Hansard -- Volume 5, Number 1 -- Wednesday, March 27, 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		2177

Tributes		2177
	Allan Sheppard B. Belsey

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		2177
	Fisheries Act Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill M201) J. MacPhail

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		2177
	Youth traffic safety V. Roddick Inland ferry service B. Suffredine Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway A. Hamilton

Oral Questions		2178
	Government support for forest workers J. Kwan Hon. M. de Jong J. MacPhail Referendum on treaty negotiations J. Les Hon. G. Plant Reduction of government regulations B. Suffredine Hon. K. Falcon New facility at Riverview Hospital R. Stewart Hon. G. Cheema Conservation officer services in B.C. W. McMahon Hon. J. Murray

Petitions		2181
	Hon. S. Santori J. Nuraney J. Kwan H. Long

Tabling Documents		2181
	Report of the Board of Parole for the province of British Columbia, 2000-01 Criminal Injury Compensation Program Report 2001 Hon. R. Coleman

Point of Privilege		2181
	R. Masi

Second Reading of Bills		2182
	Supply Act (No. 1), 2002 (Bill 13) Hon. G. Collins J. MacPhail

Committee of the Whole House		2183
	Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2002 (Bill 2) J. MacPhail Hon. G. Collins

Report and Third Reading of Bills		2188
	Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2002 (Bill 2)

Committee of Supply		2188
	Estimates: Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services (continued) Hon. G. Abbott J. Kwan J. Bray J. MacPhail Hon. L. Stephens Estimates: Ministry of Advanced Education Hon. S. Bond J. MacPhail P. Bell Estimates: Ministry of Transportation Hon. J. Reid P. Bell D. MacKay J. Les K. Stewart B. Belsey B. Lekstrom B. Bennett Estimates: Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection Hon. J. Murray

	Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		2222
	Estimates: Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries Hon. J. van Dongen J. Kwan J. MacPhail Estimates: Ministry of Attorney General and Ministry Responsible for Treaty Negotiations Hon. G. Plant R. Hawes J. Kwan

Hon. R. Thorpe: I'd ask the House today to welcome Mr. Rick Borotsik seated behind me on the floor. Rick is a Member of Parliament of Canada and represents the constituency of Brandon-Souris. His particular interest is agriculture policy, and I understand he's had a very informative meeting with the Minister of Agriculture here today. Would the House please welcome Rick to our House.

A. Hamilton: It's my pleasure to introduce Shelley Tomlinson, a co-op student with the Esquimalt News. Would the House please make her welcome.

B. Belsey: I'm saddened to report on the passing of a community leader and a friend, Mr. Allan Sheppard. Allan spent all his active years in the fishing industry, in community politics and as a volunteer. The fishing industry is going to remember Allan as a halibut fisherman, an employee of Nelson Bros., a manager of Prince Rupert Cold Storage and an owner of Port Edward Marine.

Politically, Allan will be remembered as a past mayor of Port Edward who served for 20 years. He was chair of the Prince Rupert Port Authority for over five years. As a tireless volunteer, Allan will be remembered for his service with the International Pacific Halibut Commission, the Oldfield Creek Fish Hatchery, the North Pacific Cannery Museum where he was a lifetime member, Prince Rupert Seafood Development Commission, Prince Rupert Port Authority for two years, Prince Rupert Airport Society, secretary of the North Coast Oil and Gas Task Force, Rotary and a life member of Kinsmen. These are but a few of Allan's accomplishments.

But more important than all of that, Allan Sheppard will be remembered for being a grandfather, a father and a husband, and a friend to so many people on the north coast.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, I move that a bill entitled Fisheries Act Amendment Act, 2002 be introduced and read a first time now.

This bill amends the Fisheries Act to prohibit the issuing of a new or the renewal of an existing licence to fish farms unless the minister confirms that the operation is a closed-containment facility, meaning a solid or impermeable wall container which prevents escape of those fish or the transfer of disease, parasite, waste and other pollution into the surrounding marine system.

The bill is not retroactive, in the sense that it doesn't impose the standard of closed-containment upon existing operations. British Columbians understand that a legislative initiative that overrides agreements obtained through the normal course of business is an offence against the principles of fairness and certainty upon which contracts are signed.

A moratorium on licensing fish farms has been in place for much of the last decade. In recent years the science has increasingly supported the principles of caution that motivated the moratorium. Indeed, the evidence is now in that fish escapes from conventional open-pen farming have resulted in colonization by foreign species. Transfer of sea lice from farmed salmon to wild stock is taking place, and viral disease transfer is also taking place. The waste released into the ecosystem by conventional open-pen farming is devastating all adjacent forms of aquatic life.

Debate on this bill cannot proceed in isolation from a strategy to help bridge coastal communities out of the dire economic situation they're in. That was exactly the intent behind the Fisheries Renewal initiative. Closed-containment aquaculture can be a part of that vision for the future. Indeed, here in B.C. we have entrepreneurs who have developed some of the most advanced technology that is competing successfully on the world stage. This bill acknowledges that success and says that British Columbians want to be a part of that vision.

J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M201 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

V. Roddick: The normally happy, carefree atmosphere of our annual spring break was shattered in

Delta last week by the horrific traffic accident that took the lives of four of our young men. I send my deepest condolences to the families of all involved. I'm sure everyone in this House understands that as parents, relatives, friends and community, this is the worst tragedy imaginable: the needless loss of those who are spreading their wings and hoping to fly.

Youthful energy, exuberance, powerful vehicles and a split second of inattention or risk-taking have been taking lives since cars were invented, but our roads are far more crowded than ever before. Drivers now compete with cell phones, pagers, music systems, coffee cups and road rage. We will never eliminate youthful bravado. We cannot remove every hazard in a dangerous world, but we can take further prudent steps to protect young people in a high-risk activity, where the outcome of even a second's inattention can be tragic.

In eight provinces, including B.C., graduated licensing programs have reduced the accident and death rate. Curfew hours, limited number of passengers, zero tolerance for alcohol and large signs displayed for others to see work to protect our new drivers. I urge that we make every phase of our driving licensing program as stringent and comprehensive as necessary, so that our young people can gain the driving experience and the confidence they need in a manner that ensures their safety. Let the legacy of these Ladner teens be a safer world for our precious young drivers.

B. Suffredine: Today I wish to speak about the importance of inland ferries to my riding. These include the Kootenay Lake ferry, Harrop, Galena Bay, Arrow Park and Fauquier. Each is used in a different way and has a unique importance to the community it serves. Just to the west of my riding the Glade ferry is also a fundamental service to people.

Last week I met with people in the riding and representatives of the marine branch about the proposed changes. While each group took different positions about the changes and whether it's fair for them to be assessed operating costs, all shared a request that implementation of changes be delayed to allow people like shift workers to make adjustments and to permit some discussion on alternatives to tolls.

I know that ministry representatives who came into my riding kept their word. They said they would convey requests to the minister, and they did that. I met with the minister on Monday, and she included us as a team and promised to give fair consideration to what people said last week. By Tuesday night she concluded that people needed more time and announced a 45-day delay.

People in the Kootenays have depended on the inland ferry system for decades. In Fauquier they should have a bridge and would not even need a ferry if B.C. Hydro hadn't turned it into a lake. At Galena Bay changing the schedule has to consider chip-truck traffic. In Harrop and Glade the number of households need to be considered. It takes times to adequately deal with the individual community concerns.

This 45-day postponement to consider community interests will help. Reaching a result that will please everyone is unlikely, but this decision will give people affected in my riding the time they need to ensure that legitimate concerns are addressed in a responsible way. We promised a new era of responsible government. Mr. Speaker, listening to people even when tough decisions need to be made is a way that we are keeping that commitment.

A. Hamilton: I rise in the House today to profile a wonderful asset in my riding. It is the E&N Railway. Vancouver Island received it as one of the conditions for our province's entry into Confederation in 1871.

After much political manoeuvring, the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway was begun in 1884, with the link to Nanaimo completed in 1886. Since then, numerous upgrades and expansions of the railway have extended the line to Courtenay and have made it an integral part of life on Vancouver Island. For over a century it has been a vital link for the capital region to the rest of the Island.

Today the railway is an important economic asset attracting tourists to Victoria and the smaller Island communities along the line. These ribbons of steel thread through some of the most beautiful and exquisite scenery in the world. However, over the past decade the rail line has gone through some troubling times, and a number of my constituents have voiced concern about its future. I believe that in recent years the line has not been used to its fullest potential. It certainly has more potential than ski trips and stopping to watch naked bungee jumpers.

Before the train leaves the station, I am jumping on board to discover new ways to revitalize the line and explore the vast tourism opportunities that whisper in its rails. I would like to applaud the tireless efforts of a number of groups dedicated to preserving this landmark, such as the Vancouver Island Railway Society.

I, along with fellow MLAs and the Minister of Transportation, will continue to work with stakeholders and work to preserve this historic and important transportation link.

J. Kwan: To the Forests minister: when can forest workers expect to get their invitation to the Premier's softwood lumber summit, and when those workers arrive at the summit, what concrete action does the minister have to save their jobs?

Hon. M. de Jong: We have, I am pleased to say, commenced a plan of action designed to provide assistance to the people who need it most, which is the workers and their families who are being devastated by this punitive trade sanction. The summit is in the process of being scheduled. In the meantime, we are proceeding with vigour to prosecute our challenges at the WTO and NAFTA. We are in the midst of finalizing a campaign to take this matter to our natural allies in the U.S. — that is, the coalition groups. I am pleased to say that tomorrow there will be an announcement about another feature to this that I think it essential, which is diversification of B.C.'s softwood lumber markets.

The U.S. President may be held hostage to protectionism in his own country. We will not in B.C.

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

J. Kwan: I asked the minister: what concrete plans does he have for the workers at this summit that he will be tabling to discuss with the workers to save their jobs? The minister hasn't answered that question. We know that workers, industry and government have already emerged united to save the work and the jobs for the workers in our community, but there are no plans yet from this government. We want to know whether or not this minister supports a federal assistance package for companies to pay for the duty. Will the minister be advocating on behalf of workers in British Columbia on that package?

Hon. M. de Jong: In case the member didn't hear during the course of the Premier's address to the House a couple of days ago, we have been right up front about stating our belief that the priority needs to be support for workers and their families. This may be a novel thing for the member. I hope it isn't, but it may be.

Actually, when we meet with Mr. Haggard and the IWA, when we announce a consultation meeting of the sort that the summit represents, we actually go there (a) with a number of ideas and (b) with an intention to listen to those people to understand how that support can be best directed. That's what we will do. That's what we intend to do. That's what's going to be done.

J. MacPhail: Well, that's a step backward from Monday. What forest workers and communities that rely on forestry need right now is leadership from both levels of government — the provincial level and the federal level. They need it right now — not a gab about what may happen.

On Monday the opposition wrote to the Natural Resources minister asking him to consider a very concrete proposal to cover the 29 percent duty with repayable loans. We asked this government to support that proposal. That proposal is gaining support in Ottawa, but we need to keep applying pressure here in British Columbia.

I'll ask the Minister of Forests again: does the minister support a plan whereby he joins with the opposition to ask the federal government to cover the cost of the 29 percent duty with repayable loans?

Hon. M. de Jong: Happily, we have been in discussions with Minister Dhaliwal's office and with Minister Pettigrew's office. We are in the midst of scheduling further meetings in advance of the summit so that we can go to workers and their families with a concrete proposal that will provide them with the assistance they require. We're going to continue those discussions. We are going to continue it in a spirit, I think, that exists at both the federal and the provincial level — that we need to direct those resources where they will do the most good, and that is for the workers and their families.

J. MacPhail: This minister has had responsibility for this issue for over ten months. The opposition has put forward a proposal for immediate action; so have forestry workers, industry leaders and politicians in Ottawa. The minister is aware of all of those proposals. He doesn't need to convene a summit to do that. The only thing that's missing now is action and concrete support from this provincial government.

Summits and, I would say, Mr. Speaker, questionable rhetoric are all well and good, but they don't do much to keep workers from being thrown out of work.

J. MacPhail: Where's the action? They need the federal government to step in to provide companies with repayable loans before, not after, they're thrown out of work. Will the minister get on board, get on the phone, go to Ottawa and tell Ottawa that forest workers can't afford to wait a moment longer?

Hon. M. de Jong: I had hoped that in her new role of the last ten months, the Leader of the Opposition would understand that there are issues when British Columbians should stand together, when they should put politics aside. It's apparently something she doesn't understand.

I'll tell you this. Workers understand, and particularly members of the forest sector understand, that under her administration their employment numbers were devastated. They went down, down, down.

Mr. Speaker, do you know what I did today? I wrote a cheque for upwards of $25 million which that member's government bilked out of forest workers

when they purported to have a forest worker transition fund. It's a little hard to take. We will do right by forest workers and their families in ways her government couldn't even conceive of.

J. Les: My question today is to the minister responsible for treaty negotiations. This morning the court handed down a decision on the validity of the referendum on treaty negotiation principles. Can the minister responsible update the House on the court decision and the impact that will have on the treaty referendum?

There was a court challenge lodged earlier this week — an attempt to restrain the referendum from being conducted. This morning the Supreme Court judge dismissed the application for an injunction, so we are on track. The ballots will be mailed to British Columbia households starting April 2, and the people of B.C. will have a month and a half to think hard about the principles they want the province's treaty negotiators to take forward as we make progress in treaty negotiations in British Columbia.

J. Les: I understand that the judge this morning found that first nations rights are entrenched in the constitution and therefore cannot be altered by the process of a referendum. Can the minister confirm that this is consistent with what has been the government's longstanding position?

Hon. G. Plant: Yes. For as long as we have talked about the desirability of a referendum, we have attempted to say as clearly as possible that this referendum will not in fact attack constitutionally protected aboriginal rights and title. The Premier has been consistent on that. Every member of government and, frankly, every member of the B.C. Liberal Party sitting in this House has been consistent on that message.

It's good news to know that argument was there in front of the court today, and the court decision reaffirms that this referendum will not undermine constitutionally protected aboriginal rights and title. This referendum is about giving the province's treaty negotiators the principles to reinvigorate treaty-making, so we can find the best, affordable, practical and most respectful way to give effect to aboriginal rights and title in the province.

B. Suffredine: My question is to the Minister of State for Deregulation. Under the previous government, mountains of unnecessary regulations were passed. They resulted in job losses, and they scared away investment from British Columbia.

In the New Era document the government committed to reducing red tape and the regulatory burden in B.C. by one-third to kick-start the economy. Can the minister tell us what progress he has made in fulfilling this commitment?

Hon. K. Falcon: The member is correct in outlining the huge costs. I remind the House that the annual cost of just complying with regulation and red tape in this province is in excess of $5 billion annually.

It's one of the reasons why we undertook a count not just of the regulations but of the requirements that flow from those regulations, and I don't need to remind this House that that established that there were over 400,000 regulations and requirements in this province. That was important for us as a province to establish a baseline in which we could measure, in a very transparent way for British Columbians to see, what progress we make to achieve our one-third reduction target. That's also consistent with the new-era commitment to make sure that we operate in an open and transparent manner.

I just want to say that in January, we received in our office three-year deregulation plans from all the ministries outlining each ministry's approach and how they're going to achieve that target. We'll keep at the top of our mind the important principles of health, public safety and the environment as we go through this important process.

B. Suffredine: A number of my constituents have asked why the government has not yet released information on regulations it is targeting for elimination. Can the Minister of State for Deregulation tell us when he intends to make this information public?

Hon. K. Falcon: As part of our commitment to openness and transparency, I indicated earlier that we will be having quarterly reports to keep British Columbians, including your own constituents, up to date as to what progress we're making. I'm pleased to say that our first quarterly report, which is historic in terms of never being done before, will be released on Tuesday.

R. Stewart: My question is to the Minister of State for Mental Health. Last July the minister of state was in my constituency at a sod-turning ceremony to celebrate the proposed construction of a new facility at River-

view Hospital in Coquitlam. Can the Minister of State for Mental Health tell us the status of the proposed new facility?

Hon. G. Cheema: This building is fully functional. This is a new way of delivering mental health in this province. This new lodge is a prototype for respect. This is a home-like environment. This will help the patients, and we are moving away from institutional models. This is great news for mentally ill patients in this province, and we are moving towards a compassionate, caring system.

I must say to this member that we will continue to work with the mental health plan. This is a part of the mental health plan. That was our commitment, and we are fulfilling that commitment.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Coquitlam-Maillardville with a supplementary question.

R. Stewart: I want to tell the minister that the people of Coquitlam are very respectful of this new model of care. In the New Era document, the government committed to fully implement and fund the $125 million mental health initiative. Can the Minister of State for Mental Health tell us how these new facilities will help us to fulfil this commitment?

Hon. G. Cheema: Not only are we fulfilling the commitment for $125 million, we are spending an additional $138 million on many facilities across the province. We are going to be taking this model to Prince George and Kamloops, and we also will be building some facilities in other parts of the province.

This is a move away from the major institutional model. We are moving towards a model that will provide a continuum of services and ensure that patients receive the care and respect they deserve. This was well overdue.

We made the commitment, and we are fulfilling that promise. We will be spending over $263 million over a period of six years to fulfil that commitment. We must say that this is the only way to deliver mental health in this province.

W. McMahon: My question today is for the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection. Your ministry recently announced changes affecting a number of my communities and the conservation officers that work there. These announcements have caused considerable concern. As you know, conservation officers play an important role in protecting B.C.'s wildlife and natural resources. Can the minister tell my constituents how these changes will affect her ministry's ability to protect B.C.'s environment?

Hon. J. Murray: I agree that the conservation officers are a very important part of this ministry. Setting standards and making sure they're enforced are a major focus of the ministry. That's actually why we've protected 60 out of 67 field offices that this ministry is involved with, because we know that the conservation officer service is important and having a presence in the community is important.

We've also refocused compliance and enforcement activities so that they're more effective, and we're reducing any of the gaps and overlaps. We think we're going to be doing a better job. The COs will also be more focused on higher-risk activities that are threats to either human health or wildlife and habitat.

Hon. S. Santori: I have a petition from 1,400 residents of the Kootenay community of Glade with respect to their ferry service.

J. Nuraney: I have a petition signed by some 280 of my constituents in the instance of the teachers from our school expressing concern about the changes in the funding to the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

J. Kwan: I rise to table a petition signed by 768 British Columbians. They're calling on the government to not proceed with their changes regarding single parents' access to income assistance, especially as it relates to the current legislation of changing the requirement of single parents who have children who are seven years old. When they turn three years or younger, they would be cut off income assistance.

H. Long: I seek leave to table two petitions to this House: 138 signatures to do with vaccination awareness risks and 355 signatures on court services.

Hon. R. Coleman: I table the report of the Board of Parole for the province of British Columbia, 2000-01, and the Criminal Injury Compensation Program Report 2001.

R. Masi: Mr. Speaker, last Monday I reserved the right to raise a point of privilege, and I would like to proceed at this time.

R. Masi: I rise today on a point of privilege with respect to the premature disclosure of the draft report of the Select Standing Committee on Education. On Monday, March 18, members were first made aware of the premature disclosure when an article appeared in the print media which allegedly cites some of the draft recommendations that have been put forward to the

committee for consideration. The article contains disparaging comments by B.C. Teachers Federation president David Chudnovsky, who states his intent to shame and intimidate the work of the committee, thereby attempting to influence the committee's deliberations and final report.

I wish to be clear in saying that the select standing committee did not authorize the release of the draft report, nor did it authorize that the content be divulged by Mr. Chudnovsky. Although the unauthorized disclosure to the BCTF president may have been deliberate, the source of that disclosure is not known to the committee.

I speak on behalf of the committee when I say that I am very concerned about the premature disclosure of the draft report. It appears to show a serious lack of respect for the institution of parliament and the work of the select standing committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you consider the facts of this case as well as any relevant parliamentary authorities which may be of assistance to you, including Sir Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, twenty-second edition, pages 118-120.

In keeping with the procedure on raising a matter of privilege, I am tabling a copy of the offending article from the Vancouver Sun as well as a copy of the motion which I intend to move, should you find that a prima facie case has been established.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. The point of privilege will be taken under advisement, and I will bring back a ruling in due course.

Hon. G. Collins: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. That will be followed by the Ministry of Attorney General.

Mr. Speaker, this supply bill is in the general form of previous supply bills. The first section of the bill requests one-sixth of the voted expenses as presented in the estimates to provide for the general programs of the government, which will allow us to pass the estimates by May 30, given our fixed calendar. Fifty percent of the financing transaction requirements set out in schedules C, D and E of the estimates have been provided for in the interim supply bill. This will allow time later for more complete debate on these items. The third section requests the disbursements related to revenue collected for and transferred to other entities, which appear in schedule F of the estimates. As there is no impact on the deficit, borrowing or debt from these particular financing transactions, 100 percent of the year's requirement is being sought in this supply bill.

J. MacPhail: Well, we don't intend to hold this up at all, but it is ironic. I can't let this moment pass, Mr. Speaker, without demonstrating on the record the irony of us being here when, indeed, a fixed calendar was supposed to resolve this matter. We've been at the debate around the budget since February. Certainly, with 76 members in this House voting on a regular basis, it is surprising how absolutely little control this government has in getting anything done in a timely way and in living up to anything they said that they could do better.

This bill is another demonstration of this — a supply act, when year after year the now Minister of Finance would stand up in opposition and say: "Oh, what is wrong with a government that has to bring in an interim supply act? Can't they get their act together? Can't they get their matters under control and govern the way the province wants them to govern?"

They brought the budget in early. It was a controversial budget. Not one member is standing up to in any way challenge any of the controversy of the budget. It's left up to my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and myself to challenge and hold this government accountable. This is just another example of an inept government saying one thing when they were in opposition and doing another thing when they're in government.

Hon. G. Collins: I love that. One great thing about being in government is that you get to respond in second reading. I'm really excited to have a chance to respond to what the member just said because it shows her lack of understanding of this process, her lack of understanding of parliament, her lack of understanding when she was Minister of Finance as to what it was exactly that she was doing wrong and why it is that the now government, the then opposition, objected so strenuously to what they were doing. What they would do is bring the budget in at the very last minute, often days or hours before the end of the fiscal year, before any of the estimates or in many cases even the budget debate had taken place, and then ask the House for supply.

That was a problem. We've fixed that. We now have a fixed budget day. It's the third Tuesday of every February. The budget debate is complete; the estimates are well underway, further along than they have ever been underway at this point in time. In fact, what the opposition objected to….

Hon. G. Collins: The issue the then opposition objected to was the fact that the government had no planning. They came in at the very last minute and tried to put through the supply without any examination of the budget. The budget speech was not complete. But the most important thing that is different is that every single year they did it, the government had a special warrant attached to it in some form or another.

They never budgeted correctly. They never managed their finances, and they never came to this House for supply the way it's properly supposed to be done, which is introducing legislation in the House and getting supply through the House. It is extremely different, and the fact that the member opposite doesn't have a clue that it's different indicates that…

Hon. G. Collins: …after ten years in government and several years as Minister of Finance, she never did get it. She never did get it, and she still doesn't get it. In fact, almost regularly, their government would come into the House in March for an interim supply bill and get three months' worth of spending on an interim supply bill and run out of time, and then have to come in for a second interim supply bill at that point in time.

Mr. Speaker, if you compare the way that Minister of Finance and that government behaved and the way they did it versus the way this government is doing it, you can understand just how much more correct the method is.

The fact of the matter is that an interim supply act is common in every parliament. It's done all the time. The reality is that we are doing this in a far more just fashion. In fact, the previous government used to come in and move it through all three stages in the same day on the very last day of the fiscal year — on the very last day. I could have done that. Our standing orders allow for that.

I chose to introduce the bill yesterday, do second reading today, do committee stage tomorrow and get royal assent in a proper fashion and allow the time for debate. The fact that the member opposite doesn't understand this just indicates to me exactly why the people of British Columbia threw them out so resoundingly on May 16 of last year.

With that, given the major improvements in the way government is managing the finances and their accountability and managing the procedures in this House, I move second reading — much to the embarrassment, I'm sure, of the member opposite.

Hon. G. Collins: I move that the bill be referred to Committee of the Whole at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 13, Supply Act (No. 1), 2002, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 2; H. Long in the chair.

J. MacPhail: What's the purpose of separating this out into two separate parts? The original bill refers just to Fisheries Renewal B.C. As I understand it, this separates out into two subsections, one identifying Fisheries Renewal B.C. and the other identifying Forest Renewal B.C. Subsequent subsections then repeal both of those sections.

Hon. G. Collins: I don't know. I'm glad to find out, but I don't know the reason for that other than perhaps it has to do with the chronological way it needs to be done. I'm certainly glad to find out for the member. No one here seems to know, especially me.

J. MacPhail: Well, maybe we should stand down the section until we get an answer.

Hon. G. Collins: I'd be glad to stand down section 5 until we find out what the answer to that is.

J. MacPhail: Section 6 of Bill 2 repeals in entirety the Fisheries Renewal Act. I have a series of question on what substitutes for the provisions that are contained in the Fisheries Renewal Act. I'll be asking some questions on that.

Section 4 of the Fisheries Renewal Act provides for federal-provincial agreements and outlines how those federal-provincial agreements may proceed. What, if any, substitution for that principle exists elsewhere in this government's legislation?

Hon. G. Collins: My understanding is that the government has the ability to enter into agreements with the federal government at any time. It does not require the Fisheries Renewal Act in order to do that. In fact, government enters into agreements across ministries and with a variety of ministries on an ongoing basis. It has prior to Fisheries Renewal and will do so after Fisheries Renewal.

J. MacPhail: The purpose of this clause at the time, though, was to ensure that those agreements were entered into with the board of Fisheries Renewal and that the board was community based. It was making sure that federal-provincial agreements weren't just people sitting in Victoria making deals with people sitting in Ottawa.

I'm asking: what kind of arrangement is there for that same community input dealing with matters of Fisheries Renewal?

Hon. G. Collins: There are agreements in place right now. The member will recall when government made the announcement — I believe it was in open cabinet — to wrap up Fisheries Renewal B.C. There was a decision that that structure, the Crown corporation, would no longer exist. At that time as well, perhaps even earlier, the board of Fisheries Renewal B.C., I believe, was replaced — if I'm correct; I'm pretty sure I'm right on this — with the deputy minister and the CEO. There are ongoing agreements which are in place.

The change of the board is not something that happens here. The change of the membership of the board was something that was done by order-in-council. What this is doing is eliminating Fisheries Renewal B.C. in its entirety.

As I said earlier, agreements that are pre-existing will continue to exist between the federal and provincial governments, and any future agreements based on fisheries would continue to be signed by the federal government and the provincial government. It's always the duty of ministers and MLAs to ensure that the public sentiment is reflected in what government does. Not everybody is going to agree with what government does, but certainly there is a duty as politicians, which we're accountable for, to hear what people have to say and then make the best decision we feel possible.

J. MacPhail: There is no community input in any decisions around fisheries or Fisheries Renewal that currently exists under this government as I know it now. I assume, then, that by repealing this and replacing it with nothing, there is no longer any community input — or first nations input, for that matter — in terms of federal-provincial arrangements. I can only assume that's the case.

Hon. G. Collins: That would be incorrect. There is always input from the public with ministers, with MLAs, into any programs or services that government provides. As I said earlier, we as the political leaders are held accountable for whether or not people feel we've done that in a way that's sufficient or whether they've agreed with us or not, and the public makes its choice accordingly. All ministers and all MLAs have to be mindful of the opinions and views of everybody who is affected by all our decisions to the best of our ability, but government will make a decision at the end of the day. Some people will agree enthusiastically, and some people will disagree enthusiastically, and we will be held accountable for those decisions.

J. MacPhail: Yes, and in fact, Fisheries Renewal B.C. was a very successful program, proclaimed widely — without controversy, by the way — in all of the communities that now are being extremely hard hit.

Section 5 of the Fisheries Renewal Act undertakes programs for promoting the protection, conservation and enhancement of fish stocks and fish habitat. It also says that there will be a responsibility for Fisheries Renewal B.C. to build a multi-skilled workforce in the fisheries sectors by supporting employment, training and technological development and, next, working with communities to develop strategic plans for job creation in the fisheries sector and the development of local infrastructure that will encourage employment and investment in the communities.

Given that this is being repealed, that Fisheries Renewal B.C. is being killed by this bill, where do those tasks now rest within the government? Do they exist at all?

Hon. G. Collins: I think what's contained in the mandate section, which is section 5 of the Fisheries Renewal Act, is a broad mandate of goals and agendas for government. It's very much a political section, setting goals and priorities. I would say that governments are always mindful of those. They're very broad-based. Certainly, this government tries to achieve similar goals — maybe not exactly the same, but similar — and those responsibilities rest with the ministers who would be providing that.

J. MacPhail: In doing my research in preparation for this bill, Mr. Chair, I checked to see whether the hundreds of programs that were funded specifically…. This isn't a broad political mandate. This is a very specific mandate under section 5 about the programs that Fisheries Renewal B.C. were to undertake. In doing my research, those programs were killed and the funding is stopped. I can only assume, once again, that the minister is completely unaware that with the killing of Fisheries Renewal B.C., these programs have been killed as well.

Hon. G. Collins: The mandate under section 5 is in the current bill. I think the items that are listed there are a pretty broad-ranging set of goals. This govern-

ment has similar overarching goals to try and improve the fisheries in British Columbia as an economic base for people and support for communities.

By saying that, it does not necessarily mean that as ministers are responsible for those same goals, they will achieve those same goals in exactly the same way with exactly the same programs, in exactly the same time frame put forward by the previous government, because it's not exactly the same government.

J. MacPhail: In the area of protecting resource-dependent communities, you've got that right. It ain't the same government.

Section 6 of the Fisheries Renewal Act , first nations interests in fisheries, says: "In carrying out its responsibilities, the board and any committee of the board must take into account the interests of first nations and aboriginal people in the fisheries resource."

That section is being eliminated with the elimination of the Fisheries Renewal Act. There have been government documents publicly released — not by the government — that show there's going to be a redoing of consultation with first nations at every level on every topic. Many of those proposals are controversial. What is the replacement for this section in the government's agenda?

