Hansard -- Volume 3, Number 23 -- 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

Introductions by Members		1627

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		1627
	Equality for women in B.C. J. MacPhail Equality for women S. Brice Equality for women in B.C. S. Orr

Oral Questions		1628
	Government support for role of public servants J. MacPhail Hon. G. Collins Prevention of violence against women J. Kwan Hon. L. Stephens Investment in technology and film industries in Burnaby H. Bloy Hon. R. Thorpe Management of heritage sites J. Wilson Hon. G. Abbott

Tabling Documents		1631
	J. MacPhail Hon. G. Plant

Committee of Supply		1631
	Estimates: Office of the Premier (continued) J. MacPhail Hon. G. Campbell Estimates: Ministry of Health Planning (continued) J. MacPhail Hon. S. Hawkins

	Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		1656
	Estimates: Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management (continued) Hon. S. Hagen J. Kwan Estimates: Ministry of Skills Development and Labour Hon. G. Bruce Estimates: Ministry of Competition, Science and Enterprise Hon. R. Thorpe R. Lee S. Orr H. Bloy

Hon. G. Campbell: Today I'm delighted to introduce to the assembly two officials from Eastern Cape province in South Africa who are here for a two-week study visit to British Columbia. Mr. Silumko Ncume is the director of the cabinet secretariat in the office of the Premier. Mr. Mlungisi Ncame is the deputy director of intergovernmental relations and head of protocol. He is also in the Premier's office.

As the Legislature may know, in 1996 Eastern Cape province and British Columbia signed an agreement on cooperation in governance. This partnership has been an enriching experience for both provinces. It's been to our mutual benefit.

I want to say that both Silu and Mlu are here to study central executive management functions and to share experiences in innovative solutions; positive, constructive public policy creation; and programs with their counterparts in British Columbia. I am very pleased they're here with us in B.C. and here with us in the Legislature. They may be interested to know that we're dealing with the Premier's estimates later today. We may get an opportunity to hear even more about this.

I can tell you this: we benefit from this relationship. It's one I think we can take pride in. I want to make sure the House knows of their attendance, and I hope everyone will make them welcome.

Hon. S. Santori: In the members' gallery we have a very special visitor from Italy. With us today is Giorgio Visetti, the newly appointed consul general at Vancouver, who is making his first official visit to Victoria.

[Greetings, good luck and welcome to the beautiful province of British Columbia.]

B. Locke: In the gallery today is Mr. Dave Crown. He is the president of the B.C. Liquor Licensee and Retailers Association. He's been visiting some of the members today. Would the House please make him welcome.

B. Lekstrom: It is my privilege today to welcome two of my constituents from Peace River South. With us is a long-term mayor of the district of Chetwynd. His Worship Mayor Charlie Lasser has put greater than 40 years into public life, and he has been a great asset to us in the north with his knowledge and experience. Along with Mayor Lasser is the city administrator of Chetwynd, Mr. Mike Redfearn. Would the House join me in making them welcome.

D. Hayer: It gives me great pleasure to introduce 70 grade 5 students from the Surrey Christian Middle School in my constituency of Surrey-Tynehead; their teachers Ms. Bell, Ms. Van Esch and Mrs. Antonides; as well as 22 parent volunteers visiting the House today. Would the House please make them very welcome.

J. MacPhail: Tomorrow millions of people worldwide will be observing the ninety-first International Women's Day. While women have made great strides in the past 91 years, significant obstacles to women's equality persist today. As we observe International Women's Day in B.C., it's fitting to reflect upon the current status of women in our province.

Recent comments and actions by the provincial government indicate a disturbing ignorance of the challenges faced by women in B.C. The Minister for Women's Equality thinks that her job is unnecessary, and she mistakenly believes that a single woman and a single man have exactly the same opportunities with the same education.

Information provided by StatsCan completely counters this view. The majority of employed women continue to work in occupations in which women have traditionally been concentrated. Women continue to account for only one in five professional positions in the natural sciences, mathematics and engineering. Even when employed, women are still largely responsible for looking after their homes and families. The average earnings of women are still substantially lower than those of men.

Of women aged 65 and older, 24 percent have incomes below the StatsCan low-income cutoff. Violence against women continues to be a pressing problem.

The minister attributes many of these gender inequities to women's choices rather than to the systemic discrimination faced by women in society. This is from a minister whose government has cancelled universal child care; eliminated before- and after-school care programs; cut funding to single-parent families by 26 percent; cut family law funding, a service that single moms rely on; reduced the number of rape crisis counsellors; cut funding to women's centres; and eliminated pay equity legislation.

I'm afraid that rather than celebrating advances made by women in B.C., this International Women's Day will be a day to lament this government's efforts to reverse the hard-earned gains women have made during the past 91 years.

I implore this government to reflect upon its policies and stop their campaign to bring in a new era of gender inequality to B.C.

S. Brice: I, too, rise today to recognize and celebrate International Women's Day. I would like to focus on the international aspect of that, because the precious rights that many of us take for granted are not enjoyed universally. We need only to look beyond our borders to see that women and young girls still live in often perilous situations.

Individual human rights are precious and need to be protected. Twenty-five years ago the United Nations invited countries around the world to celebrate the rights of women. We are proud of the strides that have been made, but at the same time we recognize that more work must be done in British Columbia and around the world. One of the themes of 2002 is recognizing the crucial role that women play in seeking social justice on the local, regional, national and international scenes.

Several months ago I had the honour of meeting with a delegation of female Ethiopian politicians who came to Canada and B.C. to speak to us about their struggles for equality and the challenges they face in their communities. I was struck by the fact that Ethiopian women had only a 29 percent literacy rate, far behind that of their male counterparts. I think most people would agree that literacy is fundamental in achieving knowledge and, thereby, equality.

This is a poignant example of the lack of opportunities for women to achieve social and economic equality. In recognition of International Women's Day, I want to acknowledge the work of the Minister of State for Women's Equality and her advocacy for the women of British Columbia. As well, I am confident the minister will use every opportunity, including the bully pulpit potential of her office, to advance the issues for girls and women internationally.

S. Orr: It is with great pride as a woman that I rise today and speak to this House about International Women's Day. Twenty-five years tomorrow will mark the anniversary of the United Nations' first call for countries to recognize the rights and contributions of women in our societies. International Women's Day is a day when women — regardless of nationality, ethnicity, socioeconomic or political backgrounds — celebrate the efforts that they have made to end inequality.

True equality is still not a reality, but British Columbians continue to make tremendous strides towards achieving our goal. I think it is important for everyone to take a moment and reflect about the positive role women have had in your own lives. Think about how they have influenced, helped, protected and nurtured you. Perhaps it was your mother, a teacher, a mentor or a colleague. I am sure everyone in this House can think about a woman, or several women, who had a positive impact on their lives.

This is what International Women's Day is about: acknowledging the women in our lives, in our local communities and throughout the world who have contributed to the elimination of gender inequality.

I am committed to the struggle of eliminating inequality, and I know all my colleagues support me in this task. The Minister of State for Women's Equality has focused resources to provide services for vulnerable women most at risk. The ministry has protected funding for transition houses and safe homes so that women who are desperately fighting for their own security have somewhere safe to go. The ministry has protected funding for counselling abused women, so they can get the help they need so that they will have the opportunity to take back their lives and start to fulfil them once again. Funding for second-stage housing and for children who have witnessed abuse has also been protected.

These are very essential priorities, services for women and their children. I ask all women to join me in celebrating International Women's Day and to commit to continuing the struggle for achieving true gender equality in British Columbia.

J. MacPhail: Just last year the Minister of Finance had this to say about public servants who put their duty to the B.C. people first. He said public servants are "faced with an amazing, difficult choice. Do they do as they are ordered? Do those civil servants do as they are ordered, despite what their conscience tells them? Or do they tell the truth to the people to whom they really owe their loyalty, the people of British Columbia?"

The minister then said: "I take great pride in the fact that there are still civil servants in British Columbia who put the people ahead" of the government.

Now ministers throughout his government are branding these same public servants as thieves who ought to be sought out and punished.

Will the Minister of Finance please tell the House the extent of the investigation currently underway and tell us why what was good for him and his government, then in opposition, is now the subject of this intensive investigation?

Hon. G. Collins: Actually, I'm not — nor have I been — briefed in any detail on the review that's being done by the risk management branch. My understanding, though, is that it's a process that is longstanding. It's the role of the Ministry of Finance to protect the

documents that surround budget. They're doing that. They did that under the previous government. I know they did that under the previous Minister of Finance, when she was minister, as well. What is happening today is a standard process.

I do think, though, that there's a big difference between somebody taking internal documents to government that are budget documents, which are there and are intended to be secure — somebody going in and removing those documents and putting them forward because they don't like the public policy — versus what I said in the quotes that the member raised in referring to a blatant deception attempt by the government of the day to mislead the public about the budget and the finances of this province and to mislead the public, prior to the last election, about the state of the Crown corporations in British Columbia.

I happen to know — because I've learned over the last number of months — the depths to which the deception was put forward by the previous government on the people of this province about the financial state of this province. I think many ministers of the Crown were involved in that deception.

J. MacPhail: I can only assume that the Minister of Finance doesn't know what's going on in his own government. Here's exactly what's happening. The Finance minister was assisted in his budget preparations last fall by hearings by the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services. Among the submissions heard by the committee was one from a group of information technology workers in the Ministry of Human Resources. This submission so impressed the member for Chilliwack-Kent that he attempted to arrange a meeting with the Minister of Human Resources. The meeting never took place.

In frustration, the public servant sent an e-mail to the Premier expressing his concerns that the government's actions will only add to its cost. For this, he's been sent home. He's been disciplined for daring to suggest a better, more cost-effective way of doing the government's work, daring to bring this idea to the attention of the Premier — sent home, disciplined.

To the Premier: is this draconian oppression of constructive ideas from within the government another feature of the new era for the public service that he promised before the election, or is it another broken promise?

Hon. G. Collins: I'd be glad to hear the information that the member has. I'm sure it comes from the union. I'd be glad to receive it. I'm not aware of this, nor am I aware of the offer that's out there or what the issue is. I'm perfectly glad to hear the submission.

Hon. G. Collins: Mr. Speaker, I'm perfectly glad to undertake to find out what the issue is. I'm not aware of it. I certainly played no role in sending anybody home. This government is always very happy to hear from all British Columbians about their suggestions. We hear on a daily basis — I know I hear it on a daily basis; I know my colleagues do as well — suggestions people have to run the province of British Columbia better. Heaven knows, it hasn't been run very well for the last decade.

J. Kwan: Tomorrow is International Women's Day. In British Columbia more than 13 women and girls are sexually assaulted every day. In Canada every week at least one woman is murdered by her boyfriend or spouse. In almost half of all violent relationships a weapon is used. This dramatically increases the extent of injuries sustained by these victims.

On March 4 the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine presented a member's statement. In this statement he callously concluded that the December 6 massacre, the massacre of 14 women at L'École Polytechnique in Montreal, proved that it's not guns that kill people; it's people.

The Minister for Women's Equality did not stand up to challenge her colleague on this sadly ill-informed portrayal of the reality of violence that women face every day. Does this mean that the minister and this government as a whole endorse the statement presented by the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine?

Hon. L. Stephens: I'm sure that both members opposite have been in this House long enough to know what the rules are. The rules of private members' statements are the rules of private members' statements.

What this government is doing to protect women against violence is clear. We've laid it out quite clearly in the throne speech. The service plans for this ministry are on the Web. We have protected and maintained the funding for transition houses, safe homes and second-stage housing. We have protected the funding for the counselling programs for women and the counselling programs for children who have witnessed abuse. We're also developing a strategic plan for the province in regards to protecting women — all the women in this province.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary question.

J. Kwan: Is the minister too afraid to challenge her own caucus colleague? And if she is too afraid, how can she effectively ensure that women's issues are at the forefront of this government's agenda? How can the minister represent the women of this province, who rely upon her to be an advocate for women's issues, if she's unwilling to acknowledge the reality of violence against women — including the connection between violence and access to firearms?

Hon. L. Stephens: I want to assure the members opposite that every single government member in this House is supportive of and working hard to make sure that violence against women comes to an end.

Hon. L. Stephens: …what they did when they were in power. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker…

Hon. L. Stephens: …who was at one time the Minister of Women's Equality and did absolutely nothing for the women in this province.

H. Bloy: It's an honour today to submit a public written question from Sonja Sanguinetti, president of the Burnaby Board of Trade. Her question is to the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise. "Given that the city of Burnaby is now home to seven of the ten largest high-tech firms in B.C. and is home to over one-half of the studio space available to the movie and television industry in British Columbia, what is the government doing to build on these successes and attract even more investment to Burnaby in these growing sectors?"

Hon. R. Thorpe: First of all, I'd like to thank the member from Burnaby for the question. With respect to the high-tech, film, television and new media sector, we were told before we were government that the number one hurdle for growth for those industries was the uncompetitive, punitive personal tax rates that the former government had put in place.

What have we done as a government? On the first day of forming government, we reduced personal taxes by 25 percent. On January 1 — and some of the members of the opposition over there may laugh….

Hon. R. Thorpe: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I know the opposition doesn't care about working families making $60,000 or less in British Columbia, but our government now has the lowest tax rate of any jurisdiction in Canada for those workers.

In addition, we have lowered the business tax rate to 13.5 percent. We are now competitive. On September 1 the corporate capital tax is eliminated. For small business we've also increased the tax exemption threshold from $200,000 to $300,000. Our government is committed to working with this sector to make it the best in the world.

H. Bloy: Burnaby is the home to Inex Pharmaceuticals Corp., a biotech company involved in the development of treatments for cancer.

Can the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise tell us what steps the government is taking to address the needs of the biotech industry in British Columbia?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Recently I met with the biotech sector. They have advised us that education and a skilled workforce are the number one priorities for their sector.

Our government is committed to and has initiated a $45 million program with the private sector to put into place 20 additional research chairs in post-secondary institutions in British Columbia.

We're also doubling the number of post-secondary grads in computer science, electrical engineering and computer engineering.

Financing is also a critical, critical component of building the biotech industry in British Columbia. In the coming months we'll have announcements to address those issues.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the most important thing is for us to work in cooperation and partnership. We will listen, and we will work with…. Our goal is to have the world's leading biotech industry located right here in British Columbia.

J. Wilson: My question is to the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services. Last week there were media reports that the province was preparing to make changes to the way our heritage sites are governed and maintained.

As you know, Barkerville is a major historical site in this province, and it lies in my riding. I have had a number of inquiries as to what will happen there.

Can the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services outline these changes and tell us how it will affect Barkerville and other historic sites?

Hon. G. Abbott: We as government are committed to the devolution of management of heritage sites by '04-05 — not the ownership of the sites but the management of the sites.

In doing that, we are building on the current successes we have in terms of private sector and non-profit sector delivery of management of sites. Emily Carr House, for example, in Victoria and the Keremeos Grist Mill are two examples of where we have done very well with local management of heritage sites. In fact, we have 52 such arrangements with a variety of non-profit and private sector contractors. We'll be moving, over the next couple of years, to expand those.

We will, among other things, be engaging the communities in and around Barkerville to see whether we can partner with them in the devolution of Barkerville.

J. Wilson: The previous government downloaded responsibility to communities continually. They never left them with the means to deal with their new-found responsibilities. They believed that if we give them more to do with less for long enough, they will eventually be able to do anything with nothing.

J. Wilson: Can the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services tell us what steps he is going to take to allow the communities to meet their new-found obligations?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm pleased to advise the member that the devolution of management is not driven by cost saving. It's in fact driven by the opportunities for better management and management closer to the heritage sites themselves. In the coming year's budget we have added additional funds for heritage site management.

We do want to ensure that as we move towards devolution of the sites in '04-05, all of them are in sound shape from a physical plant perspective. We are adding additional dollars to that. As we move forward, we're going to ensure that we have excellent management arrangements, whether it's with communities like Quesnel or Wells or whether it's with non-profit societies. As we move forward, we certainly are going to ensure that our heritage sites continue to be jewels in the provincial crown, Mr. Speaker.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, I table the documents that the Minister of Finance is unaware of.

Hon. G. Plant: Mr. Speaker, I seek leave to present the report of the task force on pay equity.

Hon. G. Plant: I present the report of the task force on pay equity entitled Working Through the Wage Gap prepared by Nitya Iyer, dated February 28, 2002.

Hon. G. Collins: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we'll be discussing the estimates of the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management. In this House I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we will be discussing the estimates of the Premier.

J. MacPhail: I'm wondering whether the Premier or his staff have had a chance to get the salary rates for the people I asked for and the organizational chart. I think those are the two things I asked for — the salary rates for the political staff.

Hon. G. Campbell: No, hon. Chair, we have not got the salaries together yet, but we can pass across the org chart, if the member would like.

J. MacPhail: Is there some difficulty in getting the salary charts? I'm just wondering. We've had about 48 hours.

Hon. G. Campbell: No. There have been a number of things on our agenda, and we will get the information for the member.

J. MacPhail: Sorry, I thought that may be something we could canvass. I thought maybe you could just ask the staff what their salary rates were and pass that information across. Perhaps if they're listening, they could just write it on a piece of paper and send it in.

I've had some discussions around the public affairs bureau with the Minister of Health Planning in her estimates, as the Premier directed. Unfortunately, I hate to say, the Minister of Health Planning referred me back to the Premier and said she couldn't answer the questions because communications money had been transferred to the Premier's office through the public affairs bureau. I honestly said I did not approve of uploading — passing the work upward. I'll try to limit the comments I have to, really, things I know that the Premier…. I mean, I don't expect the Premier or his office to be responsible for the daily operations of the line communications, except that the Minister of Health Planning told me to direct my questions to this set of estimates.

What we were discussing was how the public affairs bureau has been reorganized to assist in resolving the concerns that arose as a result of that cabinet submission. The questions weren't answered. What I was trying to get at is the reorganization of benefit to the problems the Premier himself identified. Anyway, I didn't get the answers.

Now, we know that there are significant changes coming to the public affairs bureau. We have that information. We have been told — and this all links together, because I was trying to see whether what we've been told is happening will actually resolve the problem the Minister of Health Planning had — that virtually every communications officer in government is going to be laid off or terminated. Then they'll be given the option to go back to work at the public affairs bureau as an order-in-council appointee. This is pretty reliable. Is this what's about to happen?

Hon. G. Campbell: As I said the other day when we canvassed this issue, hon. Chair, the deputy minister for the public affairs bureau is currently working with the deputy minister for the executive council. We have not finalized the structure even of how we intend to provide for the shared services across government. Indeed, in the creation of a public affairs bureau, we feel that we will be able to build the confidence and the expertise necessary across government so that in sharing services between various ministries we are not duplicating costs and are in fact building ability and the necessary skills bank we need so that communication can be comprehensive both internally and externally.

J. MacPhail: Well, I'm advised that this is imminent. If the Premier says this information isn't accurate, that's fine. All I'm trying to do is find out what the restructuring is that substantially expands the authority of the Premier's office, whether it's a solution to a problem such as what the Minister of Health Planning had or whether it…. Maybe I could offer some advice on it not being. Is everybody going to be laid off or fired, and will they then be asked to reapply for an OIC appointment?

Hon. G. Campbell: As we said the other day when we canvassed this issue, the planning is currently underway between the deputy minister of the public affairs bureau and the deputy minister to the executive council. When their position has been brought forward, it will be brought to me as the Premier. We will discuss that. We will discuss an implementation plan. That implementation plan will be in place by the middle of June of this year.

J. MacPhail: I'm just going to assume that our information is accurate, because it came from a reliable place. Given that the Premier…. Well, let me ask this question of the Premier, then. In his public affairs bureau budget for this year, are there severance costs budgeted for?

Hon. G. Campbell: The answer is no. The severance costs for government, as we go through the restructuring — as we pointed out on January 17 and again on February 19 — are part of an estimate of the costs. They are managed in a fund under the Ministry of Finance.

J. MacPhail: I can't get the information from the Minister of Health Planning; I can't get it from the Premier. I have to go to Ministry of Finance estimates to find out the severance costs that could be estimated for the public affairs bureau. Is that right?

J. MacPhail: Then I ask the Premier if he could please provide copies of all contracts, employment agreements and severance provisions for all senior staff in the public affairs bureau. I'm particularly interested to learn what provisions have been made with respect to severance for the deputy minister of the public affairs bureau. Earlier in estimates we examined her employment contract, her letter of agreement. That was a public document, or it's a document that I had, anyway. I assume it's a public document. The issue of severance was not contained within that letter. I was surprised at the absence of that information, so I'm asking for all contracts, all employment agreements and the severance provision for all senior staff in the public affairs bureau.

Part of the information that we also have is that the new structure of the public affairs bureau will be that ministry communication directors will no longer report to the deputy minister of their ministry but rather to the Premier's office. Now, the reason why I ask this is that this is one of the issues I explored with the Minister of Health Planning last night. I'm not saying that she said this was going to happen, but every indica-

tion…. We had this information about this reorganization, so I was trying to find out how it worked in the Ministry of Health Planning. Basically, what she said was that all those responsibilities and that money have been transferred to the public affairs bureau.

I thought, putting the information together, that it seemed to confirm what I had heard, but perhaps the Premier can confirm whether the plan he's working on is that communications directors in ministries will now go around the deputy minister of that ministry and report directly to the Premier's office.

Hon. G. Campbell: We did canvass some of this, again, the day before yesterday. I'd refer the member to page 2 of the office of the Premier's operating budget and page 3 of the office of the Premier's operating budget; $35.311 million has been transferred from ministry communication budgets into the public affairs bureau. Those directors of communication will be reporting through the deputy minister to the public affairs bureau, who — like other deputy ministers — reports through the deputy minister to the Premier's office, executive council.

J. MacPhail: Except that when we canvassed it two days ago, the Premier said that nothing changes, that operations continue at the ministry level, that the change wouldn't affect ministry operations. I checked what we discussed, because I was trying to explore this with the Minister of Health Planning. I am not accusing anyone of the runaround; I'm not. I know that you're in the middle of a reorganization, so I'm just trying to find out what the heck the reorganization is. People are far too suspicious of where I'm trying to go on these matters.

The Premier said that nothing was going to change, but the minister and this information that we have seem to indicate that it does.

To the Premier: all we can do is have this information and try to get the answers in estimates. When we don't get the answers in estimates, we speculate publicly. I have had contradictory information from just merely the first two sets of estimates that I have been personally involved in. It's not helpful. I don't know whether the Premier wants to assist me in confirming or whether he's even contemplating this. The reorganization is causing confusion, at least for the Minister of Health Planning.

Hon. G. Campbell: First, let me say that I believe that the member opposite is simply trying to understand what we're doing. I'm sorry that I'm not being as communicative as I might be or as I should be, or whatever.

