arbitration continues.

J. MacPhail: I'm sorry. I missed the last part. Rights-based arbitration but not interest-based arbitration. Just for the public who may not understand those terms, interest arbitration is dealing with compensation and financial matters of the parties. Now I guess the doctors have an agreements procedure, but they don't have a way to settle their financial arrangements — including wages, benefits and that kind of thing — with this government.

What else remains in place under the rural practice agreement? I will say only that I heard directly from the BCMA…. Then I heard on the news on the radio this morning that there is a group of rural physicians — I can't remember what community it was in, but I think it was Williams Lake — in a great deal of distress about this legislation, as it would affect their community.

The rural practice agreement — what remains in effect? How does it blend with what the government imposed on Tuesday?

Hon. C. Hansen: All of the other provisions of those agreements stay in place. The changes that we're making are just some limited and specific language that pertains to binding-interest-based arbitration. The other agreements continue.

There were certainly rumours going around that I was talking to doctors last week and that they had heard we were actually going to nullify these three agreements. They were saying, "Please don't do that," because they're important agreements in terms of the working relationship between government and doctors in the province. We have not done that. All we've done is gone in and picked the very specific language that required binding arbitration in certain circumstances.

J. MacPhail: Is the rural practice agreement being applied provincewide now? Is that the model, or will it be a superior agreement in certain circumstances?

Hon. C. Hansen: There is no change in the coverage of the rural agreement as a result of this legislation.

J. MacPhail: No, but I understand that the rural practice agreement covers on-call provisions and recruitment and retention provisions. Will those circumstances now apply provincewide?

Hon. C. Hansen: The way the on-call language is set out in the report is really lacking specifics. It is an area in which we have to sit down with the BCMA to determine exactly how that should be implemented, because there is not clarity in the report. However, we have allocated and set aside $80 million to deal with on-call issues throughout the province. How they will be reflected in the rural agreement or applied to other parts of the province is something that we have to sit down with the BCMA to sort out the details.

We certainly are committed to providing the on-call payments. We've put the value of dollars on the table. We have also indicated that the on-call remuneration will be retroactive to last April 1, but it's one of the areas in which we have to sit down and sort out the details.

J. MacPhail: Given the limited amount of dollars the government has imposed on settling these matters, the rural practice agreement may at some point become superior to what the government is offering everybody else. What is the government's intention on that, then? Will we have a patchwork of agreements around the province?

Hon. C. Hansen: In fact, what we are trying to do is the exact opposite. We're trying to get away from the patchwork of programs around the province when it comes to remuneration. We want to make sure all communities in the province have remuneration, including on-call provisions, that will ensure doctors can be retained and recruited into those communities. We certainly have some things we can learn from the rural agreement that would be applicable in other parts of the province as we try to structure on-call arrangements that actually meet the needs of physicians throughout the province, whether it's in larger communities with certain specialties or smaller communities as we have come to know under the rural agreement.

J. MacPhail: If the rural practice agreement is one that has application elsewhere, but the parties disagree on how to apply that agreement, what's the dispute resolution mechanism?

Hon. C. Hansen: We have made a very important signal to physicians throughout the province by putting the dollars on the table to deal with these issues. We are quite confident we can sit down in meaningful negotiations with the B.C. Medical Association in order to resolve these issues in a way that allows us to ensure that doctors are remunerated fairly and that we can see the recruitment and retention initiatives required to make sure communities get the care they need.

J. MacPhail: I think even the minister knows he didn't answer the question. Let me just break it down a little further. If there's disagreement on the application of the rural practice agreement — which is a legal contract — and the government's view of how that applies elsewhere, will physicians be permitted to withdraw their services in disagreement?

Hon. C. Hansen: There is nothing in this legislation that changes that in any way.

J. MacPhail: I take it that the minister is saying the physicians will be allowed to withdraw their services.

Hon. C. Hansen: As I indicated before, there's nothing in this legislation that changes that. Certainly, physicians in the province have an obligation to their college to provide care to their patients. I think doctors will recognize that we've put the dollars on the table to deal with the issues. We expect that they will continue to provide care to their patients in their communities as we work through the details of how we ensure these compensation arrangements are finalized so that the cheques can start to flow. We've also indicated that, in terms of the retroactive portion of that for fee-for-service, those cheques are going to flow very quickly.

J. MacPhail: Has the minister…? Sorry, I'll save this for the next section, Mr. Chair.

J. MacPhail: The arbitration is cancelled. I think the minister said yesterday that the value of payment they'll be giving the doctors is equivalent to $392 million. If I'm wrong about that, that's fine; the minister can correct that when he stands up. Is that the minister's view of compensation arising out of phase 1?

Hon. C. Hansen: We have broken that down in terms of what we believe would be necessary for the annualized cost of the fee-for-service increases. That works out to $185 million. In addition to that, $80 million has been earmarked to deal with on-call payments. That's an annualized number. Over and above that is $127 million to deal with issues such as salaried and sessional physicians, the rural agreement compensation issues, population demographic growth and the cost pressures on the Medical Services Plan.

The first two items — the $185 million and the $80 million — definitely flow out of the language that's in the arbitration report. The other issues are things that we feel we have to deal with in order to make sure that all physicians in the province are compensated fairly.

J. MacPhail: Under section 2, with the arbitration being cancelled, are there any matters in phase 1 that either the minister himself has knowledge of, or he's been told of by the BCMA, that remain uncompensated in his package?

Hon. C. Hansen: No, not that we're aware of. I have not had direct discussions with the BCMA on issues surrounding the arbitration.

J. MacPhail: I go back to the question I asked earlier on. The government is going to live with phase 1 — the compensation of it. The government went into an agreement about phase 1 and phase 2 where there were clearly defined rules, written rules. The government had its own government member on the arbitration board, but they've run out of money because of their failed economic agenda. Is that the reason why you can't go to phase 2?

Hon. C. Hansen: In the report it's pretty obvious that Mr. McEachern did not cost any of his recommendations. It's very difficult to understand how Mr. McEachern's report could have, in fact, reflected the financial circumstances of the province or the ability to pay when, in his report, he doesn't cost them out. We've actually had to do a fair amount of work trying to cost out the items in phase 1 of the report. We put that into a package of the $392 million, and now we have to work on exactly how we implement the disbursement of those dollars.

J. MacPhail: Was part of the arbitrator's mandate to cost out items? Did Mr. McEachern fail in that area?

Hon. C. Hansen: One of the terms of reference was to reflect the financial ability of the province, the financial circumstance of the province. It's pretty hard to do that unless you actually cost out the issues being decided on and the changes he covers in his report.

J. MacPhail: I take it the government is saying Mr. McEachern failed in that responsibility as well.

Did the government contemplate having another meeting, as they did early in the arbitration stage, with Mr. McEachern after phase 1 was received and before phase 2 to raise these issues with Mr. McEachern? Or was there a cone of silence placed over the process?

Hon. C. Hansen: Mr. McEachern actually indicated that he wanted that first meeting. There was no further request made from Mr. McEachern to meet with us, although we would have been more than willing to oblige had he made that request.