Hon. G. Collins: I expect the government's replacement for that provision in this agenda…. Although government, by repealing this, doesn't necessarily have to do everything exactly the way the previous government did it, I expect, though, given the comments of the member, that as government decides how it's going to consult with aboriginal and first nations across British Columbia on a wide range of issues, that's where those decisions will be made.

J. MacPhail: In estimates yesterday with the minister responsible for aboriginal services, I asked him when he was going to actually set up a forum to consult on matters such as this with the first nations community. It was "in the planning stages." Of course, the planning stages, as that minister said, may lead to a form of some sort of consultation — maybe in the fall, maybe October. That would be a year and a half into this government's mandate.

Again, there's nothing that replaces any of the requirement of a responsible government that deeply cares about fisheries as a resource upon which thousands of workers and many communities rely. There's nothing in this government's agenda that shows any concern, interest or understanding of the importance of that resource.

Hon. G. Collins: I would argue that, in fact, the actions of the government indicate our desire to achieve those very goals. Unlike the previous government, we don't feel we need to create a Crown corporation to tell people what we want to do. We don't feel we need to create a bureaucracy in order to say that we're going to do certain things. We don't feel it's required to create a piece of legislation to do what it is government should just be doing all the way along, which is talking to people, seeing what they have to say and then making the best decision based on all of the information at their disposal.

The previous government felt that the way to show people you are governing in the interests of the public was to create Crown corporations, to create legislation, to create bureaucracies and to create programs — whether they worked or not, whether they made sense or not, whether they actually delivered the results that were desired or not. That was the way the previous government worked.

They were fully able to do that under their mandate. They did that, and then they went to the public at the end of their mandate to see how they'd done. The reaction was pretty negative. This government feels these things need to be done. We'll continue to do the consultation with people across the issues of government in a way that allows us to get the information we need from people, to get their input and then make the best decision that's in the best interests of the people of the province.

	YEAS — 67

Falcon	Coell	Hogg
L. Reid	Halsey-Brandt	Hawkins
Whittred	Cheema	Hansen
Bruce	Santori	van Dongen
Barisoff	Nettleton	Roddick
Wilson	Masi	Lee
Thorpe	Hagen	Murray
Plant	Collins	Clark
Bond	de Jong	Nebbeling
Stephens	Abbott	Neufeld
Coleman	Chong	Jarvis
Anderson	Orr	Harris
Nuraney	Belsey	Bell
Chutter	Mayencourt	Trumper
Bennett	R. Stewart	Christensen
Krueger	McMahon	Bray
Les	Nijjar	Bhullar
Wong	Bloy	Suffredine
MacKay	Cobb	K. Stewart
Visser	Lekstrom	Brice
Sultan	Hamilton	Sahota
Hawes	Kerr	Manhas
	Hunter

	NAYS — 2

MacPhail		Kwan

Hon. G. Collins: I just want to come back, if I can, to section 5 to clarify the question by the member of the opposition as to why the section of the bill that's before us repeals section 7(9) in the current act, splits it into two components, a sub (9) and a sub (10) ? two different components ? and then repeals those two subsections separately.

If you go to the end of the bill in the commencement section, that section ? 5(b) and 5(c), the two that repeal the various provisions ? is brought into force by regulation. That allows the government in the windup of these corporations to shut down one and then the other, and not necessarily do them on exactly the same day. It's really just a commencement process that allows us to do the two separate repeals on different dates.

J. MacPhail: This is the repeal in its entirety of the Forest Renewal Act, and there are several questions I have of the government about what replaces the content that was guaranteed under the Forest Renewal Act. The questions are particularly important and salient for the communities….

J. MacPhail: As I was saying, section 8 repeals in its entirety the Forest Renewal Act, and it's particularly concerning now for communities and families who rely on the forest industry to know exactly what is replacing the Forest Renewal Act.

In the Forest Renewal Act that is now being killed by this government, the purpose of that act was to renew the forest economy of British Columbia, enhance the productive capacity and environmental value of forest lands, create jobs, provide training for forest workers and strengthen communities. It was then put in place with a community-based board and had the ability to enter into contracts with individuals, first nations, businesses, institutions, local governments, groups and any other organizations for the delivery of programs within the purpose of this act.

The government has replaced Forest Renewal B.C. with a fund, as I understand it. What was the value of Forest Renewal B.C. as of today, and what is the value of the fund which replaces it?

Hon. G. Collins: The questions of whether or not the Forest Renewal Act exists are not appropriate for this section of the bill. This is not the estimates of the Ministry of Forests, and those questions would be better put to the Minister of Forests.

J. MacPhail: I'm asking questions about what's going to replace this bill when this bill is repealed and no longer in existence. What replaces the Forest Renewal Act upon its repeal?

Hon. G. Collins: Similar to my answer to the previous questions on Fisheries Renewal B.C., none of the things that were done in the Forest Renewal Crown corporation or the act are precluded from being done by government on a general basis. They may be done slightly differently or through slightly different administrative processes. Government did many of these things prior to Forest Renewal B.C., and it will continue to do many of these things after Forest Renewal is no longer there.

J. MacPhail: I'm not sure that the vagueness of that answer and the "may commit, may do" from this government mean much to the communities and the families and the industry, frankly, that are hurting right now. I'm not sure that the commitment by this government that they may do anything is worth much these days. Can the minister be more specific about what is in place for communities who used to benefit from the programs under Forest Renewal B.C.?

Hon. G. Collins: I'm restricting my comments to this section, which repeals Forest Renewal B.C. As I said earlier, many of these things were done prior to the creation of Forest Renewal B.C.; many of them will be done after Forest Renewal B.C. is no more. There is nothing that stops government from doing any or all of the items contained in here in some way or form — perhaps not the same administrative structure but in a different way, perhaps with slightly different goals.

Certainly, had the previous government, upon creation of Forest Renewal B.C., then proceeded to manage it in a competent way, there wouldn't have been the hundreds of millions of dollars wasted without a business plan. That would have been available and held within communities and businesses, as I said yesterday, which would have allowed them to deal with the cyclical nature of the forest sector as well as dealing more readily and being healthier when attacked by some very predatory trade practices by the United States.

J. MacPhail: Questions arising out of the minister's comments, Mr. Chair, so I'm sure they'll be in order. What is the effect of removing and ending Forest Renewal B.C.? What is the effect of the moneys that used to flow by legislation from the forest industry through stumpage into Forest Renewal B.C. and now no longer go to any forestry programs? Where does that money go?

Hon. G. Collins: Prior to the creation of Forest Renewal B.C., revenues came into government and were expended by government. In fact, after the Forest Renewal disappears, revenue will come into government and will be expended by government.

J. MacPhail: Actually, the minister is incorrect on that. Forest Renewal B.C. was a mechanism by which a type of stumpage that was created flowed into Forest Renewal B.C. In fact, that was a new type of fee or tax on the industry, and it went specifically into Forest Renewal B.C. That happened upon the creation of FRBC. The minister may recall that somebody gave it the term "superstumpage," for instance. That was the vernacular, but nevertheless it was the creation. I hate to use vernacular, because I have the greatest of respect for all aspects of the industry. That superstumpage flowed into Forest Renewal B.C. It was governed by this act and went directly into the industry, the communities, the towns, the families and the workers that were in the forest industry. What's happening now with the stumpage that used to go into FRBC?

Hon. G. Collins: Revenue to government from the forest sector of all types will be revenue to government. Government will expend those funds as it sees fit after consultations with all British Columbians on a wide range of issues.

J. MacPhail: Well, I wondered if that was the case. It's going into general revenue. It's going to pay for the tax cut to the wealthy and the corporations that may or may not be helping at all to assist forest communities through these tough times. Here we have, exactly as I said, revenue from the forest industry being collected — that used to go right back into that industry and the towns and the families who worked in that industry — and now going into general revenue for this government to spend any which way it likes.

I would say that section 11 of this act, which talks about Forest Renewal B.C. revenue — the repeal of that — should be of great concern to the forest industry and all those communities who rely on the forest industry. Now what it means is that the government is taking money out of that industry, out of those forest-dependent towns, and putting it into, I guess, deficit financing.

Hon. G. Collins: As the member opposite will know, the revenues from superstumpage have fluctuated over time. In fact, FRBC had a relatively volatile income stream, which you'll recall. The fact of the matter, as I've said repeatedly, is that there's over a billion dollars — $1.5 billion of revenue — that's been left in people's pockets in personal income tax reduction alone. On the corporate and business tax side, over $600 million has been left in industry's hands in order to invest as they see fit.

The members of our caucus, post-election, in reply and in response to our commitment in the election campaign to review Forest Renewal B.C. and either fix or scrap it…. Our committee, our members of the Legislature, went out and toured forest-dependent communities and asked them what they thought about the various options. The recommendations from the committee were that we wind up Forest Renewal B.C., and that's what the government's doing.

	YEAS — 66

Falcon	Coell	Hogg
L. Reid	Halsey-Brandt	Hawkins
Whittred	Cheema	Hansen
Bruce	Santori	van Dongen
Barisoff	Nettleton	Roddick
Wilson	Masi	Lee
Thorpe	Hagen	Murray
Plant	Collins	Clark
Bond	de Jong	Nebbeling
Stephens	Abbott	Neufeld
Coleman	Chong	Jarvis
Anderson	Orr	Harris
Nuraney	Belsey	Bell
Chutter	Mayencourt	Trumper
Bennett	R. Stewart	Christensen
Krueger	McMahon	Bray
Les	Nijjar	Bhullar
Wong	Suffredine	MacKay
Cobb	K. Stewart	Visser
Lekstrom	Brice	Sultan
Hamilton	Sahota	Hawes
Kerr	Manhas	Hunter

	NAYS — 2

MacPhail		Kwan

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

Bill 2, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2002, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Collins: I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services, followed by the Ministry of Advanced Education.

Hon. G. Abbott: Mr. Chair, I understand from the opposition members that they'll be returning to the House shortly. They just needed a short break, so perhaps the House could recess for just a couple of minutes.

J. Kwan: The ministry service plan indicates that by '04-05, the ministry will download heritage properties to community organizations and non-profit groups. What measures will the ministry take to ensure that local communities have the resources to protect heritage properties?

Hon. G. Abbott: We're not downloading any properties. I'm not sure where the member would have got that idea. What we have committed to — and we've actually discussed it in the House previously — is the devolution of management of heritage sites in British Columbia by '04-05. As in other areas, we will be working with municipal partners potentially but certainly with non-profits and a range of others who have expressed or who will express an interest in being part of the management of one or more of the 29 heritage sites in British Columbia.

J. Kwan: Will the minister be contemplating selling off province-owned heritage sites?

J. Kwan: The issue around public-private partnership. Is there an attempt to look at public-private partnerships? What form, then, will public-private partnerships take?

Hon. G. Abbott: Public-private partnership is probably an acceptable way, although perhaps a bit on the grand side in terms of the relationship we have. In fact, we currently have 53 contractors who have undertaken the management of particular sites. I'll give the member a couple of examples. The Emily Carr House is managed by a private contractor. The Keremeos Grist Mill is managed by a private contractor. In both cases there is a small contractual amount that goes along with the management. Additionally, there are another 51 contracts that we have. In some sites — for example, Barkerville — we have multiple contracts for the gold panning, etc., and that kind of stuff.

We will be building on what has been, actually, some very successful contractual arrangements with private sector interests, but we're quite willing, certainly, to expand that to communities. I know Quesnel's expressed an interest around the future management of Barkerville. I know Wells — where I think there's a new casino going in — has expressed some interest in management around Barkerville. We're happy to talk to municipalities. We're also happy to talk to non-profits, as well other potential private sector contractors.

J. Kwan: So the government is not looking at selling off heritage sites or heritage properties owned by the province but rather is looking at contractual leasing arrangements for their management. Is it an open-bid process that the government will then embark on for particular sites? Let's say Barkerville. Is it going to be an open bid that would invite people who would come forward with bids, and the government will choose the best bid for that management? Is that how the process is going to be?

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, we have until fiscal '04 to do this. We will be inviting expressions of interest at this point in time. It would be too early, I think — at least beyond the kind of contractual relationships we have now — to actually go into a bid process. We are still working through the development of devolution of management of these properties.

In response to the member's question on the first part, the only properties where there is a possibility of a transfer of title would be in relation to first nations, who have expressed an interest in a couple of our heritage sites. That may, in fact, from our perspective, be a positive and practical way to see future management of

those sites. Those are the only examples of where we could possibly, I think, see a change of title.

J. Kwan: What level of involvement will the province have in the designation and protection of heritage properties?

Hon. G. Abbott: There are a couple of ways in which the member's question could be interpreted, so I'll try to answer both possibilities here, and she can correct me or direct me.

One possibility here is that the member's asking what kind of continuing responsibility the province will have in relation to the 29 existing heritage sites in the province. As we move to devolution of management, we will continue to set the standards that would be embodied in the management of those sites and set the parameters around which the sites can be used. That will continue to be the role of my ministry in doing that. Then we would expect, by contract, those measures to be carried out, obviously, to satisfy the terms of the contract.

The member may be asking, though, a broader question. One of the important initiatives that we will be undertaking in the heritage area — and we've already begun, and certainly over the next three years it will be a very important part of what we do in the heritage branch of my ministry — is a partnership with the federal government on a historic places initiative. We believe it's both exciting in terms of designation of new heritage sites in the province and also an opportunity to build on the skills and the resources, particularly around tax policy, that the federal government can bring to the table. I hope that's an instructive answer.

J. Kwan: Will the government be looking at providing community groups with funding or financial support so that they could engage in taking over the responsibility of managing and protecting heritage properties?

Hon. G. Abbott: We expect that even with the devolution of management, there will be ongoing subsidies for some of the sites. There's a tremendous range in those 29 sites. Some are very passive and inexpensive; others, like Barkerville and Fort Steele, are quite considerable undertakings. We expect that for some of the sites — obviously some of the more complex ones — there will likely be ongoing subsidy. But that's something that has to be looked at in the context of each of the relationships we enter into and the character of the challenge that's facing the new contractors.

J. Kwan: What of the instance where a call for proposal or expression of interest has been initiated, and the response has been no or perhaps even, in some cases, no response at all? In that instance, what would the government do?

Hon. G. Abbott: While the question is hypothetical, I do want to attempt to provide an answer for the member.

We have actually seen a lot of interest already in the possibilities around the devolution of management of these sites. In one case, a particularly large non-profit foundation has indicated an interest in all of the sites. We have many others who have expressed an interest in one or more of the sites. Again, in some cases the issue is quite a simple one; it's a passive site or whatever — small in scale. In others, as the magnitude of the undertaking grows to the scale of, say, a Barkerville, it becomes rather more interesting and challenging to ensure that the devolution of management produces the results that we want.

I think, given the level of interest, the possibility that there will be no one in line to do it is remote. But even if that were to be and if, for example, we found a site that simply no one had an interest in, then we do continue to have resources in the ministry to manage it.

J. Kwan: I appreciate the minister's answer to that question, even though it is hypothetical.

What I'm concerned about is the scenario where there is a call for proposal, and there is no interest for one particular site or two or whatever. I want to make sure that there is commitment from government to retain those sites and to manage those sites. I got that answer from the minister, so I appreciate it.

The minister says that he will be looking at the proposals as they come in and engaging in discussions with the variety of groups in its management. Then, on the question around subsidy, it wouldn't be a call for proposal on the basis of application for subsidies. Is the minister envisioning that the groups would put forward a proposal and within that proposal, if they require a subsidy from government, they would actually outline what that subsidy would be, and then government would take that into consideration? Is that how that process is going to work?

Hon. G. Abbott: Initially, as I mentioned previously, we would be looking or calling for expressions of interest in this. As we move further down the line, there would likely be, at least for some of the sites, proposal calls for the management. We would expect that as a consequence of that, some of the potential contractors would indicate what they would propose to do and whether a subsidy would be required. It would then be the responsibility of my staff in the heritage branch to evaluate both of those things: what is being proposed and the level of subsidy that is being contemplated.

J. Kwan: Will the minister be looking at a fee-for-service in the management of these heritage sites? In other words, for the proposals that come forward, I don't know if people will be looking to the government. Is the government open to the consideration of a fee-for-service management kind of arrangement?

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, at the risk of potentially misunderstanding the member's question, we'd like to

offer this answer. We are looking at the devolution of the management of these sites. That means that in virtually every instance, we would not be involved in the day-to-day oversight of the facilities. Rather, we would set out the standards and parameters for the operation and management of the sites. Presumably, as in other contracts, there would be performance measures, audits, and so on, at appropriate points to ensure that the contractors were undertaking the responsibilities they contracted to undertake.

I don't think that fee-for-service enters into this equation, but perhaps we've misunderstood the member's question.

J. Kwan: I'm just trying to understand whether or not in the contractual arrangement of groups ? whatever group may be undertaking to manage these heritage properties ? they would be paid a fee from the government to enter into the contractual arrangement with the government. That's what I mean by fee-for-service in that instance.

The minister said there might be opportunities for a subsidy. Is that the only means of providing financial aid for the management of the properties, or is it going to be a fee-for-service for a particular group to manage these properties?

Hon. G. Abbott: I think we understand the member's question a little bit more clearly. We'll use the example of Emily Carr House, where we have a contractor in place who, in fact, has been doing an outstanding job for at least a few years now with respect to that heritage building and site.

The contractor enjoys the revenues from the day-to-day operation of the heritage site, and the subsidy, if it's appropriate ? and it won't always be; it will only be in some instances appropriate ? is used to supplement that. Clearly, what we do in the contractual arrangement is put a lot of incentive in the hands of the manager or contractor to manage it well, so that it's enjoyed by many British Columbian and tourists, and they thereby enjoy the additional revenues that are produced by that good management.

J. Kwan: What is the projection of net savings for what the minister called a devolution scheme? What are the projected net savings for this?

Hon. G. Abbott: The first thing I want to emphasize is that we are not undertaking the devolution of management of these sites to enjoy cost savings. We are undertaking the devolution of management of these sites so that we have stronger local management of the sites and better management of the sites generally than is possible with the government doing it directly. However, we do expect savings probably in the area of about 30 percent — or, across the province, perhaps $2 million or $3 million in terms of those savings — but it's not the reason we're doing it. We are doing it because we believe it provides a better management regime.

J. Kwan: In the management of these heritage properties, have there been problems that have been identified because of mismanagement by the province? The minister suggests it would be better managed locally, but have there been problems with service today that lead one to think a change of management needs to take place?

Hon. G. Abbott: I think it would be unfair to suggest that there had been bad management from the government's direct management of these sites. But I think it's fair to say this: the 29 sites are located all over British Columbia, and staff find it is awkward and cumbersome attempting to manage those geographically widely scattered and diverse sites from Victoria. The new model will provide for regional and local management of these resources. As well, I guess, as purely government ventures, the heritage sites…. As part of government, all recoveries must be spent in the same fiscal year, which would be a constraint that private contractors would not be under.

The final point — and I think in many ways it's the most important one — is that as government operates these sites directly, there are not the same opportunities for flexibility and innovation in terms of management as we would have with third-party contractors. Again, I'd offer up to the member the Emily Carr House in Victoria as an example of where the value, the excellent management, of that particular heritage site has been very much enhanced by having a private contractor with obviously a tremendous personal interest in this heritage site as the contractor and manager.

J. Kwan: Three weekends ago now, I guess, I was in Williams Lake. Some community members brought to my attention some of the heritage sites that exist in that community. Actually, I don't have my notes from that meeting with me, but I'm just wondering if the minister could advise what sites exist in the Williams Lake area that are heritage properties and what the status of those sites is.

Hon. G. Abbott: Neither I nor staff — and we're obviously quite certain about this…. There are no provincial heritage sites in Williams Lake. There is a heritage site at Hat Creek, and there is a heritage site at Barkerville. We suspect that there may be some confusion with a locally designated heritage site, because there's no provincial one in Williams Lake.

J. Kwan: I'm just going by memory now in terms of that meeting. It was brought up, and I'm not familiar with the heritage sites issues in that community. Perhaps it's the Cariboo-Chilcotin area that people have mentioned in terms of the heritage sites, which the minister has identified too.

I wonder if the minister could provide me with the information on the status of these two sites. If the information that I'm seeking is too detailed, I would simply ask the minister to provide that information to me in writing so that I could get back to the individuals who asked me the questions.

Hon. G. Abbott: There is not a whole lot that we can add in addition to the comments made earlier. We are at an early stage with respect to the devolution of both of these sites. At the staff level we have initiated some discussions around that — looking at some of the ways in which the devolution could be managed in those specific instances. It will be some time yet before we get to the stage of inviting expressions of interest.

J. Kwan: When does the minister expect that invitations for expressions of interest would take place? Are you thinking about one year's time or within the next six months? What's the time line that the minister is looking at?

Hon. G. Abbott: We expect that the first calls for expressions of interest will likely be either on some of the more straightforward sites or on some of the sites where there have already been more expressions of interest. Likely around June or July we will see the first expressions of interest. They will roll out after that.

J. Kwan: The minister also mentioned that the recoveries from these heritage properties must be spent that same year if it is government managed. Does he mean to say that if it's not spent, then those dollars are put into general revenues? Is that what he means?

Hon. G. Abbott: Generally speaking, this hasn't been a big problem. Going back to the legalities of the operation of the treasury, recoveries made in a particular fiscal year must be expended in that fiscal year, or the recoveries revert to Crown. The staff have been generally pretty accurate in drawing up budgets, so that doesn't happen often. That, as the member knows, is the way government works.

J. Kwan: The service plan commits the ministry to maintain support for the B.C. Arts Council. In the '01-02 estimates the ministry has allocated approximately $14 million, and in the '02-03 estimates the allocation is around $13 million to the B.C. Arts Council.

First, let me just ask: are these numbers correct, and if so, could the minister please advise and explain the discrepancy?

Hon. G. Abbott: The numbers are correct. However, just to be sure, the member should understand that they also include other areas for arts and culture. The allocation for the Arts Council has been protected within that figure, but there are also other expenditures on top. If it's the member's wish, I can go through them now, or we can send you a copy of them.

J. Kwan: Is the net effect with the Arts Council such that while the funding is there, it just means additional programs are added to the funding they've been allocated? That means at the end of the day the funding for the Arts Council has really been watered down because their responsibilities have been expanded.

Hon. G. Abbott: The member is incorrect in that assumption. The lion's share of the dollars she's looking at in that particular case is for the Arts Council. They are consistent year to year to the Arts Council, but within that larger figure there are also disbursements from cultural services branch out to others who undertake either responsibilities or functions or programs for us.

J. Kwan: If I understand the minister correctly, the funding for the Arts Council is protected in comparison to previous years. The funding did not decrease for the Arts Council.

J. Kwan: The service plan indicates that the government will no longer be providing funding to the B.C. Festival of the Arts. Could the minister please expand on that issue? It has been an issue in the community.

Hon. G. Abbott: The member is correct. It was actually a very difficult decision, but given the fiscal constraints we had, we felt it was important to protect the core funding to the arts. That's through the mechanism of the Arts Council. As a consequence, the funding after the completion of the current B.C. Festival of the Arts will not be continued.

They may find it from other sources. We don't know that. We're not sure of the disposition of the board with respect to that, but it's certainly the situation we face today.

J. Kwan: The B.C. Festival of the Arts, particularly in local communities, often tends to generate a lot of local economic activities. Has there been any analysis with respect to the B.C. Festival of the Arts generating local economic activities for respective communities? Is the minister aware of any of those kinds of analyses being done? What's the information, if there is such analysis?

Hon. G. Abbott: In sort of living corporate memory here, we are not aware of any analysis that's been done with respect to the B.C. Festival of the Arts around those multipliers or impacts.

J. Kwan: If such an analysis has not been done within the ministry, is the minister or his staff aware of who — perhaps in a local community, the local chamber of commerce or other places — might have kept some of that information? And what does that information tell us?

J. Kwan: I raise this line of questioning because I know that when I travel to the various communities for the Festival of the Arts, I often hear from the community about how great it is. Not only is it a coming together of the community but also for the local economies to be generated with activities because of the gathering of people from elsewhere.

I'm just wondering whether or not there is any work or analysis around that, especially in the smaller communities where more and more we have to look towards local economies and activities and the like, where injections of such moneys may well be worth the return in revenue back to government and to the local economies. That's why I'm asking those questions. Perhaps the minister could undertake to gather such information and see what the analysis is, to see whether or not it's a good investment for communities. I suspect it is a good investment for communities.

Moving on to the area of sports, the service plan indicates that the ministry will stop funding the National Coaching Institute. Can the minister please advise of the justification for reducing the funding for athletes in this area?

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, it wasn't an easy decision to make with respect to the National Coaching Institute and our funding to it. We believe that our resources are best focused on levels 2 and 3, where most of our interest is. Levels beyond that are funded by the federal government.

Hon. G. Abbott: The national coaching levels are 1 to 5. Generally, one moves from level 1, which is the simplest or lowest level of coaching expertise, to 5, which is the highest. Level 3 typically is, for example, the level of coaching one might find at the Canada Summer or Winter Games. It's at that level where much of our interest from a sports perspective, at least competitively, would be focused. When you get to levels 4 and 5, one's getting into the international level of coaching where, generally, the national interest is.

J. Kwan: The minister advised that the federal government has contributed dollars in this area. Does the minister know how much money the federal government has contributed towards this area?

Hon. G. Abbott: Our contribution was, and until '04-05 will be, $115,000. We don't know what the federal contribution to the National Coaching Institute is. It'd be considerably more than that, but we don't know what it is.

J. Kwan: I thought I heard the minister say that the federal government is coming to the table or is at the table in this area. Maybe it's not in this area, so maybe the minister can clarify: what is the federal government's contribution and in what area and how much?

Hon. G. Abbott: I think the member may be confused around the point of when she was raising the issue of the athlete assistance program in the context of the 2010 Olympic bid. That's where my comments with respect to the federal government were expressed. We hadn't talked about the National Coaching Institute at that time.

J. Kwan: Sorry, I must have had a mind lapse for one moment. I thought I heard the minister say just moments ago that there were federal government programs in this area, so I wasn't referring to the Olympic bid situation.

Hon. G. Abbott: The federal government actually owns this program; it's their program. We contribute to it at least to the level of $115,000, but it's their program.

J. Kwan: We don't know? Does the minister know what the federal government's contribution to the program is?

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, it's the federal government's program. We don't have the detail here with respect to what the overall cost of it is. Presumably it would be the total cost minus any contributions they receive from British Columbia and other provinces.

We'd be happy to get the member that information if she'd like detail on it, but we don't have that with us. It is a federal program.

J. Kwan: That's fine. I can get that information myself. I had thought that maybe the minister would have that information, given that the minister mentioned the federal government's participation with respect to this.

Does the minister have any plans in terms of getting other sectors to come in with funding in this area?

Hon. G. Abbott: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. If you introduce me that way every time, it will be a very long estimates process. It's a very long name.

We are open to suggestions, opportunities and partnerships with the private, corporate and non-profit sectors on all phases of sports including coaching, although…. Well, in fairness to organizations like PetroCanada, they have in fact focused their assistance on the coaching end. We're open to partnerships in all areas around sport.

Hon. G. Abbott: We have had wide involvement in all our consultations, but we're not aware of any initia-

J. Kwan: What partnership opportunities is the government examining at this time? Let's not just restrict it to the coaching area — but in the sports arena.

Hon. G. Abbott: As one might imagine at this point in time, much of the effort and attention in terms of new partnerships around sports activities is focused on the 2010 Olympic bid. That's probably not going to be a particular surprise to the member.

Additionally, though, we have certainly engaged the corporate sector in the consultations around the development of sport policy in British Columbia. This is evidenced really at every level of local and at times provincial athletic competition and involvement. To use the example of my kid's soccer team, it has for some years been sponsored by Subway. That would be one example, but there are a myriad of ways in which the corporate and business sector are involved in sponsoring minor and higher levels of athletic competition and athletic teams.

J. Kwan: In the New Era document it actually highlights the doubling of the physical fitness and amateur sports fund to $44 million to promote physical fitness and participation in amateur sport. Yet, for the '04-05 service plan, the athlete assistance program would be eliminated. Can the minister address the discrepancy between these two policy directions?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member is correct. In the last election campaign we did commit to doubling of the physical fitness and amateur sports fund. We have followed through on that commitment. The first instalment of the doubling from $22 million to $44 million over four years occurred in the last fiscal year. Soon we will add the second increment of that. Again, as the fund grows, the amount of interest — all things being equal — will grow as well.

Of course, one of the challenges we have at this point of time is that interest rates — at least if you are receiving them rather than paying them — are relatively low. We expect the interest generated from the amateur sport fund for '01-02 to be $1.55 million, an estimated $1.726 million for '02-03, an estimated $1.808 million for '03-04 and an estimated $1.848 million for '04-05.

J. Kwan: I am sorry. I missed part of it because I was talking to a colleague in the House for a minute. Did I hear the minister correctly when he said the funds that are in place…? It's the interest contribution that goes towards the funds, and then that's for the four years? Okay. I just want to clarify that point. Thanks.

In the New Era document it almost reads as though the contribution in the physical fitness and amateur sports fund is actually the amount of $44 million; it's not the contribution of the interest. It's actually a little bit misleading, if you look at the document, so I wanted to clarify that point with the minister.

One of the issues that I want to bring to the minister's attention…. I wonder what his response would be around this. We've heard it in several different arenas — whether it be in the health arena or the education arena — that more and more we see young people, particularly, who are less engaged in physical fitness and activities. That, of course, has huge ramifications health-wise and otherwise. As the minister responsible for sport, I wonder what strategy the minister has in this regard — to look at the physical fitness issue overall for, particularly, younger-generation British Columbians.

Hon. G. Abbott: Actually, I do very much share the apprehension expressed by the member around the attention to sport and the relative physical fitness of young people. We know that childhood obesity is at a very high level, probably record-high levels in Canada today, so it is very much a concern for us in this ministry. That's why — and I think I tried to express this the other day — we have to find a kind of balance between the competitive side of the sport, which everybody celebrates, and also to try to encourage as much as we can a broad participation in sport by young people, particularly in an age where we can do all kinds of fascinating things on a machine called a computer.

Sometimes it's difficult to compete with Dungeons and Dragons, or whatever the flavour of the month is on computer games, with good old-fashioned football, baseball or whatever it is. We need to engage young people in sport. There's probably a sort of multidimensional answer, perhaps, to this puzzle.