Let me try to take the member through this. First, I'd like to clear up one thing. If I left the impression that nothing would change, that was a false impression. Lots will change. We mentioned the other day that we expect the budget to be reduced from $35 million to $23 million. That represents change.

We said the other day that we expected the staff in the public affairs bureau to drop significantly, down to 322 people.

There are issues. We've tried to lay out a three-year plan that deals with full-time-equivalent positions as well as finances. That's No. 1.

Secondly, we do intend to change, and we have indeed changed, the way communication works within government. In the previous government, at least from all we've been led to believe, communications was involved in policy development. Indeed, often there was only communications and no policy development. Our government is following a different tack. We develop policy; we make policy decisions. Then we are going to communications to say: "How should this be communicated, how do you make sure the public understands what's taking place, and how do we make sure that what's taking place internally is properly communicated?"

That does not mean that we will deal with rumours or innuendo. It means that when we have made a decision, we will communicate it. That's one of the goals of the public affairs bureau.

As I mentioned to the member when we were at these estimates previously, there is a process underway whereby I will get recommendations from the deputy minister for the public affairs bureau through the deputy minister of the executive council for how this reorganization can take place.

Let me try to use a couple of specific examples that hopefully will identify what we're looking at. There will continue to be directors of communications, I'm sure, that will report to the deputy minister for the public affairs bureau. There will continue to be a need for presentation materials to be developed. There will continue to be a need for speeches to be made.

It is our position that there is not a need for 21 separate speechwriters or 21 separate groups of people building skills in terms of presentation. By sharing services across government, we believe we can do this more cost-effectively — both the communication within government and the communication outside of government. That's the goal we've set for ourselves.

There is a plan in place. I'm glad to discuss that plan. The goal is to provide a shared service across government that is effective. The deputy ministers for the public service and for the executive council are continuing to work on that. Our deadline for the completion of that plan and for proposed implementation would be June of this year.

When the decision is made on what the policy and the implementation plan will be, I shall tell the member opposite. I intend to communicate that to our employees before I communicate it to the outside world. That would be an appropriate way for us to move. That's what we are doing. It is in process, and we expect it to be completed by June of this year.

J. MacPhail: Thank you. That was helpful. I still want the information that I asked for, if I could, please.

What I will be monitoring — just so the Premier is clear — is to see whether the information is correct about the mass layoff or firing and then reappointment as OICs.

Here's my concern on that, just so the Premier can maybe put this as food for thought. I understand the need for OICs. Every government determines a certain number of OICs that they want. Just for the public's edification, an order-in-council appointment is one that serves at the pleasure of the Crown rather than by some sort of common law or a collective agreement law. If indeed the communications department of the public affairs bureau is going to go to an OIC system, I think that's a step in the wrong direction for the public service. That's my view.

The communications officers are an integral part of the government's image and an integral part of advising the government on feedback from the public. They play a very important role. There's no question that communications people have to be committed and loyal and represent the views of the government of the day. There's no question about that, but they are public employees, in my view.

If there's a switch in that, I will be watching very carefully the effect of making communications officers order-in-council appointees. I also will be watching with care the costs associated with the reorganization.

Beyond that, I take the Premier at his word that this is a work in progress and nothing he's able to communicate now, and I will await this matter for the coming June.

I'll give the Premier some sense of where I'm going next just in case there are staff issues. I was going to explore the intergovernmental relations secretariat next. On my list for discussion is the softwood lumber dispute — how it's going with Ottawa, basically, which is a soft lob to the Premier, given today's news. No, I'm just kidding. There's health care funding and the Premiers' conference, the offshore oil and gas moratorium, and the referendum on treaties.

Hon. G. Campbell: I'm glad to hear from the member opposite on these issues, and depending on the level of detail, I'm prepared to discuss all of them with you.

J. MacPhail: It was very good news today. It's very good news for British Columbia, about the comments from the federal government on the matters raised by the Natural Resources minister, Herb Dhaliwal. Perhaps the Premier could give us his view of what's happening in the areas raised by Mr. Dhaliwal and also just how the formal relationship….

J. MacPhail: Oh, sorry. Well, I can do it, because it is good news. He made a major speech, and he said that topping the list is a commitment to proceed with….

J. MacPhail: Maybe I'll let the minister. It's better to hear it from your own side.

Hon. G. Campbell: I thank the member opposite. If she'd like, I'll go through some of those issues that we've dealt with federally and what we've been trying to do. If the member's talking about the specifics of what the senior federal minister for British Columbia said at the board of trade speech today, I'm aware of some newspaper reports but nothing beyond that. If you'd like to add more, feel free.

First, in terms of intergovernmental relations, one of the goals we've set for ourselves as a government is to make sure that Ottawa is aware of our provincial agenda. What are the issues that we deal with? As the member opposite will know, there's a vast array of issues. We've been trying to focus Ottawa's attention on our priority issues so we can work our way through those and, hopefully, get successful resolution. I would be less than candid if I didn't say that sometimes the ability to get the action we want takes longer than we'd like, but I think we're making progress.

Specifically, on the issues that I understand from the media that we have heard from, the member opposite should know that we have had a strong commitment from the federal government to support our bid for the Winter Olympics. Our bid for the Winter Olympics is estimated to cost between $20 million and $25 million. The province has put $9.2 million into it through the provincial coffers and Crown corporations. The federal government will be sharing equally — $9.2 million. The balance of the bid — whatever the balance comes to be — will be raised from the private sector.

Part of our pre-Olympic bid included the necessity for an expansion of the Vancouver Convention and Exhibition Centre. It includes a request for a commitment from Ottawa to support a transit link between the airport in Richmond and downtown Vancouver. It includes a request for the development of a media centre in Richmond, which will be an extension of their convention centre, and also five Olympic centres around the province which will focus on Olympic activities. I'm not sure if the member opposite is aware of this, but in many jurisdictions they have special presentations of Olympic events in these activity centres. They will be more regional centres.

I think we've had good response from the federal government with regard to our pre-Olympic initiative. Obviously, to be able to move forward with the Olympics, we have to have a bid prepared by January of 2003 — not a qualified bid, not a "maybe we'll do this" bid, but a bid that says: "This is what we intend to provide and how we intend to provide it."

We were encouraged by the federal government in December when they said they would be willing to pursue public-private partnerships for the establishment of infrastructure. We have identified the Vancouver Convention and Exhibition Centre not just as a major component of the Olympic bid but also as a candidate for public-private partnership. Ottawa has agreed with that. I understand the minister has said that they are very supportive of the direction with regard to the Convention and Exhibition Centre.

Having said that, we do have to understand that a significant amount of work has to be done to develop the feasibility, the cost-benefit and the business plan for that facility in Vancouver as part of the Olympic bid. There are a number of issues remaining. What we have done, as the member will know from looking at the estimates, is closed what used to be the office for British Columbia. Rather than have that office, which was basically sitting empty, we have chosen instead to have far more consistent contact with Ottawa on the issues that we are dealing with. My deputy minister has regular contact with the deputy minister of the executive council and also has regular contact with Ottawa with the deputy minister of the Privy Council.

With regard to softwood, I think the Minister of Forests has done a very good job of moving B.C.'s agenda. As I know the member opposite is aware, the softwood negotiation that is taking place is a negotiation which includes all the provinces, as well as the national government and the administration of the United States. It was launched by an industry segment in the United States. British Columbia, in fact, is the target of the American industry's suit.

To give the federal minister his due, he has worked very closely with our Minister of Forests in trying to move this forward. We are moving it forward on a number of tracks. One is to inform, as well as we can, the American consumer of the impacts of the softwood lumber protectionist initiative undertaken by the American industry. Two is the litigative route, which includes a legal challenge to the WTO as well as a legal challenge under NAFTA. Three is the administrative route, which is to sit down and inform the United States, the industry and the administration of why their suit makes very little sense.

All those are moving down the road today. There continues to be work to try to get a stable, long-term solution that will provide access for B.C.'s forest products into the United States. I cannot advise the member of any up-to-date matters that haven't been discussed, actually, in the last couple of days.

J. MacPhail: On the Olympic bid. The senior minister for B.C. intimated in his remarks — I don't know whether he actually said it at the board of trade today — that the convention centre was a go. Is that part of the Olympic bid package? If for some reason the Olympic bid fails — I hope it doesn't; I'm very supportive of it — in the Premier's view, what happens to the convention centre?

Hon. G. Campbell: We would expect that the same policy that was applied to the Toronto Olympic bid would be applied to the Vancouver Olympic bid.

The Vancouver Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games for 2010 will require us to make early commitments — by January 2003. Once those commitments are made, we expect the federal government to carry through on them, as will the provincial government as we move forward, regardless of whether the bid is successful or not.

However — and I appreciate the support from the member opposite — we expect to be successful. We have the best site. We will have the best facilities, and we will meet the needs of the International Olympic Committee. More importantly, we will meet the needs of Winter Olympic and Paralympic athletes who will want to come to Vancouver for 2010.

J. MacPhail: Is the private sector involved in the moving forward of the convention centre through the Olympic bid, or is there a separate commitment? There used to be a separate commitment. I think it was through a hotel tax, particularly in Vancouver. What's the commitment now?

Hon. G. Campbell: Just to clarify, there has already been a request for interest from the private sector to join a partnership with the federal and provincial government in building the Vancouver Convention and Exhibition Centre expansion. It will remain a critical part of this.

One of the issues we will deal with as we move through the next nine months towards the date when we must have that proposal all together is what the legislative framework will be that will allow that to take place. It will be part of the Olympic bid, certainly. There's every intention, from our government's perspective and the federal government's perspective, that the private sector will remain a critical component of that.

J. MacPhail: On the issue of softwood, the clock is ticking. March 21 is one deadline. As I understand it, the March 21 deadline is just to prepare us for the full impact about two months later.

Are there contingency plans being developed for a March 21 negative ruling, which the Premier is aware of?

Hon. G. Campbell: I have asked the Minister of Forests and his officials to prepare for a series of eventualities. One is that we resolve the issue. Two is that we have an agreement as to how we're going to resolve the issue. Three is that we don't resolve the issue.

The immediate impacts of a non-resolution will be continued litigative effort from both the province and the federal government. There will be a number of initiatives that will have to be undertaken with regard to how we move forward with families, particularly, who may be affected by this. That is an ongoing piece of work being carried out by the Ministry of Forests as well as the government. I tried to leave this — and I think that the Minister of Forests tried to leave this — with the provincial congress: that we indeed have to be aware of the impacts this will have on communities across the province, and we're looking for ways that we can help mitigate those.

J. MacPhail: I note that the federal government has filed a NAFTA challenge and then, yesterday, filed a WTO challenge. Are we party to those challenges, or is it possible for us to make challenges separately from that?

Hon. G. Campbell: We have agreed with the federal government that they are the primary mover of this agenda. We believe that they have both the expertise and the resources to deal with these trade matters. We are in touch with them daily. They look at us as a client, not as someone who should be left out of the loop. They do everything they can to keep us in the loop. We are both aware of and supportive of the initiatives that have been undertaken, and we would not expect to take separate actions on behalf of the province either with the NAFTA or the WTO legal challenge.

J. MacPhail: Do those discussions on the NAFTA and WTO challenges occur through the Ministry of Forests bureaucracy or through the intergovernmental relations bureaucracy?

J. MacPhail: Does the Ministry of Forests manage the relationships not only with the federal government but with the other provinces as well, on this issue — the softwood lumber dispute?

Hon. G. Campbell: Just so I can be very clear about this as well. When I came to office — actually, before I was sworn in as Premier — I went to the Western Premiers' Conference. There had not been, really, very much interprovincial coordination of what the provincial approaches would be so I initiated that our Minister of Forests work with their ministers of forests, so the west would have at least a common understanding of where various provinces were. The Ministry of Forests now carries that item.

For example, we had a meeting of the Premiers at the end of January. We brought them together again. That's something on our agenda that we talk about. If there are any problems, that would be done through the intergovernmental relations. The specific driving of the agenda, the day-to-day activity and the day-to-day work and decision-making, comes out of the Ministry of Forests.

J. MacPhail: I know the federal government is trying very hard to suggest that there is a common front across Canada. I actually think that at this very moment, there is a common front. I think it's fragile, but there is a common front; whereas in months past that common front was negatively affected by some actions, particularly by Quebec. But I believe there is a common front now.

Separate and apart from the federal government's work on this softwood lumber dispute, is the Premier comfortable that there's a common front amongst the three or four provinces affected by this? Is there a common front that's unshakeable in that matter?

Hon. G. Campbell: I have to say that I believe we have a common front that's resilient. Whether it's unshakeable or not is another question.

The four provinces that have been sort of at the focus of this…. As I mentioned earlier, British Columbia is the target of an awful lot of this discussion. British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario and Quebec are the four provinces that are most directly affected. The Maritime provinces have been brought in, to a significant amount, whereas before they were exempted from this. Saskatchewan and Manitoba, I can tell the member opposite, have been very cooperative with British Columbia as have, indeed, the other provinces.

I should just say that I think the provinces of Quebec and British Columbia have been working fairly closely together. The challenge we face is that every province has a different regime. Every province deals with their land base and their forest policy framework in a different way.

The fact is: British Columbia has over 50 percent of the trade exports in the United States from Canada. That's why they focused on us. British Columbia is generally in the lead. We do a lot. I know the Minister of Forests does a lot to keep the other provinces onside.

I think it is fair to say the federal government looks to British Columbia for the lead. They look to be sure that when they are stepping on this file, they're stepping forward in a way that's consistent with what we have recommended. They have been equally frustrated with us and our, at times, seeming inability to focus the American industry — more than the American administration — on solving the problem. But I think, generally speaking, we have had good cooperation.

There will be disagreements within the eleven parties that we end up dealing with, but I believe we still have a resilient and consistent approach. What I should say, so there's no misunderstanding, is that everyone shares a common goal and a common objective. The only issues that we debate are how we get there.

J. MacPhail: On the question of American relations, Les Reed wrote a very good two-piece series in the Vancouver Sun where he really was saying that the Americans themselves are at fault on this file, because of their elimination of ten billion acres, I think it was, of usable land for softwood lumber. He was pushing very hard to say that it's all political, and the fault is the making of the Americans.

I know there were some consumer and construction groups who were pushing back hard on behalf of the British Columbia position. What's the status of relations either with consumer groups or with homebuilder groups and/or Senators and Congresspeople in Washington, D.C.?

Hon. G. Campbell: The update I'm going to give the member now is general, because I can't tell you exactly where we are today.

Let me be clear with the member that I believe there is a substantial…. Indeed, I think one of the fears that

all of us have is that this is not about free and open access to trade. It is purely about protectionism from a relatively small number of mills in the southeastern part of the United States that cannot compete. They are using whatever tools they can to try and put themselves in a better position.

I have not read the comments from Mr. Reed, but I know that one of the challenges that Governors have suggested to me that they face is that there is not the supply of fibre that they need for their mills and their states. I can tell you that the Governors are consistent. The challenge is not Canada, British Columbia or any of our provinces; the challenge is their federal management of their federal forests in the United States.

I think there is another challenge which is far, far heavier a challenge that, indeed, the American industry is not allowed to discuss or not allowed to pursue, and that is: we have a Canadian dollar that's at 62 to 63 cents. That makes us very competitive compared to an American dollar that's a dollar. A thousand board feet at 63 cents is better than a thousand board feet at a dollar. We know that, and they know that.

What we've been pursuing with the envoy Governor Racicot, specially appointed by the President, with the American Ambassador and the secretaries of commerce…. I should say that has been pursued not just provincially with us, with our connections, but also by the federal minister responsible for trade, the federal Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister. They have all been trying to inform the Americans of the differences between what takes place in Canada and what takes place in the United States. Our task — I have done this with both Governor Racicot and the American Ambassador — is to point out the difference between British Columbia and the United States.

To use an example, hon. Chair, when a Premier of a province tells an American Governor that we own 94 percent of our land base, they can't believe it. We do. What we try to point out to them is that we are simply trying to manage our land base in a socially responsible, economically responsible and environmentally responsible way. We have a lot of work to do on that. We've got to continue with that, and I would say to the member opposite that regardless of what happens on March 21, we have to continue with that, or this is going to keep on coming back and biting our workers across the province and the forest industry.

The second thing I'd say is that the consumers — the consumer groups, the homebuilders, the construction trade unions — understand the impact of protectionist policies on their members and their ability to buy homes. I would say this, in all candour: the negative impacts are dispersed across the country, whereas the challenge comes from a very small group of protectionists. They see substantially different results from their protectionist strategies, and they see real benefits for themselves. They focus their agenda on that.

We've worked through our connections in the United States, through the various industry associations. We've worked to build up support in the Senate and build up understanding in the House. There have been a significant number of Senators who've written to the administration and encouraged the administration to put this aside. I should say that I believe if the administration actually could deal with softwood lumber one-off, we would have solved it by now. They can't deal with it one-off; at least, that's what they would tell us. There's a whole other series of issues they have to deal with, with their Congress.

There are challenges we have to face, not the least of which is that so much of our softwood goes to the United States. We have to do a number of things to start mitigating that. We are going to pursue this, hopefully, to resolution by March 21. Regardless of what happens on March 21, if we are successful, we are going to continue to pursue information of the American public, the American homebuyer, the American homebuilder and the Congress. This is a substantial political issue, and we're going to have to keep our political ducks in a row if we're going to make sure that we have a long-term, sustainable access to the American markets and that we don't have this coming back and hitting us every three to five to ten years in British Columbia.

One of the other trade disputes that's going on, which really doesn't affect British Columbia terribly, is the wheat trade dispute. One of the things I've noticed there is that the Americans bluffed on the wheat trade dispute, where it's virtually identical to the softwood lumber dispute. The farmers, mainly the prairie farmers, said: "Well, whatever. We'll just find other markets. You can impose whatever you want on our wheat being imported to the United States, but we have other markets, so we don't need you, basically, for selling our wheat." Immediately, the consumer issues that existed in America came to the fore: "Hey, wait a minute, government. We need Canadian wheat, because we don't grow enough of our own."

It's exactly the same as the softwood lumber dispute. So I'm wondering what the Premier can tell me about exploration of other markets and the effect of…. Yeah, I'll just ask both questions, because they're together. The exploration of other markets — where are they? What are the requirements of change or emphasis in marketing that we need to do in order to get those markets?

Hon. G. Campbell: First, I think there are some significant differences between softwood and wheat. Let me just identify one for you. The biggest frustration that Canadians and British Columbia producers have is that indeed all that's happening is that their share is shrinking. The American market is being picked up by Swedish forest companies, by European forest companies, by forest companies from South America. One of the things that we have been saying to the Americans is: "We don't understand this. You're supposed to be a free trade nation. You're supposed to be having open access to markets. We do not subsidize our product; we

simply have good product that you can get at good value. Why are you saying that British Columbia lumber shouldn't come to you, but you're taking Swedish lumber to fill the gap?"

It's not like the American producers are watching as that market share is substantially shrinking on their behalf, so there are some substitution issues we have to be aware of with softwood.

I concur with the member opposite in this regard: we are going to constantly be vulnerable if we don't expand our market base. One of the things the Minister of Forests has in his budget is an international marketing component. Probably the best case study of how B.C. built an international market is the Japanese market. Unfortunately, the Japanese economy is having the same problems in many ways as the world economy, and more so. As their Prime Minister tries to transform their economy, there's some uncertainty there.

I was in Japan in November of last year, I think it was. We were working with Japanese homebuilders to try and ensure that we could have the kind of building codes we needed, that we were meeting their requirements. One of the things I'm encouraged by is that we have a number of lumber companies in British Columbia that believe they are now in a position where, as we become more competitive and get some of our costs down, they will be able to service that Japanese market far more effectively.

British Columbia's initial success in the Japanese market also attracted other competitors, from Europe particularly, who are coming and trying to supply the customers. We're going to have to be changing some of our market strategies and product mix to make sure that we continue to hold the share of the Japanese market that we have.

The Chinese market offers an enormous opportunity. It is an opportunity that is huge but also long-term. It's not a market opportunity that we can turn on for July of this year. It's one we have to build consistently.

In the fall I visited China with COFI, members of the University of British Columbia, the B.C. Institute of Technology and local representatives from the city of Coquitlam. We are building partnerships that allow us to develop the building codes required that will hopefully provide the access.

We are currently working with our Canadian counterparts — again, the consul general in Shanghai, the consul general in Hong Kong, the ambassador in Beijing — to look at opportunities for British Columbia to promote wood products and wood-frame housing as comfortable, convenient, safe, affordable and expandable for the new expanding middle class in China. We think there's an enormous opportunity there, but to be candid, I do think it's a ten-year opportunity, and we're going to look to progress through that period of time.

There are also substantial opportunities in Europe. Those opportunities will have to be confronted with a proper marketing campaign that looks for the right customers and provides the right information about B.C.'s forest practices and our products. Again, I concur with the member opposite that we have to expand our market base. We have to expand our trade opportunities beyond one primary customer, at least, so we can mitigate some of the impacts that this kind of unfair trade action by a small segment of a protectionist industry can have on British Columbia's families and communities.

J. MacPhail: Is there any push for certified wood in countries other than Europe and the United States?

Hon. G. Campbell: Both our government and other governments are looking for new independent certifications of wood practices. I can tell you that industry is very concerned and interested in building, harvesting and developing product within certification procedures. I think that will have increasing importance in the years ahead.

J. MacPhail: I'm finding this information very useful. I'll just give the Premier a time frame. This is the group of items, and then I think we'll conclude with the Crown agencies secretariat. In no way am I trying to limit the discussion. It's helpful for me to know where I can assist on these matters.

Just a brief discussion of the health care funding, the Premiers' conference and the reply from the federal government. I'm referring to the January 25 Premiers' conference.

Hon. G. Campbell: If it's all right with the member, I'd like to go back to August 1 with regard to health care. The Premiers have agreed, regardless of their province, that health care is the primary concern that they have. I think the other day in our estimates the member opposite and I were discussing this. The Canadian taxpayer expects quality health care. We've been trying to say to the federal government that that's a service that they should have a partnership in.

As the member opposite will know, in 1994 the federal government provided 18 percent of all health care funding, and today they provide 14 percent. The Premiers have been encouraging the federal government to move back to the 18 percentage point. Every province in the country is watching as health care expenditures are increasing far beyond the economic growth of the province. They are saying to the federal government: "We want you to come in, to be part of the partnership."

As well as saying that, though, one of the challenges that the Premiers have been trying to face — and we will continue to do that, I'm sure, over the months ahead…. I really think people want us to try and deal with the problems at home. They're not particularly interested in who's doing what, what the feds should do or what we should do. They want that problem solved.