J. MacPhail: Yes, but I gather the government understood that there was an ability to meet with Mr. McEachern. Did the government request a meeting with Mr. McEachern after receipt of phase 1? If the answer to that is no, who explained the arbitration award to the minister?

Hon. C. Hansen: It's my understanding that an arbitration award of this nature should speak for itself. It's not anyone's job to try to interpret between the lines of the report. The report stands, and we have to take the language in the report at face value. The problem is that it leaves a lot of questions unanswered, particularly around costing and implementation.

J. MacPhail: Well, the government has already said that they don't understand the award — or that they disagree with the award. There's no question that they disagree with it — absolutely no question. Did the government ever think of picking up the phone and saying: "Hey, Mr. McEachern, we don't think you took into account one or two terms of reference"? Clearly, Mr. McEachern is a man of the highest venerability in this province not only in the judicial system but as just an ordinary citizen as well. He's been in this chamber, as a matter of fact, as a man of honour.

Over and over again the government said, as they read this 200-odd-page award: "My gosh, he got that wrong; he got that wrong; he got that wrong." Did the minister ever think of actually calling Mr. McEachern and saying: "Hey, would you mind explaining our arbitration award?" You know what? That's what good people do when they don't understand something.

Hon. C. Hansen: Once the report is released, it's pretty much impossible to go back and start asking an arbitrator to start making edits to his report. We did not have an advance copy of the report. We did not have an opportunity to look at the report. There was no indication to government before the actual formal release of the report as to what was in it, so once the report is issued, it's there. It's there for everyone to read, and there's not an opportunity for government to go back and start asking for changes or edits at that stage.

J. MacPhail: That's not what I'm suggesting. This government is making fairly serious accusations that Mr. McEachern didn't do his job properly. Before legislating it out of existence, why didn't the government say: "Mr. McEachern, here are our concerns. Can you point out to us, in your arbitration award, where you did take these into account?" Frankly, the government is making that accusation against its own government board member as well, Dr. Charles Wright — that he didn't get it right. I understand the government board member agreed with the arbitration — the signed agreement. It was a unanimous arbitration award: government member, independent arbitrator and BCMA member. Did the government meet with Dr. Charles

Hon. C. Hansen: I think, as I indicated before, Mr. McEachern had made a ruling that the wingers in the arbitration were not to communicate with either the BCMA or the government during the arbitration process.

J. MacPhail: Are you saying that Mr. McEachern said: "Even after I issue phase 1 of the agreement, Dr. Wright, you're not allowed to talk to the people you represent"? That's what Mr. McEachern said?

Hon. C. Hansen: What we're dealing with and what section 2 is dealing with is actually the words in this report. We have to take the words in this report at face value. We don't get to interpret them the way we would like them. We take this report, and we get to deal with it as it is written, and that is problematic. That is the problem we're dealing with. That is the problem we're trying to fix with this legislation. The words in this report do not allow us to develop a comprehensive compensation program for physicians in British Columbia that is not going to cause all kinds of other problems.

What we are doing is removing our obligation to the words in this report. We've put the dollars on the table to make sure doctors are properly compensated, and we want to get on with the job of negotiating with the BCMA in terms of how we do that.

J. MacPhail: Well, I'm sorry. I actually very much appreciate how seriously this minister takes his job, but the minister knows full well that every arbitrator is seized of the matter until the arbitration award is implemented. Every arbitrator has the ability to work with the parties to explain his or her arbitration award. It's simply smoke and mirrors that this government says: "There was a big cone of silence imposed by the arbitrator, and we had to just look at the document itself." It's simply not true that the arbitrator wasn't seized of the matter. Frankly, you were mid-arbitration anyway. By your own legislation, you were only through phase 1 and knew phase 2 was coming and that there were rules set down for it.

The government chose to not access any of the fair administrative procedures available to parties in a dispute resolution mechanism, because they didn't like the answers they were given. Their own economic agenda was plummeting into a big black hole of failed economic policy, and they couldn't risk the embarrassment of digging the hole deeper by the commitments they'd made to doctors. That's what this is all about, nothing else — absolutely nothing else.

There's no dispute resolution mechanism. We're going to have doctors withdrawing their services. This process is in place until 2006. This "non-process" is in place until 2006.

Our health care system is going to go further and further into crisis simply because the government failed in their economic agenda when they said: "Tax cuts will pay for themselves. Don't worry." Mr. McEachern took the government at its word and wrote it into the decision.

The government realized it had failed miserably in its economic policy and had to cancel phase 2 because phase 2, in supporting health care, would have put an even greater lie to the government's failed economic agenda. That's what section 2 is all about. That's why the arbitration had to be cancelled.

Does the fact that you cancelled the arbitration also mean that you're cancelling paying Mr. McEachern because he did such a bad job, according to the government?

J. MacPhail: Is there any obligation the government entered into for payment that Mr. McEachern is now out of pocket because of the cancellation of phase 2? Was there an agreement on the amount of time he would spend on this, including phase 2?

Hon. C. Hansen: It's my understanding that the agreement in place with Mr. McEachern is that he's covered for his expenses and his fees as an arbitrator, a mediator, and that those costs are shared between the government and the B.C. Medical Association. Given that the arbitration process will not go forward, we do not anticipate there will be costs going forward.

J. MacPhail: Just a procedural matter here, I will be calling division on sections 2 to 4. Perhaps I could just ask my questions. I have about three more questions on those sections, and then we can call division and waive the time limits. I note that the House Leader….

J. MacPhail: Under section 3, "Provisions declared void or amended," could the minister please identify the implications of voiding those sections?

Hon. C. Hansen: In each case what it does is remove just the wording that provides for the binding-interest-based arbitration.

Hon. C. Hansen: The framework agreement is a fairly comprehensive document. When I read it the last time, I believe it's about 12 or 13 pages in total. There are no other provisions of the framework agreement affected by this legislation.

J. MacPhail: Why is there a need to isolate out under 3(2) a particular clause of the framework agreement: 3.9 of the framework memorandum? Tell me why that is isolated out.

Hon. C. Hansen: In the other sections it's actually removing an entire sentence or a section of the agreement. In this case we didn't want to remove the entire section; we just wanted to remove a portion of a sentence that pertained to the binding arbitration.

J. MacPhail: By declaring these provisions void or amended, I take it that there is now no dispute resolution mechanism available to physicians in any matters of interest.

Hon. C. Hansen: We still have the other provisions in the framework agreement that provide for negotiation. We believe that we can resolve these issues through good negotiation.

J. MacPhail: I'm sure that'll be small comfort to physicians, knowing what this government does when they don't like people who disagree with them during negotiation, when they don't like arbitrators who disagree with their submission. I'm sure it'll be small comfort to the physicians.

In section 4: "No action for damages or compensation may be brought against the commission, the government or any person because of this Act." Why is the government doing this?

Hon. C. Hansen: Government is anxious to get on with resolving the issues. We've put the dollars on the table to make sure that physicians are fairly compensated. We want to make sure that we can get on with that without having some of these things tied up in the courts for years and years. We want to make sure that we can start disbursing that $392 million as quickly as possible.

J. MacPhail: Was the commission — I gather that's the Medical Services Commission; yes, it is, according to the definitions — consulted on having their body included in this section?