For example, we in our branch have active schools and so on — programs like that — which try to encourage broader participation. As long as we are seeing some of the indicators going in the wrong direction in terms of participation rates and childhood obesity and that kind of thing, I think we clearly need to do more to try to encourage kids to get involved in sports, to get excited about sports and to be involved in sports all their lives.

J. Kwan: I'm wondering whether or not the minister has any concrete plans to engage young people in sports. Are there such programs within the minister's area of responsibility?

Hon. G. Abbott: The ministry is working very extensively and very vigorously with the private sector and non-profit groups that are involved in this, principally with Sport B.C. and its committees, to develop a strategy and an action plan to deal with issues around the participation of young people in sports. In the '02-03 budget we have been able, in fact, to add $176,000 in new resources targeted particularly to that goal.

J. Kwan: The minister mentioned Sport B.C. The funding envelope and the amount of money the minis-

ter also mentioned was $100,000-plus. Is that entire amount being directed toward Sport B.C.?

Hon. G. Abbott: The funding to Sport B.C. — and I hope this is okay for the member at this point — is approximately $4 million. The $176,000 I mentioned is incremental to that core funding, so it is additional funding. It is targeted at ways in which we can enhance the participation of young people in sports.

J. Kwan: I'm just about to wrap up in the sports area here, and then I know another member in the House wishes to ask the minister some questions in this set of estimates.

Will there be tracking, if you will, of the participation rate of young people so that we can actually see some sort of measurement? Is it going up? Is it going down? Do we need additional attempts in trying to draw young people into the arena of sports?

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes, we definitely will be doing that. We believe funding should be performance-based, and we'll be looking to see that over time, hopefully, some of those indicators turn with respect to youth participation in sports. It is a very critical part of having healthy communities and a healthy province.

J. Kwan: Are there any specific targeted initiatives or programs either with the ministry or with Sport B.C. or other groups in terms of trying to target low-income families and the opportunity for the children to participate in the sports arena?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm pleased to advise the member that, yes, there is a program which is specifically designed in that direction. It's called Kidsport. We fund Sport B.C. for the purpose of providing the necessary kind of immediate costs and resources to allow kids, for example, to play hockey, football or soccer — to pay their upfront registration and possibly equipment kinds of things. Kidsport is designed in that way.

J. Kwan: I wonder if the minister can provide me with detailed information around the program. I assume that's one program. There would likely be a range of programs that exist throughout British Columbia. Could he provide me with detailed information on how one could access such a program so that I can disseminate that information to the broader community? I know my own area is definitely an area where young people particularly are always looking for opportunities to participate, but because they face multiple barriers, sometimes they're not able to. I just wonder…. If there is a larger base to enhance the information I have, that would be most helpful.

Hon. G. Abbott: We'd be delighted to provide comprehensive information with respect to that program to the member.

J. Kwan: I don't have additional questions in the area of sports, but I understand that another member in the House wishes to ask the minister some questions. I'm going to yield the floor to him at this time.

J. Bray: I'd like to thank my colleague for allowing me to address some questions to the minister. First, I'd like to congratulate the minister and his staff on their service plan. It's an excellent working document that allows members and the community to really get a handle on what the minister and his staff around the province are going to be doing over the next three years. I know it's a lot of work for staff. I just wanted to acknowledge that I appreciate the work.

The first area I'd like to canvass with the minister is in the service plan with respect to the Royal B.C. Museum. Certainly, in my riding of Victoria–Beacon Hill, the Royal B.C. Museum is a significant asset, but it really is an asset for the whole capital region. I know that in discussions with board members at the museum, there has been some concern over the years about declining attendance as a percentage of the share of tourism. I'm just wondering whether or not the minister has had discussions with the Royal B.C. Museum around the issue of their ability to attract their fair share of tourists and whether or not the museum has been providing him information on that. Can he update us a little bit on the types of feedback he's received from the museum on that issue?

Hon. G. Abbott: I want to trump the member here a little bit. The Royal B.C. Museum is not only a tremendous asset to the city of Victoria and the greater Victoria region; it's also obviously a tremendous asset to the entire province and indeed one of the great jewels in the provincial crown. I think every British Columbian is remarkably proud of the Royal B.C. Museum and the programs and amenities it offers.

The Royal B.C. Museum and executive director Pauline Rafferty, who is here with me, have actually been tremendous in terms of building a constructive working relationship. We are certainly moving to try to address some of the challenges that face the museum. With Pauline's capable assistance, I'm sure we can provide whatever information the member is looking for.

A couple of the things I see in the service plan around the planning context…. It talks about major trends with respect to museums — not only the Royal B.C. Museum but really the museum community as a whole. It talks about questioning roles and activities.

One of the areas I'd like to focus on, if I could, is adopting marketing strategies. Of course, as the minister knows, Victoria has a very active tourism community through Tourism Victoria. It really deals with tourism as a whole industry rather than as individual businesses. It has been very successful. I see that there is a section dealing with adopting marketing strategies. I'm wondering, first of all, whether or not the minister

could expand a bit on where the Royal B.C. Museum is going with respect to adapting those marketing strategies.

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for his question. Again, I think this is a very positive thing. I think we can look to the future with a lot of confidence in relation to the Royal B.C. Museum. I should note, first of all, that there is a core review ongoing with respect to the Royal B.C. Museum, so I don't expect that any of this answer will be honed in terms of its accuracy by core review. I do just want to advise the member of that.

The Royal B.C. Museum is a very active partner with both Tourism Victoria and Tourism B.C. in attempting to ensure that the Royal B.C. Museum is very much a partner in a thriving tourism industry in British Columbia. Obviously, as the member acknowledged, tourism is huge for Victoria, and certainly the Royal B.C. Museum is committed to doing its part to further enhancing the tourism potential of Victoria.

Pauline advises me — again, I knew it previously, and maybe the hon. member already knows it — that one of the tremendously exciting things that is going to happen in the months ahead, particularly in relation to the Royal B.C. Museum, is the celebration of the fiftieth anniversary of the Queen's coronation. There will be a special exhibit at the Royal B.C. Museum running through until next January to celebrate this very momentous event. It is not entirely unusual to find people seeing in Victoria an old-world British charm. One would expect that this will be just a tremendously successful exhibit for the Royal B.C. Museum. We look forward to that.

The museum has faced some considerable challenges in the wake, particularly, of September 11. Again, there's no news here. As a consequence of the tragic events on September 11, air travel — whether it was between destinations in the Pacific Northwest or whether it was international — was severely curtailed for a time. We seem to be strongly in a recovery position now, but there's no question that it made life very difficult not just for the museum but for a whole range of tourism-oriented businesses in Victoria and elsewhere in British Columbia in those months immediately following the tragic events of September 11.

The museum responded, from a marketing perspective, to the events of September 11 by focusing — and I think this was a very wise strategy — on the Pacific Northwest. I think that effort has borne fruit. The museum has had a very good month of March, and they anticipate they are going to have a very successful summer. I suspect, hopefully, with the Queen's visit to Victoria and the excitement around the new royal feature to the museum, that we'll have a very successful year.

J. Bray: Hon. Chair, through you I thank the minister for that answer. I'm very pleased to hear that the museum is also going to tie into the anticipated royal visit in October.

I'd like to focus on just a couple of other areas if I may. The first is: one of the key challenges identified is the ability to diversify revenues. I'm wondering if the minister could advise me as to some of the activities the museum is doing to diversify its revenues. Certainly, some members of this House are aware that the museum is doing things like catering events and hosting events very successfully as a revenue source and actually, I think, adds a tremendous experience for visitors from conferences and meetings. It's a very unique venue. I'm wondering if the minister could just advise us a bit more on those types of activities that perhaps would not be thought of when one first thinks of a museum.

Hon. G. Abbott: The member is correct. There certainly is ongoing a very strong initiative to diversify revenues. There is not only the rental of the galleries and the hosting of events, which the member referenced, but as one who has participated in a number of them, they are recognized as being very fine events and always very well done. Gallery rentals are an important part of it. As well, the museum has some of its own publications and publications of others, which it sells in its retail space and elsewhere. Retail is an important part of the operation of the museum.

There are also efforts to raise funds corporately and privately to enhance the museum. The museum has, as well, of course, a public-private partnership with IMAX, which generates funds to the museum. There is an ongoing attempt which we will continue to work at, because we're by no means there yet. We will continue to look at ways in which we can get the museum on an ongoing secure basis fiscally.

J. Bray: I am very pleased to hear those plans are going on. Certainly, the feedback in my community here in Victoria is that they've been very successful. I think it's important for the community at large to see the museum expanding its role and looking for new ways of developing revenue sources independent of government. I applaud the museum's successful efforts so far, and I certainly encourage them to continue in that way.

Two other areas, if I may. The first is the Friends board, the board that is looking at fundraising from the perspective of donations and legacies and that type of fundraising arm. In the strategic plan it's clear that this has not perhaps been as successful as one would have liked. I'm wondering whether or not the minister can address the issue of what the Friends of the Royal B.C. Museum is doing to address its ability to attract a larger share of donations, either as a percentage or certainly getting larger individual donations. In the information provided, the median donation was about $50, and given the comparison to some of the other museums around North America, that's a relatively

low amount. I'm wondering if the minister can comment a bit more on the Friends of the Royal B.C. Museum.

Hon. G. Abbott: There's a couple of elements to a full answer to the question the member poses. First of all, the Friends board, I'm advised, has only been actively fundraising for a couple of years, so it's a relatively new initiative for the board. I think we're seeing increasingly some success in the fundraising efforts. That's not at all unusual for institutions or boards or organizations that are relatively early on in the fundraising business.

The other side of the equation, and certainly one would encounter quite a strong argument on this point from the Friends on the board, is that the museum is currently a special operating agency of government. It's the view of some, at least, on the board that as a special operating agency the museum lacks the opportunities for flexibility and innovation, partly for capturing greater fundraising amounts and endowments and so on, by being rather closely tied to government.

What we are doing through the core review process is looking at the range of options that would be appropriate for the museum as a future entity. That may range from the status quo — I suppose it's a possibility — to Crown corporation status or possibly some other realignment or reconfiguration that would work for the museum.

J. Bray: I recognize that the museum is still going through the core review process, and the minister very nicely segued into what was going to be my grand finale area, which was the area of its current governance structure.

Under core business area 3, revenue generation and business operations, in the strategic plan under goal 2 it speaks of increased independence, a governance structure that is built on business principles and encourages philanthropic donations. If my understanding from the meetings I've had at the Royal B.C. Museum…. The intent is to try and be a bit more separate from government to give confidence to those who are looking to make larger donations — a sense that it's not somehow going to fall into the black hole of other government expenditures.

I note that objective No. 1 is to achieve new governance status in 2002, and strategy 1 is to follow requests for a legislation process. Certainly, those of us in the capital regional district strongly support the Royal B.C. Museum and want to see it strengthened and are very encouraged by this process. I was wondering, perhaps, as my grand finale question on this area, if the minister could let us know what exactly is meant by "follow requests for a legislative process" and new governance — maybe just expand a bit more on his perspective of what that might achieve for the museum.

Hon. G. Abbott: I would love to be more precise, but I probably can't be. With the core review processes on, I would be bold — some would say foolish; in fact, I would say foolish — to attempt to speculate on what the direction might be out of core review. If this offers reassurance to the member, I do think that a greater autonomy and greater independence is very much one of the critical features we will have to capture if indeed the museum is to enjoy the success around fundraising and endowments, and so on, that we would like to see happen. That's certainly the direction that I hope to see come out of core review.

Again, I hold only so many of the marbles in this particular game. Depending on the timing of core review and what the outcome is, there remains a possibility of some legislative action in the current session. Again, that is an issue which involves a number of players that are even beyond this room.

J. Bray: I appreciate that answer. The minister is very reassuring. Just so the minister is aware, my congratulations always go out to not only the staff at the museum and also those who serve on the board and on the Friends but also the many volunteers. Many people don't realize when they go to the museum that there are a great number of volunteers from the community, both mine and the others of my South Island colleagues, who donate a lot of time in the museum both in the front lines and also behind the scenes, and who really serve the community very well.

I continue to support the efforts of the museum and will always lend my assistance, and I know my other colleagues on the South Island will do so. The minister is always assured that we will visit him on a regular basis when we need to.

If I may, hon. Chair, one other area I would like to canvass is the Provincial Capital Commission, which is a topic that the minister is familiar with from visits from myself as well as many other of the South Island MLAs over the last eight or nine months.

The act itself basically has been unchanged since 1956. Many in the community have stressed that perhaps there's a need for a revitalization or revisiting of the Provincial Capital Commission. In reading their annual report, there do seem to be some areas that have stagnated over time. They carry a large amount of cash assets as a proportion of their overall assets, and they seem to be involved in all sorts of activities in the community — none of them negative — but going back to the act of 1956, they sometimes do seem to be out of sync. I'm wondering if the minister can advise us what the status is of the Provincial Capital Commission at this point.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'll just introduce Larry Beres, who's with me from the Provincial Capital Commission. The PCC is still undergoing core review, and the results of that will be revealed, I guess, appropriately in due course.

J. Bray: Obviously, as the minister has indicated before, when things are in the middle of core review, he'd be foolish, as he says, to actually try to prejudge it.

Is it fair to say that there'll be some information that may come out before the end of this session as to the results of that core review? The reason why I ask is that it has been an issue that's been in the news somewhat, and we just want to ensure that our community partners are up to date on where things are at.

J. Kwan: I'm going to turn to the area of the Vancouver agreement and ask the minister some questions in this area of his responsibility.

First, I wonder if the minister could just update the House on the status of the Vancouver agreement at this stage.

Hon. G. Abbott: The government remains committed to the Vancouver agreement. We have continued our meetings and discussions at the political level with formerly Minister Fry from the federal government and, of course, Mayor Owen from Vancouver and now with Mayor Owen and Minister Owen as our partners on the Vancouver agreement. We have continued our efforts together. As well, at the public service level, of course, there is ongoing and, I think, daily contact between the partners in the Vancouver agreement.

J. Kwan: Could the minister please advise what activities are now going on under the Vancouver agreement?

Hon. G. Abbott: Generally speaking, in terms of the activities, we now have a greater focus on economic activity and, in particular, revitalization of the downtown east side of Vancouver. Among the programs is one called Neighbour First. As an example of an event, there is in fact a Chinatown lighting event tomorrow night in Vancouver, which I do hope to attend.

J. Kwan: Before I go to new activities, perhaps the minister can advise. Under the Vancouver agreement previously there were a number of different initiatives that were slated to move forward. Are those initiatives still going to move forward?

Hon. G. Abbott: The short answer is yes. I'm advised by staff that there's an ongoing assessment of priorities.

J. Kwan: So the initiatives that were agreed to with the previous government under the Vancouver agreement will continue to proceed.

J. Kwan: Then I wonder if the minister can go through them individually with me and just walk me through those initiatives that are now on the table — which ones are proceeding, and which ones are not proceeding. If he doesn't have that information, I welcome a list, as well, down the road to save time in the estimates.

I am interested to see whether or not those initiatives are proceeding. His answer was yes, which was a short answer. I'll take his word for it, but I want to clarify to make sure that that is in fact the case.

Hon. G. Abbott: We'd be happy to accommodate the member by providing her with a list of the ongoing activities.

I just wanted to have a bit of caution around…. I know the member was very actively involved in the Vancouver agreement as a member of the executive council for the former government. She may have knowledge or understanding of the programs. If there are specifics, we'd be glad to deal with them here now, but if it's just a general question, we'd be glad to provide a list.

J. Kwan: Under the Vancouver agreement there were a number of different initiatives that were approved and were to proceed. For some of them, though, because of the pending election, it was determined that it was best not to make the announcement at that time, but rather to wait, although the approval from all three levels had been made and the funding from the respective levels of government had been identified and committed.

One of those initiatives has been announced since that time. That is the Contact Centre. I know that's opened in the community. I know they are struggling with some issues at the moment with Contact Centre, but that was announced after the election. As an example, that was one area.

There was another program called the Destinations program. That was slated to move forward as well. I can go through each one, but, generally speaking, if the minister is saying that all of those programs that had been approved by all three levels of government are still going to be moving forward, then I'll take his word for it. He can supply me with the list at another time. I'll just match it up with my list to make sure that indeed all the programs are proceeding.

J. Kwan: In the Vancouver agreement…. I think part of the interesting thing when you've been in the executive council with your area of responsibility is that you retain way too much corporate information, and therefore it makes the estimates process perhaps longer and more detailed, but I am trying to shorten this process. Thank you to the minister for committing to provide that information.

With the Vancouver agreement, on the next piece, the minister mentioned that they're now going to focus on economic revitalization for the community in the downtown east side — Gastown, Chinatown and the

entire surrounding area. He mentioned one initiative, which is the light initiative.

Could the minister please advise of the contributions towards that initiative from each of the respective levels of government? Also, what other initiatives have been slated to move forward or have been approved under the Vancouver agreement for economic revitalization?

Hon. G. Abbott: The funding is from the federal government and the city government on Chinatown lighting, but as you know, sometimes the partners change in terms of the funding. In this case, it's the federal government and the city government, but as is the practice around the Vancouver agreement, we've been invited to participate as a partner.

J. Kwan: It was always the intent with the Vancouver agreement that different partners would play different roles at different times. It's not always the case that the province would contribute, nor is it always the case that, let's say, the municipal government would contribute. It would very much depend on the program, so I can appreciate that.

Does the minister know how much money is being dedicated towards the lighting program from the municipal and federal governments?

Hon. G. Abbott: We don't have that information immediately available to us, but we can provide it to the member.

J. Kwan: Are there other initiatives slated or approved under the Vancouver agreement for economic revitalization? If so, what are they, and how does the funding split?

J. Kwan: I'm sorry. My colleague is here to take over another section of the estimates, and in about ten minutes I need to go into the small House to do estimates with the Attorney General. In the interests of time, because I have a few other questions to ask on the Vancouver agreement, I wonder if the minister could provide me with a list of the new initiatives that have been approved, the areas of responsibility under each government and the financial contributions from each government. I'm sure that would help the minister out as well as help me out.

J. Kwan: On the Vancouver agreement, it was always envisioned by the three levels of government that we would advance in the area of harm reduction initiatives. It was a four pillar approach that Mayor Owen, the mayor of Vancouver, championed. It was one that was supported by all three levels of government.

Could the minister please advise? I assume those four pillars are still moving forward, particularly the one pillar on harm reduction that deals with heroin maintenance initiatives and safe injection sites. Are those still slated to move forward in the Vancouver agreement development?

Hon. G. Abbott: We are supportive of the four pillar approach including harm reduction, and we are attempting to move ahead in partnership with the city and the federal government in terms of a balanced approach to harm reduction.

J. Kwan: I just want to be very specific on the question around harm reduction because it has all kinds of different definitions out there as time evolves, and people have attached different meanings to it. Of course, the piece that is most controversial around the harm reduction pillar centres around the heroin maintenance initiative, some portion of which I know the federal government is funding. I understand from the Minister of Health Planning that the province is also supportive of this initiative.

Under the Vancouver agreement, on this piece, are there financial contributions from the government in this area? The second question, on the other very controversial discussion around harm reduction, is on safe injection sites. Is the minister supportive of moving forward with that?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member would have to canvass the Minister of Health Services for specific health-related expenditures. I don't have any authority or responsibility with respect to that.

I do want to say, because I know this is a somewhat controversial area, that we are supportive of harm reduction. What we want to see available in the downtown east side — indeed, in all communities in British Columbia — are treatment options that will be readily and effectively available to those who want to move beyond their addictions and to conquer their addictions.

We know there is a continuum of addiction services. We want to see a range of addiction services in place, so that people who want to conquer their addictions have those opportunities. I do know that there are some initiatives, which are ongoing and planned, around that.

I know the member mentioned that definitions are always important in this business. I think they're very important around that very contentious issue of safe injection sites as well. Given that, from what I've seen in the reading I've done, different people attach different definitions or different elements to a description of what that constitutes. What we want to do is work with the federal and local governments to ensure that what we do in British Columbia is part of a national drug reduction strategy, a national harm reduction strategy. We want it to be effective. We want it to be results oriented and performance measured.

J. Kwan: This is the one area where I think I agree with the minister on the issue around evidence base, particularly in harm reduction as it relates to substance misuse. In other jurisdictions, when you look at the results of what they have done with maintenance programs, heroin maintenance initiatives, as well as safe injection sites, they actually have found, from an evidence-based perspective, that it saved lives. It saved the community from harm. When I speak of harm, it's broadly speaking in terms of criminal activities, nuisance, scattered needles on the ground — those kind of harms — as well as on the financial side, where it actually saved governments moneys in social services and criminal justice and so on. It actually is evidence based; it actually shows that it is effective in that way.

On the issue around safe injection sites and heroin maintenance initiatives, am I understanding the minister correctly that he considers those two aspects as the continuum of a harm reduction approach, under the four pillars approach, as has been adopted by the three levels of government and particularly as championed by Mayor Owen in his efforts to address these concerns collectively with the three levels of government?

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, at the risk of straying into an area where other ministers and their staffs would have greater expertise around, for example, the heroin maintenance trials, and so on, that clearly are a kind of Health Services issue, I believe that, yeah, in terms of the harm reduction strategy and having that effective continuum of services, it is important to build on the evidence-based results that we've seen from past efforts. Certainly, I think we can learn from what's occurred around this very difficult issue in Europe, the United States and so on.

I think — and I'm sure the member agrees as well, given that they are also committed to the four pillar approach — that all of this is done in combination with law enforcement and addressing criminal justice issues and so on. We do need to develop a balanced approach. Certainly, I know the member is not attempting to sort of heighten the drama around this, nor are we. This is a serious social issue that is evidenced particularly in the downtown east side but certainly not exclusively in the downtown east side. We find it in communities throughout British Columbia. In concert with both municipal and federal partners, we need to develop a strategy that is going to provide people with the opportunity to turn their lives around. We know that many of them would like to do that.

J. Kwan: I'll just close with this, because I notice the Chair for the small House has disappeared. I'd better go into the small House to do the estimates for the Attorney General.

I agree on the issue around addressing the very complex and challenging issue of substance misuse. A four-pillar approach is not the silver bullet. There is no silver bullet that would answer all of the questions and solve all of the problems. Even with safe injection site initiatives or heroin maintenance initiatives, or both, you would not be able to resolve all of the issues. It has to be a combination of the four pillars that involve enforcement, prevention, health-related matters and of course the harm reduction side. Then, tied into all of that is economic opportunities and revitalization. I know that's one component of the entire scheme for the Vancouver agreement.

It is a very multi-pronged approach. At no time do I want to leave the impression that the only thing that needs to be done is safe injection sites and heroin maintenance initiatives. It has to be the entire continuum. Otherwise, I don't think we'll see the success that we want to see in our communities and address these very difficult challenges. I also appreciate the approach of not really heightening it for political purposes. That's not my intent at all. I raise these two issues because they are the most controversial ones, and people tend to just shy away from them because they're difficult to deal with. I think they're a critical component of it. If we don't deal with it, then the other pillars will also fail, which is something that I think all of us in the House don't want to see.

Finally, I just simply want to say that on the national strategy side, Mayor Owen did get support from other mayors in the big-city mayors caucus meeting. Mayors in Toronto and other major cities have also come onside to support safe injection sites. That's very, very important within the entire scheme of coming forward with a comprehensive strategy in dealing with substance misuse.

With that, I'm going to leave the House and yield the floor to my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings.

J. MacPhail: We'll move to Women's Equality programs now and hopefully conclude by supper break.

One of the areas we were exploring when we last met in estimates was the area of alternate funding for women's services, women's centres. I'm going to go back to that for a short period of time.

According, again, to the Ministry of Women's Services service plan, one of the minister's priorities is to "develop and implement a provincewide strategy for the delivery of women's services." I mean, this is an objective, a requirement, of the minister that clearly requires her to go beyond the bounds of her own ministry of state. Frankly, I would interpret it that it indicates that she is tasked with working with her fellow cabinet ministers on issues that affect services for women. It's in the context of the minister suggesting that there are alternate sources of funds for women's centres when they have their funding cut.

My first question is: what discussions has the minister had to ensure that women will be getting the services they need in light of the various cuts being made in other ministries that impact women's services?

Hon. L. Stephens: The commitment I made to the women's centres specifically around their funding issues…. We have been speaking with them on a regular

basis. We have been, through the ministry staff, contacting the various women's centres to find out what their needs are and what might be available for them in their communities. We have just recently sent a small gesture of $3,000 to assist the women's centres themselves in looking for whatever opportunities may exist for them in their communities.

J. MacPhail: Good. I'm sure the discussions are fruitful with the women's centres directly.

My question specifically was, though, on women's services — I used "women's centre" because that was what we were discussing before — and alternate sources of funding. Here's where I'm going. There are many programs that have sources of funding. Some of that funding comes from this minister of state, but those programs also have sources of funding from other programs within government. I am wondering what the minister is doing, in her requirement to implement a provincewide strategy for the delivery of women's services, to work with her other cabinet colleagues on ensuring that these women's services continue to be delivered when in fact there may be cuts in other ministries that may affect that delivery of service.

Hon. L. Stephens: The ongoing work of the ministry is one that is cross-ministry. I know the member understands that. We have made the commitment that we are going to in fact strengthen those interministry relationships. As I mentioned previously, we have established three cross-ministry committees that will be dealing with the issues of violence, safety and security, women's health and also the economic opportunities for women.

When we look at all of those activities, it's clear that there is a very big relationship between the responsibilities I have and other ministries. We are working diligently. We've really just begun in many ways to address these issues that the member raises, but I want to assure the member that the structure is in place. Some of the items have been identified, and there are some in certain areas in the other ministries that we are working closely with them on.

J. MacPhail: I remember that one of the three committees was dealing with violence. Perhaps she can tell, as an example, what progress she's made with her colleagues the Minister of Health Services, the Solicitor General and the Attorney General in ensuring the maintenance of services for women who find themselves victims of violence.

Hon. L. Stephens: We are working cross-ministry with the Attorney General and the Solicitor General on those issues. We ourselves have begun a review of the violence services that are available to women in British Columbia. We are doing a gap analysis. We are trying to identify what services are actually out there. That's in terms of transition houses, victim services, counselling services and all of these other supports that are there for women. We are really trying to do that to consolidate the programming across government, across all the ministries.

There are ongoing conversations. Specifically, I'm speaking with the Attorney General and the Solicitor General on domestic violence legislation. We have said quite clearly in our New Era document that that is one of the priorities. We are working on that, as an example.

J. MacPhail: Well, Mr. Chair, this is one area I'll be watching very carefully. The minister is well aware, and I'm sure members of this House are well aware, that particularly women's services are expert at gathering up funds from many sources in order to make sure that they've got services to deliver. They beg and borrow, often, for services.

I'm thinking particularly of the area of sexual assault, where there are two very distinct funding envelopes. One is sexual assault centres which get their funding from police-based programs, for instance, but then there are also community-based programs that deliver specialized victim assistance services. The community-based victim assistance services in the area of violence tend to be very expert and more approachable for women, even though the victim assistance programs also cover children and have child sexual abuse and aboriginal programs as well.

While the government has said, I think — in fact, this minister has said — that sexual assault centres and woman assault centres have been protected, is the minister confident that all of the community-based services for sexual assault victims are funded as well?

Hon. L. Stephens: The Solicitor General and I have had discussions around this very topic. I know that the police-based victim services are very near and dear to his heart, as they are to mine. I know he has a particular interest in the police-based services because, in fact, as the member has mentioned, they are the community supports that are immediate and current and the supports that most directly affected women who are in those immediate crisis circumstances. He has been working very hard, I know, and I am confident that the police-based victim services programs will continue.

In terms of the specialized victim services through the various community organizations, I know there is very likely to be a review of those services, as we are in fact going through a review of what is actually out there to support women. We are doing that inventory of services, and the Solicitor General is as well. We're trying to identify those gaps where there may be some special needs and those kinds of things. I know he is very much aware of the importance of these sexual assault programs, as am I. We are both working hard to identify any gaps that may exist in what programs should or should not look like in the future.

J. MacPhail: That's one area I'll be watching very carefully, whether it be health services or sexual assault

services, to make sure that the interpretation of "protection" is not so narrowly defined as to just protect one part of a multifaceted, multi-funded program.

How will the new funding model for transition houses, emergency shelters and second-stage housing work?

Hon. L. Stephens: As I've said earlier, we're just in the beginning stages of doing the inventory of what we have out there in the field. We're looking at what facilities we fund and what other facilities are available in the province that are funded by others. We're trying to get a complete and total picture of what kind of physical plant is available to women.

From there, we will look at what the funding is for those particular facilities. What we do know is that there is a tremendous inequity across those facilities, particularly the ones we fund. We're going to be doing the inventory first to find out what exactly is out there. Then we're going to be doing the gap analysis, and then we're going to be doing the consultations with the stakeholders. From there will flow the recommendations, and from there will flow the decisions and the actions we take.

J. MacPhail: It's my understanding that the minister is committed to a new funding model. I'm wondering why there has to be a change in the funding model.

Hon. L. Stephens: Everyone that's been involved with the transition house initiatives over the last number of years is well aware that there are some very large funding inequities across the province for the various houses. There hasn't really been any change or any attempt to rationalize those services since 1994, so we think this is an opportunity to look at what we've got and whether or not we're actually serving women appropriately. We're also looking at the rural and the urban issues that arise from time to time too. It has been very clear that there are some inequities, and that's what we're going to be trying to address.

J. MacPhail: How many transition homes are there currently, and how many second-stage facilities currently exist?

Hon. L. Stephens: We've got 61 transition houses, 16 second-stage and nine safe houses.

J. MacPhail: Is the minister's referral to a safe house the same as an emergency shelter or separate?

Hon. L. Stephens: Safe houses are separate. You'll usually find safe houses in the rural parts of the province where the community may be small, and it's difficult to maintain a full-service transition house. Safe houses can be a person's home, a private home that a family has made available for women who are fleeing abusive relationships. It could be a hotel room that is purchased. It could be a combination of those things, but generally that is what a safe home is.