There are two specific areas that we decided we were going to act together on in January. One was the

initiative to try and make sure that as we added new drugs to what we call in B.C. our Pharmacare formulary — other people call it different things in different provinces…. We wanted to do that in concert. We know that major pharmaceutical companies across the country spend more money on marketing than they do on research and development. We want to be sure that there's efficacy. We want to work with the federal government and the Canadian Institute for Health Information to make sure that we understand how good new pharmaceuticals are, whether they're effective or not and whether they're simply more expensive or actually more effective. We want to work with our physicians across the country to do that. We don't want one part of the country to be played off against the next.

We've also agreed that we are going to make sure we develop a Canadian health awareness program that is concerted across the provinces. One of the challenges I think citizens have is that there is an inconsistency of information they receive. I don't believe that citizens, candidly, are very interested in the Premier of British Columbia having a fight with the Prime Minister of Canada over what the facts are. We're trying to get a common base of facts so that we can then start dealing with….. There may well be public policy differences, but we want to have a common fact base so that we can then have honest public policy debates about how we can deliver better care.

The federal response on health care funding has basically been that they will be doing nothing until Mr. Romanow has completed his review. That is not a satisfactory response to the Premiers. I had a discussion with Mr. Romanow prior to his discussion paper that was released in February. I told him that we really have to have some interim improvements in federal funding. The pressures on the health care system across the country are significant. When I say that I told him, I told him on behalf of the Premiers because this year I'm chair of the Premiers' conference.

I think we still have a significant amount of work to do to inform the people of Canada about the challenges we face and to engage them in a discussion about how we can improve the health care system.

I will end on an encouraging note. This is not an encouraging financial note in terms of the federal government saying, "Yes, we will contribute more, and we'll move back to our 18 percent," but it's encouraging in terms of the federal institution. I think that Senator Michael Kirby's report is a very constructive document. It raises lots of questions. It doesn't provide any answers, but it says to Canadians: "Here's what we know. Here are some things that you should know." I am hopeful that Mr. Romanow will be equally forthright in dealing with the challenges and potential solutions. I am hopeful that Canadians will join with us to create the environment that says: "Let's focus our resources on making sure we have a health care system that's long-term and sustainable for an aging population with new technologies and new pharmacology and new ways of responding to the needs of patients across the country."

J. MacPhail: I gather the Prime Minister is firm on awaiting the Romanow commission report. Then I would assume they're going to have to debate it internally. It's disappointing that it's going to take that long.

What about the issue of national standards? I know that at some point the Premiers had an interest in discussing national standards or pursuing national standards. Are those discussions put on hold until the Romanow commission is published as well?

Hon. G. Campbell: My short answer is that we are not trying to put any discussions on hold. I guess one of the differences is that rather than going to the federal government and saying, "Why don't you develop national standards?" what we're saying is, "Let's be sure what we're doing in each province, and let's see how we can have interprovincial standards that are the same," which becomes….

I think the member opposite would know that if I went to the Premier of Quebec and said, "Let's have the federal government tell us what the national standard is," the Premier of Quebec would likely say no. In fact, it wouldn't be likely. He would definitely say no. I don't think it matters what party you're from in Quebec.

There are a number of issues that we've looked at. The Pharmacare issue is a primary one, and I think that was a significant step. The whole issue of human resource development across the country, how we provide education across the country…. How we provide for the support of doctors, nurses, health care givers, physiotherapists, pharmacists, etc., is a huge issue across the country that we're looking at trying to deal with.

The whole issue of intermediate and long-term home care, which is called different things in different provinces, but that would be the vocabulary we'd use in British Columbia…. One of the things we're trying to develop is best practices. Without wanting to take too long on this, I'll give the member an example.

In Prince Edward Island they have developed a program with regard to asthmatics. It has substantially reduced costs. It has substantially increased outcomes. It's something that we all need to know about so we can see how we can adapt it so we have the same benefits here.

If we do something in British Columbia that's particularly effective, we have committed to share it with other provinces. We believe there's some significant savings to be found in working together with regard to this not just in terms of communication but in terms of research. They've got good-quality research that's working for them on outcomes in Saskatchewan. They've agreed to share it.

Our government has joined with the western provinces and the territories with regard to a strategy for fetal alcohol syndrome to try to make sure that young people who happen to have fetal alcohol syndrome start to get the response they need. We've gone to the federal government and said: "Here is an area where

the federal government can actually make a significant contribution in terms of research and development of information and demographic information."

We are pursuing a lot of initiatives within the ministry and intergovernmentally. I want to be clear. I'm not doing this. As a Premier I move it down, and the ministers deal with it. The encouraging part of this is that provinces are taking responsibility now. We can no longer turn our back on our responsibility.

To the primary question that the member asked, which is: do I think the Prime Minister is firm? With me at least, I think that when the Prime Minister says no, he means maybe. When he says yes, he means yes. If he says maybe, he means yes. Until I get a yes from him, he's going to be saying no, I believe.

I think they are starting to understand the issue. I think the Minister of Finance, although he has continually said there's no money, is understanding the issue. Each province is carrying the issue to their legislators.

As the member opposite knows, we intend to continue pursuing this on the higher political level through a special provincial session on health care funding and health care generally and how we can respond to it, which we'll do with all our MPs, Senators and MLAs, as we did at the congress.

There are other areas we intend to pursue that with — transportation being one, and aboriginal and treaty issues being a second.

J. MacPhail: Is there agreement amongst the Premiers about what participation the federal government should make toward increased health care funding? Is there agreement on how that funding should come — either in transfer of tax points or in transfer payments?

Hon. G. Campbell: The Premiers are in agreement that the funding should be raised back to the 18 percent level. That's what we have agreed to.

Let me go a little further back. The Atlantic provinces are concerned about the equalization formula. There was a commitment that the equalization formula would be reformed. They are pursuing that, as well, as the health funding issue. There is an agreement that the federal government should go back to 18 percent of health funding. That's what we're committed to. That's primary.

The province of Quebec would like the federal government to do it in what they call tax room. There was another report out of Quebec that suggested that today.

I can say fairly confidently that I don't believe we're going to get the funding through tax room. I think it's going to be a contribution that comes back through an equivalent of the CHST. I think that would be appropriate for us. There's no question we could focus it on health care. There's no challenge in terms of if we get the dollars they'll go to health care. I can tell the member opposite that the province of Quebec at least would rather those dollars came in tax room as opposed to transfer payments.

J. MacPhail: My last two topics of discussion in the area of intergovernmental relations probably overlap. Let me try to give the Premier a sense of what I'd like to explore: offshore oil and gas exploration and/or moratorium, and then the referendum on treaties as well. Actually, I have more questions on the referendum than just offshore oil and gas, but it is the issue of land use and business certainty.

This is my understanding, but it is only from a quick purview of what's in the public domain these days on the offshore oil and gas exploration.

The study that has been done on the advisability of doing offshore oil and gas exploration safely and environmentally soundly is finished but not released. Is that my understanding?

What are the next steps in that area? The reason why I'm linking them to the referendum is this whole issue — which I'm sure the Premier is well aware of; we discussed it, actually, at the provincial congress — of the stalling of land claims negotiations. They're not moving forward. People are waiting for the referendum.

In the meantime the offshore oil and gas issue has come to a head with the Haida court case. I am not in any way suggesting that the Premier should feel the necessity to comment on the Haida court case. I don't expect him to. It does highlight a particular situation where negotiations have failed to reach a conclusion leading to an AIP.

I accept the fact that the AIPs that were concluded in the 1990s failed to be ratified as well. I also accept the charge that treaty negotiations need to be rethought and reinvigorated. We will disagree on how that takes place, but I accept that. However, it is coming to a crunch. There is no question about that. The fact that the Premier is the government in 2002 makes him the pointy end of that stick right now.

The implications are fairly substantial, I think. I expect that the court cases that have been concluded recently will lead to other court cases making the same point amongst first nations leaders. We have a dilemma in the province of British Columbia of how we bring certainty to land use. The water leases, or who owns the subsurface rights to land and subsurface rights to water, in my view are greatly linked.

I'm wondering what the Premier is thinking in terms of rolling out solutions to these various issues.

Hon. G. Campbell: I was just thinking of a short answer. Let me start by….

Hon. G. Campbell: Yeah, sorry. I assume you'd like a little bit longer than a short answer. Let me deal with offshore oil and gas first, and then I'll move to the referendum, if that's all right with the member.

The member is correct. We have a scientific panel study that has been submitted to government. Government has submitted that study to the federal government. What we would like to do is work together on this. As the member opposite knows, there was both a provincial and a federal moratorium on offshore oil and gas.

We believe that if in fact there is a potential for scientifically sound, environmentally safe exploration, we should take advantage of that. We also believe that if we decide to take advantage of that, that will require us to work with aboriginal communities across coastal British Columbia and northern British Columbia as we examine the potential for that. They will be an integral part of the discussions that we undertake.

I believe it was last week that I met with the first nations treaty task group. We talked about energy policy, not about offshore oil and gas specifically. That was one of the things that was covered overall with regard to energy.

We suggested a number of ways that the provincial government could work with at least the task group and first nations who were interested in building energy capacity to analyze the issues and the opportunities that were in front of them, the tasks that we may undertake with regards to building skills and the training that's necessary so that all British Columbians, aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike, can take advantage of what I think could be a very exciting economic opportunity for the province.

We are going to try and do that in a constructive way and, I would think, within the next few days. I know that the deputy minister for energy is looking for a special meeting with some first nations leaders to talk about some of these options, etc.

It is my hope that within the next few weeks, we will have a process in place which will bring together the federal and provincial governments in working both with aboriginal communities and with non-aboriginal communities alike to continue the examination of the potential for offshore oil and gas.

In terms of the court cases which have recently been reported on, obviously the Attorney General is taking the time that's required for important issues of this nature to review the judgments that have been made and to make determinations as to whether or not the province will appeal those judgments or whether they will take another route.

I do think that the challenge we face in this dynamic and constantly changing world that we live in is to recognize that the certainty which the member opposite referred to can certainly be written up in treaties, but treaties, even with certainty language, do not create certainty. One of the things that I think we have tried to share with first nations is that we understand that we have to build new relationships of trust. Those relationships of trust take place outside of treaties.

It's not because we sit down in a room and argue about how we codify things. It's whether or not first nations feel that we are responding to their needs for better health care, whether we are responding to their needs for a better education system for their kids, whether we're responding to their needs for the building of economic capacity for their communities.

We are trying as a government to do that — to recognize that treaties are critical for the long-term future of the province but also to recognize that other services that we all take for granted are also critical.

I can tell the member opposite that I have not once sat at a federal-provincial meeting where we have not shared, as Premiers, our concerns about aboriginal health. I have not once gone to Ottawa where I haven't raised that issue with the appropriate ministers or, for that matter, with the Prime Minister. We think that is a critical service component that has been missing. We often forget that the fifth-largest provider of health care in the country is not a province; it's the federal government, which is supposed to provide health care appropriately in a timely manner to aboriginal communities across the country. They're failing aboriginal communities in that regard, hon. Chair.

We're trying to build. On the one hand, we're trying to build new relationships between aboriginal leadership and cabinet and, through the cabinet, the government — new relationships through ongoing discussions which are held between myself and the first nations task group on a range of issues.

We've dealt with education. We've dealt with health care. We've dealt with energy. We'll deal with forests. We have a session set up on children and families. That's one of the things that we're doing outside of treaties.

The referendum is a way of including British Columbians in the treaty-making process — I think sending a message, candidly. I would hope that the referendum will send a message to aboriginal people that non-aboriginal British Columbians want to resolve these treaties and that they are included in the process of building treaties. We will continue to work with our aboriginal counterparts and the federal government to make sure that we can focus our energies, our resources and our efforts to try and bring treaties to fruition.

As the member opposite mentions, these are difficult issues. They're difficult issues within aboriginal communities. The government did a number of things in the last session to try and be sure that the Sliammon first nation had an opportunity to agree to an agreement-in-principle. That failed by the smallest of margins, but regardless of how small the margin was, it failed.

The other thing I would remind all the members of the House of is that the one place in the province where we do have treaties — the Treaty 8 in the Peace River — still doesn't create certainty. Without cooperation, without collaboration, without consultation, without

working together for mutual benefit, we are going to continue to have uncertainty.

We are going to try to make sure we work with our aboriginal communities, with the aboriginal leadership, because we know that in British Columbia aboriginal people should have the same opportunities, the same sense of hope as other British Columbians. That's what we're striving to develop.

J. MacPhail: Let me just explore, first of all, the issue of offshore oil and gas. I'll put my views on the record. They're my views as of now. I come at all these matters as a person who wasn't born in British Columbia and who thinks it's the most unbelievable place in the world in which to reside — the most unbelievable place in the world. I am very nervous about anything that affects that, in terms of natural beauty and our quality of life. There isn't anyone, anywhere, who would challenge or disagree with that or say: "I feel differently."

I don't know what offshore oil and gas exploration, at the end of this decade, will do to that feeling I have about British Columbia. What I do know is that when the issues were examined last century, it put fear into me in terms of what was available technologically or where one actually even had to go to get the offshore oil and gas. Scientific proof about not interfering with the quality of life and our natural heritage is of utmost importance to me.

Second to that, though, is the worthiness of the project at all. I assume that the worthiness of the project is based on its economic viability. We see what's happening on the east coast, where companies have decided not to proceed with offshore oil and gas exploration — pulling out at a point of investment quite further along than anything that could even be contemplated here — because of market conditions. That's fair enough. The economic viability wasn't determined. If we're going to be pursuing a situation to resolve our economic circumstances with something that isn't viable, then that's a lot of wasted energy, and it upsets a lot of people — one constituency of whom is first nations.

Timing on this is extremely important. Timing on the release of the scientific evidence, the scientific report, is extremely important because it could either allay fears or pose questions that the various parties have to pursue. That's the first issue.

Secondly, in terms of economic viability, the other factor, of course, is first nations aboriginal title and aboriginal interest. That's when we get to where offshore oil and gas is a pretty heavy-duty case in point — but it is just a case in point — of the consequences of delay in settling matters of aboriginal title.

In terms of timing, does the Premier himself have a sense of what his preferred timing is in ordering these events — at least, agreeing on the questions and the data — before we proceed to resolving the matter?

Hon. G. Campbell: My timing is to provide for a comprehensive public discussion of this. I think it is critical that the scientific information be made available. We will do that. As I mentioned, we are trying to work with the federal government now to see if, instead of having two or three different processes, we can have a combined process. We've shared the report with them. We will be sharing the report with aboriginal leaders.

My goals and objectives — at least, from what I heard, if I'm interpreting it correctly — would be similar to what the member opposite's are. We are not going to jeopardize our natural environment. British Columbians wouldn't want us to do that. That's why we're having the scientific report. We are going to make sure there is sound science. We are going to make sure it is scientifically safe. If those hurdles are overcome, then clearly you'd have to be sure that it was economically viable. The government's not going to be doing this; someone else will be doing it.

Offshore oil and gas is certainly an issue, but our energy development in the province is in no way wed to offshore oil and gas. We have enormous energy reserves on the land base.

The timing with regard to the determination of who owns the seabed…. Obviously, my position is that the province does. The Haida's position is the Haida does. The federal government's position may be that the feds do. I think we'll win, but I think we should understand that there are going to be people who raise those issues.

It may not just be the Haida. Certainly, we'd like those things to be resolved. We've said we'd like them to be negotiated, not litigated. My recollection is that the Delgamuukw case took seven years between when it was entered into the courts and when there was a final decision. We will pursue this. I think we should understand that aboriginal communities always have the opportunity to litigate their positions, and they may take it.

I also think that what we have to do is work with aboriginal communities so they see benefits, not just costs, so they have the capacity to examine what's taking place. I would go beyond the energy development. If you take some aboriginal leadership and some aboriginal communities, and you say to them, "By the way, we'd like, in the next week and a half, for you to respond to this 411-page land use plan and all the issues it deals with," they don't have the personnel, at this point, who can examine that in a way that gives them comfort. If they don't get comfort, they're going to say no.

We have to, I think, work with aboriginal leadership to make sure we're building that capacity across the province and that we're building excitement for economic opportunity. I believe that aboriginal leaders, like non-aboriginal leaders, want to find that balance or solution where economic opportunity and environmental improvement are actually wed. I believe we can find those places if we're working together, and that's certainly one of our goals.

On the offshore oil and gas, there was a very interesting op-ed piece by David Anderson — something the Premier said flagged me to remember this — about it's not going to be the government that's doing the exploration; it's going to be a private interest. I noted the op-ed piece by the federal Environment minister. It was very well written and very thoughtful but also very cleverly written, to the extent that he said when an industry proposal comes forward that meets these tests…. In other words, the tests that he was laying out were tests for industry when they come forward with a proposal. What he was saying, which is what the Premier is saying, is that it's private industry that will be doing this work.

Has the Premier — I note, and I can ask the Minister of Finance during his estimates, because I understand he was in Calgary talking to the industry — had a proposal or exploratory talks from anybody who is actually interested in exploring offshore oil and gas? I promise him: I don't know the answer to that.

Hon. G. Campbell: I was part of the Team Canada West tour, if you want, down to Texas and California. People didn't come to me and say: "Boy, we can hardly wait to drill a hole offshore in British Columbia." They basically are interested in it. They're interested in what our policy in it is. I have never had a discussion with someone who's saying: "We'd like to have an appointment with the Premier because we want to start offshore oil and gas exploration." That's with the private companies, which is what I'm assuming the member was talking about.

There are an awful lot of people in the northwest who believe there is a huge opportunity and come to me on a regular basis and say: "Please, can't we start drilling tomorrow?" The short answer to that is no. We can look at the information. We can get the scientific facts. We can develop a program so that we can find out…. To use, again, the member opposite's words or, at least, to paraphrase them: let's establish what the standards are and how we can determine whether they're being met or not. If people meet our standards, and we know there's sound science, and it can be done in an environmentally safe way, then someone may want to come and make a proposal. If we don't get that menu of items on the shelf, no one's going to come and make a proposal.

I do think we should all understand this. There's lots of places that people can go to explore for energy. What British Columbia will be trying to do is say that this is a good place to explore for energy because we think there are some huge energy advantages in this province, and it's a great fundamental asset we have, but I'm not going out and selling offshore oil and gas. I've been waiting for the information. There's a lot of work to do there. I think there's great potential if we can do it with the conditions I've laid out. If we can, we'll move forward.

J. MacPhail: I was flagged to one last point on offshore oil and gas. I think it was your government, not ours, that appointed a northern task group of MLAs. Have they reported out on this matter?

Hon. G. Campbell: Yes, our government came up with the brilliant innovation of appointing a northern caucus of all the northern MLAs. The northern caucus did go across the north, and they had hearings on that. They have reported out on it, and I believe it's public.

J. MacPhail: Okay. If anybody can give me assistance on how to find that on a website or whatever, I'd appreciate it.

To the Premier: I'd like to move to the referendum question to link it to the current issue of certainty. I'm not using "certainty" as the legal definition; I'm using it in terms of investment certainty. One of the things that was interesting — and I was just given this today — is from the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. They've gone public with this. They're taking the Attorney General's word that there will be a debate in this Legislature within two weeks on the questions for the referendum. Their view is that there will probably be four or five questions.

I do recall the Attorney General saying at the provincial congress that he expected to debate those matters within a week or two. Is there any change in that point of view from what he outlined at the provincial congress?

J. MacPhail: Good. We are talking about having that debate in the Legislature probably in March. I know the Premier said yesterday that he was going to keep his commitment that the referendum would be before June 5.

Here's what I'm extremely nervous about. The Premier knows that I oppose the referendum, but the referendum is going ahead, so it's my job to deal with the reality of the circumstances. People who have had the time to pay attention to this matter have the 16 or so questions that were done by the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. I'm concerned, I must say, that if there are four or five questions, or if there's a different….

I know the government didn't commit to those 16 questions, but if somehow there are four or five questions that either combine or completely change what that report is, there's going to have to be a lot of public discussion about that. Families are going to have to spend lots and lots of time, first of all, finding out the information about the consequences and then determining their point of view about the consequences.

The sooner we have that discussion…. It's absolutely critical to have that discussion. If we do it mid-March or the end of March — we're taking the week after this off, so it could be the end of March — that virtually leaves two months for provincewide debate on these matters. The Premier knows it's going to be

extremely controversial. Many, many people will have widely held points of view and differing points of view.

The reason why I say this is that attached to the news release from the UBCIC is a legal analysis by Louise Mandell, QC. Louise Mandell was the one that brought the case forward yesterday on behalf of the Haida. It's not related. I'm just pointing it out. What I'm basically saying is that she knows her goods.

Her analysis is extremely interesting in that, I think, there's almost a point of view held in here that regardless of the referendum, there may be court challenges. I'm not saying that's what this is because, of course, I'm not a lawyer, but in terms of investment certainty, we have to get some sort of stability to this issue of land use generally, whether it be sustainability issues or aboriginal title issues. It doesn't bode well right at this point.

I'm really urging the Premier and his government to settle quickly on what the questions are in order to give British Columbians enough time to have a thorough discussion before the referendum. In the long run, it will not assist him in bringing investment certainty if, indeed, it's so controversial and if it's an ill-informed referendum. I mean that in the kindest sense to British Columbians. They may not have time to absorb the new questions or literally time enough to absorb the range of questions.

Hon. G. Campbell: I agree with the member that we have to do this as expeditiously as possible, but I also believe we have to do it carefully, and I think we have to do it thoughtfully.

The work of the legislative committee submitted 16 questions. Indeed, there are questions where I think we need to ask ourselves about the constitutionality of the questions, the legality of the questions, etc. We have to ask ourselves whether we're going to be pursuing this under the Referendum Act of the province, which means there are certain requirements that flow from it.

I have not seen either the press release or the legal concerns of the council, but I can tell the member opposite this. I concur that we should be moving as quickly as we can. We are moving as quickly as we can within a framework of prudence that allows us to move forward.

I want the member to understand that I would be surprised if the Attorney General comes back with exactly the questions that were laid out by the legislative committee. Indeed, our goal is to ensure that the questions we ask British Columbians are understandable so that they can be used as a framework for negotiation, and that is often difficult.

I concur. We want to move forward. I think we can. I believe that in the two months we may take between now and when a referendum is held — or I guess it would be three months up to June 5 — we will be in a position where we have British Columbians onside saying: "Let's get on with this. Here are the principles. We have confidence in where you're going. We understand what is going on inside the treaty room." I think that gives us significant authority to act.

The other issue that the member raises, and I think we have to recognize this, is that with or without the referendum, treaties are going to remain a very difficult and vexing challenge for British Columbians. I would love to be able to have all the treaties concluded tomorrow. All that would be required for that would be for me to be able to say: "This is what a treaty is." I'm not in that position. Neither is the federal government, and neither are the aboriginal communities. If an aboriginal community decides it doesn't like the progress we're making or doesn't like an answer they're getting, they may decide to litigate.