J. MacPhail: So the commission, which theoretically is an independent commission, is now dragged into this draconian section — that's actually becoming quite de rigueur for this government — to be part of a clause that says: "We're not going to allow people to take us to court. The rules of administrative law are not going to apply to us." The government included the commission in that without consultation?

Hon. C. Hansen: We are not dragging the commission into this. All we're doing is providing the same protection to the commission that is there for government as a whole. This clause, as the member will note, applies specifically to actions that would result from this specific piece of legislation.

J. MacPhail: The commission, as I understand it — I can't remember whether this government changed it or not — is still a tripartite body where there are nine members: three appointed by government, three physicians appointed by the BCMA and then three public interest appointees that are mutually agreed upon. I note that the minister is nodding yes. So in effect the commission, as a tripartite body, could allow the physicians to take some action, could allow the administrative rules of justice to apply to their role in this. The minister is saying that's a possibility?

Hon. C. Hansen: I've got some good experts helping me here, and they're not quite sure what you mean by that.

J. MacPhail: I imagine that a tripartite independent body that takes its job seriously, didn't agree to this clause and entered into a process of arbitration legitimately, with the rules established…. I expect that they may disagree with the government about not allowing the matter to be heard in court. It's a possibility. It's an absolute possibility, so they may allow physicians of the province to take the Medical Services Commission to court saying that the Medical Services Commission was charged with being the keeper of the process, and they failed to do their duty.

Hon. C. Hansen: Well, the commission is not a party to this arbitration. All this does is simply state that no one can take action for damages or compensation against the commission as a direct result of this act. Other than that, we're not affecting the work of the commission; we're not affecting the decisions they may make under their mandate. We're simply saying that nobody can take action against them as a result of this specific bill that's before the House.

J. MacPhail: Well, others may disagree with the minister on that. Others may disagree with who is the keeper of the process and the role of the Medical Services Commission. Others may disagree with the minister — hard to believe, I know. Is the minister saying that this is permissive, not mandatory — that the coverage of this draconian clause is permissive on the commission? If the commission decides to allow people to go to court, they can, on actions against them relating to this matter? I understand that it's relating to this matter.

Let me just be clear. I don't know; I'm not a lawyer. But maybe the physicians are saying to the commission: "Hey, you guys didn't do your job for us. You didn't do your job, and we're going to take you to court because of that."

Hon. C. Hansen: The commission doesn't have any discretion in this area to start with. All this clause says is that no action for damages or compensation can be

taken against the commission. All it says is that no other party can take the commission to court as a result of this legislation. It certainly doesn't change the work of the commission in any way.

J. MacPhail: Well, what I understand the minister to say is that he thinks the commission doesn't have any role in this process. They weren't consulted on being dragged into this clause, this prohibition, this barring of going to court, but if the commission and the doctors want to try that out in court, it's fine with him.

The Chair: Division has been called on section 2 of Bill 9. The Chair is advised that division will also be called on sections 3 and 4. Is the committee agreed to waiving the time for members to move into the House between votes?

	YEAS — 62
Falcon	Coell	Hogg
Hawkins	Whittred	Hansen
J. Reid	Bruce	Santori
Barisoff	Nettleton	Roddick
Wilson	Masi	Lee
Thorpe	Hagen	Murray
Plant	Campbell	Collins
Clark	Bond	Nebbeling
Stephens	Abbott	Coleman
Chong	Penner	Jarvis
Anderson	Orr	Harris
Nuraney	Brenzinger	Belsey
Bell	Long	Mayencourt
Trumper	Johnston	Bennett
R. Stewart	Hayer	Krueger
McMahon	Bray	Les
Locke	Nijjar	Wong
Bloy	MacKay	K. Stewart
Brice	Sultan	Hamilton
Sahota	Hawes	Kerr
Manhas		Hunter
	NAYS — 2
MacPhail		Kwan

	YEAS — 62
Falcon	Coell	Hogg
Hawkins	Whittred	Hansen
J. Reid	Bruce	Santori
Barisoff	Nettleton	Roddick
Wilson	Masi	Lee
Thorpe	Hagen	Murray
Plant	Campbell	Collins
Clark	Bond	Nebbeling
Stephens	Abbott	Coleman
Chong	Penner	Jarvis
Anderson	Orr	Harris
Nuraney	Brenzinger	Belsey
Bell	Long	Mayencourt
Trumper	Johnston	Bennett
R. Stewart	Hayer	Krueger
McMahon	Bray	Les
Locke	Nijjar	Wong
Bloy	MacKay	K. Stewart
Brice	Sultan	Hamilton
Sahota	Hawes	Kerr
Manhas		Hunter
	NAYS — 2
MacPhail		Kwan

	YEAS — 62
Falcon	Coell	Hogg
Hawkins	Whittred	Hansen
J. Reid	Bruce	Santori
Barisoff	Nettleton	Roddick
Wilson	Masi	Lee
Thorpe	Hagen	Murray
Plant	Campbell	Collins
Clark	Bond	Nebbeling
Stephens	Abbott	Coleman
Chong	Penner	Jarvis
Anderson	Orr	Harris
Nuraney	Brenzinger	Belsey
Bell	Long	Mayencourt
Trumper	Johnston	Bennett
R. Stewart	Hayer	Krueger
McMahon	Bray	Les
Locke	Nijjar	Wong
Bloy	MacKay	K. Stewart
Brice	Sultan	Hamilton
Sahota	Hawes	Kerr
Manhas		Hunter
	NAYS — 2
MacPhail		Kwan

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

Bill 9, Medical Services Arbitration Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on division.

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

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, I'm informed that Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precincts and asks that the members please remain seated, as she'll be with us momentarily.

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took her place in the chair.

In Her Majesty's name, Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these acts.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, I have the honour to present report No. 5 of the auditor general, 2001-02, Management of the Information Technology Portfolio in the Ministry of Attorney General.

J. Kwan: I understand the minister's got some numbers for me that he would like to put on the record before I ask other questions. I would just ask the minister to do that.

Hon. S. Hagen: I have the answers to some of the questions that the hon. member asked yesterday with regard to numbers of people and a few other questions as well. I think this is the order in which they were asked.

The first one was: would you provide a summary of contracts that includes the following information — how much has been contracted out, to whom, the dollar amount, for what and the expected outcomes?

I think we have some more work to do on this, but if the question is in regard to contracts in fiscal 2002-03, very few contracts have been entered into at this point in time but the total estimated value of contract spending in that fiscal year is $35.692 million. This can be confirmed in the 2002-03 budget documents on page 60 of the Supplement to the Estimates, fiscal year ending March 31, '03.

Specific contract information for the '01-02 fiscal year will be made available when the '01-02 public accounts are tabled. Similarly, outcome information will be made available when the ministry tables its fiscal '01-02 service plan report. I'll give you this hard copy.

The next question: if contracted out, what process does the ministry follow? When contracting out, the ministry follows the policies and procedures that have been developed by the office of the comptroller general and Treasury Board staff. To supplement these policies and procedures, the ministry also has an in-house contract administration manual to assist managers with some of the more detailed aspects of contract management. A copy of the ministry's contract administration manual will be attached for the member.

Next question: what is the percent of contract dollars in terms of the ministry's total budget? In '02-03, contract spending is estimated to be 26 percent of the ministry's total gross operating expenses.