J. MacPhail: How much funding is going to be put into transition houses, emergency shelters, safe houses and second-stage housing?

J. MacPhail: I assume we're talking about '02-03. What's the plan for '03-04?

J. MacPhail: I take it that the new funding formula will be a funding formula to distribute the same amount of money.

Hon. L. Stephens: The new funding formula will be within the same global amount of dollars. What we're going to be trying to do is address some of the inequities. In the out years it's possible, perhaps, that we'll be successful. In '03-04 and other out years there may be other funds that are able to go to the transition houses.

The year that we're concerned about is '02-03. As I've said, our funding is consistent with last year's funding. We're going to be able to address some of those inequities that I talked about.

J. MacPhail: The service plan calls for performance-based contracts with service providers. It's an interesting concept in the delivery of women's services — performance-based contracts. Does that kind of model exist anywhere else?

Hon. L. Stephens: The whole issue of accountability and measurements is one that is program-wide through this government. It's also consistent with other provinces in Canada that have moved to an accountability mandate for programs that governments deliver.

This will be around the number of beds, the number of counselling hours and all of those kinds of things that we use to measure how our resources are being used, whether or not they're effective and to determine what the need is. If we see that the need for counselling services, for instance, or the need for women to be sheltered from abusive relationships is increasing and growing, then there are ways to use that for our planning processes for the future.

J. MacPhail: Does the switch to performance-based contracts for service providers also include a switch from public service provision of service to contract provision of service?

Hon. L. Stephens: We do contract for services with various non-profit agencies at the moment and will continue to do so.

J. MacPhail: Yes, I understand that. I'm saying: is there any based on the performance-based contracts for service providers? Is the minister saying that there's no direct public service provision of services now that's

being considered for the performance-based model? There may not be. The answer may be that there are no direct public service provisions.

J. MacPhail: I have to confess that I'd be very interested to know how performance-based contracts work in other jurisdictions for the provision of women's services. I'm not aware of any. I'll be frank.

How will the measures be established? Will the service providers have input into the measures? There's a difference in terms of accountability contracts and performance-based measures.

Hon. L. Stephens: The kinds of processes that we're developing are both: accountability and measurements.

The performance-based initiatives and the expectations that we will have as we're working through this process and as we're getting to the place where we are going to be making the changes to deal with those inequities, which I spoke about, are when those kinds of initiatives will be incorporated into contracts as they arise.

J. MacPhail: Did the minister say that she'd be consulting with the service providers on those matters?

Hon. L. Stephens: Absolutely. Yes, we will. We're in the process of developing those accountability measures, and we're also using other provincial jurisdiction models as help as we work through it.

J. MacPhail: The service plan also commits the government to establish a telephone crisis-support line. A few questions about who will staff the telephone call centre for abused women: how many staff will be employed? And will the staff be moved from other areas of the ministry, or will new employees be hired for these positions?

J. MacPhail: I got it out of the ministry's service plan. Who is responsible for it then?

Hon. L. Stephens: Perhaps the member could identify what she's referring to. In the service plan we have a number of communities with access to electronic government services using community access terminals. Is that what she's referring to?

J. MacPhail: I'm sorry. I've done up my notes without having my service plan here. I only work from the service plan, given my limited research resources. I'll accept the minister's answer.

Hon. L. Stephens: We do not have a 1-800 number, if that's what the member was referring to. What we do have is that people are able to access, for counselling services, transition houses by telephone if in fact that is the only way that they can. Again, this is quite prevalent in the rural communities where there are long distances, and the services are not as handy. We do have the ability to make sure that transition house services are available on a 24-hour basis by telephone.

J. MacPhail: So there's no plan to set up a 1-800 number? That wasn't the intent of this.

Hon. L. Stephens: No, it is not. The Attorney General victim services has a 1-800 victim services line.

J. MacPhail: A couple of concluding questions, particularly as I'm very cognizant of the missing women's terrible tragedy in the downtown east side. What assistance is the ministry providing to sex trade workers?

Hon. L. Stephens: The services presently are through the Downtown Eastside Women's Centre. They provide a very valuable service through that centre, as I'm sure the member knows. We're looking at ways that we can strengthen those services.

J. MacPhail: Are there services for sex trade workers anywhere else in the province?

Hon. L. Stephens: We're not responsible for any of the sex trade workers programming. We never have been. Across the government there's an ADMs' committee on prostitution. The Attorney General is the lead on that. From time to time there has been project funding for various organizations in the province that provide support to sex trade workers. PEERS is one that comes to mind that does some very good work, certainly, here in Victoria.

J. MacPhail: How many counsellors are dedicated to assisting children who witness abuse?

Hon. L. Stephens: We don't have the numbers of the actual counsellors, but we do have 54 programs across the province for children who witness abuse. Some of those programs are half-time; some of them are full-time. There are various amounts of time available for those kinds of counselling, but there are 54 programs around the province.

J. MacPhail: Is that funding for those programs for children who witness abuse protected throughout the three-year service plan?

J. MacPhail: How many counsellors are dedicated to assisting women victims of rape?

Hon. L. Stephens: We do not fund sexual assault. That's through the Solicitor General.

Does this ministry have any responsibility for funding counsellors who are dedicated to assisting women who are in abusive relationships?

Hon. L. Stephens: Yes, we do. We have a very strong program of counselling service for women who are victims of abuse. We have again this year protected the funding for those counselling programs. They are available all through the province. We have 79 of them, and those programs will be ongoing.

J. MacPhail: I assume the minister means by "ongoing" that they're protected throughout the three-year service plan.

Mr. Chair, I have finished my questions on estimates for the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services programs, and I'll close with a few comments. This is an area where the public…. Well, some British Columbians and some pundits have called this the ministry of lost causes. I don't want it to ever, ever become that. It is a ministry responsible for a huge range of programs that protect the most vulnerable in our society and also has the greatest opportunity to enhance the opportunities for the most vulnerable in our society.

I include first nations aboriginal people in that. They are strong-willed, morally strong and ethically strong, but they are vulnerable from every single health indicator that exists in society.

There is also a huge opportunity for this ministry to get new working relationships right with municipalities, but there's also an opportunity for gaps to be left if that relationship is not redone. Believe you me, I don't necessarily believe the relationship needs to be redone; I don't believe we need a new order of government. There is also a potential for that relationship to leave gaps where not only municipalities fall through the gaps, but the people who rely on municipal services fall through the gaps as well.

The area of programs for women's services is going to be monitored extremely carefully by the opposition and by society, I might add. Those services have come under close scrutiny because there is a perception that all of the changes this government has brought about have harmed or negatively affected women more so than men.

I never rely on polls, except the one on election day, but there is a gender gap growing in support for this government's agenda. I think it's the biggest gender gap that's been in existence for support for a government in 15 years. That has to at least be acknowledged by the government. The ministers of state and the minister responsible have huge challenges ahead of them, and I wish them every success in meeting those challenges.

Hon. G. Abbott: Before we call the vote with respect to vote 19, I'd like to make a few concluding comments as well.

First of all, I would like to thank the minister responsible for women's equality and the minister responsible for the 2010 Olympic bid for their generous contributions to this debate. I want to thank members of the House for their thoughtful questions with respect to the Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services programs, revenues, expenditures and so on. I think it's been a good, productive debate. At this point, I especially want to thank the staff of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services for the relentless and tireless assistance they have provided.

When this ministry was brought together in June 2001, it looked like a very considerable undertaking, and it has been. There are a lot of program and issue areas in the ministry. I am delighted by how well it has in fact come together. The pundit that used the unfortunate expression about lost causes actually later said rather more appreciative things about the ministry, and I think that's appropriate. With the diligent, professional, capable, thoughtful assistance of staff, the creation of this ministry has very much been a success. Over the years I think we will see a lot of achievements that will flow from that.

In the long period that I've enjoyed election to public office, I have always found that one of the best things about holding public office is the professional staff that we get to work with. I am endlessly impressed by the contributions and the expertise of the deputy minister, the assistant deputy ministers and the program directors throughout the ministry. They bring remarkable expertise, energy and resources to the challenges we face on a daily basis in this ministry. I particularly want to thank them.

As the members have noted, this is a ministry that touches individuals and communities in a broad range of ways. I think we have thoroughly canvassed a number of those areas. We've just completed Women's Equality and social programs. That's fresh in everyone's mind.

We spent a good deal of time and energy on housing. From both a market and non-market perspective, that is obviously a very critical element in British Columbia today. As we noted on a number of occasions, when we have vacancy rates of 1 percent or less in the major urban areas of British Columbia, we have a great challenge on our hands. We know that.

We are going to try to address that challenge through the efforts of government directly through B.C. Housing and associated housing programs. We will also try to address the impediments, roadblocks and barriers to more investment in market rental housing as well. We believe that only through the latter will we ever come even close to meeting the challenge that's ahead of us.

There's certainly no expectation that we will see a decline in British Columbia's population; if anything, we will see it increase. As a consequence, there will be additional need for housing for new British Columbians.

Certainly, we know about and, particularly in some of the exchanges with the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, we addressed at some length the compelling — hopefully not overwhelming but certainly compelling — demographic challenge we face around an aging population here in British Columbia and the critical need to try to put resources in place that will help to meet that challenge.

We also talked about culture, heritage and sport — all key elements in healthy and vigorous communities. People very much celebrate these areas of government. Certainly, from my life experiences and of others, these are areas that people particularly cherish, and it's been interesting, fun and challenging to be a part of that as well.

We also talked about — and I'm glad the Leader of the Opposition mentioned this point — aboriginal services. I agree with her completely that as long as we have the indicators that the aboriginal communities are not able to enjoy the fruits of our rich province in the way that others do — whether it's in terms of educational achievement, health indicators, social justice or criminal justice — and as long as we see some of their really sad and in some cases unfortunate indicators of the continuing problems, we know that we have a huge challenge ahead. I know the Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations is working on his side very vigorously, and we will do what we can on the aboriginal services side to try to redress the imbalance around economic, social and other opportunities in British Columbia.

As well, I think we had a good dialogue on the community charter, which obviously is a very important initiative for this government. I know the minister responsible for that initiative had a number of questions with respect to that.

The Olympic bid is just a very exciting opportunity. We hope to find — I think it's in July or August of 2003 — that British Columbia has been successful in its bid for 2010. It'll be a great event for British Columbia, and I know that all British Columbians will celebrate that event if we're successful.

With that, hon. Chair, I do want to say that this ministry will continue to work tirelessly to secure greater public good and public benefit from every tax dollar that we are able to manage in this ministry. We have an exciting range of programs, and we have just an exciting opportunity to make this province a better place to live. I know that my ministry is going to be an important part of making this province an even better place and a more exciting place to live.

Hon. S. Bond: I am very pleased today to rise to present the spending estimates for the Ministry of Advanced Education.

This is the second time that I have presented on behalf of this ministry. The first thing I would like to do is introduce the staff who are accompanying me at this moment.

To my right is Gerry Armstrong, my deputy minister. To my left is Tom Vincent, who is the assistant deputy minister, management services division for the Ministry of Education. Just behind us is Lyn Tait, assistant deputy minister, post-secondary education division.

I want very much to acknowledge the hard work and dedication of the staff that we have in the Ministry of Advanced Education and of those who work within British Columbia's public post-secondary education and training system.

The changes that have been brought about by the core services review and the ministry's strategic shifts have certainly added an extra challenge to their work. Their commitment to delivering a top-notch post-secondary education system has never wavered.

The estimates for the Ministry of Advanced Education this year reflect a number of changes that have occurred in post-secondary programs, many of which were announced on January 17. Since then we have made other announcements as a result of our core services review, and we still have much to accomplish.

Much of what we discuss together as a committee will include references to our ministry's new service plan tabled with the provincial budget on February 19. I want to give you a brief overview of these important areas before moving into the estimates debate.

British Columbia is home to 27 public post-secondary institutions: five universities, five university colleges, 11 colleges, five institutes and one agency. The ministry's budget of just under $2 billion should support more than 157,500 student spaces in these institutions this coming year.

By making some very difficult choices to streamline our core programs and services, we have been able to redirect funds to our public post-secondary institutions, resulting in $32.18 million in increased grant funding in 2002-03. That's great news. That's more money directly into the hands of institutions.

This increase has been achieved by making some very challenging decisions to eliminate a number of programs and spending envelopes and by redirecting these funds to the direct benefit of students.

Like other ministries, we recently tabled our service plan. This plan outlines five strategic shifts that will shape post-secondary education over the coming years for which our stakeholders can hold us accountable. They include more choice for students; more accountability to taxpayers; better alignment between the costs and benefits of a post-secondary education; better links to the public interest and the economy; and a coherent, integrated public system where differentiated institutions work together in a complementary manner.

One of the evolutions that is occurring as a result of these strategic shifts is a new approach to trades training. The core services review of the Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission determined that significant changes are needed to ensure that British Columbia has a flexible training and apprenticeship system that is responsive to industry needs, so that it can address skills shortages and respond to market demand.

As a result, the commission is being disbanded, and an industry training branch has been created in my ministry to oversee the development and implementation of new industry training. This year's budget allocates $71.25 million to industry training. Program funding will be maintained for apprenticeships and entry-level trades training, and our financial resources will be allocated more efficiently to ensure that we provide the best possible opportunities for students. The move to a new industry training system will equip learners with the skills employers are looking for, address shifting skills shortages in the province and help position British Columbia for economic recovery and prosperity.

Another change resulting from our core review and planning process involves the regulation of private post-secondary training. It became clear through this process that it was time to reassess government's approach and amount of regulation over the private post-secondary educators of our province. The industry has progressed and matured significantly since legislation was passed in 1989. Approximately 200,000 students are part of this system, and while they continue to need assurance of the quality and security, we think there's room for more self-regulation by the industry and less government intrusion. In order to accomplish this, we are replacing the Private Post-Secondary Education Commission with a self-regulating, fully cost-recoverable industry board.

One of the most significant initiatives detailed in the ministry's service plan tabled with the budget documents involves a major capital expansion to help us increase the number of medical school graduates in this province. The plan, which was approved by cabinet on March 15, will provide for a new 40,000-square-metre life sciences centre at the University of British Columbia and the construction of two associated medical projects at the University of Northern British Columbia and the University of Victoria. This plan will increase the size of the provincial medical school class from the current level of 128 first-year students to 200 by 2004-05 and to 224 by 2005-06. UNBC will have 24 of those students beginning their medical education in the north, and UVic will have an equal number, 24, of the expanded entry class starting here on Vancouver Island, a unique approach that will encourage doctors to practise in the communities in which they received their training.

Tuition fee policy has been a topic of great debate and discussion over the past few months. I would like to remind members that we've had lots of opportunity to discuss policy changes.

The new legislation that we are proposing will repeal the existing Access to Education Act, and it will return autonomy to our post-secondary institutions by allowing them to establish their own tuition fees. This will restore greater autonomy and flexibility to the institutions themselves because they are in the best position to make decisions about the top priorities and needs of their students. Ultimately, Mr. Chairman, they will be held accountable for these decisions by their students and their communities. In addition, institutions will report to the Select Standing Committee on Education to advise government how they have reinvested the additional revenue to the benefit of students.

We have also made significant changes to the student financial assistance program. These changes take into account some of the added demand upon our provincial student loan program that will arise as a result of increased enrolment, as well as providing additional resources for students to help them meet some of the potentially higher costs of their education. Total funding for British Columbia's student financial assistance program has grown to $156.7 million this year, an increase of $2.31 million.

Changes to the British Columbia student assistance program will protect the province's comprehensive and flexible assistance package for students and relieve financial pressure for students as they pay back their loans. Grants to students in their second, third or fourth year of post-secondary studies will remain in place. First-year, non-repayable grants to students are being replaced with B.C. student loan funding in order to direct our limited resources to those students who are most in need.

The savings will be used to increase the weekly maximum for students without dependents by over $510 and to help students at the end of their studies when loans are due by providing increased eligibility for interest relief, improved debt reduction and repayment, amortization extension and principal deferral.

In addition, we have introduced a forgivable student loan program for graduating doctors and nurses who agree to practise in rural and remote communities in British Columbia. Their B.C. student loan will be forgiven at a rate of 20 percent per year in return for five years of service in these communities, which means patients will have better access to health care where they live.

Since I was last in front of Committee of Supply, I have visited many of our post-secondary institutions. At campus after campus I have seen young people

hard at work, preparing for new career opportunities. They have more opportunities today than any group of post-secondary students every dreamed of. Our job is to keep the doors to opportunity open. We need to keep the lights on, keep the libraries and labs open, and increase the quality of education.

As the Minister of Advanced Education I am honoured and excited to be involved with these important challenges and shifts in post-secondary education. Over the course of the coming months and years I will be working to ensure that our students come first in B.C. and have access to top-notch post-secondary education opportunities that will lead to rewarding and satisfying careers.

J. MacPhail: Grants to institutions. The ministry service plan commits to overhaul the funding formula so that it focuses on results. What's the status of a new funding formula?

Hon. S. Bond: The first step in revising the formula has already taken place in the practice of now making block grants available to institutions, in particular the colleges. We are working on a draft of a revision. We will be consulting with the post-secondary institutions as we do further work on the revision of the funding formula. The first principal change has been made by looking at a block funding formula for all of our institutions.

J. MacPhail: What's the practice now? What's the practice that the minister has changed in that area?

Hon. S. Bond: Included this year, we have done significant changes for colleges and institutes in particular. A number of things were originally funded on a line-by-line basis. We have looked at a way to send resources to institutions to give them the ability to make determinations about some of those projects. We've removed some of the line-by-line requirements. However, we have also included specific targets and performance measures for those institutions.

J. MacPhail: Can the minister outline what line-by-line targets have been removed and replaced with a one-shot grant?

Hon. S. Bond: Previously, funding was based on an institution's profile. There were very specific programs that were targeted — prior learning assessment, for example; co-op education programs; some of the academic and degree programs; and developmental or access programs. Those were the line-by-line items that had been removed. The block funding was then sent to institutions with a letter indicating their performance expectations.

J. MacPhail: So the first stage of funding formula change is to say: "There's no longer any targeted funding. Institutions get a lump sum payment."

Hon. S. Bond: We have certainly reduced the targeted component. We are going to do the other work in terms of how many resources should actually be sent through the block and how that should be done. Are there factors that need to be considered institution by institution? Our principle is going to be based on block funding, and we've removed the majority of the targeted components.

Hon. S. Bond: The specific performance measures and targets have included the total number of seats that will be provided by an institution and the number of spaces that will be provided in critical areas such as computer science, electrical and computer engineering, social work, nursing, medical school and on-line learning.

J. MacPhail: Sorry, I misunderstood. Are those performance measures, or is it targeted line funding?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, it's both, because we are providing targeted funding for institutions to be able to deliver the particular performance measures that we expect of them.

J. MacPhail: What are the performance measures that exist now to ensure the portion of the grant that's been converted to a lump sum payment?

Hon. S. Bond: Within the letters that we gave to institutions, we set for them performance expectations: a particular number of seats and types of programs that need to be delivered. We will be holding them accountable for that. We are in the process, over the next year, of developing an accountability framework. We will be looking at the outputs to ensure that those particular target areas were met. In addition to that, any of the other funding that's been transferred through the block is to give institutions the flexibility to determine the priorities for their particular institution for their particular students. We expect the number of seats to be delivered in nursing, for example, or social work. The balance of the funding will be used by institutions to meet their own institution's needs.

J. MacPhail: Well, maybe we could just look at an example, and the minister could walk me through one. Let's take Vancouver Community College as an example. I have no information on Vancouver Community College, so could the minister spend some time just using this institution as an example of the change?

Hon. S. Bond: In actual fact, all the budget letters are on the website. I have here a summary of them, so I'm just trying to choose the VCC particulars. Each institution has a very different and very specific set of expectations, obviously, but let me give you an exam-

Each block grant for colleges and university colleges, which obviously include Vancouver Community College, includes an additional 130 student FTEs toward our commitment to strengthening on-line learning. A portion of that would have gone to Vancouver Community College. In particular, for Vancouver Community College, included in VCC's community colleges block grant is funding in the amount of $1,426,204 for the delivery of 270 FTEs through the native education centre.

Funding for the provincial instructor diploma program and the native adult instructor diploma program has also been reallocated. There are other general items with VCC. We are increasing the number of licensed practical nursing seats by 34, resident care attendants by 42, and looking at adult basic education at the development level, an increase of six FTEs. In total, Vancouver Community College's 2002 block grant was $43,062,926. That is a lift from 2001-02 of $381,491.

J. MacPhail: Yes, we can slow down on this. I haven't had a chance to go through all of them on the website. This is my — I don't know — umpteenth set of estimates, Mr. Chair. I have a research assistant here who could help me, though. Let's just slow down, please, if we may.

The previous budget, the '01-02 budget, was what? The new budget is what? What portion of the new budget is now line-free, so to speak?

Hon. S. Bond: All right. I appreciate the fact there are a lot of letters, and I know you've had much to do.

The 2001-02 grant for VCC was $42,681,435. That's last year's. The block grant for this year is $43,062,926, so it's a grant lift of $381,491. The specific expectations we have for Vancouver Community College out of that block funding, the specific expectations in terms of student growth, is that licensed practical nurses will need to be increased by 34; resident care attendants by 42 students; ESL, 12; and adult basic education development level, an increase of six FTEs; for a net increase of 94 targeted FTEs.

J. MacPhail: So for a $381,491 increase, 94 FTEs have to be added. I guess I'm reading that right.

Hon. S. Bond: The specific FTE targets for Vancouver Community College…. The general number of students actually dropped slightly to 6,948 students from the 2001-02 FTEs of 7,009. The general population numbers for FTEs dropped, and we've added 94 specifically targeted FTEs.

J. MacPhail: So there are fewer students who will be attending — fewer seats available — Vancouver Community College.

Hon. S. Bond: We have a targeted expectation of them adding 94 specific seats, but Vancouver Community College has a history of adding more seats than that. We are assuming that growth patterns would continue for Vancouver Community College. We've added the 94 targeted seats but do anticipate their growth will continue to be more than anticipated.

J. MacPhail: But I've heard the minister stand up and say over and over again that her government, unlike previous governments, fully funds institutions. I'm just trying to figure out the discrepancy of this.

I have a couple of questions. There's a reduction in FTEs, so access to education has gone down. Or if access to education hasn't gone down, then the ministry hasn't fully funded access. Which one is it?

Hon. S. Bond: The targeted seats that we have given Vancouver Community College are in fact more expensive seats than general access seats. In order to look at the issues of significance in the province in terms of health care in particular and focus on those, we are expecting the growth to be in those particular areas. They are more expensive seats. That is why there is a slight drop in the number of general FTEs.

Having said that, on the comment about whether or not the seats are fully funded, this institution is receiving a lift of almost $400,000 over last year's funding. Across the sector, when you add up the number of seats across the system, we anticipate a growth of 2,700 seats, and that number continues to grow over the next three years.

J. MacPhail: There are fewer FTEs, but they're fully funded. Is that what the minister is saying? How is that matching the minister's suggestion that somehow she's doing things differently?

Hon. S. Bond: The number of FTEs we're asking them to increase is 94. They are specifically targeted to areas of need. We are giving the institution $400,000 more to do that, and, in addition, we are giving them the flexibility to determine what they're going to do with the balance of the dollars they have. We have protected the funding and, in fact, increased the grant to the majority of those institutions, and FTE growth will occur across the sector.

J. MacPhail: Yes, and we'll get to the macroeconomic aspect of this ministry in a moment. I'm looking at a specific institution. Yes, the ministry has ordered the institution to provide 94 seats in particular areas, but overall, even after that fact, there will be 61 fewer FTEs attending the institution. How does that jibe with improving access, which is the minister's mantra?

Hon. S. Bond: We have targeted those seats for a very specific reason. We have health care professional shortages in British Columbia, and this is a priority not only of government but of British Columbians. We are

confident that VCC will have growth rates that exceed that which we have looked at in this particular case — the 61 that the member opposite mentions. In fact, when we look at the system as a whole, the number of seats will increase by 2,700 percent, which is comparable to the growth rate of the number of students we expect in the province next year.

J. MacPhail: Again, back to Vancouver Community College — the $381,491 lift. The institution has increased costs. What increased costs is the minister funding? I'm thinking of MSP, sales tax increases, inflationary costs. What has the minister provided in terms of those costs, and could she break out the provision in terms of the funding for those increased costs to the institution?

Hon. S. Bond: A block grant means exactly that. The block will be given to the institution to manage their cost pressures and the expectations that we have outlined for them here.

J. MacPhail: The minister has made a claim that she's fully funding the institution, so she must know. In order to make that claim, the minister would have had to understand what fully funding means. What provision has been made for increased MSP costs?

Hon. S. Bond: The institutions received an increase in their funding this year. As a matter of fact, this institution received $400,000 more than it received last year. Block funding means that the amount of money that institutions get…. They need to address the situations facing them. We are pleased to say that we were able to actually, with a protected budget, send more dollars to this institution to help it be able to meet the challenges it will face.

J. MacPhail: Gosh, we're not off to a very good start. I'm asking for specifics, and the minister is giving me rhetoric. Let's just go line by line, then.

What increased funding did Vancouver Community College receive for the increased costs of MSP premiums imposed on them by this government?

Hon. S. Bond: In my last answer I said that block funding assumes that institutions will take the costs that are assessed it and use the block funding to deal with the costs associated with its institution. The increased funding that VCC received, the total grant lift which we gave to them with the flexibility to make decisions around courses but also to meet their challenges, is $381,491.

J. MacPhail: How much are the increased premium costs for MSP premium increases to the institution?

Hon. S. Bond: The dollars that were received for MSP premiums were included within the block, were sent to the institutions and are contained in the total block funding of over $43 million.

J. MacPhail: Perhaps the minister knows the direction I'm going in here. How is it that one protects funding for education when the increased lift is about a third only of the increased costs for MSP premiums to this institution as just one extra pressure on the institution?

Hon. S. Bond: Our commitment was to protect the funding to post-secondary education. As a matter of fact, as I indicated in my opening comments, the funding for post-secondary education actually went up by approximately $32 million. That money was sent out to institutions, so in fact we have protected the funding. We have done an incredible amount of work to try to send to institutions as many dollars as we possibly could — thus the look at a block funding model — and have managed to provide a lift to each institution over last year's grant.

J. MacPhail: Well, there are several ways of looking at what the minister is saying. The $32 million increase could mean that the institutions are getting more to do more, or it could mean that they're getting more to do less, or it could mean that they're getting more to do exactly the same. Of course, one of the proud moments this minister always has is how her government is doing things differently than the past.

All right. If the minister can't answer the question on an individual institutional basis, we will get back to that institution.

The $32 million across post-secondary institutions. What was the increased cost across institutions funded through this ministry of increased MSP premiums?

J. MacPhail: What is the cost of the — I think the minister said 2,700 — increased FTEs across the system? I may be misreading that number. Whatever the increased FTEs is, what's the cost of providing for those?

Hon. S. Bond: We have increased the amount of dollars going directly to institutions. We have given them more autonomy. We have done that in a block funding formula so that they can look at how they can best deliver services. We've also given them some tools for flexibility. We are looking at an increase in the number of seats. We are expecting institutions to manage within the framework. We have in fact given them more money this year than last year, and we are expecting and are working with them very closely to ensure that they deliver as many seats as possible in the post-secondary system.

J. MacPhail: How much money were institutions given to provide for an increase of 2,700 FTEs?

Hon. S. Bond: We have given the institutions across the sector, as I've said, an increase in the envelope of $32 million. Additionally, we have given them autonomy. We have given them some tools for flexibility to look at things like class size. We have asked them to look at other things to be able to deliver on the number of seats, and we expect to see a growth this year.

J. MacPhail: I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. There's a procedural issue I need to deal with. It would take me one minute, if I could have a recess, please. It's about these estimates.

P. Bell: One of the new-era commitments we made during the election was to develop further medical training in the province, and I know the minister is moving in that direction. I wonder if the minister could enlighten us on some of the specific moves that come as a result of this particular budget.

Hon. S. Bond: We are working on a complete strategy of looking at health care professionals across the province. We continue to focus on increasing the number of nursing professionals, and we're also very pleased to be able to deliver on a very new model — in the country, in fact — of medical training in British Columbia. We will be looking at a life sciences centre which will be constructed at the University of British Columbia with two satellite facilities, one at the University of Northern British Columbia and one at the University of Victoria.

It's quite unique in the sense that three institutions are sharing a concept. They're going to work together very closely to deliver medical services and medical training to professionals in the province. We're very excited and pleased to be able to look at that initiative. I know the country will be looking at how we manage to increase the number of professionals in a very unique way.

P. Bell: Of course I have a special interest in the northern part of the province, and I'm wondering specifically how many graduates we can expect from UNBC and what the time frame would be on the first graduates and the first entrants to the program.

Hon. S. Bond: A cohort of 24 students will be enrolled at the University of Northern British Columbia and also at the University of Victoria. They will receive a degree from the University of British Columbia, because it's a cooperative model. In fact, the cohort will begin in 2004 and will graduate in 2009.

P. Bell: I might be asking some of these questions that are beyond the minister's component of the decision-making process, so I do apologize if that's the case. I'm curious as to the design of the program. As an example, would the first two years be spent at UNBC and the last two at UBC, or vice versa, or is that more a decision that's made at the university level?

Hon. S. Bond: One of the key principles we looked at when we were looking at the program is the whole ability to keep people where they actually live. You train them where they live, and they'll stay there. For us it was critical that the end part of the training be close to home. In fact, the students will begin with, I think, a six-week period, all together, at UBC.

They will then choose one of the three streams: either in the north, on the Island or at UBC. There will obviously be portions of that spent in a variety of places, but the final component, the finishing piece, will actually be in the institution of their choice — whether it's UVic or UNBC.

It's a very exciting process. We're also going to be using the concept of telemedicine and much of an on-line component to keep the cohort link together. Our principle is: if we train them where they live, hopefully we'll be able to keep them there.

P. Bell: As we move through the training program…. I guess I'm presuming they will be focusing more on rural and remote medicine — perhaps more emphasis on telemedicine and that type of thing. Is that the case? What would the shift be there?