I believe one of the challenges for all of us is to recognize that treaty-making is complex. It requires good faith, and it requires trust to be able to move forward and create those treaties. We're going to try and build that. It will be built over time. We will also build over time, I hope, a new relationship with aboriginal leaders and aboriginal people across the province and a new understanding between non-aboriginal people and aboriginal people so that all of us share in the potential of British Columbia and the promise of the province.

The short answer for the member opposite is this. We will move quickly. We will move with prudence. We will move to include the people of British Columbia. We will move to have what I hope will be an informed and thoughtful discussion amongst British Columbians about this critical issue, and we will move together to try and resolve treaties.

I believe we can do that. I believe it will be difficult. With the best will from the provincial government, the federal government and aboriginal community leaders, it is still going to be a vexing and challenging problem that we face. I believe we can face it, as British Columbians, and the referendum is an opportunity for all British Columbians to send a message to aboriginal leaders that we want to face this together.

J. MacPhail: My last question in this area. The Premier announced that there would be an independent office that the public could access if they had any questions on that. I don't think it is up and running yet. Can the Premier give some sort of time frame? Will it spring into action when we actually settle on the questions, or is it being put in place prior to that?

Hon. G. Campbell: I'm not trying to avoid this answer, but for the specifics of that I'd like you to ask the Attorney General. I'm glad to find the answer to that. My understanding is that the office will be put up once the debate has been held in the House and the discussion has been made.

If I may, hon. Chair, I'd like to correct something I said to the member earlier. I said that the northern caucus report had been released publicly. It has not been released publicly. It is also in the Ministry of Energy and Mines. It will be released when the scientific panel

J. MacPhail: I'm going to move to Crown agencies secretariat now. In the last estimates of the Premier, the reporting relationship was just being set up for the Crown agencies secretariat. Perhaps the Premier could explain to me how the reporting works now in terms of Crown corporations, the ministers and the Premier's office.

Hon. G. Campbell: The deputy minister to the Crown agencies secretariat reports through to the deputy minister for corporate planning and restructuring. I'm just looking for it here in the organization chart. It's about halfway through the organization charts, which we just passed over, hon. member.

The Crown agencies secretariat works to develop new governance structures and has been working with the deputy minister to the Premier for corporate planning and restructuring. I would also refer the member to the service plan. On page 11 there is a discussion about the core services review and how that will be moving forward. As well, on pages 12 and 13 there are some issues that may provide information that would be helpful to the member.

J. MacPhail: I do recall the Premier saying that the core services review is going on for the Crown corporations as we speak. We did have that discussion.

We'll just deal with the Premier's view on several policy matters related to Crown corporations. I hope I'm not going into an area that should be discussed with the ministers.

The first one is the Crown corporations that would be affected by the energy review panel. This is an interesting one as well. I know the throne speech referred to the Energy Policy Task Force, and the Premier has replied that it's an interim report and that more would be coming out on it.

I've followed with interest the reaction to the interim report. I have to admit that I was a bit surprised, even given my political cynicism. I was surprised at the reaction to the interim report for the reason that, I guess, in their honesty — there's no question the task force was very forthright — they really set the cat amongst the pigeons. Domestic consumers, residential consumers who are worried about hydro rates are concerned. Industry and environmentalists are concerned, and those that are worried about the fiscal well-being of our province are concerned as well.

Has the Premier had any discussion with the various parties, or is he aware of any discussion, either informally or formally, with the parties around the reaction to the Energy Policy Task Force?

Hon. G. Campbell: Just so I'm clear, is the question: have I had specific discussions with parties? The answer to that is no, I have not.

I believe the interim report was put out in the middle of December. There was a request for public comment. We had requests for us to extend that. It was extended to the middle of February. I believe that information has now come in, and it's being processed.

J. MacPhail: There has been a lot of public discussion on this matter. My candid advice would be to have the actual task force not provoke things even more out there. I know that Mr. Ebbels — who actually worked with our government as well and whom I have the greatest respect for — really set the cat amongst the pigeons after his interim report. He said that part of the issue was the artificially low rates that consumers pay now for electricity.

I'm just going to assume that that doesn't reflect the government's point of view, because we have had lots of discussions in this chamber about hydro rates, and the now Minister of Finance has made his point of view very clear about the value of not artificially increasing hydro rates.

I'm not even asking the Premier about whether…. I assume he hasn't had formal discussions. The reaction to the report has been pretty strong. What's the Premier's view in terms of the recommendation that may add 30 to 80 percent costs to industry? I thought David Emerson, who is being surprisingly thoughtful these days…. That was cheeky; I'm sorry — being thoughtful as usual…. He was part of a group that actually raised concerns about this as well, and yet he does have the best interests of the economic future of the province at hand, through his being the chair of the Progress Board.

What I'm asking is: given that we're at an interim stage here, what did the Premier want to get out of the final report as a result of the reaction to the interim report? What does the Premier want to get out of that?

Hon. G. Campbell: What I want to get out of it is the Energy Policy Task Force's best advice on what they think a strong energy policy would be. I'm not saying that facetiously.

Let me say, in terms of my response to the reaction, I believe that the task force did a great service to British Columbia. I think that for too long, British Columbians have thought that we have this enormous amount of energy, and we can just spend it — use it however we want — and we don't have to worry about it. We, in fact, import energy. Energy should be, I believe, a competitive advantage for British Columbia.

In trying to establish a public policy framework, I think it's great to engage people like Mr. Emerson, people like the member opposite and residents across the province, and engage them with a factual frame-

work that allows us to make decisions on the kind of energy future we want in the province.

We've said we want to encourage independent power production. We've said we want that independent power production to be able to plug into the transmission grid so it actually can be there. I think the member opposite would know that we have said we want to encourage alternative energy resources. What we've just seen is B.C. Hydro announcing 18 separate, independent power production proposals for alternative energies, which will provide a significant amount of energy benefits using new, clean, environmentally friendly energy. I think it's important for us to start there.

What I hope to get out of it is a document that will engage British Columbians in a discussion about what our energy future should be and how we can get there in the most thoughtful way.

I believe British Columbia residents and British Columbia industry should look to energy as a competitive advantage. How can we assure we have that in the long term? Those are questions that I think we have to ask.

I welcome the comments from the major industrial users of our energy. It's not surprising that major industrial users in the pulp sector or other sectors would be saying they're concerned about the energy future in this province. I want to hear from them, and I'm sure the Legislature would like to.

It is important, though, for us to recognize that if we are going to keep our energy costs down, we have to provide for the expansion of energy in the most cost-effective way. That's one of the things that the task force is examining.

Finally, another issue that we will be discussing in the broader public context is the whole question of carbonization, the whole question of how we can make sure we are doing our part in terms of providing environmentally sensible energy policy. We're going to have to look at what we all consume — what I consume as an individual, what our industry consumes. We're going to have to try to send the message out, as Power Smart does on a regular basis: let's not be profligate with our energy. Let's not think that it's all there and that there's no cost to it.

It's a huge advantage. It has been for more than a generation in British Columbia. We want it to remain an advantage for residents, for our industrial users and for our economy. We believe we can do that. We believe the way to engage the public in that discussion is to lay out a thoughtful presentation, which is what we're hoping the task force final report will be, that brings people together in what should be an open, public debate about how we can enhance British Columbia's energy future, make it cost-effective and make it as competitive as possible.

J. MacPhail: One of the aspects of the report that certainly stirred up debate was their recommendation to break Hydro up into three parts: generation, transmission and distribution. That is going to require careful analysis. I do hope that is part of the task force report that will be discussed thoroughly before the government moves on. There are many, many British Columbians from every part of the economy who think B.C. Hydro's monopoly brings great stability to our energy generation here — and the energy provision.

It's surprising. I guess it was this time last year — late winter, early spring of last year — when California was in the biggest crisis of its life for not having enough energy and paying exorbitant prices. I don't know how the Governor does this, because he's incredibly popular even today, but he got it wrong on both accounts. He got it wrong in terms of his deregulation, and then he got it wrong on how he solved the problem as well — to huge costs to California. Maybe his best advantages are the Republicans, actually.

Right now they're in a horrible situation in California for being in a deficit situation because they had to buy into, in a crisis situation, very high-cost energy contracts. People look at that and say: "Stability comes from a monopoly, then. Stability comes where the people who generate, transmit and distribute are able to smooth out those cycles."

What's the Premier's plan on how there will be public input on these very crucial matters as a result of the energy task force's final report?

Hon. G. Campbell: There are a number of issues that I think the member opposite raised. I'd like to try and deal with some of those and then get to the final question.

First, the situation in California, I think, is exactly why British Columbia has to have an energy policy that includes the public, that recognizes that supply and demand are linked and that recognizes that as you regulate, as we're intending to do with energy, you have to regulate within the framework of a public policy that does make those links. Real stability, frankly, in cost comes from abundant supply. If there is lots of supply, there aren't the huge energy spikes that they saw in California. There's been a number of analyses that have been done in California, which I'm sure the member opposite is aware of as well.

B.C. Hydro right now — in keeping with their commitment to provide British Columbians with excellent energy resources as well as allowing for new energy sources to be brought onto the marketplace so that there is a continuing supply and so that we can have stable prices for British Columbians — is carrying out a functional realignment which includes transmission and distribution and generation, etc., so that you can see into B.C. Hydro and see where the costs are. We can see where the subsidization or cross-subsidization may be taking place. Those who will invest, like the 18 new entities which have decided they want to move forward with alternative energy sources which are environmentally sensible and make a difference and add substantially to our supply, have to able to look

through B.C. Hydro and see that what they're paying for access to transmission lines is a fair cost from B.C. Hydro.

I think that's what is critical as we move ahead. That's what Hydro is trying to provide for as they look at how they can create that transparency, which is critical, by creating functional alignments within Hydro.

In terms of the process we intend to follow, the energy task force will, I'm sure, submit its report. Its report will be made public. The Minister of Energy and Mines will bring that report to the Legislature, and then we will have an opportunity to debate it and the actions that may flow from it.

J. MacPhail: Good. We'll have an ability to debate it in here. Will the public have…? Will there be public input to the report that will be guaranteed before action is taken? Frankly, there's just two of us to do the debate in here. I'm wondering. I'm sure the public will have strongly held views on it.

Hon. G. Campbell: First, there has been public input into the development of the report. The final report will be made public. I can't tell the member what will be in the final report. I can tell the member opposite that the public will have plenty of opportunity to comment on it.

I should also say that I am sure the long-term energy future of British Columbia is going to be developed over the long term. This is not something that's going to happen overnight. It's something that's going to require public commitment, public understanding. The public will be engaged. They'll be engaged through the Legislature. They'll have plenty of opportunity to respond and react and make suggestions for how we can improve it.

J. MacPhail: I'm going to move to ICBC now. In that, I also want to just touch a little bit on the safety programs. I will tell the Premier that I was here in the House for estimates with the Minister of Health Planning, so I didn't have a chance to participate in the Solicitor General's estimates around public safety. The Premier will be happy to know that I haven't heard of any of the internal machinations that are going on in ICBC directly, only what's in the public domain.

J. MacPhail: I attended one MLAs' function with the insurance agents or brokers who sell ICBC insurance. The future of ICBC is to be one that increases competition in British Columbia, but one thing has got lost in the discussions that I don't know the answer to. When a substantial portion of ICBC is carved off in one way or another — whether it's completely changed or whether it's a substantial portion of the business turned over to competition — there is less revenue flowing to the government-controlled Crown corporation. I'm very, very worried about the highway safety programs that have been the direct result of funding by ICBC.

I take it from a personal point of view. There's just the general tragedy of our highway accidents, but my child is not that far away from driving.

What are the discussions? Does the core review involve a review of our safety programs, our Road Sense safe roads programs? Is that review done within the confines of ICBC?

Hon. G. Campbell: Let me say that all of the programs that the member has discussed…. In the government we are obviously concerned about road safety. The issue is how you deliver those road safety programs most effectively.

ICBC will come with their review. As the member knows, we have had a new board for ICBC for, oh, maybe seven months. They have been tasked with looking at the issue of competition. They've been asked to look at what has been taken from government and put into ICBC that maybe should come back to government or maybe shouldn't.

Certainly, the issue of public safety, road safety, remains a major concern for this government, as it has been for ones in the past. We will review that as part of the core review. The results of core review and implementation plans will be laid before the public, and we'll be able to proceed.

If I can just be clear about what we're trying to do, we're trying to bring more competition in to provide people with choice, increase the level of service and improve the quality of service that people have. We've asked the board to do that. I'm sure we will have, again, a thoughtful presentation from that board about the long-term future of ICBC, and that would be part of a core review.

J. MacPhail: In other jurisdictions that have never had public auto insurance, the road safety programs that do exist have come out of general revenue, or they don't exist at all. I would just urge the Premier to take into account the cost that may be. I expect that everybody in this chamber is committed to road safety. The member for Kamloops–North Thompson made a very effective private member's statement yesterday about the need for road safety and the consequences when it's not fully in place.

I worry greatly that private auto insurance companies do not have a commitment or, putting the best light on it, don't see it as their responsibility to have safe roads or to ensure that we have safe drivers. I would just urge the Premier that there will be a huge opportunity cost to the province if there's expanded competition or even privatization — huge opportunity cost to the B.C. coffers if indeed those road safety programs are not continued.

Has the Premier been receiving information on the issue of these recent tragedies? As recently as today I saw it linked to photo radar. Has the Premier been receiving any information on linking those two matters?

Hon. G. Campbell: I have heard some media comment with regard to it, but the main information we've received is that it is difficult, for the police at least, to understand why we've had this sudden influx. I would suggest that it has nothing to do with photo radar. In fact, having police on the street, I think, is probably a more effective use.

Let me deal specifically with the issues ICBC deals with, issues like road safety and motor licensing compliance. I want the member opposite to know that those issues don't just fly out the window. They remain issues of concern to this government, as with previous governments. The question we will ask, and I'm sure the board will ask, is: are we delivering them in the most cost-effective way? Are we delivering them in a way that makes sense? I understand that those programs are important to the rest of the government. We will look at those issues and ask ourselves if we are delivering them in the most beneficial way to the public.

Again, in terms of ICBC, it should be noted that, at least from my perspective, I can't tell you what the final decisions and recommendations will be from the board. I can tell you that we have a quality group of people who are examining the automobile insurance industry and asking: how can we do as well as possible in British Columbia?

I think the member may have seen the open cabinet meeting where the executive from ICBC came and laid out what they thought of as their business plan for the next little while and the challenges they faced. They have identified a number of challenges in terms of the corporation's management, which they believe they can do more effectively, and they will make those recommendations to us — as they should.

The way we have done ministries, I expect, will be the way we do Crown corporations. When the discussion has taken place and the recommendation made by core services review, that will go to an open cabinet meeting. People will have an opportunity to see the discussion and hear the debate, and we will make some decisions.

I think the member opposite should know that road safety is critical to us. It includes the creation of better roads as well as safety programs so that young people learn. I know the member opposite's son will want to get his driver's licence as soon as he can possibly get it. I believe that most young people do. I also think that we as parents have a responsibility to tell young people about the importance of this. I think we as a government have a responsibility to create programs and frameworks that allow for safe, sensible use of automobiles. That's what we hope ICBC will be informing us on and giving us their best judgment as they come forward to the core services review.

J. MacPhail: Yes, and I understand that there will be a decision-making process, but I also expect there's an act covering ICBC, and any changes to that will be debated in the Legislature.

I have a whole bunch of questions here, but I think probably they're more appropriate for the Minister of Finance, and I have been guaranteed time with him in estimates. I'll save those for the Finance minister and, of course, for the debate that will occur in the chamber around changes, if any, to the ICBC act.

I wanted to turn just briefly to B.C. Rail, if I may, because of the Premier's recent meetings with the Council of Tourism Associations. Please outline for me, if the Premier could, the future of B.C. Rail.

Hon. G. Campbell: B.C. Rail, like other Crown corporations, is subject to a core review. A new board was appointed for B.C. Rail, and we asked them to tell us how B.C. Rail could be a major economic engine in the province. They will come back with their recommendations to the core review and deregulation task force. We believe that B.C. Rail can be a major contributor to a strong and vital resource economy in the province. I'm sure they will come back with recommendations on how they may do that.

The member may be referring to one of the comments that have been made by B.C. Rail: that they want to get out of the passenger service business. I was asked about that at the Council of Tourism Associations meeting a week ago. I think it was a week ago Friday or maybe a week ago Thursday. What I said at the time is: "The fact that B.C. Rail may be getting out of the passenger service doesn't mean necessarily that the passenger service will not be there." In fact, I think we have seen an experience where Via got out of the passenger service from Vancouver to Banff, and that passenger service has been taken up by the private sector. In fact, it has created more stable jobs, more economic activity and real opportunities, I think, for many communities along that rail line.

I have not seen B.C. Rail's final report. I know they are concerned about the costs of the passenger service. I know they're concerned about the costs of the entire system and how they can make sure it's making a return that's long-term and stable for resource communities up and down the line.

J. MacPhail: In terms of the core services review, particularly in the area of B.C. Rail, does the Premier as chair of that review ask the corporation to present a demonstration of consultation of those that would be affected by change?

Hon. G. Campbell: Specifically with regard to B.C. Rail, we have been encouraging them to talk with their customers particularly, who depend on them. If we have set a direction or if we have said, "Well, here's a step that you could take," I would think that it's very consistent, at least. I can't say it's 100 percent of the time, but it's very consistent where the committee would ask for not just B.C. Rail but a Crown corporation to ensure that it deals with their customers, deals with their users, deals with their client base.

J. MacPhail: One of the things that I remember discussing with the Premier in the last set of estimates is

the new-era promise that the Liberal government was going to make Crown corporations pay municipal taxes — make the responsibility there. Is part of the core services review to reflect the impact of that policy, in combination with changes that may occur to Crown corporations, specifically? It's a general question. If there's a change to ICBC, where they become in the private sector as opposed to the public sector, then the government would have no control over taxes. Is it the government's view, then, that they would have to pay municipal taxes as per…?

J. MacPhail: Is it the Premier's view, then, that that's a neutral factor in terms of any change to the status of a Crown corporation?

Hon. G. Campbell: I just wanted to be sure that I was answering the question. I can tell the member opposite that I can't recall once, under the core review — although we haven't had very many meetings with Crown corps — where we said we were considering whether they were paying municipal taxes or not. There is a large group working within the Crown corporations. We have a commitment that they will pay municipal taxes. We are working that through. There will be costs, yes, but we believe they're legitimate costs for the provision of the service. Nine times out of ten they're provincial services that are being provided. We believe that it is sound public policy to say that local communities will not provide additional support for those provincial services.

That will take place over time, but it remains a commitment. It really is not normally the subject of a discussion at core review. Should we decide that there is a component of a Crown agency that is no longer required, and they are sold to the private sector, then they would have to pay municipal taxes in the private sector.

J. MacPhail: I'm moving on now to B.C. Transit. Just one question on B.C. Transit, and that's how it relates in the Premier's TV address. The Premier talked about seniors bus passes. It was to work with transit authorities to make sure seniors had affordable bus transportation. Can the Premier update us on the status of the seniors bus pass?

Hon. G. Campbell: The seniors bus pass, as I think the member opposite knows, was always going to be kept for this year. We have committed that it will be kept beyond this year, and we have committed that we will work with transit authorities to make sure the price of that bus pass to the province is the most cost-effective price.

Seniors will not have to worry. They will have their bus pass, and it will be at least equal to where we are today.

J. MacPhail: I assume that there must be some negotiations going on with the transit authorities. I guess there's just B.C. Transit and TransLink now. Where do those negotiations reside? Is it with the Minister of Finance or the minister who has B.C. Transit?

Hon. G. Campbell: The primary driver of those discussions will be the Minister of Transportation.

J. MacPhail: The last area of Crown corporations that I want to explore with the Premier is WCB. Actually, it's not a Crown corporation. It's an independent agency not funded out of any tax dollars, but it is governed by a piece of legislation for which the province is responsible.

I have to say that I was devastated by the lifting of the smoking ban, for reasons on a lot of levels, but mainly just because it's so bad. It's so unbelievable that we could move, in a province that is so progressive on so many quality-of-life issues…. The Premier's own B.C. Progress Board said that we're number one on quality of life. It's so bad that people now are smoking at the expense of the health of workers.

I know that the Premier may get up and say: "We protected the workers by having a special room that they didn't have to go in, and they have the right to refuse to work." But I've also heard from mainly women workers in bars and restaurants who say: "How is it that I have to use all of my strength, all of my gumption with my employer to say that I'm sorry, I don't want to work in that area?" They say: "Why am I put in that position?" You know what they say? They say: "We're not strong enough. We've got enough issues to deal with." I was actually taken aback when these women told me this. They just said that they're not going to do it because it risks so many other things that they just don't think they should have to risk in their relationships with their employers.

If a person is on the $6-an-hour minimum wage, then not working affects a wage increase as well, because it's related to the hours. I know that rural and regional MLAs will stand up and say: "The economy's different in my area than it is for you cappuccino-sucking lower mainland types." I don't accept that. I actually do not for a moment accept that somehow an economic benefit in Trail or Prince George is giving people the right to smoke at the expense of others. I just don't accept that.

It really did create a black mark on British Columbia — a black mark. It was also the first time in the history of the Workers Compensation Board that a government overruled the Workers Compensation Board.

I'm not going to let this one go, because we were making such wonderful progress in the rates of smoking. In fact, British Columbia is next to California, as the Premier knows, on having the lowest smoking rate, and actually for the first time we're making headway amongst young people for getting them to never take up tobacco use.

Yes, the Premier and the Minister of Finance did raise taxes on tobacco, and I'm thrilled that occurred, but it would have put this Premier on the map around

the world for taking a strong stand against tobacco use with that tax increase if he hadn't allowed his government to overrule the WCB. I mean this sincerely. He would have been honoured at every single health care table if he had done both, but they're contradictory messages, and one almost cancels out the other.

Does the Premier have any intention to review this to monitor its success — to actually put it to either his MLAs or those municipalities to prove how this has helped their economies?

Hon. G. Campbell: We will always look to see the results of any decisions we make in government. It is important to note that we have the highest standards in Canada and probably continentally, with the possible exception of some parts of the United States.

It's also important to note that every community in the province is in a position where they can make more stringent rules if they decide to. Vancouver has; Victoria has; many communities have. I think it is important. We listen to all the voices of the province. We have safe, secure environments for our workers. That is of concern to all of us in this Legislature, and we will continue to pursue those goals.