Next question: how much of the land use planning will be outsourced? In fiscal '02-03, outsourcing related

to land use planning is estimated to be $7.078 million. This information can also be found in the '02-03 budget documents, page 60 of the Supplement to the Estimates, fiscal year ending March 31, '03.

The next question: what is the scale of reduction of FTEs related to land use plans over the next three years? The ministry estimates that the FTEs resources dedicated to land use planning over the next three years will be as follows: in '02-03, 241 FTEs; in '03-04, 217 FTEs; and in '04-05, 184 FTEs. It should be noted that the FTE resources identified for the '03-04 and '04-05 fiscal years are only preliminary estimates at this time. The level of resources dedicated to land use planning in the second and third years are subject to change and are dependent on the ministry's approved estimates in those fiscal years.

Next question: how many science officers, biologists, hydrologists and foresters does the ministry have? We have 370 science officers; 63 biologists; 35 science and tech officers, some of whom are hydrologists; and 102 foresters. In addition to the above collective bargaining classifications, the ministry also has a number of professionals in management capacities within the ministry.

The question was: how many GIS specialists does the ministry have? The answer is 126.

The last question was: how much funding is dedicated to base mapping? In '02-03 the ministry has gross expenditures of $12.2 million dedicated to base mapping.

J. Kwan: I would imagine that for some of the other questions which I asked, the minister is committed to providing that information and I'll be receiving it, so I won't go back to enquire about those items. Thank you for the information you have provided so far.

Has the ministry allocated enough funds to properly maintain the information system that will lead to effective delivery of the integrated, science-based, land resource and geographic information? How much has been allocated for that area?

Hon. S. Hagen: Yes, I can answer that question positively. The amount we have budgeted is $10.455 million.

J. Kwan: The ministry is going to be faced with a 30 percent reduction in costs for registries for land titles, resource inventories and base mapping by 2004-05. I'm wondering what plans the minister has in achieving all of that work with the 30 percent reduction.

Hon. S. Hagen: We're moving to electronic filing, which will facilitate it and make it far more efficient than we presently are.

J. Kwan: When the minister says electronic filing, is he suggesting that individuals will be able to file through e-mail and the like? Does that mean there would be individuals who would also do that work, as well, or is it just solely through electronic filing?

Hon. S. Hagen: Yes, the hon. member is correct. Electronic filing will be available through e-mail. It will be on our website.

I think it was either just before Christmas or just after Christmas that we announced a joint venture project with the Law Society of British Columbia, where lawyers throughout the province can now have direct electronic access to land titles.

J. Kwan: On the question around different ways of filing, is it just solely by electronic filing, or are there physical staff, as well, that will provide that service?

Hon. S. Hagen: I should also add to the previous answer that we will work through B.C. OnLine as well.

We're consolidating 15 registry offices down to one. There will be a small staff in Victoria. By moving to a more efficient electronic filing system, we won't need the people in the other offices.

J. Kwan: There's only one office, then, that would provide for this work in the registry, the land title, the resource inventories and the base mapping? The electronic filing, I would assume, is just on the land title component.

Hon. S. Hagen: I need to apologize. I've forgotten what your question was, because I was speaking. Do you mind repeating the question?

J. Kwan: When the minister rose and answered the question that it would be electronic filing that would take place, I assumed that would apply to the land titles component. In the other areas in terms of the resource inventories, the registries on base mapping, etc., how would those components be dealt with? Is it also just solely by electronic e-mail systems? What other methods are being used, if any?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm sorry to make you repeat the question. We will have six of what we're calling portals around the province — regional portals where people will be able to go physically. They will also be hooked up electronically with Victoria. They will deal with mapping and other information.

J. Kwan: When the minister suggests there are these portals, does he mean that there's some sort of, I guess, moving office that will go from community to community, or is it a stationary office that will stay in the community and which people can go into?

Hon. S. Hagen: These portals will not be moving. They will be stationary in the six regional offices we have. All of the integrated data will be available through those offices, either electronically or by physically going to those offices.

J. Kwan: What happens in a situation where an individual has specific questions around these issues?

Hon. S. Hagen: Just happened when I stood up. I'm sure that didn't have anything to do with it.

We'll have a database link on our website. People can click into our website. They can then go from there to the database link for the region they live in, or they can physically go into the office, or the portal, as we're calling it — a single-window approach to deal with information requests or mapping information.

J. Kwan: So these computer systems and access to electronic information are expected to answer all questions that individuals will have. Maybe it's just me, but in my own personal experience, even for something as simple as a banking transaction, I can't rely on just phoning in or using the computer. I sometimes actually need to talk to a real person.

I can tell you — and I don't know if other members feel this way sometimes — that when you sort of get sucked into the hole of electronic answering machines, to which you can never get your answer because you can't talk to a real person with a real question that you have, you end up spending a whole lot of time trying to just manoeuvre through the system and never actually getting to the place you want to. I'm wondering, from that perspective, sometimes: is the minister anticipating that this electronic system will simply answer all questions for everybody and that there's no need for any real-person contact?

Hon. S. Hagen: I know the hon. member's feelings. When I phone my bank manager in Courtenay, I think I go through Winnipeg.

We'll have a data manager in each of those six regional offices and in Victoria, so there will be real people in those offices. People who maybe aren't computer-literate or as computer-literate as others will have real people they can talk to. There will also be a phone line on our website that people can use to get to talk to real people to get answers.

Hon. S. Hagen: The six portals, or offices, are in Smithers, Nanaimo, Prince George, Williams Lake, Kamloops and Nelson, and we have two suboffices in Fort St. John and Surrey.

J. Kwan: There's also the office in Victoria — is that correct? Yeah. As for the other locations that are being shut down, how many offices are being shut down, and where are they located?

Hon. S. Hagen: None of the ministry offices are being shut down. The only office under my ministry that is being shut down is the land titles office in Prince George, which I think is going to close in June. The reason for that is electronic filing.

J. Kwan: But in Prince George you're going to have that regional office. You're shutting one office down, but you're opening up another one?

The Chair: Could I remind the member to address questions through the Chair.

Hon. S. Hagen: We're shutting down the land titles office in Prince George. The single-window portal in Prince George will be the SRM office, which, I think, is in the same building. It's in the same building, but it's upstairs. People will have two choices if they live in that area: the land titles office in Kamloops as well as the one-window office in Prince George.

J. Kwan: How will the land use planning process be impacted by the cuts to the GIS and other information systems, or is the minister anticipating that there would be no impacts?

Hon. S. Hagen: Yesterday I gave the hon. member the operating expenditures for the next four years where it shows a drop in the fourth year. I'm advised that there are no GIS cuts until that last year, when the land use planning process will be completed.

J. Kwan: Then it is anticipated that there would be no impacts. Am I correct in making that assumption?

Hon. S. Hagen: We structured our three-year plan and our three-year budget plan according to a business plan that we had developed very shortly after I came into the ministry. We have the resources we need to complete the plan that we have in place.

J. Kwan: The service plan states that the ministry will establish partnerships for inventory collection. Are there any examples of such partnerships currently in government?