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, the contents of the courses are designed quite differently. The University of Victoria, for example, is going to focus on a couple of elements because they also have rural and remote components to think about in terms of the Island. They'll be focusing on aging and gerontology. The program in the north is going to look at first nations issues in particular, issues that are unique to the north. They will be very much specifically focused to the needs of the particular location of the institution.

P. Bell: Just a final question on this model that we're moving to. Is this a model that we've borrowed, or are we truly on the cutting edge of technology in terms of the growth of the medical industry in B.C.?

Hon. S. Bond: One of the most unique factors, apparently, is the fact that three universities are sharing a program. That in itself is quite unique — and also the connection through telemedicine and a variety of other features, and the focus on very specific needs of a particular part of the province.

We've certainly been told that it is leading edge not only in Canada but perhaps in North America. The credit goes to the institutions in particular, who have worked extraordinarily hard to bring together this concept and continue to do that. It's a very exciting thing. I know that they're very proud of it, and we're going to work with them on this project.

J. MacPhail: I'm sorry. Because of the procedural matter, I missed the answer to my last question, which I'll ask the minister again. What funding is there to the institutions across the board for the increased 2,700 FTEs that they have to deliver?

Hon. S. Bond: The lift to post-secondary education across the system is $32 million. Institutions have been given an increase to their block funding grant over last year. We anticipate that the seats will grow by 2,700. The lift across the system is $32 million.

J. MacPhail: I don't know why this is such a difficult question. I'm not actually trying to be difficult. I know from the past that there's a calculation that the ministry makes for funding seats. I'm not quite sure why the minister or her staff doesn't have that number available.

The $32 million has actually been reduced to $24 million if you take out the increased MSP premiums. I'm just wondering what portion of that $24 million across the system has been allocated for increased access.

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, with block funding what we've done this year is assign the maximum number of resources that we could to the institutions in the province. We have set some very specific targets in terms of the number of FTEs that we expect to see happen there. They will fund the number of seats. Then they will have the balance of the money…. They'll be able to look at the priorities that they have for their particular institution.

When we looked at funding this year, we looked at a block grant amount that we could send to institutions. The total amount of the lift is $32 million. We've given block amounts to institutions with some expectations, but we did not look at it in terms of buying seats, in essence. We looked at block funding, giving institutions dollars, tools for flexibility and an ability to make those decisions about what the priorities are for them.

J. MacPhail: Does the ministry no longer calculate a per-pupil per-FTE amount for funding a seat?

Hon. S. Bond: What we did this year was create a block funding amount. We took as many resources as we had. We gave them to institutions. We set some specific targets for them based on the priorities that we have seen in the province. We gave them a block funding amount so they could make decisions about what the priorities were for those institutions, and we particularly targeted some very specific areas.

J. MacPhail: Okay. I had that. Believe you me, I've got that. Let's try this from another angle, then. In the '01-02 budget, what was the per-FTE allocation?

Hon. S. Bond: In colleges previously, because of the very specific, programmatic, line-by-line way that funding was done, in fact FTE costs could range anywhere from $4,000 for some seats up to $14,000. As you can imagine, that's why colleges are happy now to have a block funding amount, because we're just going to give them dollars.

Universities were already block funded, so there was a variety, actually, of FTE costs. What we have done is create a block funding formula and now assign resources to institutions on that basis. The range for colleges in particular, because theirs was line by line and very specific, was from $4,000 to $14,000.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I'm wondering why the minister can't answer my question when she's said she's protected funding and, in fact, has made a statement over and over again, in this chamber and out there, that for the first time her government has fully funded the seats. There must be a basis for that. One doesn't just make that up. If the minister has fully funded the seats, then maybe there are 50 seats at $14,000, comparing to the previous, or in UBC there were 93 seats at $5,323 per FTE. You have to have a comparison to make that statement.

Let's try it this way. What portion of the $32 million has allowed the minister to make the statement that for the first time the institutions are fully funded?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, what I have said about post-secondary education funding is that we have protected the funding to post-secondary education — the envelope. What we've done is actually send resources to the institutions in a block funding amount. We have increased the core grant to virtually every institution; their core grant has had a lift this year.

J. MacPhail: Well, I'm actually going to pursue this. The minister is deliberately avoiding the question. Here's why. I put it that the minister hasn't fully funded access to education. In fact, by the evidence here already, it's pretty clear that the minister hasn't fully funded it, so it puts the lie to her claim. In fact, she'll now no longer be able to make that statement as a result of these estimates. That's absolutely the fact. If the minister stands up again and says that for the first time her government has fully funded institutions, she will be not giving the facts.

If somehow I'm wrong, then stand up and give it to me according to the 2,700 FTEs. Let me put it to the minister this way: even at the lowest possible funding, that would take up a huge chunk of the $24 million. That's even before we get into the other pressures on increased costs.

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, I will stand up and say once again that this government has not only protected the funding to post-secondary education; we've in fact added $32 million to the amount of money that has been sent to post-secondary institutions this year.

J. MacPhail: That's not what the minister said. Look, you know what? The minister said before, over

and over again, that for the first time this government has fully funded post-secondary education. That's the portion of the minister's claim that I'm concentrating on. Protecting funding is different than fully funding, and the minister knows full well it's different.

In the past — and I think the institutions did an admirable job of this — institutions would receive year-over-year increases in funding, but they would also claim that it wasn't fully funded, because the number of FTEs weren't funded according to their costs. That's the claim that the institutions made, and that's the response the minister gives to institutions when she says that for the first time ever this government has fully funded costs. That's what I'm trying to figure out. What I'm trying to figure out is on what basis the minister makes that claim.

Hon. S. Bond: Well, in fact — to the member opposite — what I have said consistently and clearly and over and over again is that we have protected the funding to post-secondary education, and that's exactly what we've done. We have protected the funding to post-secondary education.

J. MacPhail: Well, I beg to differ, Mr. Chair. That isn't what this minister has said. Frankly, protecting the funding and adding 2,700 seats isn't fully funding institutions.

Here's what I think has happened, Mr. Chair. This government hasn't contributed one red cent to the increased costs of institutions — not one red cent. What they have said is that they're going to make students pay by increased tuition. That's what they're going to do.

You know, this government stands up and says: "We're so different, and we're so much better because we've fully funded institutions for the first time." I've heard her say it.

J. MacPhail: Right here in this chamber, answering a question during question period — three times, as a matter of fact; three times from Liberal MLAs. I noted it very carefully in preparation for estimates.

Here's what it means. Here's what this minister is avoiding telling all of us. This government hasn't fully funded post-secondary education. What this government has done is said to the institutions: "You're going to provide these extra FTEs, and we're downloading the costs on to students in the form of tuition fee increases." The institutions are no better off. I'm surprised, frankly. There are some very strong people leading those institutions, who know they're no better off. They have to provide X number of FTEs with no extra money from the government, and the poor students will have to make up the difference in tuition fees for providing those FTEs. There isn't any extra money for lab costs, for new buildings, for maintenance charges, for faculty increases. There's not any of that money there.

In the first 45 minutes the truth comes out that this minister's claim of fully funding institutions has no basis in fact, or else she would stand up and tell me the basis in fact.

Hon. S. Bond: What I have said in this House consistently, and I'm pleased to say, is that this government has protected the funding to post-secondary education and for the first time fully funded the tuition freeze compensation to institutions. Over the course of the freeze…. It was not fully funded over that period of time. Institutions are in fact better off in the sense that we are sending $32 million more to institutions, we've increased their autonomy, and we have given them the ability to actually manage their institutions in ways they haven't been able to.

J. MacPhail: When Bill 28 came down and was imposed on institutions, even though no one had asked for it — either the institutions or the people delivering the services — they were wondering why they were given flexibility. They knew the minister stood up on several occasions and said: "For the very first time we've fully funded the costs for post-secondary education." Now it turns out that they haven't, and the reason why Bill 28 is there, imposed on institutions, is because the flexibility — again the buzzword, as in K-to-12 — is to cover off for increased pressures with no increased money.

Can the minister stand up and say whether there are any cuts to services at Vancouver Community College, when she's protected funding?

Hon. S. Bond: Vancouver Community College received a lift in their grant of $381,000. We have set some specific targets for them. They have the flexibility to manage the system. The decisions that they make will be based on those priorities and the needs of the students in that institution. Those decisions will be made by institutions who have been asking for the ability to manage their systems and to be able to do that with as many resources as we can send to them.

J. MacPhail: Did the minister at any time up until now admit that there would be cuts in post-secondary education?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, in fact, the budget to post-secondary education is protected, and that's in very difficult financial times. Many governments across this country actually made cuts to their budgets, as they were facing these challenges. Our budget is protected in post-secondary education, and the actual lifts to institutions, the core block grant which gives them the ability to manage and make decisions, in fact has been increased to institutions around the province.

J. MacPhail: There will be cuts to post-secondary education. That's a statement. There will be cuts at Vancouver Community College because of lack of funding.

Has the minister ever admitted in any questions put to her either by her own caucus or by the public — the students who put questions on the order paper — that there would be cuts in services to post-secondary education? Has the minister ever admitted to that? Before she stands up, it's a fact that there are substantial cuts to programs at Vancouver Community College.

Hon. S. Bond: It is also a fact that the budget for post-secondary education has been protected, and it is a fact that Vancouver Community College received a lift in their grant of almost $400,000.

I have made it clear that institutions will make decisions about the services that will be provided through their institutions. We worked extraordinarily hard to send more resources to institutions in this funding year than they received last year.

J. MacPhail: The question was: has the minister ever admitted until now that there would be cuts to programs in post-secondary education? The minister did not answer that question.

J. MacPhail: Well, it isn't answered. She stood up and said that there's been an increase in funding.

Is the minister aware that the $381,000 delivered to Vancouver Community College barely covers off, if at all, the increased MSP premium costs that the institution has?

Hon. S. Bond: What I am aware of is the fact that the block grant is an increase over the amount of funding they received last year. I am aware of the fact that we have given them some reasonable FTE targets, and we have given them the authority and the ability to manage the system with the block funding we've provided for them.

J. MacPhail: The programs that are being cut at Vancouver Community College are English language training — huge cuts to English language training and cuts in trades programs — and there will be substantial layoffs of instructors. The minister has not protected post-secondary education. Again, it's an issue where all of a sudden it's: "Oh yes, the new-era promise was to protect post-secondary education funding."

Gee, isn't that interesting? I guess the public should have known what the minister meant to say. I guess the public should have figured out that the new-era promise wasn't really about protecting education or protecting post-secondary education. Really, by protecting post-secondary education funding and then imposing huge increased costs on the institution by the government's own actions, the public should have figured out that was good for post-secondary education.

What other increased costs has this government imposed on institutions that they haven't funded?

Hon. S. Bond: What we said to the public and in our new-era commitment was that we would protect the funding to health care and education. As the economy improves, we will reinvest dollars in health care and education. We actually said that consistently. That has been a message we have been consistent with.

In terms of the decisions at Vancouver Community College, as I suggested and explained, what we did in block funding was basically send as many dollars — in fact more dollars than we sent last year — and in essence gave the institutions the ability to determine what programs they offer. In fact, the institution will determine what programs they offer. The institution will determine what programs are of priority to them and their community. They will deliver those, and they will make those decisions. We did what we said we were going to do. We protected the funding to post-secondary education and, in fact, have increased the core grant to that institution.

J. MacPhail: The minister knows she hasn't been upfront with people who rely on post-secondary education. The minister has indicated that somehow post-secondary education was better off under their government. That's where the minister and this government have gone each and every time they've spoken about post-secondary education. Guess what. At Vancouver Community College it's not only not protected; it's far worse off. That's the beginning of the institutions we'll be examining in these estimates.

What, if any, salary lift or wage lift for employees of the post-secondary system do the institutions have to bear in '02-03?

Hon. S. Bond: Under the block funding formula, institutions will receive a block amount of money and within that are expected to manage the costs for their institutions. We have transferred resources to those institutions. We are expecting them to manage their institutions with the dollars they have. We've also given them increased flexibility and the ability to look at some new ways of doing things in order to maximize the use of those resources.

J. MacPhail: Does the minister know whether there are any salary increase pressures in the institutions for which she is responsible? If she does know, could she please tell me what those increased costs to the institutions are in the year '02-03?

Hon. S. Bond: Across the sector this is the second year of a wage increase. It is a 2 percent increase. As

I've said repeatedly, with the resources they've been given and the increase to their block funding, institutions are expected to manage those costs as part of managing their institutions.

J. MacPhail: What is the cost of the 2 percent increase across the sector? What is the dollar value of the 2 percent increase in wages that institutions are responsible for? The dollar value, please.

J. MacPhail: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm so happy the House Leader is going to relieve me. Well, we're going to move on to other items. We're standing down the estimates. I know the House Leader is going to do that.

I know the staff have this information. When we get back into estimates next time, please provide it. I know it's a standard, easy calculation, so I'm not quite sure why there's the inability to give me that information. When we next convene, that will be the first answer I'll expect from the minister.

Hon. G. Collins: By prior agreement with the opposition — I understand the member has to be elsewhere — I would just move that we stand down these estimates and move to the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation.

Hon. J. Reid: Mr. Chair, it's good to be back to address the estimates debate.

I'm quite concerned that we're able to fulfil the mandate of the Ministry of Transportation in a way that provides the safety that the people of British Columbia come to expect on our road and highway system. We have a real challenge.

Transportation is obviously an integral part of our economy, and we are going to protect the investment in the road and highway system through proper maintenance and rehabilitation. At the same time, we're looking for new opportunities to improve infrastructure. We're looking to work with the private sector to find those opportunities. As well, we're going to be devoting resources to northern rural roads.

P. Bell: I know there's been some interest around the François Lake ferry from a number of perspectives — the mountain pine beetle issue in the area and kind of the overall infrastructure as part of the mountain pine beetle task force that did a tour through the area last fall. It became apparent that the infrastructure would be complicated to sustain in order to move the amount of fibre that's going to be necessary.

I wonder if the minister could tell us what her intentions are and perhaps if she's been working with the Ministry of Forests and what directions may be taken down the road with regards to the François Lake ferry.

Hon. J. Reid: The harvest of the bug-infested wood is a very serious issue that concerns everyone in government. Certainly, we have been working not only with the member opposite but also with the Ministry of Forests to look at the harvests, the questions around harvest and efficient harvest. The François Lake ferry service is obviously integral to that, so we are looking to recovering costs on the François Lake ferry as we move ahead. We're looking for efficiencies, and we're working with users of the ferry system to find the best ways to achieve that.

P. Bell: I wonder if the minister could give us an idea of the time frames we're working with. Typically the lake is frozen, I believe, from the latter part of November or early December through until May or so each year, which complicates the movement of equipment onto and off of the lake in terms of new ferries or replacement ferries. I know there are some time issues that revolve around how this process might move forward. I wonder if the minister could give us just a rough outline of what time frames we might be dealing with as we move forward on this project.

Hon. J. Reid: I understand the member's concern. I understand the seasonal concerns. We are moving ahead as quickly as we can, and certainly there is time with regard to new ferries, if a new ferry is able to be in service. Those are obviously time issues. I can't give a definite answer other than yes, we are aware of those time constraints. They're very serious. We take it very seriously, and we're working with all parties to be able to make this a successful operation.

P. Bell: Moving on to a second issue then, I'd like to perhaps probe the issue of road restrictions a bit. This is something that is near and dear to my heart as someone that came through the trucking industry over the last seven or eight years. My experience indicated that decisions tended to be made on kind of a more global level or a one-size-fits-all level as opposed to appropriate decisions that might apply to local roads specific to certain areas and allow for the transportation of goods and services.

I wonder if the minister can just kind of give us an overview of how she views road restrictions on a mov-

ing-forward basis, how decisions might be made and what opportunities there are for local levels of input.

Hon. J. Reid: The load restrictions are a very important part of maintaining our road system. They're put in place to limit the damage to the highway system during the spring thaw. That's the time when the road base is weakened because of the spring thaw saturation. It's subject to damage, especially with heavy industrial loads.

The ministry is very aware of the implications for industry because of road restrictions and how important it is to know of those restrictions. I agree with the member that we do need to specialize the decision-making. We do need to localize it to make sure it's responding to the current conditions. That can work both ways. When there is a change in the weather and a restriction has to be put on quickly in an area, that has to be done as well as being able to extend it if the weather conditions permit.

P. Bell: I'd just like to come back to that one, if I may, for a second. I'm wondering if the minister has any thoughts or plans around how local communities can be involved in the decision-making process in terms of putting road restrictions on or removing them. How might that work in the future, given this government's commitment to pushing decision-making to the front lines and perhaps having decisions made at a more local level?

Hon. J. Reid: In the Peace River we have used a model where industry and users have gotten together with the ministry. We were able to apply load restrictions in a very user-friendly way while still protecting the asset of the province. It is a model that we would like to apply to other areas, and we are working towards that.

P. Bell: I'll just move on to a final topic then — perhaps a favourite topic in this Legislature. I'm absolutely sorry that the members for Vancouver-Hastings and Vancouver–Mount Pleasant aren't here to participate in this particular component of the debate. I'm just wondering if the minister could enlighten us on the current state of the three tin boats that we have anchored in the Fraser River and perhaps what direction she is making in terms of trying to dispose of that not particularly disposable asset, if you can call it an asset.

Hon. J. Reid: There is no pending sale at this time. We have still been pursuing interested parties. There is some interest expressed. I think the global market is quite soft for fast ferries. It's obviously going to take some time to sell these vessels.

D. MacKay: I noticed that the member for Prince George North brought up the issue of the François Lake ferry. That is one area that I'd like to go to right now. Hopefully, we haven't wandered too far from it. I have several questions relating to the use of the ferry at François Lake. I wonder if the minister could tell me what the annual cost is to operate the François Lake ferry, also known as the Omineca Princess.

Hon. J. Reid: It cost $3.45 million to provide the François Lake ferry service. That was in '01 fiscal year and included the overhead costs and the amortization.

D. MacKay: Also dealing with the proposed changes to the François Lake ferry, I'm getting a lot of phone calls from concerned constituents, people on fixed incomes that have lived on the south side for 40 years. The fear of having a toll imposed on them now is putting a great deal of anxiety on some of our older people that live over there. The only way to get across the lake quickly to Burns Lake is to cross on the François Lake ferry, which would save about a two-hour drive around the north end of the lake.

I understand we're going to be doing some consulting with the people that would be affected when it comes to the tolls that will be implemented by the end of this year.

I'm just wondering: can we not recover these costs from the commercial transportation of the bug wood that's coming across that lake now and will be in the future for years to come? Can we not recover that cost and avoid the passing on of the toll to the residents who live on the south side, not for economic reasons but because they choose to live over there?

Hon. J. Reid: We are very much concerned with people who use the ferries. We do understand that this is essential to them. We do understand that as a component to the ferries, and change is very difficult. That is the reason why we have announced far in advance the plan to implement some cost-recovery with these ferries. This does give us time to talk to the communities, to explore ideas and options.

The concern I would have with charging just the commercial traffic would be that the majority of the traffic is non-commercial on that ferry. If commercial users were going to bear the entire cost of the ferry, then it would be extremely high and onerous on those commercial users. It would also be contrary to the approach we're trying to take, and that is user-pay.

D. MacKay: You are correct that the commercial transportation use of the ferry is limited at the present time, but the ferry will carry only four loaded logging trucks at one given time. And if they weren't there, we wouldn't have the lineups at the south side.

To me, it would seem realistic to charge the commercial transportation industry a little extra to cover the costs of those three hours that we're looking at cutting back, from the 20 hours down to 17. I think I've been told it's a cost of approximately $275 or $280 an hour to operate the ferry. Could we not recover that from the movement of the wood to allow the ferry to continue to operate for the 20 hours as opposed to the 17 hours that's coming down the road on May 15?

The Chair: I'll just remind members to please address their comments to the Chair.

Hon. J. Reid: I just want to clarify the member's question. Are you suggesting that before the tolls go into effect, in order to extend the operation of the ferry past the reduction of the hours, the commercial users would pay tolls for those hours? I'm sorry. If you could just clarify the question for me.

D. MacKay: Yes, I guess I probably did mix that up a tiny bit for you, and I apologize. It's my understanding we're going to be cutting back the sailing times from 20 hours to 17. Given the heavy commercial use that's going to be imposed on that small ferry, can we not continue to operate at 20 hours a day, instead of the 17, by charging those commercial trucks that do use the ferry through the course of the day in order to cover off the approximately $1,000 a day that it would cost to continue to operate it for those three hours?

Hon. J. Reid: I understand the member's concern, and it's certainly the type of discussion that we need to have. I want to maintain as much flexibility as possible but still keep in mind certain principles. That is the principle that it's fair and that the user does pay — that does include non-commercial users and does not put an overly onerous burden on the commercial users.

Obviously, the member has a clear idea of the use of the ferry. I'm certainly glad to explore these issues with him. We do have time. That's the reason time has been allowed — to explore the issues, to work with the communities, the stakeholders and the users of the ferries and to come up with the best application of tolls that's going to be accepted by the people and be considered fair and equitable.

D. MacKay: My final question deals with the privatization of the ferries. It's presently suggested that by the end of 2004, the inland ferries will be privatized. I'm wondering if we are moving faster on the François Lake ferry, given the high usage and the demands that we've placed on that ferry. Are we moving at a quicker pace than waiting for 2004?

Hon. J. Reid: We're certainly looking at that more quickly. We're certainly open to that suggestion and open to working towards solutions. That's what we want here. We want solutions that are going to work for the people. That was the furthest time line. There's absolutely nothing to stop us from looking at and finding solutions better and more quickly.

J. Les: It's my pleasure to engage the minister for a few minutes in some discussion around public-private partnerships and how these can be very well utilized in terms of providing needed transportation infrastructure in the province of British Columbia. We've endured a real disaster over the last decade where a lot of money was spent and, unfortunately, little was produced. The needs, on the other hand, have certainly grown.

I happen to be a firm believer that bringing the private sector into the equation can bring us some real results. I think public-private partnerships are often not well understood. To some people it is simply a mechanism to do a bunch of financing off-book. Then we've achieved everything we can achieve. I think we need to understand clearly that this is probably the last objective that should be addressed, if it is indeed an objective at all. There are many ways that the private sector or other public sector entities can come to the table to bring their assets and their needs and to identify their opportunities that can be inherent in these P3 initiatives.

I wonder if the minister could outline for the House the ministry's thinking around P3s — the scope that they're prepared to entertain in P3 projects or, going to the other end of the scale, the range of opportunities that the ministry feels is available where the P3 mechanisms can be utilized to help grow the transportation infrastructure of this province.

Hon. J. Reid: The member is correct that the opportunities for engaging the private sector are great and varied. We are looking for opportunities of all sizes. We have some examples from the past that have been used successfully in this ministry in smaller projects, in development of excess land in order to help finance specific projects. There are other examples. The Sierra-Desan road up in the Peace area has been a very successful industry initiative. We have those successes that we can look at, and we can enlarge that view to consider other large infrastructure projects, whether it be in the north or the lower mainland.

I think the best answer to that question is that we are considering all opportunities. We're looking for a full range, not just very large but even smaller ones. We are gaining knowledge every day as we work through this process and engage the private sector in discussion. We are certainly excited by the opportunities and the scope that we see.

J. Les: It's my experience that often when people contemplate a P3 project, government tends to be too prescriptive in terms of what the project will look like. Rather than describing what the ultimate objective is, we tend to prescribe how we're going to do it. In other words, if you're trying to cross a river we tend to say, "Bring us ideas about a bridge," when in fact the best option may not be a bridge. It may be a tunnel or some other mechanism. I think we need to bear that in mind. When we talk about the scope of a project…. Again, when government does an overview, it sometimes easily — and I'm not being critical here — misses opportunities that the private sector would be able to exploit.

We talked, for example, about the Gateway project. To me it's interesting to contemplate what might flow out of that, and I think some people probably see that as being a limited number of connector highways, per-

haps with a bridge thrown in or something like that. The Gateway concept also possibly includes a fixed link to Vancouver Island.

I think we need to give the private sector enough scope and enough rope to fully explore those kinds of opportunities to that extent, so that we don't miss anything. There's a great amount of entrepreneurialism in the private sector. If we can fully exploit that, I think we will collectively be very surprised in terms of the types of the….

J. Les: The member for Prince George North wants…. Not to worry. I'll get there. I'll get there.

I would encourage the ministry and perhaps ask the minister whether we're, in fact, open to that extent — to explore in every way possible the full extent of these opportunities.

Hon. J. Reid: I certainly want to be encouraging about our interest in defining the problem but not necessarily making a prescriptive solution. We still have to be very aware that in order to move things along, we do need process and a fair process so that we have a level playing field for those people we are trying to attract to the province or those people in the province we are trying to attract for investments.

For example, if we talk about the different models in P3s, the different procurement models, we have a range of those models from traditional procurement to design-build, to lease, to design-build-operate, to build-own-operate-transfer or build-own-transfer. Even within those, which might be seen as already coming up with the solution, there's still a lot of variety there. In working with the private sector, the government has to be aware that the degree of risk and who is managing the risk do lead us to choose different forms of arrangements that we're going to have with the private sector.

My door has certainly been open to meet with serious groups who come together and have brought me very interesting proposals. We follow up with those proposals. We have a team within the ministry, the partnership team, to explore those and look at where we will go next with them — whether we need to talk with other ministers or whether the proponents are lacking information that we can provide to help them develop their ideas further.

On the one hand, with encouraging the development of ideas, I think we have been extremely encouraging to industry and have seen very, very interesting proposals come forward.

J. Les: I appreciate the minister's comments. Some days I've been accused of being a somewhat impatient fellow, and when I read the ministry documents, I see the target is for one major P3 project this year and another one in the year 2003. I think we live in a time when we could certainly use all the investment we can possibly encourage in the province, and we can certainly use the jobs at this particular moment in time. I'm wondering what the minister feels might be done to speed up the process.

I'm not talking about speeding it up and doing things in a careless way, but there certainly is a lot of P3 experience in many locales around the world that we can draw on, as the minister has already pointed out, and even within our own province, although on a smaller scale. I would encourage the minister to look for ways and opportunities to get more of these projects underway sooner. The economy of the province could use that boost at this time.

Hon. J. Reid: We certainly do want to attract the investment. We certainly do want the jobs and the economic activity. We also want to be successful. There are a lot of examples that exist around the world, as I know the member is aware. It's very important that we look to successes and look for projects that are going to be of benefit. We do have to work through somewhat of a process, but we are making a move to bring together investors and also people that operate different related industries within B.C.

We're doing that by putting on a P3 conference. We're going to sponsor that conference in July. We expect the dialogue that comes out of that will help develop that interest and show that B.C. is a place that is open for business, that is interested and is well on the road to those kinds of projects — to be able to answer the questions and, as well, allow some of the larger investors to access and interact with some of our excellent local B.C. businesses. In preparation for the future I think that is very important to maximize the benefit for B.C. On major projects, as the member has said — major rather than the number of other ones we might consider — we want to make sure as many people from B.C. are involved in those projects as possible. This is one way that we're going to instigate the process.

K. Stewart: Following along the same lines as my fellow member, the member for Chilliwack-Sumas, with regards to the Gateway project, it's one that obviously impacts my community of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows. I understand there's been some dialogue between the GVRD and your ministry with regards to that project. I just wondered if there's any type of time lines that could be given to us or forecast with regards to that project and the effect of the connector to our communities.

Hon. J. Reid: This is a very significant project. It's primarily TransLink's project, but we are working with TransLink to make sure that we are able to add the support and to investigate solutions. It's an important project for the entire province. We're hoping to be able to have something to come forward with by the end of 2003 on that project.

B. Belsey: Minister, I'd like to change the direction we're going here a little bit and talk about coastal fer-

ries. I don't know if you've had the opportunity to discuss it earlier this evening; I haven't been here in the precinct. I was at another meeting. I would like to touch on a few concerns I have, certainly, with route 40 and route 10.

With route 40 it is my understanding that we're planning on cancelling the ferry service into the Bella Coola area. That is something that was brought up at a meeting by the CEO of B.C. Ferries. That concerns me.

Also, at the same time there's been some discussion about route 10 and the possibility of having to take one ferry off that route due to some federal government regulations concerning design of hull.

I'm wondering what there is in the budget for short-term and long-term planning for replacement of some of the aging ferry fleet that we have, especially the ferries that serve route 10, and possibly what we're doing with the Queen of Chilliwack for route 40.

Hon. J. Reid: Certainly, these ferry routes are very significant to the people of the north. B.C. Ferry Corp has worked on a status quo plan that they have. It's important for the member to realize that B.C. Ferries has to go through the core review process, and that process hasn't been completed yet.

Working on the status quo, B.C. Ferries has looked at the routes, reviewed the service — I'm talking about the route 40 service into Bella Coola — and considered different options. One of the options they've considered is cancellation. It's also important to understand that no final decisions have been made. This is the current recommendation of B.C. Ferries. This is due to the very high cost of operating that route. It's also due to the lack of a proper business plan in the first place — in starting the service and not projecting ahead knowing that they were putting a vessel on with a very limited life and not taking into account what the cost would be to outfit it. It's very disappointing to the people who have been served by that route and the tourists who have been brought by the route. This lack of planning and inability to do a proper business projection has raised people's expectations, and B.C. Ferries — certainly under the current fiscal framework — is not able to fulfil them.

There's also a concern that is currently being worked out — but it's a very real concern — that Transport Canada is in the process of changing regulations. New vessels will become even more expensive, and the cost of refitting vessels to be able to meet the new standards in the years to come will be extremely high.

There have been different options looked at for route 40. Some of those options that we're investigating would be maintaining the service but in some reduced capacity, devolving the service to a private interest or complete termination of the service. We are trying to find a way to provide a service and be able to stay within the fiscal framework.

Again, with the core review not having been completed yet, and looking at the overall context of the financing for ferry refit and ferry replacement, I'm sorry I can't give an absolute answer to the member at this time.

B. Belsey: Would it be possible to get a breakdown of costs for ferry service that would include the passengers and the vehicle traffic that we have taken into the communities of Bella Coola, Ocean Falls, Shearwater, Klemtu and Bella Bella? I believe they are the communities that route 40 is currently stopping at. It would be interesting to see what kind of traffic, both pedestrian and vehicle, we take into those communities and pick up from those communities over the course of a season.