J. MacPhail: Yes, but one of the reasons we have the lowest rate of smoking — 18 percent now…. Think of it; 18 percent of adults smoke. That means 82 percent don't. Somehow, the tyranny of the minority is ruining the health of the majority. I can't, for the life of me, understand the economics of that. My question was: does the government have any intent to review this? Are there any mechanisms in place, or do we just absolutely live with this?

I'll tell you that when I was Minister of Health, I was berated — and I actually accepted the municipalities berating me — for allowing a patchwork of municipal bylaws on smoking. I said: "Well, don't worry; wait. Two years from now we'll have a bylaw in place across the province."

There was huge discussion internal to our caucus. It spilled out into the public about the huge internal discussion. Fortunately, we don't have that kind of dissension in our caucus these days. However, it was huge, and we had to take a very, very strong stand. Eventually the caucus rallied around the strong stand, which was to implement the smoking ban because it made perfect sense for worker health and safety, and it made perfect sense for health.

By not being able to say that it's going to be reviewed, the silence speaks for itself. As my final comment in these estimates, I would urge the Premier that if he can do one thing to unite his caucus, it's around this issue. He will be celebrated for that. There is no question about it that he will be celebrated. I said at the provincial congress, I think it was, that there was a professor at UBC who said that 15 years from now, people will say in terms of the environment: "What the heck were those people thinking, getting into a 4,000-pound chunk of steel and driving it six blocks to get a cappuccino and then going home?"

I believe that to be true, but I also think that 15 years from now, people will be shocked that we allowed this health care epidemic — this largest killer-disease of any disease that is 100 percent preventable — to go on. The Premier can take his place in history by standing up and saying it. If there's one thing he needs to review, to have a second look at, this is it.

J. MacPhail: I'm going to pick up where I left off last night but perhaps try to take a different approach to see whether I can make clear to the minister where I'm going on the matter of the relationship between changing workers' contracts and restructuring. I'm going to flip the whole thing to a positive now for the minister to try to understand where I'm going on this.

There's a huge amount of discomfort amongst health care workers in the province today. Nobody has to deny that. It's understandable. One, just the pressures of being a health care worker whether you're in California or in Smithers. Two, the government has taken some pretty serious action to change the terms under which health care workers work.

I was trying to find out from the Minister of Health Planning about when she became aware of the extent of the changes that were going to be required in the restructuring and what she did to consult with the people who would be affected by those changes.

The reason I was trying to find that out is to try to get some sort of understanding of where the Ministry of Health Planning can go in ensuring a solid restructuring of health care. That's all. That's what I was trying to find out.

Was there a reason why the restructuring as it affected the workers was sprung upon them? There may be a good reason for that. That's what I was trying to find out. Was it required that there be some sort of…? One day it's this, and the next day the change is in place.

Today and over the course of the last few days the government has been struggling with a perception of public employees pushing back on the government's agenda of change. I actually don't know whether it's public employees who are pushing back on the government's agenda. There are some who say it is the public sector employees who are upset and are lashing out.

One way to ensure a person's acceptance of a decision is to at least have them included in the reasoning and the logic behind the decision. The old phrase, "while we may disagree," then leads to: "At least I'm informed."

Let me ask the Minister of Health Planning this: what consultation is required now, moving forward — I won't even look backward — to ensure, in her view, a smooth health authorities restructuring?

Hon. S. Hawkins: The health authorities will be establishing their boards. The health authorities have been informed that consultation is an important part of the work they do. They will be consulting various groups and constituencies. The workers, we expect, will be a part of that.

J. MacPhail: Part of the change under Bill 29 was a prohibition of any collective agreement provision that required consultation — an absolute prohibition. Collective agreements had to be altered to say that if there was a requirement to consult, that clause was declared null and void. That's what Bill 29 did.

Is it then going to be strictly within the whim or…? I can't think of another term. This is such an important issue. I actually want the minister and I to have a legitimate discussion about this. Is it entirely within the purview of the individual regional health boards to decide whether consultation takes place now?

Hon. S. Hawkins: We have asked the health authorities to establish processes for consultation. There has absolutely been no prohibition on consultation. I think what the member is regretting is that it won't be done according to the enhanced consultation framework that was set up before.

We recognized that there was a lot of rigidity in the system before. We heard from patients, managers and those working in health care that the system needed more flexibility, that there were things we could do to improve patient care.

It got so ridiculous. We all remember before Christmas, where a major inner-city emergency room had to close down because we couldn't move nurses from across the street into that emergency room to look after patients there. That is what we were trying to correct.

There is nothing in Bill 29 that prohibits consultation. In fact, we have asked the health authorities to set up consultation processes, and we expect our health authorities to work with the workers. Bill 29 gives them the tools to help patients, to get some of that flexibility they need to make sure that patients are getting the care they need. You know what? That is good news for patients.

J. MacPhail: Actually, unfortunately, the RNABC has a view on exactly the kind of situation that the minister described. Late last month the RNABC put out a report where they had grave concerns about the implementation of moving nurses from one job to another, because of the issue of competency. That's skill competency, not brain-power competency. It's not the ability to do the job when properly trained.

The RNABC put out a report — I was actually quite surprised at it — that said there are concerns that they will be monitoring about the transfer of a nurse from one work location to another. There are training issues around that. In fact, they then said that in recent months…. I'm doing this from memory — my apologies — because I didn't think we would actually get into this area. In recent months they've had a huge number of nurses contacting the RNABC to register the circumstances under which they found themselves. I think the issue is now up to 4,000 or something. Nurses are required, in order to retain their licences, to register the times when they think they have been put at risk by an assignment. The RNABC themselves said that's an issue, and it was directly related to the issue that the minister just addressed.

Now, I'm not regretting anything of the past that isn't already on record. I'm trying to find now what the minister's plans are to replace the vehicles of consultation that were removed by Bill 29.

We don't need to mince words here. We've already had the debate in the Legislature. Bill 29 bars collective agreements that require consultation — even collective agreement clauses that merely require a consultation. Not joint agreement — we're not even talking joint agreement. We're just talking that if the collective agreement said, "The employer will consult before acting" — God, what a revolutionary concept — that's now gone from the collective agreement.

The minister then raises her own situation and says: "God, it was just awful; we couldn't move nurses across the street." Well, the RNABC has raised concerns about that, so I'm asking the minister: what consultation is in place to have the restructuring go smoothly that doesn't put patients at risk and doesn't put the worker at risk?

Hon. S. Hawkins: I can tell the member that patient safety is our first concern. Certainly, quality of care and patient safety are the health authorities' first concern.

The member knows that there are operational policies and standards of practice that are very clear. We do not move people into areas where they're not competent to practise.

I understand that the RNABC has heard from nurses. That's their job — to hear from nurses. There have been concerns raised. I understand that the RNABC met with the Minister of Health Services and raised those concerns. I understand that the deputy minister and the leadership council have heard those concerns. They are being addressed.

I assure the member that the health authorities will be working with the workers on those plans. If there's a need to move workers into other areas, it's going to be done according to policy, according to standards, according to ensuring that patient safety is going to be the highest priority. I think I can reassure the member that this will be done.

J. MacPhail: I'm glad I'm raising this information for the benefit of all members, then. Perhaps the minister could enlighten us all on the discussions that occurred with the RNABC on this matter. What are the resolutions, and how does that affect restructuring?

All right, if I need to save that for the Minister of Health Services, so be it, but this is arising out of the restructuring. Is the Minister of Health Planning suggesting that I should save it for the Minister of Health Services?

Hon. S. Hawkins: What I'm saying is that the concerns were raised. The member says she had a document or something she was referring to that raised those concerns. If she wants to question the Minister of Health Services on that meeting, it's her right to do that. We did hear those concerns. That's what I'm relaying to her. The deputy heard those concerns. Certainly, there will not be movement of workers if it's not safe for patients. Patient safety is going to be of utmost priority.

J. MacPhail: I'm fine to raise it with the Minister of Health Services, though. I assume…. My apologies. When the member for Vancouver-Burrard was asking questions about the nursing office, I was absent. I'm sorry. I was absent for the introduction.

Hon. S. Hawkins: With me is Anne Sutherland Boal. She's our chief nurse executive for the province of B.C.

J. MacPhail: Thanks. It's an honour to have her here. I apologize for being absent yesterday. I assume the nursing executive office reports to the Minister of Health Planning. That's one area of consultation. That's why I was exploring. I'd be happy to explore it with the Minister of Health Services and find out what the resolution was to that issue. I will make note of that.

I would just advise the minister that when I actually tried to ask the questions of the Premier that she asked me to ask of the Premier, I didn't get anywhere — nowhere. I just want to put the point in. I actually don't think that's the fault of the Premier, I must say. We had a very good discussion of the areas for which he could answer. I will go to the Minister of Health Services on that.

What about other areas of consultation, then? We have the nursing executive office, and I have great faith in that office, but what about other areas? What about lab technologists? What about physicians? What about care aides? What about ambulance paramedics? How is the consultation going to take place?

Hon. S. Hawkins: I thought I answered that question. The health authorities have been given the directive that they are to provide consultation and consult with their communities. We recognize that the health authorities are unique, that they will be developing plans for their own regions and that they will be involving their communities and different constituencies of workers.

We have said we are not going to be prescriptive and tell them how to do it. We recognize that they are going to be doing it in different ways. They are going to develop those plans on how they're going to consult, and we are going to basically hold them accountable for the consultation.

J. MacPhail: That's a very interesting point the minister makes. I think there's about $5.9 billion, maybe close to $6 billion, being turned over to the regional health authorities. How does this Legislature hold those health authorities accountable? When do I get to question the health authorities, then, on their accountability?

Hon. S. Hawkins: You know what? For the first time ever we have a way of holding those health authorities accountable. We have accountability contracts we are working on defining with the health authorities. We'll be signing them. We have service contracts. We have expectations for outcomes that we're setting.

The member is welcome to go to the Web page and look at the information there on how we're going to hold those health authorities accountable. They are accountable to the Minister of Health Services and to me for the health planning that they do. If the member wants to contact her health authority, I know the chair of mine is available anytime. In fact, as I mentioned yesterday, he has travelled the region. He has met with hundreds of people. He certainly has even given out his home number, and people call him.

I know there is also another level that holds them accountable. That's the leadership council. It's made up of the CEOs and the deputy minister. We are looking at the relationship there, making sure that the health authorities are on track with the plans and the health services delivery they are accountable for delivering.

J. MacPhail: Maybe the minister has a different understanding than I do of what an election and parliament are all about. Let me tell the minister what I

think parliament, elections and accountability are about through the constitution. When $6 billion of tax money is turned over to be spent, the accountability rests right in here — absolutely nowhere else. I don't think it's acceptable to British Columbians to say that they can call the health authority chair.

I don't think it's acceptable for British Columbians to assume that the accountability will be determined locally by a person who isn't elected and isn't in any way mandated to be held accountable publicly. I don't assume that the chair of the regional health board will be deciding whether to increase expenditures for health care. It will be done here. I don't assume that the chair of the regional health board will hold himself accountable for reductions in health care spending.

It was actually a pretty simple area I was exploring — consultation, a pretty simple area. I wasn't even talking about the value of programs, and the minister referred me off to the regional health authorities. What happens when I want to talk about ambulance services being inadequate? Am I supposed to go to the regional health authority, and the minister goes back to her office? Is that how it works?

Hon. S. Hawkins: I'm glad we're having this conversation about accountability. You know what? For the last ten years there has been absolutely no accountability for health care spending. For the first time we're going to have accountability contracts with the health authorities. They're actually going to be responsible for their budgets, for the planning and for the work they do in those health authorities.

Gosh, if we ran our health care system the way the member ran the ferries…. Should we say the ferries? If we ran the health system…. She did, actually. She was the Minister of Health, and under her, we never had a budget that balanced and never had patients who got timely care. We inherited this huge mess from that member's government. For ten years there was absolutely no planning and no accountability. Now we are trying to set up processes. Now we are trying to get plans. Now we are trying to get good people into positions.

She talks about health cuts, cuts to health spending. We have added over a billion dollars in the last year. Can she not add? We are now at $10.2 billion and $10.4 billion overall for health spending in this provincial budget.

At some point we have to say: "Yes, we have to be accountable for those dollars." We can't just keep measuring inputs. We can't just keep saying: "Let's just keep pouring money into this big, black hole and see where it goes." We've decided not to take that road. We've decided not to take the road that that government did, which the member belonged to for the last ten years. What we've decided to do is say: "You know what? We've got to make sure every dollar we give to health care is going to go to patient care."

We've got to make sure every dollar that's spent is going to be accounted for and is going to patient care. We have put tools in place. We've put health authorities in place. We are putting planning in place and accountability frameworks in place. We are going to have standards, and we are going to have measures. We're going to make sure that the dollars actually focus on patients and, at the end of the day, result in positive patient outcomes. That's what we've decided to do.

I can't understand why this member has a problem following that. That is accountability. At the end of the day the health authorities are accountable to the ministers. They're accountable to the government. But you know what? We've decided not to micromanage them. We've decided we are going to trust them. We are going to say: "Here's your funding. Here's your region. Here's your population. Now start planning and start accounting for where the dollars go. We want to make sure every part of that dollar is targeted to patient care. Keep your administrative costs low, and let's start working on positive patient outcomes."

For years health has been — and I've said it — a huge abuser of measuring inputs. Geez, this is a nice program. It's good to have, so let's see if we can get funding for it. Oh gosh, look. We got funding for it. Geez, a hundred new patients are interested in it." "That must be a good program," the government says, "They've got a hundred more patients." We've decided we're not going to fund it that way.

We want to make sure that if it's a got a hundred new patients, we're actually helping those patients. We've asked the health authorities to focus on that. Just don't keep pouring money into a program that we don't even know works. We want to focus on standards, and we want to focus on evidenced-based care. We want to plan for the future, because in the last six or seven years we have doubled the spending in health care in this province.

Most of the population around the province says: "Gosh, they're now spending over $10 billion on health care, but I don't see the waiting lists drop by half. I don't see the quality of care doubled." That's what we inherited. We inherited a system that kept dumping money into health care but, at the end of the day, didn't really focus on whether we were actually helping patients. It didn't focus on that.

Part of it, I would have to say, was the way the last ten years focused on priorities, and some of the priorities were not necessarily on patients. They weren't on patients.

What we're saying now is that we've got to focus on patients. We're going to put patients first. We're going to make sure they get high-quality services. We're going to make sure the health authorities know they're going to be responsible for that. We're not going to hold their hands and tell them how to do it. We're going to tell them what results we want. We're going to be results-oriented.

We're going to make sure that patients are followed, that there's going to be positive patient outcomes. That is what accountability is all about. We're going to make sure the health authorities tell us how

they're planning and making sure that the money they spend is going to be focused on positive patient outcomes. We're going to measure that. We're going to hold them accountable for that.

J. MacPhail: I'm not sure why the minister is getting so riled up about this. It is her job to answer these questions. She is the minister responsible for health planning. I'm not quite sure why she needs to be so aggressively negative.

Maybe it's because what we're talking about is the aspect of consulting the workers, and that upsets the minister. Let me try another area, then. Let me try another area to see whether we can have a better discussion, taking out what the minister feels was perhaps too much priority put on the people who actually deliver the services. I expect that's what the minister is hinting at there, and we will disagree on that because patient care is delivered by human beings, but this government disagrees with that.

Let me try another area, then: consultation. It was pointed out through question period that there's a lump sum being given to the regional health authorities ? $5.9 billion. In the old days, as of July 30, 2001 — the last budget brought in by this government — there was actually line-by-line funding for certain programs. That's gone now, and it's one lump sum. Then there is a note, which in a budget is the equivalent of a footnote, saying that included in that $5.9 billion is the responsibility for…. Then there's a list this long of programs. No longer do the various people ? patients ? know exactly what's available that they can discuss with their health authorities for various programs.

What will be the requirement of health authorities to consult with patients, let's call them, and patient groups to determine the allocation of funding?

Hon. S. Hawkins: The line by line ? obviously the member understands that ? is not in my vote. That is the Health Services minister.

Hon. S. Hawkins: I've just been advised that there are notes attached. There are notes under the line by line that explain where that funding goes. But you know what? As I've said before, our health authorities are being required to consult, and they will set up the processes with the different constituencies in their areas. We expect them to make sure the community is involved. As the member knows, the allocations are done through the Ministry of Health Services. The health authorities will be accountable to the Minister of Health Services for making sure that they are spending their allocations on priority areas.

If she wants to get into the detail of that line by line, that is in the vote of the Minister of Health Services. I'm sure he would be happy to go through that with her.

J. MacPhail: No. I'm sorry. It isn't in the minister's vote. It isn't there. What it is, is a paragraph of services and then a lump sum payment. That's what's there.

What I'm asking the Minister of Health Planning is: in terms of the accountability contracts that she's setting up, how does she hold the various health authorities accountable for patient care? How is that going to take place? She said that they're going to have patient care on the basis of outcome. There's a range of services and programs that the health authority has to provide.

I assume the Minister of Health Planning is responsible for developing these accountability contracts. How is she developing these accountability contracts that ensure patient care for all of the services assigned to the health authority?

Hon. S. Hawkins: We do have performance contracts that we are developing and that we will be holding the health authorities responsible for. Within those contracts we are setting up standards that they will be held to in the service plans. There are targets set. Certainly, in the Ministry of Health Services plan there are targets set for the different areas she is referring to.

We expect the health authorities to plan. We expect them to have plans for the different priority areas they're going to be responsible for. My job is intermediate and long-term planning. The Minister of Health Services is responsible for some of the operational targets that the health authorities are going to be expected to meet in the short term year by year, looking at some of the positive patient outcomes we expect them to meet. She can certainly canvass those areas with him. She says there's an envelope there. If she wants it broken out, that is something he can help her with. That's something she'll certainly have an opportunity to do when she gets to his estimates.

In Health Planning we have requirements for the health authorities. For example, we are looking at the aboriginal health care plans. We expect each of the health authorities to make sure that they're in the process of developing and establishing them, and then we will hold them accountable for the positive outcomes we want to see in that population.

They get an envelope of funding from the Minister of Health Services in his budget. They target that to their priority areas, and then we will help them work with strategies to meet those targets. That is how we plan to do it.

In my ministry we're responsible for patient satisfaction as well. We are going to develop tools and a survey so that we can measure whether patients who have contact with the system are actually being helped or give us feedback on the kinds of experiences they have in the system, so we can measure their level of satisfaction. That is another way that we are going to be consulting the population, the patients in the system.

J. MacPhail: Thank you for referring me to the Minister of Health Services. Just to put him on notice, then, he's going to be busy, but I know he welcomes that.

To the Minister of Health Planning. This is the first time a lump sum payment has been made to regional health authorities — the first time ever. I assume that was discussed in the restructuring for which this minister is responsible.

I understand she's referring most of these matters to the Minister of Health Services, but let me try to figure out what was in the mind of the minister for her restructuring and the culmination thereof in a lump sum payment without any targeted funding for programs. That's brand-new.

Does the accountability contract vary from health authority to health authority in terms of patient outcomes?

Hon. S. Hawkins: I'd like to comment on the member's first issue around the envelope. We decided to move away from micromanaging. We have always said that we think the people at the local level know the needs of patients in those areas, rather than Victoria dictating to them what they should spend their money on.

Do you know what? In the past we saw this government target so much to, say, a mental health care plan which they never funded. We've decided we would give the money to the health authorities. They know the needs of their population. They're on the ground. They are the professionals. We're not going to tell them: "These are the silos, and this is all you can spend the money on."

We decided to get away from that rigidity, to give them the flexibility and to let them move the money around to the priority areas that they felt their patients could best benefit from, and make sure they get the best quality of care for patients across their region. That is why we've decided to do it that way. They know, according to the different population demographics in their regions, what their priority areas are.

In the past, typically, Victoria sat here and said, "Oh no, we know best," or: "We're just going to fund it this way generically across the province, whether you need it or not. We're going to buy X number of whatever, and everybody's going to get one."

We decided to move away from that. We're not going to micromanage from here. We're going to give them their funding and say: "You guys plan for your regions and for your population. We are going to measure the outcomes." We're not going to measure inputs anymore; we're going to measure the outcomes.

Specifically on the targets, at a high level across the regions the targets have been set the same. Specifically for the different regions we will be negotiating with the health authorities on what kind of targets they want to set for the populations they serve.

J. MacPhail: Well, there's no question that the Minister of Health Planning and the Minister of Health Services are setting off on a new experiment. There's no question about that.

Let me just outline a scenario of how I see it occurring. I know the Minister of Health Planning, the Minister of Health Services and the Minister of State for Mental Health like to poke sticks, particularly in my eye, about mental health. The fact of the matter is that as of April 1, there's no guaranteed funding for mental health — none, zero.

I know that really upsets the government of the day, but frankly, there's nowhere in the government's budget documents that patients with mental health issues can point to and say, "Here's the amount of funding for mental health programs" — none, absolutely none. That's because the minister has articulated the government's point of view that they're not going to micromanage. They're going to turn over lump sum payments and say: "Here's the…."

J. MacPhail: No, no, I'm not being sarcastic. I'm actually going to be asking a question.

Here's what we have. A pot of money is going to a regional health authority, and there's no targeted funding. No longer is there the $400 million provincewide targeted for mental health. What we have is the minister saying they're not going to micromanage; they're going to leave it up to the regional health authorities. Then the regional health authority will decide, based on some accountability measures that are not in place yet, how to allocate funding.

Well, here's what I see may be happening. I accept that the minister is saying there's a new way of doing things. They're not going to micromanage, and they're not going to target funding. I accept that, because it's a given. But what happens at a regional level if there's a huge pressure for one area of health care that's in a crisis situation?

The boards of health, the regional health authorities, are in deficit positions already. We know that from the government's own documents. They're in deficit positions, so they assume they have to make cuts. It's not me saying they have to make cuts. The health authorities now are in the newspaper every day saying they have to make cuts.

What happens if they have a pot of money and are having to make cuts, but there's a huge pressure, let's say, on heart surgery? We've all been there before, where we've had to either have longer wait-lists for heart surgery or pour money into it. How will the health authority protect, let's say, services for mental health if there's pressure for increasing funding for heart surgery and if there's no new money?

Hon. S. Hawkins: It's interesting listening to this member. At one point she was complaining there was going to be no consultation. Now she's saying we should actually just tell them what they're going to get,

because she doesn't see, line by line, any targets set. There's no targeted funding.

I don't know if she knows, but it sounds like she's speaking out of both sides of her mouth. At one point it's: "Why aren't you consulting communities?" At another it's: "You should be targeting funding. You should be saying that's what they're going get." That's not how we're going to do it. She's absolutely right. There's a new way of doing things.