Hon. S. Hagen: We will be ready in roughly a month to sign our first public-private partnership agreement with regard to data collection in forestry matters. The partners are Canfor, Weyerhaeuser, Weldwood and Slocan Forest Products.

J. Kwan: The minister said he'll be ready shortly to sign off on these partnerships. A month? A week?

J. Kwan: In a month's time? Will such partnerships cost the taxpayers through large contracts and, if so, how much?

Hon. S. Hagen: There will be no additional costs to the Crown because we will be bringing our data that we already have and they will be bringing the work they've done, so there are no additional costs to the Crown in this contract.

J. Kwan: Are there other public-private partnerships in place, and are there fees associated, then? In the case that there are no costs to government, are there fees associated for the public to access information?

Hon. S. Hagen: I can advise the hon. member that this first contract, which we just described, is a pilot project. It's the only one we have in the chute right now. We think it's going to be successful. There may be others, but I don't know what they would be. We are in sort of a governmentwide discussion now with regard to fees. We're working with the Ministry of Competition, Science and Enterprise, but we have no resolution on that.

J. Kwan: It is anticipated, though, that there would be fees associated. Is there even a range? While the minister may not have set numbers in terms of what the fees might be, is there some sort of range in terms of the fees that would be applied?

To follow up on that question as well: while the range of the fees might be contemplated, would it be cost recovery, at the minimum, as an example? Would it exceed cost recovery? What kind of range is the minister looking at?

Hon. S. Hagen: An example of the fee structure we would be looking at would be similar to B.C. OnLine, where they charge $10 for electronic filing, which is cost recovery. There's no cost to the taxpayer for that.

J. Kwan: In the case of a public-private partnership, though, it's a slightly different kind of arrangement. I'm wondering if the fees that are being contemplated for P3-type initiatives are just on the basis of cost recovery, or would the fees be exceeding cost recovery? My question is: what makes it worthwhile, then, for the private partners to be in place? What is their benefit in their involvement?

Hon. S. Hagen: That's the advice we're getting that we're waiting for from the ministry. It's future policy, I guess. We've not come to any conclusion on that.

J. Kwan: I take it, then, that on that basis there would be fees applied. In the minimum we're looking at cost recovery, but it's likely to exceed that because there's got to be some sort of benefit for the private partner to be involved. I guess at a later date the fee structure would be reviewed so that the public would know what those fees would be. We can just look at that. When fees are imposed for services that are normally received from government, in many ways you can interpret that as a different way of taxation. When does the minister expect that the fee structure would be available?

J. Kwan: The public-private partnerships will be ready to go in about a month's time, but the fee structure would not be available until six months' time. What happens with that time lapse?

Hon. S. Hagen: The public-private partnership that I described is a pilot project. There are no fees associated with it at this time.

J. Kwan: I see. The first public-private partnership would be launched in about a month's time with the data collection with Canfor — goodness, I can't even read my own writing — Weyerhaeuser, Slocan, etc. In those agreements with this group of private partners, when the system is up and running, there would be no fee structure applied for the first six months, and then after six months the fee structure would apply?

J. Kwan: The minister just advised this House earlier that when these public-private partnerships first come on stream, a fee structure would not apply. The time frame, in terms of contemplating a fee structure, would come in place in about six months' time. Is it right to assume that there is about a six-month lapse? For that first six months, until the fee structure comes in place, the fee structure simply would not apply. I'm not trying to be tricky here. I'm just trying to understand the process of what's going on.

Hon. S. Hagen: The public-private partnership we've talked about is for sharing data. We have not moved to the next step of sharing the data we accumulate, which we overlap with theirs, with a third party at this time. When and if we do that…. That's what we're getting the broader policy done for with regard to charging fees. If this thing works and we're then in a position where we decide to share that data with a

third party, that's when we start talking about fees, but that will be in the future.

J. Kwan: In sharing of data in the data collection, where the ministry folds some of their information with the private partners, am I right in assuming that information would be available to the public, or is it just available to the private partners?

Hon. S. Hagen: We have made the commitment that once the P3 is up and operating, that information will be available to the public, but the question of fees with regard to that has not been decided.

J. Kwan: Just so I understand it fully, in a month's time, the public-private partnership would be in place as a pilot involving the list of groups the minister mentioned earlier — Canfor, Slocan, etc. It would be on the basis of sharing information between the ministry and these private partners. The information, once merged together among the different partners, would be available to the public, and for the first six months of that time until the fee structure came into place, there would be no fee structure that applies. Am I understanding the sequence correctly?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm advised it will take probably about six months to merge the data — in other words, to have the product ready. By the time the data is merged, then we expect we'll have a government policy with regard to the fee structure.

J. Kwan: I see. Then at no time would access to the information be at no cost to the public. Now, if six months after, when the system is up and running and the government decides on whatever fee structure they apply, and if it happens to be a no-fee structure, then there would be no fees. In one months' time, when you announce this partnership, it is anticipated that it's just an announcement of the partnership but not the announcement of the system that has been in place.

J. Kwan: Okay. I will just leave that for now. I would ask the minister if he could provide to the opposition at a later date the information on the system he's working on. I would appreciate that.

Hon. S. Hagen: I'd be pleased to provide the hon. member a copy of the MOU when it's signed.

I'm going to ask some questions around the sustainability principles. Yesterday we talked a lot about the standards and the applications of standards and so forth, so I'm going to ask some questions around that.

The service plan mentions that the ministry's working towards sustainability principles to provide the public and other agencies with a clear interpretation of the appropriate balance between the economic, environmental and social objectives. When are these principles anticipated to be released?

Hon. S. Hagen: You're dabbling a bit in future policy. I can say that subject to cabinet approval — because we don't have that yet — we hope to have those principles out to the public in April.

J. Kwan: Has there been any consultation around this with community groups and individuals?

Hon. S. Hagen: The approval we're seeking from cabinet is approval of the draft principles. Once we get that, part of the approval from cabinet will also be that we then have permission to go out to the general public and get feedback on those principles.

J. Kwan: The ministry, then, to date has not consulted with anyone to draft these principles for cabinet's consideration.

Hon. S. Hagen: I think I made it clear, Mr. Chair, that these are draft principles. We'll get approval from cabinet to go out to the public with the draft principles to get feedback from the public.

J. Kwan: Okay. Then the question is: has no consultation been done with community groups in drafting the principles? I guess yes or no will suffice.

Hon. S. Hagen: I guess the answer is no with regard to direct consultation with groups, but my staff and I meet with a broad cross-section of groups, from environmentalist groups to industry and community groups, and in all of those meetings we've had discussions around principles. They all know we are developing principles. We've obviously had the discussions, and we've had the feedback on those discussions, but from a formal point of view, until we get the approval of cabinet, we're not going to go out officially to the groups. We will after we get the permission of cabinet.

J. Kwan: Could the minister advise who he has met with so far — groups and individuals?

Hon. S. Hagen: No. I meet with hundreds of groups, from first nations to environmental organizations to community leaders and industry people. I've been meeting with people since June 5. It's a long list of people and groups.

J. Kwan: I appreciate that the minister may not be able to provide me with the list today. Could he provide that list to my office in writing? I am interested in knowing, even in the draft of the principles, who the

minister engaged in discussions with — individuals or groups, environmental groups, business, etc.