Hon. J. Reid: I do have passenger and vehicle counts for Bella Coola, Bella Bella, Ocean Falls, Shearwater and Klemtu. If the member would like, I will read into the record what those counts are. This was for last year, a full year. Bella Coola, total vehicles, 1,653; total passengers, 5,367. Bella Bella, total vehicles, 790; total passengers, 3,688. Ocean Falls, total vehicles, 247; passengers 567. Shearwater, total vehicles 154, passengers 363. Klemtu, total vehicles 95, passengers, 708.

B. Lekstrom: I have a question regarding something that's very near and dear to me regarding the issue of northern, rural and remote roads in our province. I know the minister is very aware of the importance of these roads. She's travelled up there and seen the conditions. The conditions aren't great, to be honest with you. They've been neglected for many, many years up there.

I'd like to know what direction and what intention the minister has in addressing the problem of our northern, rural and remote roads, which are really the lifeline and lifeblood not just to the northern communities but to the economic well-being of the province. The resource sector thrives and delivers much money to the economy of British Columbia to deliver the services we all enjoy, and as these roads deteriorate, so do our opportunities to generate the revenue that's needed.

My question would be: what position is the ministry in to address this problem that faces northern, rural and remote roads?

Hon. J. Reid: I certainly appreciate the question, because it is a very serious concern. We have identified it as a concern, and even though we are in very tight fiscal budget constraints, we have dedicated $30 million over the next three years into the northern and rural roads. That's on top of the maintenance and rehabilitation, because we understand there are these significant problems. As well, the member, I'm sure, is aware of the oil and gas initiative that already exists, which puts $20 million into the North Peace area.

B. Lekstrom: Thank you, minister, for that answer. Recognizing the importance, I certainly believe, is the

first step in trying to address the problem, and I appreciate your understanding of the problems we face.

I want to move to somewhat of a different issue now, and that's regarding the issue of regional transportation committees. I know you're investigating the use of those, and I myself am a large supporter of that initiative. I believe there's no better opportunity for people that live in the areas and operate there, who understand the needs of the roads in their areas and some of the priority roads that need to be addressed.

I'm just looking for some direction as to what point we're at with the ministry in looking at the issue of regional transportation committees at this point.

Hon. J. Reid: Regional transportation committees, we believe, will give that very important perspective on the local conditions, the regional conditions and those regional priorities. At all times it's important that government invests its dollars in a very wise and sensible way, and we need to take the dollars we have and apply them in the different regions to get the very best economic return for those dollars and also the very best social return. Transportation is obviously the underpinning of everything we do in society, and it's important that we're maximizing the use of those dollars.

The regional transportation committees will be advisory, to be able to give the ministry information, to work together cooperatively to assess those priorities where we will share information with them, and they will share their suggestions with us in order to maximize the use of those transportation dollars.

We have targeted that by the end of this year we will have committees in place. We know that around the province we already have some models, and we're going to start by defining larger regions in the province — larger than where these committees currently work successfully — and try to put them into a larger regional context and see whether that's going to produce the result we need.

We are very flexible in this approach. We want to make sure we're going to find something that works. We don't know right now what will work for each region of the province, and so we're keeping in mind that while we start with the approach of making larger regions, if we find that something else is going to be more effective in one part of the province than another, we're open to those suggestions.

I have to commend — the member would know the title better — the rural road task force for the excellent work they have done, the incredibly impressive work they have done. We have worked well with that group of people in the past. We look forward to continuing to work with them. However we structure these original committees, the member needs to be assured that their input will always be welcomed.

J. Les: I suspect these discussions would not be complete without at least one reference to the Sea to Sky Highway. With the likelihood of the Olympics being held here in 2010, of course, that's a very important piece of infrastructure that's going to need some considerable attention. It causes me some concern, however, to think about a billion-plus, as some have speculated, being spent on that highway and essentially still performing the same function it does today, although perhaps at a better level of service.

I know there have been discussions about alternatives to the Sea to Sky Highway. One that is of particular interest to me is the option of using the west side of Harrison Lake and developing an entirely new access to Whistler and beyond through that area. There are certainly many benefits that recommend that option. I'm aware, as well, that on the surface it doesn't address the immediate need to service the Vancouver-to-Whistler traffic. However, when we look at these very sizable investments in infrastructure, we need to think very long term. It would be my submission to you that if we were to look at an option such as the west side of Harrison Lake, as the years went by, that piece of infrastructure, that asset, would become more and more valuable. When we look at life-cycle costing, I think that needs to be brought into the equation.

I would appreciate a few thoughts in terms of the Sea to Sky Highway and how that process is working its way through the ministry.

Hon. J. Reid: The different options available for a transportation route to Whistler have been examined by the ministry. A rough cost estimate has been done to try to judge what direction we should be going in. The member acknowledges they would be a much higher cost certainly initially.

As we go through the process, we have to be able to look at the ways of delivering on these. I believe the member is suggesting private investment for that type of a project. What happens is that we look at projects such as that, which have to have a business case for them in order to attract a private investor. If the cost is higher than the amount of traffic that would reasonably be able to recover the costs, it doesn't make a very attractive project.

At this time we haven't found a business case that would support taking on one of those different routes. The improvement of the existing highway, while it's not new and different, will certainly give us our best cost recovery.

B. Bennett: I'd like to ask the minister about a meeting she attended yesterday along with a few other ministers; the mayor of Cranbrook; the mayor of Kimberley, who is also the chair of the regional district of East Kootenay; and InterVISTAS Consulting Inc., a company that put together a proposal for the expansion of the airport between Cranbrook and Kimberley. This proposed expansion has a capital cost attributed to it of about $13 million. The payback to the three levels of government on an annual basis is $9.4 million federally, $3.3 to the provincial government and $400,000 to municipal governments. In terms of the payback in tax revenues to levels of government, it's

That particular project holds great promise for all of the Kootenays in terms of delivering more tourists from Europe and the United States into our area. If the airport was expanded, the proposal indicates that there would be a minimum of $100 million worth of investment immediately in development that would take place in the three ski resorts. In fact, that's extremely conservative. The number's probably a lot closer to $500 million and even as much as $800 million.

My question to the minister this evening is: what's her best guesstimate as to the potential for some capital participation by the provincial government for this very important project?

Hon. J. Reid: I really appreciated the presentation that was given yesterday on the Cranbrook Airport expansion. It is a very exciting project and a very interesting proposal. There are obviously tourism opportunities, because there is a very healthy tourism industry right now. This would provide some of the economic diversification that the area is looking for.

I understand those objectives. I believe the member knows the financial situation of this ministry right now and that I don't have any dollars to be able to devote to this project. I'm willing to continue to work with the member and with other ministers to look for opportunities and to look for any creative solutions that might be found.

B. Bennett: I wonder if I could just ask about what potential there might be if the proponents of the airport expansion in the East Kootenays were able to find a private partner. What potential would there be within our public-private partnership process for this project to qualify?

Hon. J. Reid: I am very interested in developing public-private partnerships, and we do have a team working within the ministry on how those can go together and how we develop different business plans to be able to make them work. I'm certainly willing to follow up with the member to discuss those opportunities and to continue working on that to see if there's anything we can do to facilitate that process.

I would also like to take a moment to thank the staff that have helped me and have worked extremely hard to be able to develop the shifts in the direction we're going in the ministry. I'd like to thank my deputy minister, Dan Doyle, who's with me right now, and Kathie Miller, John Dyble, Frank Blasetti, Barry Wilton, Sharon Moysey, Rob Clarke and Mark Stefanson from B.C. Ferry Corp. as well.

Hon. J. Murray: It's my pleasure to introduce the budget estimate for the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection.

I'd like to introduce the staff members who are joining me here today: Derek Thompson, Deputy Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection; and Dana Hayden, assistant deputy minister, corporate services.

I want to take a moment to just express my appreciation to all the staff in my ministry. From the very beginning staff have been on board and supportive. We've faced significant challenges over the last several months, and the level of hard work and commitment from staff has been impressive. It bodes well for the future of our province.

Ministry managers and staff are under no illusions that the changes in the coming months and years will be easy to implement, but there is a level of alignment, of optimism and of enthusiasm about doing things differently and in many cases doing them better. I'm convinced that we're on the track to having a ministry that will be more effective in protecting the environment and achieving that in a way that makes more sense from all perspectives. This is an exciting time of change for my ministry, as it is in many parts of government.

The Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection exists to protect human health and safety by ensuring clean and safe water, land and air; to maintain and restore the natural diversity of ecosystems, fish, wildlife and their habitat; and to provide park and wildlife recreation services and opportunities for British Columbians and visitors.

In February this year we introduced our new budget and service plan. A significantly different ministry structure was put in place in January, and many managers and staff have been given new assignments. I'd like to tell you about the approach we'll be taking to ensure that our water, land and air are protected through this new and more focused organization.

First, the ministry has defined more clearly what its job is. Its overarching responsibility is to set and enforce strong science-based environmental standards. The ministry's new structure is designed to support this all-important task.

Secondly, we're focused on higher priorities. An important benefit of the recent core review of ministry services is that it has helped us to identify the programs where the greatest effort needs to be focused. For example, 8 percent of industrial operations account for 90 percent of the industrial discharge of chemical compounds into the environment. It just makes sense to focus more ministry effort towards working with those 8 percent and less towards the many, many activities with much less impact. This is clearly spelled out in the service plan. Beginning this year it commits the ministry to annual inspections of high-risk opera-

tions at a minimum instead of the variable inspection rate that existed before. This is the kind of change the ministry will be making as we replace time-consuming permitting for lower-risk operations with standards and guidelines. Staff and resources will instead be refocused to work with operations that have more significant impacts.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to give a brief overview of some of the other priority initiatives and programs identified in the service plan and budget. Ensuring clean, safe drinking water. We're ensuring that there are adequate funds for water quality monitoring and improving our field capability for dealing with drinking water source quality. The service plan also commits us to improve the quality of our drinking water sources, including protecting groundwater resources through legislation.

With respect to climate change, we're developing a proactive strategy to address the threat of climate change and British Columbia's projected growth of greenhouse gas emissions. This will be a strategy tailored to British Columbia's economy, one that takes into account the potential impacts on our environment and also our opportunities for competitive advantage.

In terms of air quality, the service plan commits the ministry to creating an airshed planning framework for monitoring, for maintaining and for improving air quality in communities where the airshed is threatened.

We've created a new biodiversity branch. We've committed to developing a provincial biodiversity strategy which will increase the effectiveness of initiatives to protect and maintain fish and wildlife species diversity and ecosystem diversity.

We have a living river strategy emerging. This is a key new-era commitment that will enable us to coordinate and focus our efforts to protect and restore watersheds in British Columbia. We believe that water is at the core of our environment. Protecting and restoring the ecological integrity of watersheds is key to protecting and restoring the environment. A healthy environment with full assimilative capacity supports increased economic activity and a healthy economy.

Parks and protected areas are an integral part of every British Columbian's life and a major drawing card for tourists, who in turn play a vital role in supporting the small businesses across the province. British Columbians are passionate about their parks, and we're taking a number of steps this year that will enable us to build a better model for funding and managing our parks in the future in a way that will reflect their provincial and even international significance. We'll continue to focus on protecting the natural value of our parks as well as the atmosphere and character of the park experience.

As prescribed in our service plan, we'll encourage greater community and first nations participation in parks management and increased private sector involvement in providing recreational services in appropriate parks. The first thing I want to stress is this: in order to get better results with less money and staff, we need to be sure we're not just doing the right job but are doing it in the right way.

For my ministry this means a greater emphasis on science, on monitoring and on service delivery using information technology. It means building alliances and focusing on results, not red tape or prescriptive processes. I want to emphasize that getting results goes hand in hand with greater accountability. Industry may be asked to measure itself and report on results. It will not be asked to regulate itself. This ministry is committed, as are all other ministries, to reduce the regulatory burden by one-third.

The service plan spells out time lines for introducing amended regulations that will set clear, up-to-date performance expectations, which will support pollution prevention planning by large industrial operations and will implement a simpler and less cumbersome waste-management permit system.

The ministry's central job is to make sure the science is up to date, to set strong environmental standards and communicate them, to monitor for compliance on an ongoing basis, and to ensure public accountability and consequences for those who fail to respect the standards we set. In doing this, the ministry will draw on a strong core of scientific expertise within the ministry and on science outside the government to help shape decisions.

We believe that individuals, communities and business should be free to innovate and pursue efficient, effective and timely means of achieving compliance. The ministry also must be sure that it is being innovative and is implementing continuous improvement rather than focusing on rules alone. We've learned here and in other jurisdictions with leading-edge environmental policies that some of our old beliefs and old mechanisms for protecting the environment don't work well.

Strangling business development with an increasingly complex set of rules and regulations to protect the environment doesn't work. A formula that says one unit of economic activity equals one unit of impact on the environment doesn't work. It's just not a sustainable formula as populations grow and people naturally aspire to become prosperous.

It's a mistaken assumption that preventing economic activity is the key to protecting the environment. Rather, we need to pursue the many opportunities for eco-efficiency and for reducing the ecological footprint of our daily and our business activities. I strongly believe that all British Columbians care about the environment. Each and every one of us wants to pass on to our children a natural environment that is in as good or better shape than the one we live in now.

Government's job is to take the broad public desire for environmental protection that clearly exists and translate it into reality. Using good science and working together, I believe we can create an environmental

management regime in British Columbia as innovative and effective as any on this continent.

I look forward to discussing my ministry's plans in detail as this estimates debate continues. We will be debating my ministry budget for the fiscal year 2002-03. The net operating expenditures will be $162.494 million, and we anticipate revenues of $24 million in the coming fiscal year. Our projected FTE utilization for the coming fiscal year is 1,138. I welcome questions and comments from all members.

Finally, I want to thank again the members of the ministry that have assisted me in developing the budget and the service plan.

Hon. G. Collins: I move that the committee rise and report progress on the Ministry of Advanced Education and the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, and report resolution for the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services and the Ministry of Transportation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant rises on a point of order.

J. Kwan: I wish to respond to the point of privilege raised by the member for Delta North earlier today, specifically as my comments may contribute to your determination whether or not there is a prima facie case.

I resigned from the Education Committee on January 31, after reading the committee's draft report, and announced that I would be submitting my own report. Before drafting my report, I put together a working group drawn from a variety of education stakeholders. I shared within the smaller group and on a confidential basis the December draft report of the Education Committee. After brief discussion, I determined that my education report should stand alone and was not to be framed within the context of the majority report. That report was then put aside and given no further consideration.

I want to emphasize that the draft report was shared strictly on a confidential basis. If indeed the material that found its way into the Vancouver Sun story originated from my office, then the information was released without my knowledge or consent. I'm extremely disappointed about that. Again, I want to stress that it was never my intent to release the information publicly at any time. In fact, when repeatedly pressured by a Vancouver Sun reporter to review the contents of the report, I refused.

In conclusion, I regret any part that I may have played in the matter and apologize to this House and to those who might have been offended if, in fact, the information from my office was the result of information that appeared in the Vancouver Sun.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. I will take your comments under advisement when making my decision.

Hon. G. Collins: On the same matter, Mr. Speaker. I'll offer my suggestions.

Hon. G. Collins: I'm quite frankly astounded by the comments of the member opposite — absolutely astounded. Members of committees know that they are not to share reports with anyone, on a confidential basis or otherwise, in advance of the release to the other members of this House. In fact, I would say that the comments of the member opposite have just confirmed the fact that this is a breach of the privilege of the other members of the House, and we now know the member who's responsible for that.

Rather than alleviate the concern, it has merely exacerbated my concern about what's taken place. That a member of this House would take a copy of a draft report and share it with supporters or otherwise on a confidential basis or otherwise is simply completely out of line. There's a long history in parliamentary democracies of the privileges that are granted to members of this House when they're elected by the people, through an election, who put them here.

I would argue that the comments of the member in fact add to the weight of the suggestion put forward by the member opposite. I would assume it will be up to members of this House, if you find a prima facie case, to determine what is an appropriate response on behalf of all members of this House in determining your response to the actions of the member opposite.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. For the benefit of all hon. members, I will take the comments into consideration while I make my determination. It is not debatable at this moment.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I want, first of all, to clarify something with you, Mr. Chair. It's my understanding that arrangements have been made for these estimates to go until 5 o'clock. Then I have to go to an important meeting, and there will be some other estimates — I think the Ministry of Attorney General — starting at that time. I just want to clarify that — okay?

I am pleased to present the 2002-03 budget estimates for the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. I'd like to start by introducing my staff, who are Deputy Minister Gord Macatee; Assistant Deputy Minister Bud Graham, the assistant deputy minister of resource development and sustainability; my executive director of policy and legislation services, Dave Matviw; and my executive director of finance and administration, Dave Davies.

The Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries has a long history of serving this province, and its work is as diverse and unique as the industries it represents. Ministry staff play an important role providing overall support to a complex, integrated chain of dedicated individuals in the farming, fishing and food industries. These are the people who grow, harvest, process, transport, market and deliver fresh, safe, high-quality products to the dinner tables of British Columbians and others around the world.

For an industry with such size, scope and importance to our daily well-being, B.C.'s agrifood and fisheries sector is often overlooked in the shadow of higher profile industries such as tourism, technology or forestry. However, this sector makes a very significant contribution to our provincial economy. The entire food chain employs about 270,000 British Columbians, and the agrifood and seafood sectors generate billions of dollars in domestic and export sales.

The annual budget for the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries supports the government's objectives of restoring sound fiscal management and revitalizing the economy. We have made some difficult decisions to support the government's goal to build a strong, vibrant economy and eliminate the $4.4 billion deficit. The ministry's budget is being reduced by 45 percent over the next three years. The figure is 30 percent if you exclude Fisheries Renewal B.C. For this fiscal year, 2002-03, the budget will go from $81 million to $64 million; $15 million of this reduction reflects the elimination of Fisheries Renewal B.C. For the '03-04 fiscal year, the ministry budget estimate is about $58 million, and in the '04-05 fiscal year it's about $45 million.

Our total staff will be reduced by about 17 percent, reducing the workforce from 395 positions to 327 over three years. Staff reductions include 14 staff with Fisheries Renewal B.C. and a further 54 positions due to the closure of district offices, program reductions in technical advisory services, safety net program delivery and corporate services. Seven district offices being closed by March 31, 2003, include Courtenay, which is the agriculture office, Creston, Dawson Creek, Vanderhoof, Sidney, Smithers and Vancouver.

The ministry's new three-year service plan lays out a detailed strategy for the government's role in working together with the agriculture, food and fisheries industries. The service plan is an important part of the government's commitment to open and accountable government. It articulates our vision for a competitive and profitable industry providing safe, high-quality food for consumers and export markets. The service plan supports our mission to provide the business climate for a competitive, market-responsive agrifood and fisheries sector and safeguard the quality of British Columbia's agrifood products for consumers. It clearly outlines our core business areas and defines what we are doing and what we are not doing anymore. The ministry's core business areas include the following: food safety and quality, environmental sustainability and resource development, fisheries and aquaculture management, risk management and industry competitiveness.

The public demands food safety and quality. Governments and industry must work together to improve product tracking, establish food safety programs and make federal and provincial standards more consistent. We must strive for food safety and quality levels that meet public health objectives and also secure B.C.'s access to national and international markets. Our role will shift to oversight, monitoring and risk assessment with regulations to be more outcome-based. We will work in cooperation with the B.C. Ministry of Health Services and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to maintain compliance with food safety standards. We will support industry-led programs for quality control and standardized on-farm food safety systems for product identification and tracking.

We will continue to focus on maintaining the health of animal, plant and fish production systems with ministry support in the areas of disease diagnosis and control options. Through these efforts we aim to enhance economic growth and consumer confidence through reliable food safety and quality programs.

Sound and sensible environmental sustainability and resource management is critical for the future of agrifood and fisheries sectors. The ministry's service will focus on addressing increasing concerns over water quality, management of waste and the ability of agriculture to operate effectively within the jurisdic-

tion of local governments. We aim to find the balance between economic development in the agrifood and seafood sectors with high environmental standards that respect the concerns of British Columbians.

We will maintain the agriculture-environment partnership initiative to increase industry's participation in environmental stewardship practices. We are working with the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection to set strict standards for salmon aquaculture to address waste management issues.

We will be implementing work with producers to have them develop farm management plans that address resource issues. We will work closely with the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management on land use planning that relates to resources for farming and fishing, including the agricultural land reserve.

We will continue our efforts to support the work of local governments to develop plans, bylaws and initiatives that support agricultural activity. We will apply our skills to help resolve disputes at the rural-urban edge and also review and update our right-to-farm legislation as required.

By setting these goals we aim to support job creation, higher productivity, fewer restrictions on development, fewer regulatory conflicts and good environmental stewardship.

Fisheries and aquaculture management is a core business area that faces issues such as increasing world competition, concern over the management of the resource, and the ability of the industry to compete due to limited capacity for expansion. Our goal is to get the most economic benefits possible from our fisheries and aquaculture, but not at the expense of the natural environment or protection of resources. As I mentioned earlier, we are working to address issues related to the salmon aquaculture industry with commitments to have performance-based regulations for aquaculture in place by April 30. Our ministry will also work with the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management to relocate poorly sited finfish farms and manage coastal resources for finfish and shellfish aquaculture. We will support industry-led initiatives to diversify into new species, value-added processing and expansion of markets, research and development.

We intend to work with Intergovernmental Relations to negotiate with the federal government to redefine our respective roles and to increase provincial influence over fisheries and its revenues. Future success will depend on building and maintaining strong cooperative partnerships in fisheries and aquaculture management for research and development. Ultimately we aim to support a competitive and self-reliant seafood industry.

Risk management is a core business area that we must address to provide basic protection to farmers for uncontrollable and unpredictable situations they face, including weather hazards, natural disasters, disease, pests and erratic markets in the global arena. Risk management is a complex portfolio that hinges on work we are doing with other provinces and the federal government to maintain a level playing field with other jurisdictions, particularly as related to international trade agreements. We are actively participating in federal-provincial negotiations to develop a new agricultural policy framework by March 2003. In the meantime, we will continue to deliver crop insurance programs while examining private delivery options for this service in the future.

We will be discontinuing our participation in the net income stabilization account interest bonus by next year and will be looking at getting out of either NISA or the whole-farm insurance program by 2004-05.

Our goal is to provide a level of protection to our farmers to keep their businesses viable but with less dependency on publicly funded programs. We will move to increased responsibility on the individual farmer for the management of risks related to farming. We also aim to provide a policy framework for marketing boards to maintain their market responsiveness, facilitate specialty products and increase processing in British Columbia.

Our final core business area is industry competitiveness, and our work over the next three years will address issues that are barriers to agrifood and fisheries sectors. We will enable levy systems for industry to help fund its own research, technology and development. We are eliminating several grants to agencies to meet our goal of eliminating business subsidies. We will work with these groups to explore other ideas and options to help them make the transition to a more self-reliant future.

We will be shifting away from providing direct production advice to producers and, instead, expanding our technical information delivery systems such as InfoBasket and the ministry's Internet site. We will explore partnerships with industry agencies to deliver electronic information or to privatize this service. The biggest shift we'll make as a ministry is to be more of an advocate for the industry by focusing on the big-picture industry issues and trying to help industry by bringing down barriers that involve other levels of government or other provincial agencies. We will support trade negotiations and provide technical support on trade rules and disputes to maintain B.C.'s fair access to international markets.

Our goal is for a sector that is competitive in a global economy and that provides economic benefits and stability to B.C.'s rural and coastal communities. I believe the keys to achieving our goals rest with some basic core values that we intend to follow. The government's and ministry's role is to create an environment that will help the industry become more self-reliant. The ministry will be the advocate for agriculture, food and fisheries with other government agencies and focus on work that solves problems and is meaningful and relevant to the industry.

We will concentrate on providing service that has substance, service that is relevant and meaningful to producers and the public. For everything we do using

public time or money, we will focus on providing the best value we can for the taxpayer. Our focus as a ministry is on getting things done, and we will focus on the big challenges that really need to be addressed on behalf of the industry.

The Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries is an important part of our government's plan to build a strong economy. We intend to maintain a good and healthy dialogue with farmers, ranchers, fishers, processors and retailers to learn what these industries need and to be responsive to their needs. We can be an advocate on their behalf to work with other levels of government to find the solutions to the issues we face.

We intend to find a true balance between economic development and environmental sustainability. We will act boldly to help B.C.'s agrifood and fisheries industries to grow in a manner that is economically viable, environmentally sustainable and socially acceptable. I look forward to the challenges and opportunities that await us.

J. Kwan: Just to let the minister know, I'm going to start off with some questions on this set of estimates, and then my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings will come and take over on another area that she's interested in. At some point we might just recess for about five or ten minutes so that we can do a swap between Houses.

I understand that the minister has another commitment from 5 o'clock on, at which time we'll switch to another set of estimates. I think Attorney General is the next one.

J. Kwan: Okay, great. Let me start with questions around Fisheries Renewal B.C. Fisheries Renewal B.C. was established, and it was one of the first Crown corporations that was cut by the new government. Those who are involved in the community, in particular, have raised a lot of concerns on this front. Just to quote Lynn Hunter, an environmentalist and formerly on the Fisheries Renewal board, she called the cuts to Fisheries Renewal B.C. "a devastating loss for coastal British Columbia." She stated: "This program provided support to communities that depend on fish. For it to be abandoned is going to be hard on those communities." She goes on to say: "It's a big loss, not just for the fish, but for the sense of community responsibility and pride."

As we know, since the inception of Fisheries Renewal B.C., government has invested some $50 million to support fish habitat rebuilding projects, promote conservation, retrain fish workers and assist coastal communities and businesses with loans and grants. Those coastal communities are particularly hard hit because of this decision by government.

With the decision to cancel Fisheries Renewal B.C., what program does the minister have planned to ensure that there is a healthy wild salmon population?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I want to say, first of all, that the decision to terminate Fisheries Renewal was done after a lot of careful thought and consideration. The primary decision hinged on budget considerations and the serious financial condition that the province was in. Other considerations were the fact that there were other new programs and new funds that have been established in the last two years that will provide additional funds — and in some cases, permanent funds from the use of endowment funds — for funding habitat renewal and other projects of the type that Fisheries Renewal was doing.

It is interesting that Paul Kariya, the former CEO of Fisheries Renewal, has now been hired to be the executive director of the Pacific Salmon Foundation and will work with that group to ensure, I think, the useful and very productive deployment of $30 million in new money that has been established for habitat renewal. I think the benefit of that will be that he will be able to bring together the network of community leaders and people interested in habitat renewal at the community level. He'll be able to bring them together with the Pacific Salmon Foundation organization to continue, in a very meaningful way, the work of ensuring that we maintain a good and vital habitat for our wild salmon stock.

J. Kwan: The mayor of Port Hardy, Russ Hellberg, was quoted in the Vancouver Sun around his concerns with the cancellation of Fisheries Renewal B.C. Here's what he had to say. "'I'm very disappointed this has happened,' he said, fearing its elimination will hurt resource-dependent communities like his by decreasing the number of returning salmon, reducing jobs and weakening the sport fishing trade." Hellberg went on to say that returning fish stocks have improved in each year since Fisheries Renewal began.

In addition to that, Craig Orr, who's the executive director of the Watershed Watch Salmon Society said that the elimination of FRBC is an indication the provincial government is placing the value of wild salmon stocks below that of farmed fish. He says: "It's indicative of the government reducing its overall commitment to wild salmon. If the fish are coming back, you have to have the habitat for them. Salmon are an important part of the culture, economy and identity of British Columbia." That was from an article in the Vancouver Sun dated October 19, 2001.

The cancellation of Fisheries Renewal B.C. The minister stated that it is driven merely by financial reasons. Yet Fisheries Renewal B.C. actually enables coastal communities, particularly, to develop alternate econo-

mies and also help British Columbia to begin and continue to work on rebuilding the wild fish stock in the waters of British Columbia, and that will enhance the economy for British Columbia in the long term.

Really, if the economic argument is being looked at, did the minister not review the positive contributions of Fisheries Renewal B.C. and its successes? It isn't a program that's been around for a long time but a young program that was already beginning to enhance the community and their responsibility and initiatives around the community in rebuilding local economies in these coastal community sectors.

Hon. J. van Dongen: Even under the previous government there was a lot of difficulty in funding Fisheries Renewal out of general revenue. The original three years were funded by taking $22.7 million from the forest renewal account, but the two subsequent years had to be funded out of general revenue, and that was increasingly difficult. Our government and our Premier are very focused on the wild fishery and on the economic livelihood of these coastal communities. In fact, if you look at the letter that the Premier has assigned to me in terms of my assignment, it speaks to the need to rejuvenate the wild fishery.

Hon. J. van Dongen: Just to complete my last answer, I was just pointing out to the member that the Premier, in his letter of June 25 to all ministers, set out the mandate for my ministry with some of the priorities. The expansion, growth and revitalization of the wild seafood sector was one of the objectives laid out for me that we are very committed to and focused on.

We're working actively with all of the seafood sector — whether vessel owners, processing plants, workers or the Fishermen's Union — within the province and with the federal government, which controls a lot of the activity and management of the wild fishery. We're working actively with them to ensure that we get, first of all, maximum conservation of the resource and then useful exploitation in terms of providing jobs for coastal communities. That is very much a focus of our ministry. I think that our efforts to develop a productive partnership with the federal government are going to be very fruitful in that regard.

We had our first meeting yesterday with the new federal Fisheries minister, the Hon. Robert Thibault. I'm really looking forward to working with him on behalf of the coastal communities that depend very much on the wild fishery. The recreational fishery on the ocean is also a big part of our economic activity in British Columbia.

J. MacPhail: Could the minister please provide the specifics of exactly how the $30 million is being spent on habitat renewal — specifics: where, what programs, what streams, what rivers?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I'm not in a position to provide that information. We don't control those funds. We're not directly involved in the disbursement of those funds, but certainly there are very capable and qualified people involved in the management of those funds, including Rick Hansen, who is really the person that was designated by the federal government to lead that effort. His organization made an arrangement with the Pacific Salmon Foundation to manage those funds.