We decided the status quo wasn't an option. It wasn't working. It has been a complete and abject failure in managing health care in the last ten years. That's what we inherited. We decided not to target funding. We decided to set targets, because we weren't going to measure inputs; we were going to measure positive patient outcomes.

That's what we are planning to do. We've decided to set outcome measures for our health authorities. We're going to make sure they are accountable for the money they spend. One of the accountability measures, for the information of the member, will be for mental health. We want to make sure that mental health care patients are looked after in this province.

They were ignored — there was just absolute neglect of that patient population — under the member's government. It was an abysmal failure. Guess what. We recognized that it needed attention, and that is why we have a Minister of State for Mental Health. He has worked hard, and we're going to make sure the member's government's $125 million mental health plan, which was never funded, is going to be fully funded — fully funded.

We're going to work with the health authorities to make sure the needs of different vulnerable populations are cared for. We're going to make sure we hold them accountable for that. Yes, there is a new way of doing things. It's not going to be setting targeted funding; it's going to be setting positive patient outcome targets.

J. MacPhail: I hope the minister didn't misunderstand me. I said I recognized the new system. I was asking how it was going to work. That's all. It's a brand-new system. As a matter of fact, the old system used to be that there would be line-by-line funding, and if there were going to be a change in the funding, under the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act the government of the day was required to come in here and debate that change. That's what was required.

Now, with no line-by-line funding, there's no requirement for the government to come in and debate that. It's an interesting aspect of how to get around the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act.

Let me just say that if the minister is saying, "Trust us; there will be contracts that outline the services and dedicate the funding," I guess it's now up to the public to determine the value of a contract with this government. That's what we'll have to do. That's what I'm trying to figure out. There won't be any debate in the Legislature about changing in funding, so it'll be a contract between, I guess, the health authority and the minister, and we'll determine the value of that contract.

It is a new system; there's no question about it. I'm sure that people who rely on services in mental health, coronary care and cancer services — to name but a few — will be watching very carefully about the contract terms and the value of the sustainability of a contract with this government.

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

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

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

Hon. S. Hagen: I have in my possession the contract administration manual for the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, which I would like to give to the member opposite.

J. Kwan: Just prior to the vote in the big House I asked a question of the minister, and he was just about to respond when the bells rang. I wonder if I could get the response from the minister before I move on to other questions.

The question I brought to the minister's attention was around the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management's endeavour to find ways to reduce consumption and our reliance on resources.

Hon. S. Hagen: British Columbia is indeed blessed with a volume of natural resources that have played a very important role in the development of the province. We're changing direction on the development of those natural resources to more of a balance — the balance between the environment and the economy.

Our message to the groups we meet with, whether they are environmental groups, industry groups or community groups, is that British Columbia is in fact back open for business — however, not at the expense of the environment.

Hon. S. Hagen: Most of the initiatives that government will have ongoing — a lot of which deal with future policy — will be led by the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection.

This ministry does work on the green power initiatives with the IPPs, for instance, but the specific issue you're referring to will be led by other ministries.

J. Kwan: So the plans for reduction of consumption and our reliance on resources would be coming forth from the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, WLAP. Is that correct? This ministry, the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, makes the decisions around land use, around all of these assets, if you will — the resources that belong to British Columbia.

Given that this ministry makes those decisions, I would assume that this ministry would also be involved in working on reduction of consumption.

Hon. S. Hagen: In answer to the question, we are working with Water, Land and Air Protection on these things, but it's also future policy.

J. Kwan: There were two proposals that the minister had highlighted. He's suggesting that there are no other proposals right now within the ministry on the question around consumption reduction.

Hon. S. Hagen: For the third and last time, Madam Chair, the answer is: that is future policy.

J. Kwan: What I'm asking is: what is the ministry doing now around the reduction of consumption and our reliance on resources? The minister answered the first question to say that there were two proposals, and then he said that most of that work is going to go to the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection.

I'm asking the minister: isn't it also his responsibility, though, within his ministry, given that he approves the plans on land use on all of these decisions that rest with him? One would have assumed that his ministry would have some role to play. One would have assumed that B.C. should be striving towards long-term, not just short-term, sustainability. One would have assumed that while we need people to work — there's no doubt about that — we also want to ensure that there is sustainability in consumption. If we don't do that, how will we be able to maintain any sustainability for the future, for future generations, at all?

I ask the minister: what work is taking place right now? It appears that maybe there isn't anything going on right now. Maybe it isn't the priority of this ministry to do any of that work.

Hon. S. Hagen: The priority of this ministry is to build back the economy of British Columbia in a sustainable way, bearing in mind environmental concerns.

J. Kwan: Then it actually does bring us back to the earlier discussion. I can conclude from the minister's statement that his first priority is economic development, and environmental sustainable development issues take second place to that. That's what it sounds like to me. I ask if the minister will rise up and dispute that and say: "No, that is not the case. In fact, we will put sustainability first in advance of the drive for the bottom line."

Hon. S. Hagen: It's interesting. The member opposite keeps referring back to the way things used to be done in the last century. Things have changed. We are now doing things in a balanced way. We're maintaining that very critical balance between the environment and the economy.

J. Kwan: The minister suggests that this government is now doing things in a balanced way, but when asked the question, "When that balance is challenged in terms of trying to prioritize, which would supersede…?" Is it sustainability that would supersede, or is it the bottom line? The minister refuses to answer that question, so I try to go at it with another approach in trying to get a sense for what work is being done in the ministry around sustainability. What proposal does he have within his ministry right now? He says: "Basically, there isn't anything. That's another ministry's decision."

Yet it's this ministry that makes those decisions, which will have an impact on our environment, which will have an impact on preservation issues, which will have an impact for future generations. That is the name of this ministry. It is called the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, so what is it that they're doing around sustainability? It seems to me that that is not, indeed, his top priority, that in fact the top priority for this government is the bottom line, and the bottom line will override all sustainability issues. Isn't that the case?

The Chair: Member, I would like to recommend that maybe you take another line of questioning at this time.

Obviously, I take from the silence of the minister that he is simply agreeing with my statement. He's not rising up to dispute it otherwise, and one can only assume by the silence of the minister that he is, indeed, agreeing with my statement. The minister is free to rise up and put forward his opinions around this matter, and he has failed to do so. I can only assume from his silence that this is his perspective.

I understand that the minister's staff member on the issues around the agricultural land reserve will need to leave early today, so I will jump ahead to this section of my questions so that he will have an opportunity to get to Vancouver, as I think he advised me earlier.

On the Land Reserve Commission, the service plan lays out the plan to reorganize the commission as six regional panels. How much power will the minister give to these regional panels?

Hon. S. Hagen: The six regional panels will have the same authority as the Land Reserve Commission had except that they will be making the decisions regionally, by regional people, on regional issues.

Hon. S. Hagen: On the six panels are members of the board of the Land Reserve Commission, and they are accountable to government through the chair.

J. Kwan: Will there be an overriding body to ensure that the agricultural land base is protected? What will this look like?

Hon. S. Hagen: The overriding provincial principles of protecting farmland will not change. The decisions, even though they're made locally, will have to be made taking the provincial aspects into account. The chairs of the regional panels, which will be called vice-chairs, will meet two or three times a year to make sure the policy under the act is carried out.

J. Kwan: If the decisions about the agricultural land reserve are to be regionalized, how will the regional districts, which do not always have the planning capacity to adjudicate these issues, cope?

Hon. S. Hagen: The commission will sign agreements with municipal governments if they wish to. If they don't wish to, they don't have to.

J. Kwan: Each of the regional groups ( commissions, if you will ( could sign agreements with the local authorities. Is it the commission that chooses not to sign the agreements or the local authority? Which is it?

Hon. S. Hagen: It's if the local government does not wish to sign, then they don't have to.

J. Kwan: In the case where there isn't a signed agreement with the local authority, where will the commission draw their resources from for their planning capacity? Do they sign with the local authority that they would draw on the capacity of the local authority for their planning capacity?

Hon. S. Hagen: No change has been made to the regional staff in Burnaby, who will continue to support the regional panels.

J. Kwan: The office in Burnaby will support all six of the regional panels in terms of their planning capacity. Is that correct?

J. Kwan: How much money will be required to fund the six regional panels and all of those salaries?

Hon. S. Hagen: I just want to clarify the question. Are you asking what the total budget for the commission is or the budget to fund the panels? We don't have that number but we'll get it for you.

J. Kwan: The reason I'm asking this question is that I'm trying to determine if splitting the commission into six regional panels is more efficient. Is it cheaper? Given that this government is so engrossed in efficiency and downsizing and deregulation, it seems to me that this is actually the opposite direction. I would be very interested in those numbers. Maybe the minister can tell us how it could be more efficient and cheaper.

Hon. S. Hagen: Our new-era commitment was to make the Land Reserve Commission more regionally responsive. We have done what we said we were going to do. I understand that the cost of the panels, the amount of money allocated for the panels, is the same. I think we may be giving you the numbers. Boards and commissions amount: $289,000. That's for the regional panels.

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm told the cost is roughly the same, because what's being cut down is the travel expenses. Instead of having to bring people from the regions into Burnaby, the regional panels will make the decisions in the regions.

J. Kwan: Having the six regional panels is about the same cost as having the one commission in Burnaby. The one commission in Burnaby is the headquarters, if you will, where it would provide all capacity for plan-

ning for the other six regions. Could the minister then provide the opposition with the different operations of these six regional panels in terms of their workplan?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm told regional plans are being drafted at the present time. They'll be available April 1.

J. Kwan: Can I assume from the minister that once those workplans are available, he will endeavour to make that information available to the opposition?

J. Kwan: Will the minister also provide the information on the previous travel costs from the commission so I can make that comparison — if indeed the savings are around the travel costs and that's sufficient to fund the regional panels?

J. Kwan: I assume we will be able to get that information within the two-week time frame the minister talked about previously. I see the minister nodding, so I take that as a yes. Okay.

Get some coffee if you need some. Oh no, actually you're not allowed to have coffee in the chamber.

Could the minister please advise how he would ensure that these panels are going to be consistent with the government's strategic plans to protect the agricultural land base?

Hon. S. Hagen: This is the second time I've given this answer. The mandate of the commission will not change. The purpose of the vice-chairs, the deputy chairs, meeting periodically throughout the year is to make sure the provincial mandate is being carried out.

J. Kwan: It rests with the vice-chair. Is it the vice-chair, then to the chair and then to the minister and then to cabinet? Is that how the order of reporting is going to be?

Hon. S. Hagen: There's no appeal to cabinet. The deputy chairs from each region will meet periodically to make sure the provincial mandate is being carried out. The commission as a whole will meet once a year to look at the overall policies, but there's no change in the policy of the ALR.

J. Kwan: I take from the minister's answer that the cabinet would not override any decision from the regional panels or from the commission.

J. Kwan: Sorry — I don't mean appeal to cabinet; I mean for the cabinet to override the decisions of the regional panels. The minister is saying that the cabinet would not override the decisions of the regional panels or the commission.

J. Kwan: Under goal 2 of the LRC's service plan there's the objective that "…non-farm land use and subdivision within the ALR do not significantly impact on the suitability of lands for agriculture or existing agricultural operations." Could the minister elaborate on this seemingly vague point? What is meant by "significantly impact," and what specific types of activities would not be allowed?

Hon. S. Hagen: This is a basic premise under which decisions are made now and will be made in the future. This is to ensure that non-farm land use and subdivision within the ALR do not significantly impact on the suitability of lands for agriculture or existing agricultural operations.

J. Kwan: Along those lines, then, what specific types of activities would not be allowed? Can the minister guarantee that the agricultural land reserve will be used for its intended purpose only — that is, agricultural land?

Hon. S. Hagen: As you know, applications come to the Land Reserve Commission, usually to have land excluded, and there has to be a reason for allowing that to happen. That's the way the reserve has operated since 1972. The decisions will be made by the regional panels. They have to come up through to the chair to make sure that none of the provincial philosophies with regard to protecting agricultural land are being violated.

J. Kwan: Can the minister advise that the land within the agricultural land reserve would only be used for agricultural purposes?

Hon. S. Hagen: As I said before, applications do come to the commission. That's the reason we have an independent commission: to assess these applications. In some cases, land has come out of the ALR — not very often, but in some cases it has. That's because the land was proven not to be farmable. As you know, there are different criteria in setting whether land is farmable or not. If land is farmable, then it'll stay agricultural land. If it can be shown scientifically that it isn't farmable, then an application may be considered to have it removed.

J. Kwan: Then for all intents and purposes agricultural land that is within the agricultural land reserve would be reserved for agricultural land use purposes only.

J. Kwan: Is the agricultural land reserve land going to expand to golf courses? Would that be deemed an acceptable application?

J. Kwan: Does the minister know if there are any applications right now for agricultural land to be released for golf course development?

Hon. S. Hagen: The commission is independent. I don't see the applications that come before the commission, and I don't have any participation in the decisions that are made.

J. Kwan: Maybe this has already been done. Have the appointments already been made for the six regional panels?

J. Kwan: Whom has the ministry invited to provide submissions, if you will, to be appointed to the agricultural land reserve under these six regional panels?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm really, really pleased that the member opposite asked this question. This is the first time in the history of the Land Commission that there's been a public process for inviting participation on the board. We have spoken to the UBCM and to the Ag Council, and it's posted on the website.

J. Kwan: What is the time line for these panels to be up and running and the appointments to be made?

I also have another answer for you from a previous question. You asked about travel costs and whether or not there were savings. In the fiscal year that's just ending, our estimated travel costs are $133,000. Our estimated travel costs for the next fiscal year are $102,000. There's a saving of $31,000.

J. Kwan: The saving of $31,000 would be able to support six regional panels?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm told that's right. There are other administrative efficiencies that are taking place as well.

J. Kwan: Then could the minister provide the opposition with a detailed breakdown of the budget for each of the regional offices in the commission?

J. Kwan: There is an interim commission right now, before the six regional panels are up and running and the appointments made. Have applications gone forward to the interim commission? If so, is it anticipated that the interim commission will make these decisions?

Hon. S. Hagen: Yes, the interim board has been receiving applications, has been dealing with those applications and will continue to do so until the new board is in place, which will be prior to April 30.

J. Kwan: How many applications have come through? How many have been approved? How many are pending?

Hon. S. Hagen: We'll provide those exact numbers. I've heard the number 40, but we'll give you the exact number and how many have been rejected, how many have been approved and where.

J. Kwan: Could the minister also provide along with that information the nature of the applications and the area and so on, so that it's not just a set of numbers?

J. Kwan: Those are all the questions I have for now for the agricultural land reserve. I thank the staff member who was here to assist the minister with these questions so that he can catch his flight for 3:30. I was cognizant of his time.

Moving on to another area, the working forest land base. In order to achieve the ministry's goals of sustainable development of land and resources, the service plan states that a working forest land base will be established. Is this plan designed to increase industry's access to forests in B.C.?

Hon. S. Hagen: We're getting into future policy here. The answer to that is no. It's not designed to increase. It's designed to make the forest sustainable.

J. Kwan: Who will decide how much of the land base will be part of the working forest?

J. Kwan: Does the minister anticipate that these plans will be developed within the next month, within the next two months? Is there some time line that the minister is attaching to this work?

Hon. S. Hagen: The time line I was given in my letter from the Premier was 18 months, of which we've used up nine. We will be putting a White Paper out to

the public later on this spring to get suggestions and feedback from the public of British Columbia.

J. Kwan: Along the lines of consultation, I assume the minister has done some consultation to date in his many meetings with individuals around this issue. Or maybe he hasn't. I don't know.

Hon. S. Hagen: My staff tell me that they have held meetings with the Ministry of Forests as well as environmental and industry groups around the province.

J. Kwan: So it's the staff who have done this work in developing this work, and the minister hasn't met with groups around this issue.

Hon. S. Hagen: That's a little difficult for me to answer. We have had discussions with groups on sustainability principles, which have an overlap to the working forest, but I don't believe I've had specific meetings dealing with the working forest.

J. Kwan: I wonder if the minister can provide the list of people his office has consulted with on this issue — along the lines I asked earlier around the consultation done with the guiding principles or the principles around sustainability.

J. Kwan: I guess I'll just state this. Unless the minister disputes otherwise, I assume the information I'm requesting from the minister will all be forthcoming within that two-week time frame period we stated earlier. Great, thanks. I won't say that every time I ask for some information.

How much will the study, creation and implementation of the land base cost? Is that included in the budget? I would assume it is.

Hon. S. Hagen: The answer is yes. Apparently we don't have the specific number, but we'd be pleased to give it to you within the two-week period.

J. Kwan: Then who will determine the annual allowable cut? Is it Forests? Is it this ministry that will be responsible for land use planning and the working forest?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm sure the member knows that the cut is set by the chief forester, and that will continue.

J. Kwan: There would be no intervention from the minister in any way, shape or form?

Hon. S. Hagen: Our ministry provides information to the chief forester on which he or she will base their decision on the annual allowable cut. That information is mapping and statistical information that the chief forester then uses to base his decision on.

J. Kwan: Will the minister be working with the Minister of Forests around providing information to achieve this decision?

J. Kwan: In working on the information to provide to the chief forester, does the minister also consult with the Ministry of Water, Land and Air? God, I keep wanting to say the old names.

J. Kwan: I'm going to ask some questions around the Living Rivers strategy. Actually, no. I think I'm going to go into water first.

In the January 2002 mini–service plan released by the ministry on Black Thursday, it was stated under the heading of "Sustainable Land and Water Management" that the ministry would minimize the provincial role in water utility regulation by transferring appropriate regulatory authority to regional or local government. In the service plan document released in February 2002 the government seems to have changed its tune. The ministry now commits to review with regional and local governments the provincial role in regulation of the engineering capacity and pricing of private water utilities.

Hon. S. Hagen: I think the hon. member knows that we're responsible for the quantity of water not the quality of water, which lies in the purview of Water, Land and Air Protection and Health Services.

In our business plan, with regard to water, we have reviewed with regional and local governments the provincial role in regulation of the engineering capacity and pricing of private water utilities.

J. Kwan: That's what I asked. There were two statements in the January 2002 plan versus the February 2002 plan. I'm asking the minister: which is it? Is he saying that is the plan the ministry now commits to review with regional and local governments on the provincial role and regulation of the engineering capacity and pricing of private water utilities — that supersedes the January 2002 mini–service plan?

J. Kwan: Is the government planning on turning over control of water utilities and regulations?

Hon. S. Hagen: We'll be reviewing this with regional and local governments, and where it makes sense and where we can do an agreement with them, we will transfer that responsibility to the regional or local government.

J. Kwan: So the transference of control of water utilities and regulation would only be done if there's agreement reached with the local authorities?

Hon. S. Hagen: Yes, we will be doing this through voluntary agreements with the regional government.

J. Kwan: What's the purpose behind transferring the regulatory authority and control of water utilities to local governments? Is it to save costs?

Hon. S. Hagen: As I'm sure the member opposite knows, there are a whole bunch of these small water systems around, in many cases just outside the borders of municipalities. The purpose of making an agreement with the municipality would be from an efficiency standpoint, because many of these small community-run boards are not sustainable. They don't have the quality control that larger municipalities have. I think there are environmental benefits for this to happen as well as operational efficiencies.

J. Kwan: Ensuring there is quality, and issues around health risks with people's drinking water and the like…. Does that fall within your ministry, or does it fall in the Ministry of WLAP, even in the case when the water control and regulation of water utilities is transferred to the local authorities?

Hon. S. Hagen: The issue of water quality falls under the purview of the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection and the Ministry of Health Services.

J. Kwan: The decision to transfer regulation authorities rests with this ministry. When it is being transferred to a local authority, does the responsibility for quality control rest with WLAP, not the local authority or this ministry?

Hon. S. Hagen: That comes under the Drinking Water Protection Act, which is administered by the Ministry of Health.

J. Kwan: Is it Health, not WLAP, then, that's responsible? I thought the minister said WLAP earlier.

Hon. S. Hagen: WLAP does the actual monitoring of the water stream, and Health sets the standards.

J. Kwan: Ultimately, then, it is WLAP that enforces. It's the Ministry of Health that sets the standard which says all the different kinds of bacteria and what not that exist in water have to be at a certain level. That standard is established by the Ministry of Health. Then it is the Ministry of WLAP people who enforce that and make sure the water is in fact at that level of quality. This ministry has nothing to do with any of the quality control questions, even though they make the decisions on transferring the authority to local authorities.

Hon. S. Hagen: That's correct. The responsibility for that doesn't change, even if there's a transfer.

J. Kwan: It does concern me. That's why I'm trying to get a clear understanding in terms of whose responsibility it is. Certainly, I know all members of this House would agree they would not want to see a Walkerton tragedy take place here in British Columbia. It is vitally critical that there are standards set by government and that there is enforcement and regulation of those standards by government. I take from the minister's answer that those responsibilities fall, especially on the enforcement side, with WLAP. I'll canvass those issues, then, with WLAP at another time.

Is the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management responsible for water tenures, pricing and allocation? Should it not uphold the public interest, which is to maintain regulatory control over those utilities? Once it's transferred, I presume those controls around pricing also transfer to the local authorities.

Hon. S. Hagen: That responsibility comes under Land and Water British Columbia.

J. Kwan: Is the minister not responsible for that area — Land and Water B.C.? I thought that falls within the minister's purview.

Hon. S. Hagen: Yes, it does, but there is a Crown corporation called Land and Water B.C. which does that. They are responsible to me.

J. Kwan: The Crown corporation Land and Water B.C. is responsible for the water pricing, but they report to the minister. Ultimately, it is the minister's authority on these decisions.

Hon. S. Hagen: The tenuring responsibility is with Land and Water British Columbia. The pricing of the water is with my ministry.

Hon. S. Hagen: The allocation, which is tenuring — it's the same thing — is the responsibility of Land and Water British Columbia.

J. Kwan: How is this split authority, in terms of the split decision, if you will, in areas of pricing and tenuring, efficient and effective, especially since safe drinking water is such a concern to the public?

Hon. S. Hagen: The responsibility for setting the terms and the conditions are the responsibility of this ministry, and then Land and Water British Columbia are tasked with carrying them out.

Hon. S. Hagen: Actually, that's another great question, which I'm glad you asked. When I came into this ministry on June 5, the backlog for Crown land applications in this province was…. There were over 900 applications that were well over a year old. There were over 2,000 applications for water that were over a year old. Through the dedicated hard work of the people in Land and Water British Columbia and the dedicated staff of Sustainable Resource Management, we can today tell you the backlog on land applications has been decreased by 90 percent and the backlog in water application has decreased by 40 percent.

That's why I'm glad you asked the question. I think it shows the efficiency and the way we and Land and Water B.C. are able to deal with those applications.

J. Kwan: On those applications and the approvals that are coming through this approval process at rapid speed, are there any issues around quality control? Or does that all fall within WLAP, and they would have to be responsible for checking on the issue of quality?