Hon. S. Hagen: I think the hon. member opposite was a minister at one time. When you meet with people, these are private meetings between a minister and the people you're meeting with. I'm not sure I'm prepared to provide you with a list of the groups I meet with.

J. Kwan: Actually, when I was a minister — take, as an example, in the ministry of…. In any number of the ministries, when we engaged in consultation — even in drafting documents for cabinet — we invited stakeholder groups to come forward to provide advice to me as minister, and then staff would work around the information and develop the information. Then it was subject to cabinet approval. Certainly, when I was a minister I was happy to engage in discussions, and if anybody wanted that list, they were more than welcome to it.

I'm not asking the minister for private meetings that he's had with individuals. Rather, I'm interested in what groups the minister has consulted with in his many discussions with different groups and different stakeholders around the drafting of these principles.

Hon. S. Hagen: I think I'll answer the hon. member's question this way. There will be ample opportunity. We will be going broad-based in our consultations and looking for feedback on the draft sustainability principles when they are ready to go out to the public.

J. Kwan: This government promised and made commitments to an open, transparent, accountable government. One would have assumed that in the process of consultation on principles that are critical to our environment, to our ecosystem, to British Columbians…. In the process of working on that information, the minister has been engaging in discussions with individuals and groups. He said earlier that he's met with hundreds of people around that.

In the attempt and in the spirit of ensuring openness and accountability, I'm not sure why there's so much difficulty, from the minister's point of view, to advise this House who these groups are that he's consulted with to date — to provide openness into it, to shed some light into who's been involved in providing advice to the minister and his staff in the drafting of these principles.

Hon. S. Hagen: I can assure the hon. member that this government is open and transparent, far more open and transparent than previous governments have been. As I said, once I have the approval of cabinet, we will be going out in a broad-based consultation process with regard to the sustainability principles to get feedback from all members of the public.

J. Kwan: It would appear to me that the reluctance and the refusal of the minister to provide the information that he now has around who he has consulted with regarding the drafting of the principles displays quite the contrary to the government's commitment to openness and transparency. I think it's a complete contradiction to that objective.

To make available that information — I don't think it's top-secret information — is just simply showing the public openly that in the process of the minister's work in drafting the principles, these are the people the minister consulted with and had advice from. If the minister is so reluctant to provide that information, I have to wonder: what is he trying to hide? Is there something to hide around that? One would assume not. One would have assumed that the minister would go out and talk to a broad-based group of people in drafting those principles. I fail to understand the reluctance and refusal to provide this information.

I ask the minister once again: will he commit to provide that information to all members of the House and to the public?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'll take that under consideration. Your arguments have been very persuasive. I will attempt to put a list of groups together that I've met with over the last nine months, on the understanding that I want to get permission from those groups to release their names on the list.

The Chair: I'd remind the minister and all members to please direct their questions and answers through the Chair.

J. Kwan: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, through you, to the minister for his commitment in providing that information.

When the minister says he would need to obtain permission from these individuals that he's met with…. I just want to assure the minister that it isn't necessarily the case that it's an individual's name I'm seeking, although he might have met with particular individuals and that would be pertinent. In the areas where he met with groups particularly, it's the organizational names and then the individual, if it's attached and it's available, within that group that he has met with. The same principle would apply for the businesses he's met with.

I just want to make that clear for the minister. I appreciate his commitment in providing that information to me in the spirit of openness and accountability.

In this process of consultation and in the drafting of the draft principles that will be brought to cabinet in April, what is the time line for the larger public consultation process that will follow?

Hon. S. Hagen: We would hope to have that process completed within six months.

J. Kwan: I'm counting my fingers. That would bring us to about November on the broader consultation. The time line would be that the draft principles will arrive at the cabinet table sometime in April, and

Hon. S. Hagen: We're still in discussion in the ministry on the process we will use. We've not decided that yet.

I guess that broadly speaking, if the minister doesn't have the specifics around what the consultation would be…. I'm particularly concerned to make sure there is an opportunity for the public to become involved in providing their advice or their comments to the minister around these draft principles.

Would the minister be contemplating hearings of some sort that would go from region to region to invite the public to provide information? Would he contemplate just electronic input or is it…? I would hope that it would be a wide range of consultative methods, so I just wonder if the minister could advise, even broadly speaking, on the consultation process. Would it be a wide range of consultative processes that would be in place?

Hon. S. Hagen: I can assure the hon. member that the consultation process will be broadly based. We will be encouraging reaction from all sectors, from the environmental groups to industry groups, from community groups, from first nations. We would certainly contemplate the broadest possible public consultation that we can have.

This is a very important step that government is taking. The government has never had sustainability principles before, and I think it'll be a valuable process. The result will also be valuable to the people of the province.

J. Kwan: When will the minister announce the consultative process? Would that be around November then? I'm sorry, no. November would be the time when it would be done. Would it be around April when the minister would be announcing the consultative process?

Hon. S. Hagen: Yes, the consultation process will be announced as soon as I have cabinet approval.

J. Kwan: Given the work that's been done to date, can the minister advise: are there any broad themes that are emerging from his discussions with the various different groups?

Hon. S. Hagen: I read out to the honourable member yesterday the themes of sustainability, integrated resource management, science-based decision-making, shared stewardship, public and client consultation and inter-government harmonization. I think those are probably the broad-based principles we're looking at. We're looking at sustainability, protecting our environment and growing our economy.

B. Bennett: I wonder if I could ask the minister to confirm that the level of consultation in my riding of East Kootenay will continue. We have two land use processes taking place, and right now they're through sustainable resource management.

I know the minister has actually travelled to the Kootenays at least three times, and it may be that he's even been there four times. Personally, I've attended consultation meetings with outdoor clubs and environmental organizations, industry and so forth on a number of occasions with the minister. I know consultation with his staff is taking place. I would just like to get some confirmation from the minister that that high level of consultation will continue.

Hon. S. Hagen: I can assure the member that that high level of consultation will continue to occur. One of the benefits of having 77 members on our side of the House is that we cover every part of the province, and I'm sure every member — all 79 members — will be interested in what the government is proposing in the sustainability principles.

B. Penner: Thank you. I was about to thank you for the promotion and the raise.

I'm going to ask the minister to follow up on a question that he dealt with yesterday in question period regarding gravel removal.

The minister is, I believe, aware of the importance of gravel removal along the Fraser River, particularly through the constituency that I represent. That is the area where most of the gravel tends to settle out in the Fraser River: in the Agassiz area, as well as just downstream from Agassiz near eastern Chilliwack. Residents are becoming increasingly concerned about not just erosion but ongoing flood threats — increasing flood threats as the bed of the river gets ever higher and the protection offered by dikes becomes proportionately less.

One answer from certain environmental groups is: well, then, just build the dikes higher. Of course that begs the question: where will the material come from to build those dikes higher if we can't get it out of the river from the gravel that's being deposited there every year? I believe something in the order of 350,000 cubic metres of gravel are deposited each and every year in

that stretch of the river. That's a very sizable amount of gravel, and essentially, none of it has come out in the last four years.