Certainly I've had some discussions with the executive and the executive director of the Pacific Salmon Foundation. They are certainly going about it in a scientific way in terms of establishing priorities, but I don't have any further information on that, and we don't have any direct involvement in that. We just know that those funds are being and will be used in a productive way in British Columbia for habitat renewal.

J. MacPhail: Oh, I'm sorry. The provincial government isn't contributing a cent to that $30 million. Is that what the minister is saying?

Hon. J. van Dongen: That is correct. We've never claimed to be contributing money. That was, as I recall, federal money that was set aside. What I said was that part of our decision with respect to Fisheries Renewal was that within British Columbia there was actually a significant amount of new, additional money available for spending on habitat issues.

J. MacPhail: Well, it's always good to nail it down then. What exactly is this minister doing at the provincial level to preserve salmon habitat and spawning grounds?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The issues of habitat fall within the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. Certainly all of the freshwater fishery is there. Our ministry works very closely with that ministry. We work very closely with the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, and we are one of the ministries that is involved with industries that impact on habitat, for example, agriculture. We are very actively engaged with those other two ministries and their staff in what I call the interface between agriculture and the environment. Our staff, for example, that are specialists on drainage issues and irrigation issues and water management issues work with staff in the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection and in the

Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management to ensure that we have compatibility in terms of agricultural activities and the needs of fish and habitat requirements.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I'll just put on the record that we're going to be in estimates for the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection for a long time, because so far the Minister of Energy and Mines has referred all matters to do with preservation of any environmental control to the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection. The Minister of Sustainable Resource Management has done the same, and now we have the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries doing exactly the same thing.

It's just the planning time. We'll be spending a lot of time doing those estimates, because it seems that that minister is responsible for anything that has to do with the preservation of habitat, environment, air and water quality. I'm sure she'll be thrilled to know her colleagues are off-loading all those responsibilities onto her to justify the government's position.

Does the minister spend any money anywhere out of his budget on anything to do with Fisheries Renewal?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The decision of government was to shut down Fisheries Renewal effective March 31, 2002. We are finalizing all of the projects. We are meeting all of the commitments that were made. We are engaged in a very orderly windup of Fisheries Renewal B.C. and are ensuring that we get maximum value for every dollar that has been committed and is being spent. We will ensure that the proper accountability for all expenditures this past year is also done. We're looking at a final windup somewhere around the end of May of this year.

J. MacPhail: I'm sorry. I didn't mean Fisheries Renewal B.C., I meant fisheries renewal. I was just in the Legislature, the big House, debating the killing of Fisheries Renewal B.C. That's what we voted on.

After the government has killed off Fisheries Renewal B.C., the corporation, what programs does the minister have for fisheries renewal?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I'm not quite sure what the member was driving at. I'm not sure if she's talking about the economic development side of fisheries renewal or the habitat side.

In terms of the economic development side, our ministry is expending approximately $2 million — $983,000 for seafood development and $1.14 million for aquaculture development. We're working with industry groups on industry issues to find new techniques and new technologies, develop new species — anything to expand the economic activity from the sector. I will say that in terms of the habitat side we are involved in partnerships with the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection in a number of programs to ensure that we have good management and a good, healthy interface with fisheries habitat and agriculture in terms of those activities.

We are involved — and certainly, in our ministry, it is one of our core review areas — in environmental sustainability. I can assure the member that we probably spend more time and activity engaging with the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection to ensure environmental sustainability than we do with virtually any other ministry.

J. MacPhail: She'll answer the questions on those, I assume. I asked the minister that question about habitat earlier — preserving salmon habitat and spawning grounds — and the minister referred me to those estimates. My gosh, you're spending a lot of time on issues that you can't answer questions for.

By fisheries renewal, I don't mean aquaculture. I'm talking about the wild species. Aquaculture is a separate matter completely, and the minister already knows, by virtue of the introduction of my private member's bill today, where I'm headed on that one.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I'll just give the member some examples. We have in British Columbia a broad-based coalition now called the B.C. Seafood Alliance, which brings together, I think, in a more comprehensive way than ever before virtually all of the organizations involved in British Columbia in the commercial fishery. I see this as a very positive development. We're working with that group to foster a new vision for the seafood sector. I think that they have shown tremendous leadership and really exemplify the self-reliant approach by the industry to further develop and enhance their own destiny and the amount of economic activity they can develop from the fisheries sector.

We are working, for example, with the tuna industry to find ways to improve the quality of their product and hence increase the marketability and the value added from that product. We're also working with processors to actually improve the yield from groundfish. Again, what we really need to do in this sector is focus on quality, focus on value added. In the old days there was simply a focus strictly on quantity of very low-value fish. This is really a focus that will not make us and keep us globally competitive.

The modern approach that the Seafood Alliance is championing is value-added, focus on quality and very often, I think, selling less product and selling it for a lot more money so that we can maintain year-round jobs for people in these various specialty processing plants. We have 190 plants throughout British Columbia. I think, in many ways, many of them are developing some pretty good niches in both the North American and global markets.

J. MacPhail: What's the contribution in real resources that the government contributes to the Seafood Alliance?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The government contributed $50,000 to the broad-based conference the Seafood Alliance organized to develop an industrywide vision for the sector. We are intending to, in a similar way, sponsor a similar conference in the near future to the tune of $50,000.

J. MacPhail: What I'm looking for here is some sort of sense of what this government does about fisheries renewal now at all. My colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant read into the record earlier in the debate a quote from the mayor of Port Hardy in terms of the role Fisheries Renewal B.C., the Crown corporation this government just killed, played in the economic development of his community.

I'm trying to find some sort of example either through the public-private partnerships the minister has talked about before or direct government resourcing that would help, let's say, the community of Port Hardy.

Hon. J. van Dongen: We're certainly taking a different approach than the previous government, in that we are working on a more self-reliant model for the industry. We believe that our role as government is to provide and help develop a climate conducive to investment. Investment in plants, equipment and enterprises does develop year-round jobs for people.

We did campaign on a policy of no subsidies to business, and certainly some of the dollars that were going to the seafood sector were in the category of subsidies to business. We're trying to foster a level playing field for all competitors in the field.

The member mentions Port Hardy. The largest private sector employer in Port Hardy is a fish-processing plant that processes farmed fish. This plant has expanded in recent years. It is a steady employer; it provides employment year-round. In fact, about 30 percent of the people that work there are first nations people. Certainly we need to help foster jobs for first nations people.

We are taking a somewhat different approach. We're not measuring our performance in terms of how much money we actually provide in the way of subsidies or grants to the sector. We are developing a very healthy partnership with people like the Seafood Alliance and other players in the sector, together with the federal government, to ensure we have policies and approaches to resource management that help maintain access to the resource for the commercial fishery and timely announcements for management of the resource for the recreational sector. We can maximize the jobs for people while at the same time meeting the conservation goals that we, together with the federal government, think are a reasonable balance of interests in terms of the public interest in maintaining the wild fishery.

J. MacPhail: It has been alleged by Craig Orr, executive director of the Watershed Watch Salmon Society, that the elimination of Fisheries Renewal B.C. is an indication that the provincial government is placing the value of wild salmon stocks below that of farmed fish. I would suggest that perhaps the minister's comments actually turn that allegation into a truth.

What's the effect of the cancellation of Fisheries Renewal B.C. on the sport-fishing industry in British Columbia, which requires wild stock?

Hon. J. van Dongen: In responding to the member's question, I'm going to be specific. I'm going to be talking about the marine recreational fishery, which is within this ministry in a small way. Most of the management decisions and the responsibility in a legal sense for the marine recreational fishery are with the federal government, and of course the freshwater fishery is within the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection.

I would say the impact of the decision the government made with respect to fish renewal is extremely limited. The issues that really impact the marine recreational fishery in a significant way are the hatchery programs that the federal government runs, the management decisions that they make in terms of when they allow openings and the numbers of fish they allow people to take.

We certainly have concerns about those things. We want to be sure that the federal government makes balanced decisions in terms of balancing the interests of conservation and balancing the interests of various stocks of fish that very often run together. We take an active role in discussing those issues with the federal government. One of the key things that we look for from the federal government is timely decisions so that our marine recreational fishery can get their information, their promotions and their marketing done in a timely manner to get out to the trade and to their ultimate customers.

J. MacPhail: One of the reasons I raised the issue of the sport fishery is because it's my understanding that the sport fishery industry has a huge concern about this government's emphasis and clear preference for aquaculture over wild finfish development. One of the reasons for that is the effect that aquaculture has on the wild stocks.

Let's get into some of those issues, particularly the issue around sea lice. What does the government have planned to deal with the issue of sea lice and the threat to wild salmon stocks?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I want to say, first of all, that this government is not focused on one particular aspect of the fishery or another. Our vision for the fishery is of a very diversified fishery that includes a great range of potential economic activities and a great range of environmental issues that we think are important in terms of fostering a fisheries sector that maximizes value for B.C. citizens. I want to make that point, that we have a vision of a very diversified industry that has a whole

range of speciality markets, both on the commercial side and on the recreational side.

Speaking to the issue of sea lice, sea lice are parasites that are present at all times in wild salmon on a background basis; it is not something new to the Pacific fishery. Sea lice were here on the west coast prior to when aquaculture was first practised. Whenever there are allegations of a sea lice outbreak, we collaborate with the federal government to investigate those. There were certainly such allegations made last summer in the Broughton area, and those allegations were fully investigated. The scientists and veterinarians with both the federal and the provincial governments, but particularly with the federal government at the Nanaimo Pacific Biological Station, confirmed in their report that there were low levels of sea lice present in the wild salmon and that none of the allegations that were made were proven to be valid.

J. MacPhail: So is it the minister's point of view that sea lice aren't a problem for wild stocks? Is that what he's saying here?

Hon. J. van Dongen: Certainly, the issue of sea lice is always a concern. The facts are that the risk of sea lice and the concern about sea lice is really much greater for Atlantic salmon, for the farmed salmon, than it is for the wild salmon. As I said, it's always present on a background basis in the wild salmon, and that being the case, the wild salmon have a resistance to a disease outbreak or a health problem from sea lice, but it's a big problem for Atlantic salmon. The management decisions that the fish farms sometimes need to make really involve the protection of their stock, and the wild stock, as I said, is at a low risk.

The salmon aquaculture review that was done by the environmental assessment office between 1995 and 1997 was a two-year study. It involved a number of independent technical experts. It involved a lot of public consultation. The findings of that study were that sea lice and the issue of disease generally were a low risk to the wild stock.

J. MacPhail: Well, I think the minister is saying that it isn't a problem. He's certainly underplaying it. He's certainly saying: "Don't worry; be happy, wild salmon." Maybe Atlantic salmon are a problem. I can't interpret his words any other way.

The minister knows full well that there are an increasing number of studies that show that while wild salmon transmit sea lice to farm salmon, the farm salmon, because of the 21-day cycle in a fish farm…. The intensity of production of sea lice is huge in a fish farm, and then escapes — of which there are — create huge problems for the wild stock.

Let me ask this. The New Era promised a general principle of best science. Is that the best science that the minister's quoting, the study that he just articulated?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I want to assure the member that I read all of the studies that some of the critics are talking about. I try to read them myself. Certainly, the salmon aquaculture review that was done at great cost to the B.C. taxpayer was the most exhaustive study, bar none, that has been done on this issue. It included a worldwide literature review. It included identification of all the issues. It included a technical advisory team of ten scientists and other experts that reviewed all these issues. The final report was five volumes and 1,800 pages.

I can say to the member that none of the other studies that I've seen since then come anywhere close to the level and detail of examination that was done through this study. In fact, more recently, in September of 2001 there was a similar study done by the University of Washington. It was done for the United States government. It specifically went through and assessed all the risks that could be considered for aquaculture, for finfish aquaculture. It categorically confirmed the findings of the salmon aquaculture review that all of these issues were a low risk to the wild stock and a low risk to the environment generally.

The salmon aquaculture review went on to make 49 recommendations of how these risks can be further reduced and properly managed. We are working through those recommendations and implementing them. Our government's mission is to acknowledge, first of all, that there is a low risk to the wild stock and to the environment, but at the same time to commit in a very concrete way to manage those risks through good regulation, good compliance and enforcement and good management by the people on the farms.

We certainly are committed to ensuring that performance standards are established and met to ensure that the intent of the salmon aquaculture review is implemented — as I said, low risk to the environment, good regulation, good enforcement. We believe, and we are basing our conviction on the best science, that the wild fishery can coexist with aquaculture. We are moving towards the best possible standards. We're comparing our standards to all other jurisdictions in the world. We have had aquaculture in this province now for at least 25 years. And as I said, we are very focused on ensuring that we maintain a strong wild fishery, as well as having a viable and environmentally responsible aquaculture industry.

J. MacPhail: Just to be clear, the wide-ranging study the minister refers to was completed in 1997. Is that correct?

J. MacPhail: The ministry is still relying on five-year-old evidence, and there's been much evidence —

much evidence — since then on this issue. That's exactly why I tabled the private member's bill today to say that any expansion of aquaculture licences should carry the requirement that there be closed-containment technology that's used. Studies showing that there is increasing concern about sea lice and disease expansion need to be addressed, and closed containment is the way to do that. Of course, the minister doesn't have any plans to do that. I'm very concerned about that.

The ministry's own website says this: "Compared to other jurisdictions, sea lice have not yet posed a significant problem for farmed salmon in British Columbia. The ministry monitors the amount of antibiotics and other treatments prescribed by veterinarians in the control of diseases and pests like sea lice. There are no pesticides used in the aquaculture industry in British Columbia." That's from his own website.

There are two problems with that. Firstly, much has changed since that study. Secondly, the ministry is getting out of the business of monitoring anything. This government is getting out of the business of monitoring anything. It's going to be a self-regulating industry. The minister is well aware of the study by John Volpe on sea lice. British Columbia is now experiencing similar problems that Scotland, Ireland and Norway face. In fact, B.C. could, predicts John Volpe, face the decimation of wild salmon stocks.

That's the European experience, but how does it translate over here? Well, there are those that say the Pacific salmon, particularly chum and pinks, are much smaller than the European salmon when they leave the rivers and head out to the sea. The Atlantic salmon spend more time in rivers and leave much larger when they leave the rivers. Therefore, one could conclude and has concluded that the small smolts leave the rivers, swim past the fish farms with high concentrations of sea lice, and the small fish become overwhelmed. In fact, there is evidence to show that's occurring right now in British Columbia.

The minister and I are going to disagree on this, I'm sure. But I must say it isn't encouraging for the minister to somehow say: "Don't worry. It's not a problem. By the way, we're getting out of the business of monitoring or regulating this industry from a government point of view. It's going to be a self-regulating industry."

I know that there are very big concerns around this matter amongst a growing number of people who are terribly worried about the future of our wild fin fish stock.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I want to respond to a couple of the statements the member made.

First of all, the argument is that we're using a five-year-old report. I submit that good science doesn't change overnight. If it does, then it wasn't good science in the first place. Certainly there is continual research that we think is important. There is continual monitoring that we and the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans are doing. We are looking at a program of continuous improvement, and I support the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection in her vision for a program of continuous improvement. We are doing that.

I also want to correct the record in terms of the statement made by the member that we are going to a self-regulation model for the industry. That is simply not the case. We are not going to a self-regulating model. In my ministry, for example, we regulate fish health. We regulate escapes. There has been no reduction in staff in any of the fisheries sections, in particular the section dealing with compliance and enforcement. We have been working with the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection on a service agreement for compliance and enforcement to ensure that we get the maximum value out of our respective staff and that we do monitor and regulate in an effective way.

In addition to the regulatory regime that we continue to have in place and that we will enhance and continue to enforce, there will be additional reporting requirements on salmon farms. There will be additional monitoring that they will have to do themselves, that they will have to record, and records that they will have to provide to our inspectors whether it is a random inspection or a routine inspection.

In fact, the statement that we are going to allow the industry to self-regulate is simply not correct. I want to be sure that is clear on the record. In fact we will have a beefed-up regulatory regime to ensure that the industry does meet good environmental standards.

In any discussion that I have ever had with the industry, whether it was before or after the election, I've made it very clear to them that it is our intention to ensure good environmental management and good environmental regulation. We intend to hold ourselves and the industry to that commitment.

J. MacPhail: I take no comfort in the minister's remarks. The fact that there have been no cuts in staff to those who are responsible for regulating aquaculture in this province is meaningless, given that this minister is going to hugely expand aquaculture. Unless the minister can stand up and tell me that the professional staff in his ministry responsible for regulating this industry is going to hugely expand as well, then it is…. Maybe it isn't self-regulating; maybe it's no-regulating.

What's the status of the publication of the regulations that are, I think, due to be in force April 30 of this year?

Hon. J. van Dongen: To the minister's first comment about huge expansion in the industry: we don't anticipate huge expansion in the industry. We anticipate gradual expansion. We anticipate maybe ten or 15 new sites a year. We're focusing right now on relocations to ensure that operations we have on sites where we don't have good environmental conditions are prioritized and relocated. In the monitoring work that has

been done, particularly with respect to waste management in the last two years, it has been confirmed that one of the things our staff has learned is that siting is very important. The Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management is working to identify the appropriate sites for new locations.

I don't remember the member's second question, so maybe she could repeat it for me.

J. MacPhail: I understand that the new regulations are to be in place for April 30. What's the status of them? Did cabinet deal with that today?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The performance-based waste management regulations that are being brought forward by the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection under the Waste Management Act are in the final stages of the consultation phase, and then they will go for drafting and go to cabinet at some point.

We in our ministry have put in place some additional requirements with respect to fish health, but we're also working on some amendments to the escape regulation, and they are still in the development phase.

J. MacPhail: I'm told the industry is expecting new regulations to be in effect as of April 30. Are they wrong?

Hon. J. van Dongen: We have certainly set an objective, and the announcement that government made on January 31 was that we would have these new regulations in place April 30. That is certainly the objective.

J. MacPhail: Well, I would urge the minister to announce it one way or the other, because I expect that there has to be some education and working with industry in terms of compliance and monitoring. We're just weeks away from this. I would expect that the minister could be a little more definitive.

In terms of the risk of disease, the minister is also on record saying there's little danger that a virus could spread to wild Pacific salmon from farmed salmon. As I understand it, infectious hematopoietic…

J. MacPhail: …necrosis, IHN, is a major threat. There were 1.6 million Atlantic salmon in February at one site alone that died. Another 500,000 just this week in Clayoquot Sound. Does the minister have a figure, even an estimate, on the number of escapes that have occurred in the last eight months?

Hon. J. van Dongen: With respect to escapes, for the information of the member, escapes have been monitored in British Columbia for the last 11 years by an organization called Atlantic Salmon Watch, which is basically funded both by the federal government and the provincial government. It operates out of Nanaimo, out of the Pacific Biological Station, and is run by a fellow named Andy Thomson. The results are posted on our website.

The number of escapes for the year 2001 was 29,000 fish. I should say that the pattern is a trend of reductions in the number of escapes, a reduction over time in the number of escapes, and that is to be considered in the context of new requirements on fish farms to report all escapes immediately, to have in place a recapture plan, and as I said, effective regulation and investigation of every escape by our staff.

The intent and the recommendations of the salmon aquaculture review were to manage these risks. We want to reduce the number of escapes, and we're doing that. Certainly we're encouraged, but we want to keep the pressure on the industry to ensure that they continue to minimize the number of escapes and, in turn, further reduce the low risk to the wild salmon from the Atlantic salmon stock.

J. MacPhail: Well, then I take it that the minister is saying there's little danger. Of course, that's had a reaction. The minister knows that his comments have had a reaction from those who are experts in this science.

John Volpe's response to that minister's comment that there's little danger was: "It's a little scary when we've got people like [the Minister of Fisheries] standing up and saying that the risks (of infection) are low when in fact his own scientists readily admit that they don't understand the transmission mechanisms of the disease."

The link here is the intensity of infection and the escape of farm fish into the wild stock. That's the link for those who will be reading this record a year from now.

What is the best available science that the government's relying on to say that the disease is not a threat?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I understand from my staff that the reference the member made to the statement by John Volpe involved the federal Fisheries minister, who was on a radio show recently, but I think our two ministries are certainly in agreement on how we assess the risks.

I emphasize again that all of the scientific findings are that there is a low risk to the wild stock from disease. That was the finding of our salmon aquaculture review, and that was the finding of this study done by the University of Washington just recently.

In addition, the member talks about IHN. Our veterinarians — and we have very competent and capable veterinarians both in Courtenay and in the lab in Abbotsford — confirmed the finding, the view, that IHN is a low risk to the wild stock.

The disposal arrangements had been made by the fish-farm company about a month ago, when we had the incident that the member refers to. All of those arrangements had been confirmed with and by our veterinarians. The decision of the court at the time was simply to confirm the arrangements already made. Despite all of the publicity, the fact remains that the

court simply reaffirmed the plans that had already been put in place by the company and that had been cleared with our veterinarians and with the other responsible agencies.

J. MacPhail: The quote that I'm referring to by John Volpe is a newspaper report that refers to this Minister of Fisheries. He actually named the minister by name, but as you know, protocol doesn't allow me to say that. Mr. Volpe made that comment about this provincial Minister of Fisheries in an article — let me just be clear — in the Times Colonist on February 16 of this year.

Well, let's talk about the best available science that this minister is relying on then. He refers to the University of Washington study. In B.C. waters we have the Broughton Archipelago, the most densely populated area in the world when it comes to fish farms. Is there any study that the minister's relying on that has dealt with the Broughton Archipelago?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The two studies that I referred to both looked generally at the risks associated with open-pen aquaculture. Neither looked specifically at the area that the member mentions. I should point out that those operations in the Broughton Archipelago are being monitored on an ongoing basis by at least three agencies: our ministry; the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection; and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. For example, in the past two years there has been a fairly intensive program of monitoring waste from these facilities. That data's being collected. There will be additional monitoring done, so I submit that there is a lot of monitoring being done an ongoing basis on all of our industry, including the area that the member mentions.

J. MacPhail: I'm just going to put on record my whole concern about this area of the study and the lack of best science that the minister refuses to get. I have concerns about monitoring as opposed to studying, so I'll ask the minister: what is the monitoring that is going on right now in the Broughton Archipelago compared to studying the effects of disease? The studies that he's relied on so far were done in Washington, where there are eight fish farms. How many fish farms are there in the Broughton Archipelago?

Hon. J. van Dongen: There are about 90 active fish-farm sites in British Columbia, and about half of those are in the Broughton Archipelago.

J. MacPhail: So just in the one area, the Broughton Archipelago, there's over six times the number of fish farms that there are in the entire state of Washington, upon which the study was done that the minister is relying on.

Does the minister have a concern that no study is being done in an area that has the most intensive fish farming ever? Let me just follow that up by saying: is the monitoring a study? What happens with the monitoring?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I want to correct the record for the member again in that we're not just relying on a Washington study. The University of Washington study confirmed all of the findings that salmon aquaculture is a low risk to the environment. They certainly did that in the context of the Washington State industry, but in British Columbia the previous government, through the environmental assessment office, did a very, very comprehensive study of all of the social, economic and environmental issues associated with salmon aquaculture. It was the first project done by the environmental assessment office. It was done in a very comprehensive way. It still forms, I think, a very significant foundation for all of the work that has been done by this government, by the previous government and by other agencies since then.

The data that has been collected in the last two years, for example, is being studied very intensively. It's being used by the industry to develop new management regimes. It's being used to develop new feeding regimes, where we now get much better feed utilization than we would have gotten five or ten years ago. That information is being used by the farms, by the private sector and by government agencies such as ours, such as the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to design regulations and enforcement regimes that will continue to protect the wild stock as contemplated in the very comprehensive study done by the environmental assessment office.

J. MacPhail: There's a fundamental flaw in the minister's suggestion that that study, because it was done under the previous government, makes everything fine. The previous government continued the moratorium. The previous government did a study, concluded in 1997, to continue a moratorium. This government is using 1997 evidence or a study of eight fish farms in Washington State to say: "Let's go crazy on aquaculture." That's the fundamental difference.

It's the same discussion I had with the Minister of Energy and Mines, who said: "My God, the previous government buried a report on offshore oil and gas exploration." We didn't bury it. We didn't expand. We didn't lift the moratorium on offshore oil and gas exploration, whereas this government is.

I am deeply concerned about us moving into an expansion of aquaculture with no best science available. Actually, I would urge the minister, given this discussion, to come and vote in favour of my private member's bill to say that any expansion of licences has to have a guarantee of closed-containment technology being used.

In terms of waste management, let's just talk about what the minister is monitoring in that area. The minister says that disease is a low risk and that the most important rule in risk management is the careful selection

of a site. Of course, the degree of flushing action and the time a site is given to be fallow play a very important role in suitability of location, because waste is a major problem. These are all linked. So far this minister's government has approved the moving of 25 fish farms in addition to the 11 that were earlier identified as needing new locations. Can the minister elaborate on what the environmental effects of fish-farm waste are?

Hon. J. van Dongen: In answering the member's question it's important to recognize that impacts vary greatly, depending on the site and the management regime. One can really only generalize, but there is some impact — generally a temporary impact — on the benthic community, the number of organisms and the kind of organisms that live on the ocean bottom under the site. With good management those impacts can be reduced. Certainly, having the ability to move sites and being able to fallow a site will allow it to come back to what generally would be viewed as an original state, bearing in mind that conditions in the ocean vary a lot from one site to another.

The government is attempting to develop a waste management regime that allows us to measure the impact in a concrete way and then develop management and regulatory regimes to ensure that we can manage that temporary impact effectively.

J. MacPhail: We've already had 25 fish farms relocated, so we'd better get cracking on new site selection criteria. That's why I'm trying to figure out what the site selection criteria are. I don't think the minister has disagreed with me that the degree of flushing action and the time a site is given to be fallow play a role in the suitability of location. That's because of the waste being a major problem.

I'm trying to ask the minister what the environmental effects of fish-farm waste are. How much effluent does the average fish farm produce in a year? I'm told that scientists estimate a group of four fish farms produces the same amount of untreated effluent as a city the size of Seattle. What effect does effluent have on the site?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I just want to mention for the member that the 25 farms have not yet been relocated. There were 11 farms originally identified for relocation by the previous government. Nine of those have been relocated, and we announced in November that we had identified, together with the industry, another 25 that needed to be relocated.

I should point out that even the decision to relocate involves a substantial investment in research and time and an application process. For a completely new site to come on stream could take up to a year and could involve up to $250,000 of investment by the fish farm to go through all the necessary application processes and the necessary research to identify a suitable site. These things don't happen overnight. There are long lead times involved and, hence, that is also connected to my comment that we're not going to see some rapid, instant, huge expansion.

There's a long lead time involved between the time a company makes a decision to do an expansion or a relocation and when the fish that result from that decision actually end up in a processing plant. That lead time can be two to three years. Hence our interest in moving forward on the decisions that government needs to make to help move the industry forward, because more than 50 percent of the jobs this industry creates are in the processing plants, like the example I cited in Port Hardy.

There is a significant upfront investment by the industry in identifying the site and filing a management plan. The management plan they file forms part of the regulatory responsibility they take on in establishing a new farm at a new site. All of these requirements take time and money, and, hence, there isn't going to be the instant expansion that the member may have anticipated.

J. MacPhail: No, I'm not anticipating anything. I'm talking about the 25 relocations that have been approved. That's a given. That's the reality. That's what we're dealing with right now. I'm trying to figure out what the best science is that the minister is developing the regulations on.

I also heard the minister say the industry itself will be regulating this matter, not the ministry. Let's have a discussion about what the science is concerning fish-farm waste, effluent. What is he relying on as he develops the regulations for relocation?

Hon. J. van Dongen: Certainly, the efforts that are going into developing the new regulation for waste management. For example, we are looking at all of the information all over the world with respect to waste management regimes. We're looking at all of the other areas where fish farming is taking place. We're also doing a lot of original research in terms of the two years of monitoring that the ministries and the industry have done. We are bringing together the best people. The Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection has established a scientific advisory group to examine the work that the ministry is doing in developing these regulations.

I should point out to the member that the people she's citing…. You know, she's citing one scientist from a university in Alberta who has made this his personal hobbyhorse, and I find it interesting that what he publishes in the scientific journals is not the same as what he talks about in the media. There's quite a difference. I think that we as a government need to rely on a broad base of science. We're doing that.

As I said, we intend to design and implement a regulation which will be effective in bringing together the best possible information with a commitment to enforce effectively. If we compare what we are working on and developing to the system that has been in

place to date under the Waste Management Act, which simply measures the amount of feed that is going into a particular site, then we're comparing a very simplistic approach to something which is much more sophisticated, much more results-oriented and involves constant measurement and constant improvement.

J. MacPhail: I'm happy to be convinced by the minister that he has the best science available. That's what I'm trying to get out of him right now. How many science officers in his ministry or other ministries are actually working on this process of developing these best science–based regulations for site location?

Hon. J. van Dongen: In terms of the people involved in the project, I'm talking specifically about the development of the waste management regulation. My understanding is that there are eight staff members in the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection engaged full-time in this project. Three staff from my ministry are also engaged with a certain number of staff from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. We also have the work done in the last two years by both the industry and the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection to collect the raw data they're using. That data collection is ongoing. We also have a $600,000 intensive study done by an outside scientist that is being used as part of this project.

The siting criteria being used by the government were established by the salmon aquaculture review. We're following the recommendations that the SAR report made for siting criteria to determine new sites. The Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, through Land and Water British Columbia, is involved in the process of identifying sites.

Some of the issues addressed in those criteria recommended by SAR involve the identification of significant habitat areas and avoiding those. It also involves recommendations with respect to other important marine fisheries, such as shellfish, for example. We are collaborating with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to ensure that those significant marine habitat areas are avoided in the siting decisions.

J. MacPhail: Corporations. We were told in the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management estimates that corporations will be left with the responsibility to complete applications for water and land tenures and submit their own estimates. That's what we were told in those estimates.

What role are the government science officers playing in ensuring that this industry-based data is correct?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The member's question again is within the area of the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, but it is correct that a fish-farm company is responsible for the complete application. They're responsible for pulling together the necessary data and information and the cost of it. They submit an application, and then that application is evaluated by a number of different agencies, including my ministry; Land and Water British Columbia — which receives the application — the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection; and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, who may decide to do additional investigation if they consider it necessary.