Hon. S. Hagen: Yes, the responsibility for quality is Water, Land and Air Protection.

I want to add a number on the land applications through the streamlined process we've set up. Of the applications we have caught up with and processed to date, 60 percent have been approved and 40 percent have not been approved.

J. Kwan: On the issue around water tenure, the quality issues fall within WLAP. I assume that to date there are no issues of quality that have surfaced on all these applications.

Hon. S. Hagen: The responsibility for water quality lies with the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection.

J. Kwan: I take it, then, that the minister does not have that answer. I will canvass those questions with the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection.

The independent panel set up by the current government puts forth several key recommendations for drinking water, including the introduction of an amended Drinking Water Protection Act, which the previous government tried to pass. Will the minister be supporting these recommendations?

Hon. S. Hagen: A deputies committee is meeting next week to deal with that report. That report will then come to my cabinet committee for consideration and then go on to cabinet.

J. Kwan: Does the minister have any personal views around these recommendations? When does the minister expect there would be a decision made?

Hon. S. Hagen: This minister supports any initiatives to help improve water quality throughout the province. I would expect that cabinet will be taking a decision in the next several months.

J. Kwan: The review panel also recommends the creation of a single lead agency to integrate the skills, resources and authority of all provincial ministries that have responsibility for drinking water. Will the minister support the creation of such an agency, or will the government not support this recommendation of the review panel?

J. Kwan: I'm just trying to canvass in terms of a sense of where the minister's position is, if he has any, around this issue. One would assume that the minister does have a personal view of this issue. I'm just trying to get information on that.

Relating to Land and Water B.C., what are the specific methods the minister will use to ensure that Water, Land and Air Protection and the LWBC will coordinate their efforts to protect the environment?

Hon. S. Hagen: There's a very tight working relationship between Land and Water British Columbia and the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management. The CEO of Land and Water British Columbia is a member of the management team of SRM, and there's a very close working relationship to make sure things happen correctly.

J. Kwan: Then I take it the executive management team meets regularly, and they discuss these issues and coordinate. That's how it was done previously.

Hon. S. Hagen: Yes, that's true. I forgot to mention that my deputy minister is the chairman of the board of Land and Water British Columbia.

Hon. S. Hagen: Yes, through the deputies committee, and they meet regularly.

J. Kwan: Are the guidelines for coordination of protection ready, and if not, what is being done in the interim?

Hon. S. Hagen: For the sixteenth time, the responsibility for water quality lies with the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection.

J. Kwan: Well, hon. Chair, if I get the answers I'm seeking, then I wouldn't be asking the questions again. I often don't get those answers, so I have to canvass as broadly as I can in as many different ways as I can in order to get at the truth.

On the question around guidelines for coordination and protection, given that the minister is saying that quality issues, quality control — and it sounds to me like all quality control issues — rest with the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection…. I assume that's correct. The minister can correct me.

I assume the minister is also involved in the process of working with other ministries around these issues. We just heard earlier that there is the deputy ministers meeting. The executive officers within his branch come together and coordinate. Surely there is some inkling from this ministry in terms of when this material will be ready?

Hon. S. Hagen: The responsibility for water quality falls within the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection and the Ministry of Health.

J. Kwan: So this ministry has nothing whatsoever to do with this issue, and the deputies are not involved whatsoever with the other two branches within government.

Hon. S. Hagen: As I mentioned previously, the deputies meet on this issue as a group, chaired by the deputy of Water, Land and Air Protection.

J. Kwan: So they meet, but they have nothing to do with it because it is the other ministries' responsibility. Quite frankly, to me it just doesn't seem to match up. If this ministry does have some role to play, I don't know why the minister just won't tell this House what that role is. Clearly, there's some input from this ministry in terms of their participation in driving the time lines around that. It seems to me that the minister is either refusing to answer that question, for some strange reason, or he's simply acknowledging that the deputies participate but they have nothing at all to do with that issue.

I take from the minister's silence that his ministry has nothing to do with that issue at all and that it rests entirely with WLAP. I will be sure to point that out to the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection and canvass those questions with her at that time. I have to ask: why does the minister bother sending his deputy to these meetings when they have no role to play?

J. Kwan: What will the penalties be for tenure holders if they cause environmental degradation?

Hon. S. Hagen: That falls under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection.

J. Kwan: Is it also WLAP that will monitor the tenures to ensure that they're living up to any conditions set on them?

Hon. S. Hagen: On the environmental side of that issue, that's done by Water, Land and Air Protection.

Hon. S. Hagen: Land and Water British Columbia is responsible for boundaries and physical issues like that sort of thing.

J. Kwan: If there are violations on boundaries, then is it this ministry that would take responsibility? If it's the issues around environmental degradation, the violations of any conditions related to that, are the penalties dealt with by WLAP and is the coordination and protection dealt with by WLAP?

I see the minister nodding. I take it that basically all responsibility — not just in relation to the area of water, I can assume from the minister — around quality control, environmental preservation, environmental integrity, environmental sustainability…. All of those enforcement monitoring and penalty roles fall within WLAP. If that's the case, it would save me a whole lot of questions in the other areas.

Hon. S. Hagen: You're almost right; you're 99 percent right. There are cases where the Ministry of Forests may be involved from an enforcement point of view, as well, depending on whether or not it's dealing with forestry, but primarily it's Water, Land and Air Protection.

J. Kwan: But this ministry has no involvement in all of those areas I mentioned.

I see the minister shaking his head, so I see that as a confirmation that this ministry has no role to play in terms of coordination, protection, penalties and monitoring.

Okay. How many staff are being assigned to the monitoring side that this ministry has responsibility for in the regions — in the north, in the Kootenays, in the Interior? With the budget cuts and the downsizing, would that impact the ministry's ability to properly carry out this function?

Hon. S. Hagen: We don't have an exact number on that, because the people we have in the field and in Victoria are multi-tasked people. They do various jobs as far as their job responsibilities are concerned.

J. Kwan: Could the minister attempt to narrow down, I guess, tasks that are assigned to staff around this area? He doesn't have to give me the answer today. He can provide that answer to me with the other materials.

What about the outstanding issues of untenured commercial activities on Crown land? How many staff are allocated to bring them into compliance so the public can be confident that back-country recreational and wildlife habitat values aren't being degraded through overuse because we don't know who is using it and how often and what activities are going on right now?

Hon. S. Hagen: Again, we're dealing with people who are multi-tasked. However, I'm informed that we have inherited a huge mess in this problem that wasn't being looked after before. We'll be spending the next few months developing a process to deal with the issue, because it's a huge issue. That, of course, is future policy.

J. Kwan: I know the members from the government benches like to blame everything on the previous government. Well, this is the new era. This is the new government. They said they were going to address these issues. Is there any plan at all being put in place right now by this government to address these issues? The minister says that some work will be done in six months' time. Has nothing been done in the last nine months?

Hon. S. Hagen: Part of the mess we inherited was the backlog that I talked about before, over 900 applications for Crown land use that had been sitting on the minister's desk maybe — I don't know, somebody's desk — for over a year. There were 2,000 applications for water use sitting around that were not attended to for well over a year. That, of course, has been our priority. The staff have done a great job in dealing with that.

As I mentioned in a previous answer, we will be putting together a strategy over the next couple of months to deal with the issue we were talking about.

J. Kwan: On the outstanding issues around untenured commercial activities on Crown land, right now there are no plans in place to address that. In the next few months or so there will be some committee or some group coming together to begin looking at some of these issues. That's my understanding of the minister's answer.

How many staff are being allocated to address this issue? Is the minister planning on allocating any staff? Maybe that's not going to take place until the strategy's in place two or three months from now.

Hon. S. Hagen: As I mentioned before, these are multi-tasked people. We have very, very capable staff in a number of areas. We will be putting together the people we need to address this issue of trespass, which was not addressed by the previous government.

J. Kwan: Will the minister provide the staffing level that's going to be dedicated to this area of work?

J. Kwan: I just want to go back to the issue of quality. The minister said he has no role to play around the issue of quality on the issuance of land and water tenures. What about follow-up on applications? Is there no follow-up from this ministry on these applications? Is all of that being dealt with through WLAP? I just want to make sure about follow-up on applications and the like. Does that come to this ministry or to WLAP?

Hon. S. Hagen: I have to ask the member to explain her statement. Are you talking about the environmental issues that might arise?

J. Kwan: I am talking about quality control issues — for example, when it comes to water. If there's a follow-up on the application, I assume the follow-up is dealt with through this ministry. Or is it dealt with through WLAP?

Hon. S. Hagen: Quality issues with regard to water are dealt with by the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection and the Ministry of Health.

J. Kwan: So the minister is washing his hands of all quality issues. I just wanted to make sure the minister's got this right. I want to give him every chance to make sure that is on record and that is his statement. Okay.

Moving on to community impacts. There have been many occasions that this government has pledged it wants more regions to be responsible and accountable. The government has moved in that direction in a number of different areas around off-loading responsibilities into the regions. Education is one of them. We see that in a variety of different areas. The ministry has done so with the Land Reserve Commission, which it plans to restructure to a regional authority as well.

The guiding principles in this service plan are public and client consultation, which state that the ministry will provide opportunities to contribute to decision-making and improvement of service quality. I guess I have to ask this question around regional responsibilities. What are the four community resource boards that will no longer receive funding after March 2002? How does this improve efforts at regional responsibility, consultation and service?

Hon. S. Hagen: There were two on Vancouver Island, one in the Cariboo and one in Kamloops.

I think the member opposite was also putting words in my mouth and calling it regional responsibility. What we have said is that we would make the for-

J. Kwan: How could the elimination of these four community resource boards make it more regionally responsive from this government's perspective?

Hon. S. Hagen: We didn't cancel the groups; we cancelled the funding. The groups are carrying on with people who live and work in the regions, and they still provide us, I guess, with some information. They do help, I guess, with the land use planning process.

J. Kwan: These groups have no funding from the ministry. The ministry is cancelling their funding after March 2002, and yet they're carrying on the work. Is that what the minister is saying — that they're carrying on the work?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm told that as we get the plans ready, we submit the plans to them for feedback, and they provide feedback on the plans.

J. Kwan: In spite of the fact that they will lose their funding, the four community resource boards will continue, then, to do the work the ministry's asking them to do.

Hon. S. Hagen: Yes, I'm pleased to say they have chosen to do that, and they are willing to do that.

J. Kwan: What about the Muskwa-Kechika management area? The government's July 30, 2001, economic and fiscal update outlined that $1 million had been set aside to increase contributions to this trust fund. Is this still continuing?

Hon. S. Hagen: We have provided funding for the Muskwa-Kechika of $1 million. Then we've challenged them and given them an offer that we will match funding up to an additional $1 million if they match it with funding. They have the potential of having $3 million.

Hon. S. Hagen: Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's a pleasure to see you back. We're having a delightful discussion here, and I know that you will enjoy the remainder of the day.

This is an annual budget, so we're going to do this annually for them. The matching runs out March 31 for this year but starts again next year for the following year. They have to raise those funds annually year by year.

J. Kwan: They have to match the funds in order to get the $1 million from the province. Is that right? Is that commitment of the matching funds an annual event over the next three years?

Hon. S. Hagen: Let me just go through it again. They have a budget from us of $1 million for this fiscal year. They have an opportunity for a second $1 million from us if they match it with $1 million. If they happen to raise $500,000, we'll match the $500,000. It's done year by year.

J. Kwan: I see. The matching increase is up to $1 million. If they raise more than $1 million, they would not have a greater amount of matching dollars from the province. The maximum is $1 million, no more. Okay.

Does the minister have any partnerships in mind? Is the ministry assisting the groups who look for partnerships in terms of trying to raise the funds to match the province's $1 million?

Hon. S. Hagen: The ability and the opportunity for matching funds primarily, I think, exists with U.S. foundations who have taken an interest in the Muskwa-Kechika area, so I would expect that the opportunities lie with those U.S. foundations.

J. Kwan: What is the current funding scheme for the Muskwa-Kechika trust fund now? Is this new plan a reduction in funding?

Hon. S. Hagen: The budget they had in this fiscal year was $3 million, so we're giving them the opportunity to maintain their funding as long as they get the matching money. This, by the way, was approved by their board at their last meeting.

J. Kwan: Previously, the funding was such that they would be granted $3 million in the trust fund, but now under this new scheme they would only be able to access that $3 million from the provincial government if they were able to match it. The minister advises the House that their board approved it. Is it the minister's anticipation that the group will be able to raise the funds to match?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm told that the board is putting together a business plan. They have three sources of funding. I mentioned the U.S. foundations. There's also the northern guides association and industry. I understand the board feels very confident that they will

J. Kwan: The minister said a thousand, but I think he meant a million. Yeah. Thank you.

I'm sorry — I'm skipping places at the moment. I forgot to ask a question around Land and Water British Columbia and the consultation around that area. The service plan for this agency states that it will put more emphasis on consultation with first nations. What will this consultation look like? Will first nations groups be at the table on the water and land allocation decisions?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm very pleased to say that both Land and Water British Columbia and the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management are establishing very new and positive relationships with first nations around the province. There is a referral process with Land and Water British Columbia — 45 days to get a response back from first nations people. In some cases, if there's a concern raised by the first nations that they need more time to consult or that they want to refer it to their elders, we work with them on that and give them that time.

J. Kwan: The minister is committing that he would consult with first nations, and that's been clearly established under the Delgamuukw case, amongst other cases. I'm glad to hear that. There is a time line of 45 days to ensure that there is a response back. What happens when decisions come back and there's, perhaps, a disagreement between the two sides, between the first nations and the ministry? What happens in that scenario?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm advised by staff that this happens very infrequently. As a matter of fact, I'm told that it's happened twice in the last five years. The reason it's infrequent is that there's a lot of actual consultation that goes on. There's work done between the staff and the first nations to ensure that their concerns are dealt with.

J. Kwan: Is there a mechanism in place for when conflicts do arise, even though situations rarely arise? What mechanisms are in place to address that?

Hon. S. Hagen: The mechanism is the consultation process. It seems to be working, because we haven't had to deal with that issue.

J. Kwan: But when it does happen…. I understand that the mechanism, the approach, is to try and avoid that, but from time to time, inevitably perhaps, these incidences occur. I'm just wondering if there's some procedure the ministry would follow in the event that it does occur. I hope it doesn't occur. I hope that consultation, as it has been proving in the last five years, doesn't always necessitate that, but from time to time it may. I'm just wondering what process the ministry has in place.

Hon. S. Hagen: The consultation process is working. We haven't had a situation like this to deal with, so we're going to stay with the consultation process that works.

J. Kwan: Then I take it there isn't a plan in place should there be a conflict. I've asked the minister this question a number of times, and the minister has not been able to provide the plan that the ministry may have in order to deal with potential conflicts.

I understand that when we deal with issues, if the consultation works, then yes, there would be no conflict, but in the last five years, even though an extensive consultation process has been used, there have been conflicts on a couple of occasions. When that happens, what happens?

I take it from the minister's answer that there isn't any plan to deal with that.

Are the first nations groups at the table on water and land allocation decisions?

Hon. S. Hagen: I've just been informed that new consultation guidelines are going to be released in about a month. We will be pleased to provide those to you.

The other thing I want to add is that Land and Water British Columbia, as well as Sustainable Resource Management, works very closely with the treaty negotiations office to make sure we're not getting into the treaty process. We're quite separate from the treaty negotiations process, but we do work very closely with the TNO office to make sure that what we're doing is correct.

J. Kwan: The minister hasn't answered the question around whether first nations groups will be at the table on water and land allocation decisions. Will they or won't they?

Hon. S. Hagen: There is no table in our ministry dealing with the first nations issue. However, when first nations are dealing on the land and water issue related to treaties, then, of course, they're at the treaty table, which is separate and distinct from the work that my ministry does.

J. Kwan: When applications come through to this ministry for water and land allocation tenure decisions not related to treaty, do the first nations people have a decision-making role with respect to these applications?

Hon. S. Hagen: Our objective is to work closely with first nations on all the issues, whether it's land,

water, shellfish or other things so that we don't get into the conflicts that have arisen in the past.

J. Kwan: My question to the minister was: will the first nations groups be at the table on water and land allocation decisions that are not treaty-related?

Hon. S. Hagen: The answer to that question is that they are involved through the consultative role which they and other people have in inputting to the decision.

J. Kwan: I don't know why the minister does not just come right out and say: "No, they don't have a decision-making role. We consult them, but they don't have a decision-making role." Why doesn't he just come out and say that? Instead, he goes around and around without answering the question. I just fail to understand why this minister refuses to be forthcoming, Madam Chair.

In terms of the legal obligations of Land and Water B.C., will this minister commit that they would abide by the legal obligations that have been established in relation to the first nations community and the first peoples of B.C.?

Hon. S. Hagen: Well, I would think the answer to that would be obvious. I'm a minister of the Crown. Obviously, I'm going to obey the law.

J. Kwan: Quite frankly, with a lot of these questions I've asked, nothing from this minister to date has been obvious. I have to ask these questions and put it on record, so that it is on record, to understand where this minister is going with some of his areas of responsibility and the decisions he is making on behalf of all British Columbians

The service plan for the environmental assessment office states: "Environmental assessment is a process for identifying, predicting, evaluating and mitigating potentially adverse impacts of major projects." Is this what the minister is 100 percent committed to?

J. Kwan: I see there is new staff that has joined the minister. Would he have the courtesy to introduce her to the members of this House?

J. Kwan: The service plan states that the environmental assessment will serve the public interest by ensuring that major projects will not threaten public health or safety or affect local communities and the environment. Is this a guarantee by the minister?

Hon. S. Hagen: Yes. I'm confident that all of these values are taken into consideration when projects are approved. They're noted in the business plan here under "Strategic Context."

J. Kwan: What about the major reform to the environmental assessment process that this service plan announces? Will this new process continue to protect the health of the communities and the ecosystems?

Hon. S. Hagen: Yes, the new process that is being developed will maintain the same high standards as the process that is now in existence.

Hon. S. Hagen: What determines whether something goes into the process or not is the amount of production, the length of pipelines, megawatts. These are all outlined in the act and regulations.

J. Kwan: Which projects will be exempt from the process under these changes?

Hon. S. Hagen: The new process is not completed, but it's being designed to be more flexible and less prescriptive.

J. Kwan: Does that mean the minister does not know now which projects will become exempt from this process under the proposed changes? What are the proposed changes, and how will they affect current practices?

Hon. S. Hagen: The same types of projects that are being reviewed today will be reviewed under the new process.

J. Kwan: I asked what projects would be exempted from this process. Is the minister saying there are no projects that would be exempted from this process?

Hon. S. Hagen: The same projects that are captured by the act now will be captured by the changed act.

J. Kwan: So there would be no change in terms of which projects would come under this changed process in spite of the major reform to the environmental assessment process that has been announced in the service plan. I'm glad to hear that. Then what are the proposed changes to the environmental assessment process?

J. Kwan: So there are some things that would be exempted from this process. The minister earlier said there weren't any.

Hon. S. Hagen: What I said was that projects that are now going through the process will go through the process in the future, so the types of projects, I don't think, will change.

J. Kwan: New projects that come to the table in the future, in an instance, let's say, of mineral refining, which may come into the process…. That may be exempt. What other areas would be exempt?

Hon. S. Hagen: We are getting into future policy here, but I just want to repeat that the types of projects that currently go through the EA process are the same types of projects that will continue to go through the EA process.

J. Kwan: Will forestry, oil and gas, and mining be subject to the new assessment process?

Hon. S. Hagen: Forestry is exempt now and will be exempt in the future, except for pulp mills, which will come under the review. Mining and energy projects will continue to come under the review.

J. Kwan: On the major reform to the environmental assessment process, who would be consulted and who has been consulted? Could the minister please advise?

Hon. S. Hagen: There is a committee in place, which has had two meetings so far to discuss these changes. The committee is made up of five environmentalists representing environmental organizations, one from labour, one from the UBCM and four from business. There's also a first nations group in place being consulted.

J. Kwan: With the threshold for review of the Environmental Assessment Act, is it anticipated by the ministry that more projects or less will be reviewed under this change?

Hon. S. Hagen: I would love to say that because of the new government in British Columbia and increased investment, hopefully there will be a whole bunch of new projects coming in that this agency will be looking at. I believe that will happen.

You asked if there would be more or less. Of course, we're hoping there will be twice or three times as many. One of the changes being contemplated is that projects that wouldn't fall into the category of having to go through this process under the old system could opt into the process if they wanted to.

What we're finding is that a lot of these projects want to go through the process so they can say to their investors and to offshore customers, "We went through this environmental assessment process on our own accord," which then makes it easier for them to get their financing and also their markets.

J. Kwan: If there are more applications that come in, then clearly, I suppose, the number of projects would increase. Let's say the same number of applications came in or that the application actually had an increase. Is it the minister's anticipation, on the basis of the criteria that would be applied for assessment, that this would not result in reducing the number of categories of projects that would come under review?

Hon. S. Hagen: The types of projects that are currently being reviewed in the EA process will remain and be reviewed in the new process.

J. Kwan: How is graphite being reviewed now under the current process and, I assume, then in the new process? I heard from the minister that there would be no change in the categories, so graphite would still fall under the review of the new process.

Hon. S. Hagen: Interesting question. Graphite is apparently covered under the regulations and is currently reviewable. With regard to the new regulations, we haven't done them yet.

J. Kwan: Are there different categories that graphite could be put under for review, or is it just one thing? I actually don't know this. I'm sort of just using it as an example.

J. Kwan: Does the minister mean he doesn't know the answer and he will get the answer, or is he refusing to answer? Please advise.

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm pleased to advise that we'll be pleased to send the graphite regulations to the hon. member.

J. Kwan: Okay. On the basis of those regulations, there are no changes to the regulations. The minister is not anticipating any changes in that area with the new assessment process.

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm advised that there may be some changes to the regulations, but we don't know that yet. However, the major projects that are being examined now will be examined in the future.

J. Kwan: New applications that come in may then have a different process that they follow.

J. Kwan: The service plan states that one of the environmental assessment office's goals is efficient and effective delivery of environmental assessment. How much is the environmental assessment office's budget being slashed?

Hon. S. Hagen: The budget is being reduced by 10 percent in this coming year.

J. Kwan: Does the minister have any concerns around the reduction of the budget for the environmental assessment office, especially in relation to their ability to carry out meaningful assessments with this reduction?

J. Kwan: I'm not challenging the competence of the staff, as I mentioned earlier in this set of estimates. What I worry about is that when reductions do take place within ministry offices, it's not the competence that's put into question. It's the pressure of the lack of resources that's put into question, therefore compromising the work of that office. But I get assurance from the minister that he is not worried about it, and he is fully satisfied that in spite of the reduction, the office will be able to maintain its work.