It's becoming a very worrisome issue. Floods are not a thing of the past. I know, from speaking to some people in the bureaucracy here, that there's a tendency to think floods are something that happened 50 years ago and are not really a concern anymore along the Fraser River. Well, I've got news for them. Floods could very much happen again. It's something we all to have work towards preventing.

I wonder if the minister can answer a couple of questions for me. I noticed in his answer yesterday in the House that he believes there's a potential for two windows in each calendar year to extract gravel from the Fraser River. I wonder if he can shed some more light on what times during the year we can access gravel from the Fraser without unduly affecting fish habitat.

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm told that the spring window is January to March. As I think I said in my answer yesterday, it looks like we're going to miss the spring window. We were informed yesterday by DFO that there may be a late summer–early fall window. As you know, the province has issued the permit, subject to DFO issuing their permit. They're doing some consultations now to see if they can get the approvals they need to issue their permit.

B. Penner: I appreciate, and so do my constituents, the fact that the provincial government has changed its position on gravel since the election.

I note that in the past the previous provincial government went along with the three-year gravel moratorium on the Fraser River, ostensibly to engage in consultation and studies to see if gravel removal was sustainable in terms of environmental impacts. It frustrates me no end, as it does others in the Fraser Valley, to find now that after four years, DFO suddenly decides they have to engage in some consultation with first nations groups. One wonders what they've been doing for the past four years if not talking with other people along the Fraser River.

I note that behind the minister sits Mr. Kirk Miller, former chair of the Agricultural Land Commission. Perhaps he's still the chair. I stand to be corrected.

One of the impacts of not removing gravel from the Fraser River is increased erosion along the side of the river. In the Fraser Valley we have some of the best agricultural soil in Canada. Many, many acres of that soil are going down the river each and every year and are being taken away from productive agricultural use.

In particular I refer to the Seabird Island Indian band upriver from Agassiz, who tell me they're losing up to ten acres a year of prime agricultural land because the river course has changed as the gravel deposits increase in the middle of the stream, diverting water directly against their unprotected and undiked agricultural land. There are other farmers in the eastern Chilliwack portion of the Fraser River who are also losing valuable acres of prime agricultural land to erosion.

This is not just a matter of protecting against flooding. It's also impacting our available resources of agricultural land — something I think we can all agree we'd like to protect and preserve. I just underscore that, and as much as anything I'm venting my frustration that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has taken this long to start engaging in a meaningful consultation with first nations groups.

Again, thank you to the minister for taking the leadership from the provincial end in making the necessary approvals for gravel removal. Hopefully, we can engage in some constructive dialogue with the federal government and get them to see the urgency that I think the minister and I see.

Hon. S. Hagen: Yes, I do understand the seriousness of it. The only point I want to add is that as a province we're working very hard to harmonize our processes with the feds. I think we are making some progress on that. I understand that Minister Dhaliwal is giving a speech today to a group somewhere, where, hopefully, he's going to speak about that. We may be coming to a breakthrough here.

J. Kwan: Just following up on my questions around the sustainability principles. We were talking about the consultative process. The minister had advised that he'll be engaging in broad consultation around that. The follow-up question was around the themes that have emerged, and the minister has read out a list of themes that are listed in the service plans.

I'm wondering: in the consultation process the minister is engaged in right now, in talking with the different groups and people that he is engaged with, are there themes emerging from those discussions, and what are they saying? Take as an example the environmental community groups. What are they saying to the minister that is important on the sustainability principles?

Hon. S. Hagen: In sharing these particular principles with environmental groups, we've had no negative feedback from environmental groups with regard to these principles. The feedback has been, actually, very positive. That's why we felt we were able to draft the principles and then go back out to the environmental groups and also to the rest of the public in getting feedback.

J. Kwan: What mechanisms will be created to allow the agencies and community groups to check if these principles are indeed sustainable?

Hon. S. Hagen: One of the principles and components of the sustainability document is monitoring and accountability. That's going to be part of the document we go out to discuss with the public.

J. Kwan: What kind of monitoring process will be in place, and how will these principles be enforced? Will they be enforced?

Hon. S. Hagen: There will be provisions for compliance and enforcement, which are not carried out through this ministry. Those are carried out through Forests and through Water, Land and Air Protection.

J. Kwan: I see. So with these guiding principles, there would be enforcement and compliance provisions in place. The enforcement and compliance provisions would be done through the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. Has the minister been in discussion with these two respective ministries around their ability to enforce these and to ensure that agencies are complying with these guiding principles? Do they have the resources to do it?

Hon. S. Hagen: Yes, full and complete discussions have gone on among my ministry staff and the other ministries involved. They have built compliance and enforcement into their service plans.

J. Kwan: Will those ministries, too, be involved in ensuring that the agencies have the mechanisms or the capacity to check if the principles are sustainable? Would that fall within those ministries' responsibilities as well?

J. Kwan: Will the minister be using the traditional definition of sustainable development?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm not clear on the question. What we're talking about is sustainability principles, so I'm not clear on the question.

J. Kwan: Well, the traditional definition of sustainable development, going way back to the Brundtland report, says that sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present as well as future generations. As you're developing these principles, I'm wondering whether or not the minister will be using this traditional definition.

What I'm concerned about is that the definition of sustainable development would be altered and that perhaps the minister might be looking at resource-based economic development through a timely and certain access to land and resource approach in his definition of sustainability. I think those two definitions are critical, and they ultimately alter very much the principles that would guide the work of the ministry.

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm really pleased you gave me this opportunity. One of the first things I did after I was made the minister was to reread the Brundtland report. Madam Brundtland, as you know, is another of the great Norwegians in the world. There are several of us. She certainly has left her mark on the world.

I'll just reread our definition of sustainability: "Manage our natural resources to ensure that the needs of present and future generations of British Columbians are met by balancing economic, environmental and social values."

J. Kwan: There is a slight difference with the statement the minister just read out versus the traditional definition of sustainable development as I understand it, on the question around ensuring that development meets the needs of present and future generations. The issue, of course, is that if you have to compromise one thing in order to obtain the other, which will override? Would it be economic development that would override ultimate sustainability, or is it sustainability that would override economic pursuits? There are, perhaps, to some people's minds, subtle differences but nonetheless very important differences. I worry because this government seems to be focusing on economic needs and dollar signs of the present. Perhaps that approach would jeopardize future generations and environmental integrity. That's a concern for me.

Particularly, the minister yesterday mentioned that his salary is attached to the bottom line in ensuring that the bottom line is met per the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act. Is the driver ultimately going to be dollar signs, or would it be the traditional values and definition of sustainable development?

Hon. S. Hagen: It's an excellent question. That's the way things used to work. You used to have to make a choice between the environment and the economy, and it was always us and them, and there were wedges being driven. This ministry is all about balance. This ministry is about balancing our critical environmental values that we need to preserve our province into the future with the need for economic growth.

Something new has come into the equation, though. That is the international marketplace and how our customers overseas and in the United States view our products. If those customers are not satisfied that we are doing things in an environmentally sustainable way in British Columbia, they'll boycott our products. They won't buy our products.

The way we can make sure we always have those marketplaces open for our industries to sell into is by doing things right in British Columbia. We will be judged as to whether or not we do things right. It's not a question of either/or; it's a question of balancing the environment with the economy. We'll be judged by our overseas customers. They won't buy our products if they're not satisfied with the way we do things in British Columbia.