What about FTEs? The service plan says that by '04-05 there will be 27 FTEs left out of the 43. Can the minister also rise and give this House his guarantee of effective and efficient assessment under such circumstances?

J. Kwan: What about threatened and endangered species? For example, Land and Water B.C.'s predecessor, BCAL, issued a controversial heli-ski tenure recently northeast of Williams Lake, adjacent to the Cariboo Mountains Provincial Park, in critical mountain caribou habitat. Caribou, of course, is a threatened species. Various ministries have been working for years to prepare and implement a recovery plan for this particular population. How does the LWBC plan to deal with such issues?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm pleased to read into the record for the second time the example that I read in yesterday. Land and Water B.C. awarded a heli-ski tenure to a company near Williams Lake.

Hon. S. Hagen: WLAP is involved in the assessment that takes place through the life of this tenure. There's no enforcement necessary until the rules are broken.

Hon. S. Hagen: For the third time I'll read into the record: "The tenure will be monitored by Water, Land and Air Protection staff and subject to a tenure review committee, including representatives of the local first nations, guide-outfitters, tourism and environment associations. If the operation is shown to have negative impacts on wildlife, the tenure can be modified or cancelled."

J. Kwan: Then it is WLAP that monitors. I asked that question earlier, and the minister implied that perhaps not. We've been going back and forth on the issue

around enforcement and monitoring on a variety of issues. Time and again I wanted to make sure the minister had the opportunity to state clearly whose role it is and who's responsible for monitoring, enforcement, enacting the enforcement, the penalties and so on. The minister has said it is WLAP. Every now and again, though, I sense the minister is shrinking away from that. I want to give ample opportunity to this minister to ensure that he is clearly on record around this issue.

J. Kwan: The members may want to make light of this very serious issue. It goes, I think, to the heart of what many British Columbians care about, and that is the integrity of our environment for future generations.

Earlier we canvassed the issue around what is the traditional definition that the minister will be using around sustainable development. You know what? He keeps on saying it is going to be a balance. I continue to fear and worry that under the name of balance, with this minister and this government's agenda on driving the bottom line — which is the dollar bottom line, not the environmental protection or integrity bottom line — it puts us at risk. I want to make sure the minister is on record around areas of responsibility and that if he wants to indicate otherwise, he has ample opportunity to do so.

With the regional cuts, how many staff will there be in the regions to work on these kinds of matters?

Hon. S. Hagen: We don't have the breakdown regionally with us, but we will commit to get that to you.

J. Kwan: Has Land and Water B.C. made a commitment to best management practices? If so, could the minister explain what is meant by that term?

Hon. S. Hagen: The answer is yes. We are committed to that. We're developing those through consultation with the stakeholder groups we work with.

J. Kwan: Time line on this work? Who are you consulting with on this work? How will the best management practices be established?

Hon. S. Hagen: The process of developing this, of course, is evolutionary, but the key area we're working on right now is commercial recreation. We're dealing with all the stakeholder groups involved with commercial recreation, which would include environmental organizations as well as user groups, communities and resource industries.

J. Kwan: A question on the time line, and will the minister provide the list of groups he's consulting with?

Hon. S. Hagen: There is no time line. This is a process that is evolutionary. We continue to work regionally in areas of the province because one size doesn't necessarily fit all, and we continue to work with the stakeholder groups to make sure we're moving in sequence and we're moving towards resolution. This is an ongoing process.

J. Kwan: At what point will there be a set of best management practices available for the public to look at? I understand the notion around evolution, but at some point I suppose there would be something concrete that people can look at and say: "Oh, okay, these are the best management practices." Or maybe it's forever evolutionary and nobody can ever see what those practices might be, which begs the question: why would you establish best management practices that nobody can put their finger on?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'd be pleased to provide to the member opposite the principles as we now have them. I'm sure they'll be on our website as we develop them. This is an open process. We're dealing with the public.

J. Kwan: Thank you for the offer to provide that information. On the issue around consultation?

J. Kwan: What if industry best management practices conflict with various scientific reports made by the WLAP biologists or other scientists? In that instance, what happens with these kinds of conflicts?

Hon. S. Hagen: That's why this ministry was created. We bring the parties together, and we try and sort out the differences.

J. Kwan: Since the government has committed to science-based decision-making, what processes are in place? Are there any processes in place to resolve the conflicts between best management practices and scientific data? They're not always the same. The two perspectives are not always the same. Is there a process in place now within the ministry that aims at resolving these kinds of conflicts?

Hon. S. Hagen: That question is what created the example I used with regard to the heliskiing tenure. By bringing people to the table, we brought agreement on the process of monitoring, which, I will repeat, is that the tenure will be monitored by Water, Land and Air Protection staff and 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 effects on wildlife, the tenure can be modified or cancelled.

J. Kwan: So in every instance where there's conflict, the group the minister had expressed would be the group that would be involved in resolving conflicts?

Hon. S. Hagen: Either a group like this or a similar group, yes, depending on the circumstance.

J. Kwan: In the '02-03 service plan for the ministry there is a point under goal 1 which states that the ministry will: "…move to an improved regulatory framework that uses performance- based standards." Could the minister provide some clarity about what performance-based standards are and how they will be implemented?

Hon. S. Hagen: Those standards are currently being worked on by the ministries involved.

J. Kwan: Again, then, what is the anticipated time line for this work to be completed? Who is the minister talking to in coming up with the performance-based standards? How big a role would the industry and private sector play in the performance-based standards?

Hon. S. Hagen: This is being dealt with through my deputy and through the deputy's committee and is going hand in hand with the development of the sustainability principles that we will be unveiling to the public shortly. The deputies of the various ministries involved are working on this. They have done consultations with outside stakeholders and will continue to do that.

J. Kwan: When does the minister expect this work to be done ( the time line? And the consultation question: whom is he consulting with and would he provide information on that?

Hon. S. Hagen: The sustainability principles and the performance-based standards will be unveiled at a governance on sustainability conference, which is being held May 13-14 of this year. Then they'll be revealed again jointly in January 2003 with the Fraser Basin Council.

J. Kwan: I'll ask the question again: whom has the minister consulted with today and will he provide that information?

J. Kwan: Could the minister please advise how big a role industry and the private sector are playing in the establishment of performance-based standards?

Hon. S. Hagen: Industry and business are playing a key role in the development of these, as are first nations and the environmental community.

J. Kwan: How much would it cost industry to come up with action plans to accommodate the performance-based standards? Will they have to hire professional biologists, foresters and other scientists?

Hon. S. Hagen: We don't know the answers to that question right now, because we're still working on the principles and the Forest Practices Code. All of those things are being worked on, but they're not finished.

J. Kwan: Is it anticipated by this minister that the industry would have to assume this responsibility in ensuring the standards are met? By doing that, they would actually have to hire professionals, whether they be biologists or what not in this area.

J. Kwan: In fact, who will monitor the performance-based standards that have been established and are being monitored in some cases by the industry? Who will double-check on that, if you will? Is that WLAP?

Hon. S. Hagen: In the case of the Forest Practices Code, it would be Forestry. In the other instances, it would be Water, Land and Air Protection.

J. Kwan: Can the minister guarantee that these performance-based standards will maintain the current level of protection for the environment as a minimum?

J. Kwan: Is the minister giving his personal guarantee on this issue as well?

Hon. S. Hagen: That's fundamental to everything we're doing with performance-based standards and changing the way things are done in British Columbia. It's absolutely fundamental.

J. Kwan: Would it be the WLAP ministry's responsibility to ensure that the private sector will hold themselves accountable within the standards that have been established?

J. Kwan: Would it be WLAP and Forests who would impose penalties if they're not followed through? Would it come to a place where, as an example, the application that has been granted by this ministry could be withdrawn because of violations?

J. Kwan: These are all the questions I have for the minister for now. If I have other questions, I certainly will be forwarding them to the minister. I appreciate all of the minister's staff in assisting and providing the answers to these questions.

I know there have been times where I've asked a question over and again because of the importance of these issues. As I said earlier, I wanted to give the minister the full opportunity to be on record in case…. If he changes his mind, he'll have the full opportunity to do that also.

I appreciate the minister's participation in the estimate process, and I look forward to receiving all of the information we have requested during this session.

Hon. G. Bruce: I am pleased to be introducing the 2002-03 budget estimates for the Ministry of Skills Development and Labour. I'd like to introduce my staff who are here to assist me: my deputy minister, Lee Doney; Maureen Nichols, who's the chair of the Workers Compensation Board; Jan Rossley, my director of policy; and Bruce Smith from our financial services group.

Our ministry's mission is to create an employment environment that meets the needs of workers, employers and unions; to ensure that British Columbians work in a safe and healthy workplace; and to develop programs that contribute to provincial competitiveness and prosperity, without which the system is not sustainable.

Since I became minister, we have met all of our new-era 90-day commitments, and in the upcoming fiscal year we will continue to work on outstanding commitments dealing with employment standards, workers compensation and labour relations. These shifts we are contemplating will lead to a modern work environment for British Columbians, one that encourages innovation and increases flexibility and productivity. In 2002 and 2003 the ministry will operate with a total budget of $28.7 million and 476 FTEs, full-time-equivalent employees. This is a 60-FTE reduction from '01-02.

In the area of employment standards, the employment standards branch is being reorganized. This means the branch will be able to meet its three-year budget targets and will bring in new, more focused and more flexible service delivery mechanisms that will come into effect through legislation later this year. Our target for completing the branch reorganization is December 31, 2002.

The workers compensation system is also under review, and we are committed to making the changes that are needed to improve the board, cut its red tape, reduce its backlogs and make it more user-friendly to both workers and employers. The reviews being undertaken by Allan Hunt and Allan Winter will be finished this month. They will include the following: a clarification of the board's mandate…. They will deal with urgent items needed to make sure the system is sustainable and in line with our other jurisdictions. Our aim is to make it affordable, high-quality service and have it restore public confidence in the system and make it competitive with other, similar agencies across Canada.

The last of our three key areas is labour relations. Here, under the government's strategic plan, I've been charged with the responsibility for developing a program for reforming labour-management relations in this great province of British Columbia. We are seeking public and stakeholders' input on this challenge. An initial discussion paper has been circulated within the labour relations community, and soon we will be seeking wider public input to encourage discussion and help us focus on areas that need to be looked at in detail.

Hon. R. Thorpe: First of all, I'm pleased to have with me today my deputy minister, Mr. Don Leitch, on my right, and assistant deputy minister and chief financial officer of the ministry, Doug Callbeck.

Also, hon. Chair, before I make a few comments, I would just like to say for the record that although only Don and Doug are with me here today, we've had tremendous support from all of our staff in the ministry and the Crown corporations that we work with in going through quite a dramatic exercise in developing a multi-year business plan and service plan. Looking to

the future, I would be very, very remiss if I did not thank each and every one of those employees in the ministries and the Crowns that we are responsible for, for their tremendous personal efforts. I thank them very much on behalf of our government.

The vision of our ministry is to echo two key elements of the government's vision statement. The first one is a thriving private sector economy that creates high-paying job opportunities and has the fastest growing technology industry in Canada.

Our ministry will focus on three areas. Firstly, competition. We will ensure that British Columbia has the most attractive investment climate in North America. With respect to science, we are going to encourage a culture of innovation in the development and transfer of new knowledge, benefiting individuals, businesses and communities. With respect to enterprise, we're going to promote economic growth by aggressively pursuing increased marketing of British Columbia that results in the growth of investment and trade.

Our ministry is focused on establishing and expanding partnerships with entrepreneurs, businesses and organizations throughout British Columbia in order to build a strong, private sector–driven economy, foster a culture of innovation for science and technology and develop national and international investment and trade relations.

We are the advocates within government for entrepreneurs in business and marketers of our competitive economic climate to national and international investors in the global marketplace. Our ministry believes in customer service. We will be a results-driven organization that measures its performance both at the global and individual level.

We have a number of goals in our ministry. The first one is to establish a competitive investment climate. Our second goal is to promote economic growth, and our third goal is innovation in science and technology transfer. I would encourage not only members of this House but all British Columbians to visit our website and to review our service plans. We have established performance targets for each of the next three years, and we are going to achieve each and every one of those measurements.

I would also like to say that I am very, very pleased to have working with me the Minister of State for Deregulation and the government's major regulatory reform package. This is a very thoughtful, disciplined, focused approach. We have in British Columbia today in excess of 404,000 regulations. We have set targets for reducing red tape in British Columbia. Our target for the first year is 12 percent. Our second year is 15 percent, and our third year is 6 percent.

I ask all British Columbians to join together with us in removing red tape that is causing and has caused businesses to leave the province and has strangled their growth. This is a team effort, and we are going to require all British Columbians, all entrepreneurs, all small business operators and all members of this House to assist us in achieving these goals.

With respect to the Crown corporations, we are focusing our attention on the PNE. We have a commitment, and we are working towards the commitment, of transferring that responsibility to the city of Vancouver. We are going to achieve that in the coming year.

We are currently finalizing, as a result of our core services review, our strategic thrust with respect to Pavco.

I might add that yesterday we entered into discussions with the city of Abbotsford, with the mayor. I was very pleased to have the two Abbotsford members work with me and make the contacts. Our officials are now going to be working on seeing if it's possible to transfer the Tradex facility to the city of Abbotsford.

We are currently working and awaiting the core services review of the LDB, the liquor distribution branch, which is scheduled for the coming weeks.

Finally, within the ministry we are looking and searching through and will be moving forward in the next month or so with our plans to reorganize and reposition the Science Council and its longer term goals and expectations from government's perspective.

I also want to say that one of our key thrusts is the tourism industry of British Columbia. Last week I attended the ninth annual tourism convention for British Columbia, a conference that had its largest turnout in its nine-year history. I was pleased to see that the Premier, the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management and caucus members were there.

It is an exciting time in British Columbia's tourism industry. We are working with the industry to develop a multi-year strategic plan with the goal of doubling the industry in the coming five years.

In addition, we are meeting and have met with the film industry, a very, very important industry in British Columbia. We had a summit in the fall of last year. We are expecting a plan from them in the coming weeks which will outline their views on how we can work together in an effort to double the film industry in British Columbia in the coming three years.

Another major initiative for our ministry in the coming year is the branding of British Columbia. We have been charged with the responsibility of working on behalf of a number of ministries to develop an overriding umbrella, an overarching program, that positions British Columbia in a number of fronts — and how we weave all of those things together in a branding exercise. They are (1) that British Columbia is once again open for business, (2) from a tourism point of view, (3) from a gas and oil development point of view, (4) from a high-tech point of view and (5) from an environmental record second to none in the world.

I'm very, very pleased to advise that we are receiving assistance and working together with the government of Canada, who met recently with our officials. We're very hopeful that we will be able to work to-

gether with the federal government in developing these programs in the coming months.

I would like to close by saying that with the hard work of all of the folks in our ministry, we accomplished all of our 90-day new-era commitments, and we are on track to achieving all of our commitments with respect to the new era.

I'm proud of our ministry. We will have reduced the staff significantly over the next three years, but everyone is pitching in and is focused on the goals.

I would also be remiss if I did not acknowledge the fine work of my colleague the Minister of State for Deregulation, who unfortunately couldn't be here tonight. He is very focused on achieving his goals. I would be remiss if I did not also recognize another member of my senior staff. The assistant deputy minister Chris Nelson is here, and we want to thank him and his team for all of their hard work.

Those are my opening comments, hon. Chair, and I'd be pleased to take some questions.

R. Lee: I have just a couple of questions. The first one is about science and technology and also telecommunications. I notice that the expense estimate last year was $21 million, and this year it's about $17 million. That seems quite a reduction in terms of funding. I assume that the budget for the Science Council is also inside that budget. I just want to see how much is being spent on the Science Council and how much on other initiatives.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I'd like to thank the member for that question. First of all, there's no question that our spending is being reduced. As the member may know, our government faces a $4.4 billion deficit. We were left a structural deficit by the previous government of $3.8 billion.

For the fiscal year '01-02 we had a total expenditure in science and technology of about $23 million. For the period of '04-05 we will spend $19.5 million. During that period, though, it will dip down to $17.3 million in '02-03, down to $16.1 million in '03-04 and then back up to $19.5 million in '04-05.

We are committed to the science and technology sector and industries in British Columbia. As we reduce some of our expenditures in the corporate services area, we are reinvesting those back into science and technology. It's always tough when you have to make reductions, but we have to make these reductions in the total context of what our goals are.

Our major goal with respect to the Science Council now, as my staff and I are working through a repositioning of the Science Council…. Funding for the coming year has not been finalized because the goals have not been finalized. We will work through that with the Science Council team.

Our focus is going to be: how do we achieve more commercialization for the hundreds of millions of dollars that British Columbia is investing through its advanced education institutions, through our ministry and other ministries, and how do we capitalize that, transfer that knowledge throughout the province to the communities so that we can create jobs? That is our goal. That is our mission, and we're embarking upon it.

R. Lee: The minister mentioned that technology transfer is probably one of the priorities in the coming years. How do you increase that kind of activity in terms of technology transfer to the industries? Do you employ more liaison workers?

Hon. R. Thorpe: First of all, we are going to rely on the very talented people that are in the industry to come forward and work with us. We do not have all of the ideas on how to do that. That's why we're going to work with the universities, the private sector, the venture capital groups and all of the people who have inputs into that. It's going to take a total teamwork approach so that we can achieve and maximize our commercialization of our investments in science and technology.

It's not going to happen overnight. It's going to take some time, but there are some excellent models that we should be looking at. One happens to be Stanford University in California, and there are other good models around the world. That's what we're going to do. I can tell you one thing: when we bring the best and brightest that British Columbia has together and we focus them on the task at hand, we will achieve the results.

R. Lee: Another important industry is the film industry, especially in Burnaby. I'm glad to hear there's a plan to double the output of the industry in the coming years. What kind of concrete plan do you have in order to achieve that goal?

Hon. R. Thorpe: What we're going to do is work with the industry. Our government is going to be driven by the efforts and results of the private sector. Government's responsibility is to create an investment environment, a regulatory environment, where the private sector can excel. That is our role, and we are anxiously awaiting the report from the film, television and new media industries of British Columbia on their thoughts. Because it's their industry, we're asking for their thoughts on how we can double this industry in three years. We are about to receive that in the coming weeks.

We're excited about the future; we're excited about the industry. We believe they're achievable goals.

R. Lee: That actually leads to another question about the training of the people working in that industry. In Burnaby we have some institutes that are excellent in training. They have the expertise and also the facilities to train more film industry workers. Are there any plans to engage in training with the industry — to provide some kind of assistance to the students? Right now, sometimes, students in those industries cannot

Hon. R. Thorpe: Yes, one of the reasons we have a successful film, television and new media industry in British Columbia is because of our skilled workers and our talented folks. Again, government's role is to work with the private sector. The private sector is going to drive the development and the needs. That's why we anxiously await their strategic plan inputs. We expect to receive that in the coming weeks.

S. Orr: This question is actually to do with the film industry. I recognize that the minister has a long history with the film industry and is a big supporter of it. These are three specific questions, and I think it would be better if I gave you the three together, if that's okay with you, minister.

The first one is on B.C. Film. If you could just explain. I'm looking through the estimates, and I see there's a slight reduction, so I'd like to know where B.C. Film stands. I'm also very interested, obviously, in the regional film commissions. Could you explain to me and tell me how the funding is working there? My last question is: could you give some information on animation and new media?

Hon. R. Thorpe: First of all, the B.C. Film Society has been very successful. It's a very well-run organization under the chairmanship of Michael Francis. They have been very creative and innovative and, in my nine months of serving as the minister, excellent to work with. We are actually going to be meeting with the folks from the society in the coming weeks. They have a very important role to play in the development of the industry. We're going to be working closely with them.

With respect to regional film, regional film commissions throughout British Columbia are very important for the communities. They're very important for the industry and the development of the industry. We advanced funds to the regional commissions, I believe, just before or just after Christmas. I understand that's the earliest it's been advanced in recent time. We also have a commitment to have our funding finalized for the coming year by the end of August.

We are going to establish — and my early indications are, through our staff, that the regional film commissions welcome them — performance measures. We are going to be working in that area with them. We're very strong on supporting regional film commissions. The one issue we have to deal with is how many we need in the province. I do not believe that's a hurdle we'll have difficulty getting over.

With respect to new media and animation, on February 19 the finance minister indicated in his budget speech that we will be working with the industry to see what we can do to ensure we are in a competitive position with other jurisdictions. Digital animation is a subject that offers us potential for the future. At the current time we are not tax rate competitive with other jurisdictions. That is an issue that I will be working on with the minister of finance and the industry in the coming months.

H. Bloy: I wanted to thank you for your kind answers in the House earlier today about the high-tech and the biotech industry. It's really reassuring for my community to see all the work you're doing to support industry there.

My one question is on your support of privatization. On that line, I would like to know when the review for the liquor distribution branch will take place.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I know the liquor distribution branch happens to be this member's favourite subject, because he does come, and we do talk about it often.

At the present time, the initial core services review of the liquor distribution branch is scheduled for Monday, March 11. We will go through that review. As often happens at core services review, there will be questions, and there will be adaptations required. Once the core services is finalized, there will be the development of an implementation plan. We would expect to have all of that well underway by the end of April in this coming year.

R. Lee: I have one final question. It's regarding the B.C. Trade and Investment Office. I know there are quite a few overseas offices to promote trade. I see there's a reduction in the budget here. I just want to see if that will affect overseas offices promoting trade.

Hon. R. Thorpe: We had an office in London, and we had an office in Tokyo. Both of those offices are being closed. We will retain a contractual relationship with an individual in Taiwan. It is our view that overseas trade is a responsibility of the federal government. We have had very positive reactions from the federal government. Our staff, led by our assistant deputy minister, Chris Nelson, will work very closely with Canada in developing results-oriented missions on the ground in those markets.

Most importantly, we're going to be very focused. Let me just say we're going to have leading-edge marketing missions to the western United States, Japan and China. We will be very focused. We'll also have some into the eastern United States and some into Europe. We do not believe we need to have expensive overseas offices to accomplish our goals.

R. Lee: My supplementary is about the idea of working together with a consul or an ambassador from Canada to promote B.C. trade. Is that a possibility?

Hon. R. Thorpe: That's exactly what we're doing. We've met with the ambassador from China. We've met with the ambassador from Japan. We are meeting with other ambassadors and other high commissioners to our strategic markets. We also work very, very

closely with our consul general in Seattle, who does a wonderful job for us. We are going to work, through my assistant deputy minister, Chris Nelson, very closely with these overseas officials from the federal government.

Hon. R. Thorpe: Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report resolution and ask leave to sit again.