J. Kwan: With all due respect, if the only measure in determining whether or not the government is doing things right is by market pressures, then I am greatly

worried. In some instances one could anticipate that those who are conscious around environmental sustainability, social issues and the like would issue a boycott, but in some cases they may not. I hesitate to say that even in British Columbia people purchase products — clothes they wear and quite possibly shoes they wear — that are done by people who engage in child labour, as an example. If the measure of the government in determining what the government is doing right or wrong in environmental sustainability, in sustainable development, is on the basis of boycotts, then I think we're going to fall far short of what is required in ensuring that we do indeed meet the tests and the standards. I think we need to set tests and standards that are applicable to British Columbians and not just to overseas markets, where the markets are driven by a whole variety of different things.

Again, to the minister, in terms of the question around sustainable development: which will override? I guess we all wish we lived in a world where there are no competing demands. I know the minister knows there are competing demands. Sometimes these competing demands conflict, and a decision has to be made. I'm asking the minister, as the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management: which will override when there is a conflict between sustainable development and environmental integrity versus economic development?

Hon. S. Hagen: The hon. member made quite a leap from my answer to her question. I just want to remind her of what we've spoken about earlier this morning: the standards, the accountability, the compliance and the enforcement. Those things are not changing. They're there, and they will remain there. On top of that, we have the marketplaces that are becoming more sophisticated in looking at how we do things. The other things we talked about, which you forgot about in your question, are still there and will remain there.

R. Hawes: Thank you, minister. Just along that same line, maybe I could ask you. I know that for a decade we've based environmental decisions on pandering to minority interests. I wonder: the New Era document points to using science as a basis for making environmental decisions, rather than politics. Is the minister committed to going in that direction?

Hon. S. Hagen: Yes. We talked about that yesterday, actually. The hon. member opposite raised that. We're definitely going to rely on science to base our decisions.

J. Kwan: Getting back to what I was asking the minister around sustainable development principles, the minister answered the question earlier that the marketplace would be evaluating whether the government is doing the right thing or the wrong thing — that the boycott from the marketplace would ultimately force the government to do the right thing. I think I heard that correctly. That's what the minister said.

The minister also suggested that okay, that's one level of measure in terms of what will impact the government's decision. Coming back, then, to the question around where there is a conflict between two competing demands, as often is the case…. As much as we sometimes wish it wasn't the case, the reality is such that it is the case. From the minister, I'm interested: which of those principles would override? Would it be economic demands, or would it be the protection of the environment?

Hon. S. Hagen: I know the hon. member's looking for a yes or no or a simple answer. There is no simple answer. What I will do is answer her question with an example of a real-life situation. This deals with a tenure issued by Land and Water British Columbia to a heli-ski company near Williams Lake. Concern was expressed about possible threats to caribou, grizzly bears and mountain goats. However, the company has agreed to eliminate some ski runs and flight paths outright while modifying others, to distance skiers and aircraft from wildlife habitat.

The tenure will be monitored by Water, Land and Air Protection staff and is subject to a tenure review committee, including representatives of local first nations, guide-outfitters, tourism and environmental associations. If the operation is shown to have negative impacts on wildlife, the tenure can be modified or cancelled.

J. Kwan: I'll use another real-life example of my own. Take the grizzly bear hunt. A moratorium was put in place to protect the grizzly bears. A variety of different information is out there in terms of the numbers and the risks that the grizzlies are faced with, with the hunt. At the same time, you can get information that flips it on the other side. Ultimately, at the end of the day, the grizzly bear hunt moratorium was lifted.

It's not always black and white and easy. Sometimes in the name of preservation, in the name of conservation, in the name of environmental integrity and sustainability, a government may have to err — if it's to err — on the conservative side for protection, if it is the priority of government that they would value conservation and sustainability over economic development. Those are the decisions that governments would have to make.

Again, I ask the minister that question. There are lots of different real-life examples out there that we can draw on, but ultimately, at the end of the day, if it comes to a competing demand between two interests, which would it be? Would it be preservation, conservation and sustainability, or would it be economic?

Hon. S. Hagen: With all due respect I think I've answered the hon. member's question several times.

J. Kwan: I take it from the minister's answer that he's not prepared to commit to environmental sustainability and environmental integrity over economic

drivers. Given that this government, it seems to me, is focusing on economic needs and dollar signs, and given that the minister's salary is tied to achieving that bottom line, what would ultimately override environmental integrity would be the bottom line. That's been the Liberal government's agenda to date. That's what they've been showing to date. I think it puts in jeopardy the traditional definition of sustainable development — that being development that meets the needs of the present as well as future generations.

Hon. S. Hagen: I didn't want to go here, but what I'm going to say is that if we continue to operate as a province the way the previous government was taking us, I don't think we would have much to worry about, because there wouldn't be anybody living here. The environmental factors would certainly be looked after, but nobody would be living here because there wouldn't be any jobs.

The job of my ministry is to balance off the environmental concerns with the economic concerns. That's what we do. We're getting very good at doing that. We have solved all sorts of issues similar to the ones the member opposite has raised. We solved them successfully by sitting around at the table with the stakeholders that are there, finding out what the questions are and what the answers are, and then coming up with a resolution that works for everybody by finding that very critical balance — which is difficult to find — between environmental concerns to make sure we look after the environment now and for the future and at the same time provide economic opportunities for the citizens of the province.

J. Kwan: With all due respect, the member will know that when the previous government left office, it actually had one of the lowest unemployment rates in the last 20 years.

J. Kwan: With all due respect, that simply is not the case. The minister says: "Because nobody lived here." Just looking around this room, I assume that all of us are individuals and real human beings and that we're not just figments of imagination that exist in the thin air.

The fact of the matter is that the unemployment rate was one of the lowest in the last 20 years when theprevious administration left office. That is a fact that cannot be disputed.

We actually have one of the highest rates of minimum wage. It — for people to have the opportunity to make a living wage in this community — actually attracted people in our community. To remind the minister: it is this government, in their three-year plan, that will be laying off more people than ever in the history of B.C. — more than Alberta; more than Ontario.

To simply suggest, as I know these government members are fond of suggesting, that everything is the fault of the previous government irrespective of the facts is simply erroneous, to say the least.

I maintain that the notion from the minister ( and maybe I'm wrong, and I hope that I'm proven wrong ( on his commitment on environmental sustainability and environmental integrity and the protection of our land base, water resource and air quality for not just this generation but into the future generations remains a test to be seen, which will override, I guess.

Right now, all the signals I'm getting from the minister and from this government are focused on the bottom line to the point where the minister and all the ministers of the Crown have tied their salary into the bottom line. Yesterday, when I asked the question if he was prepared to tie the performances of his ministry in achieving the goals of the ministry — that is, sustainable development — the minister answered no. It seems to me that it's clear the direction he's going. I hope I'm proven wrong.

Will the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management be endeavouring to find ways to reduce consumption and our reliance on resources?

The Chair: Minister, I wonder if, at the moment…. The bells have gone. A division has been called in the House. Before members depart, and noting the hour, I would ask the minister to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.