It is true that they develop the application, but all of the review and auditing of the submissions made are done by these various government agencies, and we will continue to do so.

J. MacPhail: Here's my concern: it doesn't sound like this ministry, or Water, Land and Air Protection, is going to be proactive. It's the performance-based, results-based compliance and enforcement measure approach, and in this business that's after the fact. The damage could already be done to the environment. The damage could already be done to the wild stocks, if the industry is left up to its own measure and fails.

How are we going to have any assurances that a compliance model is going to work in any way that doesn't harm the environment? Frankly, given all of the referrals by previous ministers saying, "Oh, that's the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection's responsibility," they're going to be swamped. So the damage could be done. This minister could say: "Oh, my God, the industry has done this damage." Then what happens?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I just want to review the process. In terms of a new site or an application for a new site or a relocation, a farm has to submit a comprehensive management plan. It forms a part, and I stress a part, of the responsibility that the farm takes on. They also have the provincial Fisheries Act, the provincial Waste Management Act and the federal Fisheries Act they need to comply with. The agencies involved, as I said earlier, have developed a service agreement.

My ministry and the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection are the two ministries who regulate performance for the most part. Sustainable Resource Management is involved in the siting decisions, and they have an interest in ensuring that the management plans that are filed and the applications are complete in every respect. But it's two provincial ministries, ourselves and Water, Land and Air Protection, who have the responsibility and the authority to ensure compliance as a provincial agency. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has the authority and responsibility federally.

As I said earlier, we have a comprehensive compliance and enforcement plan that we are putting into effect, further enhancing the current regulatory regime that's in place. I don't know how much more I can say to assure the member. I know she's concerned and people are concerned. We know the public is concerned. We're concerned, and we're committed to ensuring that we have a healthy wild stock, that we have a healthy environment and to doing whatever is necessary to ensure that that happens.

J. MacPhail: A question occurred to me: does the minister eat farmed salmon?

Hon. J. van Dongen: Yes, I do eat farmed salmon. I go to restaurants, and I have salmon, whatever is served, wild or farmed. I think it's a great product. The aquaculture industry has demonstrated that they can provide a product year-round that has a lot of consumer appeal. They can supply what the market wants. It is one of a whole range of products on the shelf.

As I said earlier, the processors and the people involved in the wild fishery are very much focused on enhancing the value of their product, ensuring consumer appeal and enhancing the marketability of their product. We think we can develop a much greater reputation for B.C. wild salmon than we presently have. We need to develop it into an exclusive product so that we can serve the range of consumer tastes and needs on an ongoing basis.

J. MacPhail: I expect the minister is well aware that there are many thousands of people in British Columbia who, because of concerns around the polluted atmosphere in which farm fish are raised, do not eat farmed salmon. I think it's the minister's responsibility to ensure farmed fish are not raised in a polluted environment and do not in any way pollute wild stock habitat. He could do a great service to both industries by taking much greater control over regulation of this industry.

I have one last question before we rise on this particular set of estimates. It's on the issue of escapes. I'm curious to know. There is still a huge controversy arising about the colonization of escaped Atlantic salmon. That was why our government continued the moratorium. What science has the minister relied on to lift the moratorium? What science has the minister relied on to say that colonization of escaped Atlantic salmon is not a problem for wild stock?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The salmon aquaculture review looked at that issue very specifically and confirmed a low risk to the wild stock. All of the monitoring that's done by Atlantic Salmon Watch confirms that no colonization has taken place in British Columbia. Those are the facts.

The salmon aquaculture review also looked at the issue of hybridization and confirmed on a scientific basis that there is no risk of crossbreeding between Atlantic salmon and Pacific salmon. I think it's important to emphasize those points.

J. MacPhail: I only make note for the minister that the previous government relied on the salmon aquaculture review to continue the moratorium because of the debates that rage around these issues. This government relies on a five-year-old study to lift the moratorium. There is a huge difference on that matter. I hope the minister understands the difference. He has lifted a moratorium where the debate on colonization continues to rage.

That concludes this part. Sorry, Madam Chair, I think the minister needs to leave.

Hon. J. van Dongen: In response to the member's statement, I want to confirm that the previous government made a decision in 1999 to develop and put in place a salmon aquaculture policy framework that had as its intent the lifting of the moratorium and the expansion of the salmon farming industry. In fact, it was a former Premier who announced in Victoria that he thought salmon aquaculture was a great industry and should be allowed to expand.

The decision by this government is simply continuing the salmon aquaculture policy framework that was put in place by the previous government to continue to develop the regulations and implement the recommendations of the salmon aquaculture review. I think it's important to have that on the record.

J. MacPhail: The moratorium continued. The previous government made a conscious cabinet decision to continue the moratorium.

Just as this Premier goes out and blue-skies on issues, other Premiers have as well. In fact, the moratorium continued. It was this government solely that lifted the moratorium on fish aquaculture.

The Chair: The next estimates will be the Attorney General. We'll probably be about five to ten minutes. Thank you.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ATTORNEY GENERAL AND MINISTRY
RESPONSIBLE FOR TREATY NEGOTIATIONS

Hon. G. Plant: I'm honoured to have this opportunity to begin the estimates discussion of what amounts to the first fiscal year that I, as Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations, have some responsibility for. I intend to make some opening remarks that will speak to issues relating to my responsibilities as Attorney General.

When we reach a point in the discussion where we turn to the issues and responsibilities that I have as the minister responsible for the treaty negotiations office, I also will have some general remarks.

Let me begin by talking about my responsibilities as the Attorney General. As British Columbians we face a time of challenge and opportunity in our justice system. Clearly, there is a challenge to maintain and improve our system of justice in the face of fiscal reali-

ties that require that expenditures be reduced. At the same time, I strongly and passionately believe that faced with this challenge we can find and seize opportunities to make our justice system better.

The way we do this, the way that we in government can help make this possible, is by working with our partners in the justice system to reform it. That includes working with the judiciary, with the bar, with community groups and others who have an interest in ensuring that justice is accessible, affordable and sustainable.

The justice system is a complex system. In British Columbia it is perhaps true to say that it is a system of systems. We have in British Columbia a growing population and one that is very demanding of our justice system. We have an actively litigious population that tends to increase the burden on our civil courts, a burden that is borne by taxpayers that have to pay to support the court system. Because people tend to believe that public pockets run deep, government is increasingly, itself, the target of lawsuits, named as a defendant in many, many lawsuits commenced every day in the province.

At the same time, when we go behind some of those aspects of the current environment, the reality is that according to statistics, B.C.'s overall crime rate has been dropping steadily for ten years, and it continues to drop. Yet public fear of crime has not subsided. The perception is that crime rates are out of control. In fact, only a day or two ago, I think, I read an editorial in one of the provincial newspapers that suggested that, while there were statistics indicating that young offender rates of crime were declining, in some ways they were actually increasing. The reality is that crime rates in British Columbia, while unacceptably high, are in fact improving.

The way we think about crime, of course, can affect how we go about living our daily lives. This is particularly true when you look at the most interesting aspect, I think, of the statistical picture around crime. If you ask people about their experience of crime, you will find that the elderly indicate they fear crime the most. They feel or will say that they are considerably at risk from criminal activity. Young people will say they have almost no experience of crime and that they have little perception that their safety is at risk.

The reality is completely the opposite. Older people are, in fact, among the most safe in our society, and it is younger people who have the most experience of crime. We have this completely counterintuitive relationship between perception and reality in the world of criminal law. That is part of the public's sense of confidence in the justice system. Clearly, it is part of my responsibility and our obligation as government to do what we can to change that, to ensure that public confidence is maintained in the institutions and processes that make up not just our criminal justice system but our justice system as a whole.

I want to spend a minute or two talking about what we've done over the last ten months. We implemented our 90-day new-era commitments. We completed a comprehensive core services review, which identified essential justice services and developed strategies for delivering these services more effectively. At the same time, we developed the three-year budget plan, a first ever for this ministry. The review and the budget provided the basis for our service plan, and the service plan is the blueprint for reforming the justice system in British Columbia.

Let me expand on some of those points. We've been talking about justice reform. I've been talking about justice reform for years. In the new-era document we outlined some of the actions we would take to help restore faith in government, maintain confidence in public safety and, also, to make our justice system more accountable and accessible.

The first thing we did as a ministry was to honour these new-era commitments. With the cooperation of the Solicitor General we eliminated photo radar. We passed a law that set fixed election dates every four years to put an end to the past practice of governments strategically manipulating the call of an election. We appointed Nitya Iyer, a respected lawyer and former member of the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal, to head a task force to review the issue of pay equity in this province. We have received her report, and it has been made public. That continues a discussion about the reality of gender wage discrimination in British Columbia and the complicated question of what role government has in respect of gender wage gaps. Finally, we began a review of the province's administrative justice boards, committees and tribunals, because we wanted to ensure that our public agencies are effective and responsive and that they meet the needs of the people they serve.

While we were fulfilling our new-era commitments, my ministry entered into a detailed review of our core services. We did what other ministries of this government did. We wanted to find out what we did well as a ministry and which of the services that we provided were most critical, most essential to the public's conception of what it is that government must do. We wanted to find ways to improve on the delivery of those services and enhance the justice system.

Perhaps the most significant outcome of this process was the series of strategic shifts that we developed in my ministry and that have been approved by government. It's these shifts, these broad themes in terms of changes in direction that will guide the direction of my ministry over the next three years.

First, we're moving towards an increased reliance upon alternate methods for resolving civil and family disputes. We have to change the culture of the practice of law and civil litigation to increase the awareness that disputes that are resolved in methods that do not involve traditional litigation produce better results for the parties.

We're also looking for an increased use of out-of-court options, including community-based programs, for appropriate minor offences in criminal law.

At the same time, we're going to enhance efforts to make greater use of new technology to improve access and reduce costs.

Fourthly, in conjunction with other government ministries, we're planning to undertake proactive risk and liability management to help better manage government's own legal costs.

When I say "justice system," people usually think courts, but a large number of different agencies deliver justice outside the traditional court system. We usually call them administrative tribunals or administrative justice agencies, and the decision-making they do is often described as quasi-judicial. But it is profoundly important to many British Columbians. In fact, for most British Columbians administrative tribunals are the front line of the justice system as they experience it.

As part of the broader core services review, my ministry has also been working on an administrative justice project, which has included a review of 67 administrative justice agencies. It has made and will continue to make recommendations to simplify administrative processes, eliminate overlaps and ensure effective, accountable decision-making. In fact, the administrative justice project has also been the vehicle through which we have examined the mandate of some of these agencies — in fact, all of them — and have begun to make and to implement a series of decisions to ensure that we have only the agencies we need and that those agencies have mandates that are modern, relevant and affordable.

At the same time that we were working on our core services review, we were engaged in a parallel process, which was the review of our budget. The goal of that process was, for the first time in the history of this ministry, to prepare a long-term financial plan aimed at supporting our strategic shifts, to move beyond the traditional government approach that manages finances on a year-by-year basis into a longer-term planning exercise with longer term goals and objectives.

The relationship between the budget process and the core services review was important, because knowing that we were facing fiscal restraints forced us to look even closer at every program and service in light of what we knew would be tremendous fiscal challenges. There will be an average reduction of 25 percent in ministry budgets across government over the next three years, leaving aside health and education. The budget for the Ministry of Attorney General is decreasing by only 13 percent or 14 percent. This is a reflection of how strongly this government supports the justice system.

Obviously we have been doing some things well, which is a credit to all our justice partners, but that means, in the face of real budget pressures, it's harder to make cuts. The ministry's goal has been to focus resources on service delivery while reducing duplication and administrative costs. The two projects have gone hand-in-hand from the outset. How can we improve the way we deliver service? By changing the way we deliver service but at the same time recognizing that we need to make the services we provide more affordable and less expensive, both for the people who rely on them and for the taxpayers who pay for them.

Once the budget was complete, the next step was to begin work on our service plan. I've already mentioned the service plan. It's a long-term description of how we're going to realize our strategic shifts under our current budget structure. More importantly, it's a blueprint that will allow us to maintain and enhance access to justice, to continue the important process of law reform and to restore public faith in our justice system. The year ahead will be a year of action. We're looking to streamline our operations by reducing the number of FTEs devoted to administration and policy support, but perhaps the most critical steps we will be taking this year will be in the areas of courthouse and legal aid reform.

Under the heading of courthouse reform, we are moving to rationalize and streamline the use of courthouses in this province. As part of this reform we will be consolidating resources by closing 24 full-time staffed courthouses, many of which are currently underused. There will be an impact on the bottom line. We expect these closures will save over $8 million each year. We will still be able to provide an acceptable level of service to people who use the courts of British Columbia, and we are working actively with communities, with the judiciary and with police to mitigate the impact of the decision to close courthouses.

We're looking at and planning for a range of options and initiatives, including expanding video conferencing networks, fax-filing of civil case information, a new traffic dispute process and new processes to deal with municipal bylaw disputes. We're also consulting with a number of smaller communities on expansion of the circuit court system to allow courts to sit a few days a month in their communities to replace a full-time, fully-staffed but underutilized courthouse with circuit court service that ensures that people have access to justice in their communities.

We will also be taking action to reform legal aid in this province. Last year we spent almost $88 million on a broad range of legal aid services — the most expensive legal aid program per capita in Canada. Over the next three years we will be reducing that budget by $34 million, but that will still mean that British Columbia will continue to have the third-highest funding to legal aid in the country per capita. The plan for these reductions will ensure access to justice. By streamlining administration, reducing overhead, consolidating processes and building up support programs, we are going to focus legal aid dollars where they're needed most: on the delivery of essential services.

The reformed legal aid system will be less top-heavy, with seven offices as opposed to 45. At the same time, the Legal Services Society, the organization that oversees legal aid in British Columbia, will be expanding the number of local agents — that is, the lawyers in smaller communities who provide legal aid services out of their own offices — from 14 to 24. LSS will also

make the intake process more efficient by setting up the central call centre to consolidate the intake process and reduce the amount of time that front-line staff spend assessing client eligibility.

These decisions will allow LSS, the Legal Services Society, to continue to fund legal aid for adult and youth criminal law, mental health proceedings and family law. Full tariff coverage will remain available throughout the period of this service plan for child protection and domestic violence restraining orders. While there will be a reduction in the budget allocation for family services, we have not phased out this valuable legal aid service.

Our commitment is to change the way we deliver family legal aid and family justice services. At the same time that funding will be available for family legal aid, my ministry is continuing to spend $25 million annually on family justice services apart from legal aid to resolve family conflicts before they reach the courtroom. We want to keep families out of court and help them resolve their problems earlier, and we intend to continue to work with the Legal Services Society to expand these alternatives further.

I've already talked about the administrative justice project. The first phase of that has been completed, and last month we announced that 33 of the province's 67 administrative justice agencies will be restructured, combined or improved to enhance accountability, public access and fairness in decision-making.

These changes are designed to make our administrative justice system the best it can be, and I am confident we can achieve that end. I'm excited about the coming year, because I think we're going to take great strides toward creating a sustainable, accountable and responsive justice system.

I've already talked about the need to change our approach to dispute resolution. Today, even though we know that 95 percent of cases will settle before they get to court, we still manage 95 percent of cases as if they will go to court. We need to change that. The legal profession is already moving in that direction. Increasingly, lawyers see themselves as problem-solvers and litigation as only one of the procedures they can offer their clients. At the same time, clients are becoming more sophisticated, more demanding and less tolerant of costs and delay.

We can't make the justice system more responsive and efficient without looking at our attitude to legal process. Neither will we be able to make the justice system more responsive and efficient without looking at law reform more broadly. Law reform is an essential part of any thriving justice system. It's how we ensure that our laws are as just, as clear, as predictable and as effective as possible. There has been a strong tradition of law reform in British Columbia, but in recent years, the government's appetite to be a leader in reform has dwindled. I want to work with our justice partners to restore that tradition, to systematically clarify, modernize and improve the laws of British Columbia.

I've already proposed three areas where government and its justice partners can work together:

1. Civil liability, which, as it has evolved, is creating an ever-increasing financial burden for all deep-pocket defendants, including governments.

2. Commercial and administrative law, both of which have significant implications as we work to develop a sustainable justice system.

3. The administrative justice project, which I've already talked about at some length.

Law reform is a critical issue, because it will have a long-term impact on the kind and range of legal services and access to justice that we are able to provide to the public. Outmoded laws divert money out of the justice system, which impacts our ability to deliver services to the public.

Mr. Chair, we have a lot of work to do in the year and years ahead. We can and we will enhance access to justice. We can and we will reform outmoded and counterproductive laws. We can restore public confidence in our justice system by making sure that our courts work swiftly and efficiently, by prosecuting violent and other serious offenders to the fullest extent of the law and by managing our resources carefully to limit waste and ensure that dollars that are meant to provide services are not eaten up by overlap and administration.

Together, government and its justice partners must move ahead with these and other reforms to ensure that we have a fair, accessible and affordable justice system. That's why I am committed to working with members of the bar, the judiciary and the government to find innovations and efficiencies in both the administration of justice and the accessibility of legal resources and services in our province.

This is the first year of a comprehensive three-year plan, and while no one can expect the justice system to change overnight, I look forward to the challenges and the opportunities that face all of us. I also welcome and look forward to the questions that will follow.

Would you like me to introduce the people I have with me? I am joined by, on my right, Gillian Wallace, who is the Deputy Attorney General; on my left, Jim Crone, who is the assistant deputy minister for management services; on my left behind me, Jerry McHale, who is the assistant deputy minister of justice services; and behind me on my right, Rick McCandless, the assistant deputy minister of the court services branch — all in the Ministry of Attorney General.

R. Hawes: I just have a few questions today surrounding the closure of courthouses, specifically around the closure of the Maple Ridge courthouse. I guess I'd start my question by…. Rather than it being specifically a financial question, I guess it's more of an operational question. Just so I clearly understand that closure, I think it's an integrated closure that involves more than one courthouse — Burnaby, 222 Main Street, as well as the Port Coquitlam courthouse. I think Burnaby is moving into Poco with Maple Ridge. Is that correct?

Hon. G. Plant: We did a huge amount of work inside government, as we were dealing with a variety of

budget scenarios that I had to examine, as did all my cabinet colleagues. We did a huge amount of work to try to determine how we could best maintain access to justice and also achieve the expenditure reductions that are necessary so that government can in fact continue to be affordable.

The impact of expenditure reductions in a ministry responsible for administering 99 court facilities in British Columbia sooner or later involves an examination of those facilities, some of which are, and have traditionally been, staffed on a full-time basis but not used more than 30, 40, 50, 60 days a year for court services. Clearly, they're important in their communities, but from the perspective of the broader provincial public interest, the challenge is to figure out how you can justify paying full-time for the use of a facility that isn't being used on a full-time basis.

We tried to approach the issue of achieving expenditure reductions while maintaining access to justice from a principled perspective. Principles included examining travel times, trying to make sure that if court facilities in one town were to be closed, people who lived in that town were within some measure of reasonable distance from another town. We also looked at the state of repair of the physical infrastructure of our court system, which included looking at some court facilities on the verge of needing extensive repair or renovation that were an hour or less down the road from a courthouse that had been recently remodelled and had room to grow.

We looked at, obviously, the extent to which we could achieve actual savings from the closure of particular facilities: savings in the form of staff reduction, in the form of reduced building occupancy charges and rent. We looked at the extent to which we could reduce the number of facilities and yet maintain the system at the highest level of operational efficiency that we could.

In other words, we didn't want to close courthouses and create backlogs. We applied those principles and other principles over many days, looking at the current distribution of court facilities in British Columbia and trying to figure it out. What would a map of court facilities look like that was affordable and ensured we were making the best possible use of public resources?

There are also courthouses, and this is particularly true in the lower mainland, where the court is in use nearly every day of the year. I think that in Maple Ridge, the court is open all the time. In the year 2000-2001, there were 430 or more court days in that court. Clearly, the Maple Ridge courthouse is an example of a busy courthouse, unlike some of the courthouses in rural British Columbia.

Nonetheless, we had to consolidate. In consolidating, we did nothing in isolation. Yes — to respond to the member's question, we didn't look at Maple Ridge alone. We looked at what the distribution of caseloads would be across the lower mainland, and whether, for example, if you closed the courthouse in Maple Ridge, there was a place nearby that had room to absorb the increase in caseload that would result from moving cases from Maple Ridge to another place.

Port Coquitlam is a facility that seems to us to have the opportunity to grow and to have capacity for additional caseloads. As part of this exercise in looking at the new distribution of a reconfigured court system, we are even moving staff around to ensure that in the receiving courthouse locations, we have the room and the staff complement necessary to absorb the increased workload.

There is only so far that we as government acting alone can go down this path. Indeed, there is only so far that we, acting alone, did go. We certainly had a good idea on January 17, when we announced the courthouse closure decisions, where we thought the distribution would take place for cases moving from, say, Maple Ridge to another location.

The judiciary is also an active player in this part of the discussion. They have considerable control, justifiably so, over where cases ought to be heard and the redistribution of file responsibilities. Some cases in some instances, for example, in Delta…. We thought that the majority or all of the work that was going to the Delta courthouse would end up in Richmond, but after some discussions involving the chief of police in Delta, some folks in the community and perhaps also the judiciary, we recognized that at least for the criminal caseload in Delta, Surrey is the better facility. It's certainly better from a witness travel time perspective. The criminal caseload moving out of Delta is going to go to Surrey. I think the family and the civil caseload is probably still going to Richmond.

As we move towards the expected deadline of the courthouse closures, which is May 31 for all of the courts except Delta, more of this work is going to continue to happen. I'm not certain I could say, for example, that we have a complete picture now of where absolutely everything is going to go — complete in the sense of being irrevocable. We're playing our part to try to ensure that this has the minimum impact on litigants, on their lawyers, on witnesses and on police officers.

I think it still remains the case that the majority of cases that are leaving Maple Ridge — the files that would ordinarily go to Maple Ridge — are going to Port Coquitlam. We think there is capacity in Port Coquitlam to absorb the additional workload.

When Port Coquitlam was built, not that long ago…. I think there are 12 courtrooms in Port Coquitlam. I know that it's nowhere near capacity. Could you tell me if that was originally built as a regional facility that contemplated taking Maple Ridge right from the start? I know a few years ago, under the previous government, there was discussion of closing the Maple Ridge courthouse and moving it to Port Coquitlam. Was that originally planned?

Hon. G. Plant: I think it might be going too far to say it was built in the certain expectation that Maple

Ridge would eventually no longer exist as a full-time courthouse. It's my experience, even within the short tenure of ten months in this business, that if you're going to make a significant capital expenditure on something like a courthouse, you should do what you can to contemplate the possibility that the facility will have expanded use over time. I think Port Coquitlam was in fact conceived of as a regional courthouse. It was designed and built with at least that in mind.

R. Hawes: I think the minister is aware that in Maple Ridge, and probably in all the places that are losing a courthouse, there is angst in those communities. That's pretty understandable. In Maple Ridge, certainly within the legal fraternity and the city council, etc., there have been all kinds of predictions of dire circumstances that are going to occur because of this courthouse move.

I know the planning by the ministry has been pretty detailed, but at the same time, I would like to be able to reassure my community. My question to the minister would be this. Is there some kind of ongoing monitoring process after the moves take place to ensure that the kinds of circumstances being projected aren't in fact really happening? Will there be an ongoing monitoring process?

It is important to emphasize that the things we are doing now to try to ensure the impact of court closure will be mitigated or reduced when the courthouses are actually closed. I referred to those in my opening remarks. They include everything from changing the process around municipal bylaw enforcement, so you don't have to do it in a courthouse but perhaps can do it in a different facility. In the case of Maple Ridge, you would be able to do that in Maple Ridge, as opposed to travelling down the road to Port Coquitlam.

We're looking at the way we prosecute and deal with traffic offences to reduce the number of traffic offences that have to be dealt with in a traditional court system. We're expanding videoconferencing and developing proposals for fax-filing documents and perhaps allowing people to pay certain fines by credit card — those kinds of initiatives. There's already a delay. I think they will have a positive impact on access to justice in all communities, but certainly in those communities where there will be a courthouse closure.

The second thing I want to say is to all those people who have, for legitimate reasons, pointed out that certain impacts will flow from the decision to close a courthouse. Most of those observations assume that the status quo of how we do justice is not going to change. I am determined to change the status quo of how we do justice.

I had some folks from a small town in British Columbia in my office a day or so ago, and they were pointing out the impacts of closing a courthouse in a small town in terms of police travel time. Those impacts are real. They talked about the fact that if the police in a small town have to get into their car and drive to give evidence an hour or an hour and a half away, and if they show up and the case isn't heard, then they'll have to travel twice. They'll have to go back and try to get the case called another day.

My answer to that, in part, is: why are we accepting the reality of a judicial and court and justice system in which cases are routinely adjourned? Why don't we work hard to find a situation or manage the system collectively in a way so that if the police officers in town X have to get in their car and drive for an hour to give evidence in town Y, they'll know for a certainty that their cases will be heard that day? It can minimize the impact.

I'm serious when I say that this is a dialogue with the judiciary, with the profession and with citizens about how we can change the way we do things so that the phenomenon of apprehension — the angst, as the member says — doesn't materialize, because we're no longer creating those problems in the first place.

People talk about unrepresented litigants, and this is a huge challenge for courtrooms — from time to time, at least. I certainly hear anecdotal concerns about the phenomenon of unrepresented litigants. Well, why don't we find ways to ensure the cases that give rise to unrepresented litigants are mediated or settled or negotiated or resolved out of court before they get into a courtroom?

To deal with the third part of the answer, clearly what I've been talking about is what we're trying to do to mitigate the impact of the decision to close courthouses, but we will also be monitoring the impact of the decision to close courthouses. We will examine and keep track of the state of access to justice, if you will, in towns affected by these decisions.

I certainly expect that in the case of Maple Ridge, we'll have a continuing conversation with the people of Maple Ridge about whether we're doing the right things, about whether Maple Ridge can do things and whether we can collectively do things to ensure that there is, in a practical and real sense, access to justice in Maple Ridge on an ongoing basis.

Although that was a long answer, the short answer is that we will monitor the impacts of these on an ongoing basis.

Hon. G. Plant: I wanted to also add a few facts about Port Coquitlam for the benefit of people who might some day read this discussion. Port Coquitlam

courthouse was opened in the spring of 1996 and has 12 courtrooms operating at about 60 percent utilization. It has free parking, is right next the West Coast Express stop and is three blocks from the bus loop. It's two blocks from the new North Fraser correctional facility. If we include the Maple Ridge caseload, we will increase the utilization in the Port Coquitlam courthouse from approximately seven rooms of 12 to approximately 9.5 of 12, so there will still be room to grow.

J. Kwan: I'd first like to ask the minister some questions in the area of pay equity. Is the government still committed to employment equity in both the public and private sectors? If so, why has the phrase, "The government of British Columbia is an employment equity employer," been removed from the footer of the government's letterhead?

Hon. G. Plant: I'm not responsible for the government stationery. I think that might be the Minister of Management Services. In this ministry, as the member knows, we commissioned a task force to undertake a study of pay equity, which included an examination of the effectiveness of different models of approaching the possibility of legislated pay equity. We have received that study, and we're looking at it. I'd certainly welcome the member's comments, either here or at some other time, on some of the analysis in Ms. Iyer's report.

We as a government haven't decided yet how to act on the recommendations that Ms. Iyer makes, but it's important to point out that one of her recommendations is that as a starting point — that may be the way she puts it — equal pay for equal work should be a part of the law in British Columbia, as it now is in the Human Rights Code. We have no intention of changing that provision of the Human Rights Code at this point. We're certainly giving consideration to the other issues and recommendations identified in Ms. Iyer's report.

J. Kwan: While the minister may not be responsible for stationery from the ministry, I think that what is important here is the phrase that used to be on the stationery. When government sent out correspondence to community members, individuals and so on, that phrase identified the government of B.C. as an employment equity employer. I think that made a statement in terms of the government's commitment to employment equity. Now that we see that that phrase is gone, one has to ask whether or not that's also the policy of the government, that the government of British Columbia's no longer an employment equity employer. Why would you take that off, if the government's still committed to that policy?

Hon. G. Plant: I'd certainly be happy to have a discussion about the extent of my ministry responsibilities in relation to the issue of pay equity, which primarily arises because I have ministerial responsibility for the Human Rights Code.

I think the member's question directed at larger government policy issues is a question that ought to be asked to the Premier. It may be that in fact the Premier's responsibility for the public affairs bureau might also be the place to explore why government stationery looks the way it does.

J. Kwan: Now that he's aware of the situation — maybe he never noticed that before — and given that the phrase, "The government of British Columbia is an employment equity employer" is now deleted, and if it is the intention of government to continue to be an employment equity employer, would the minister be undertaking to ensure that that phrase is actually put back on correspondence? It actually makes a clear statement in terms of where government stands. For the minister who has responsibility for employment equity and the area of pay equity for women, you would think that would be something he would want to pursue.

Hon. G. Plant: I've talked about the Premier's responsibility as the head of government. In terms of the business of government in hiring and employing people, those functions are largely discharged by PSERC and the Ministry of Management Services.

The values of the Ministry of the Attorney General, which are, I think, part of the service plan, are values that my ministry shares with all government organizations. They include a commitment to affordability, efficiency, timeliness, accountability, innovation, reform and a healthy, supportive workplace. What we try to do is deliver those services in accordance with values that respect the need for accessibility, independence, impartiality, fairness, certainty, respect for the law — processes that are appropriate to the nature of the dispute.

Certainly an important part of the work I do as Attorney General around my responsibilities in relation to the justice system is to ensure that justice is accessible to all, irrespective of gender, and to work hard to ensure that the programs we provide reach out and touch people according to their needs. Certainly in the case of family law and family justice programs, those are programs that are important to women. The issue of employment policies for government is not an issue over which I have any direct ministerial responsibility.

J. Kwan: I will get to the issue around access to justice later on in the estimates. The minister made a comment about that. I'll definitely get into that area, because I think there are some real issues with the cuts

the government is implementing. The issue of access to justice is going to be compromised. There is a huge segment of the community in British Columbia who would find it very difficult to access justice. I'll get to that aspect of the estimates a little bit later on.

On the issue around employment equity and whose responsibility it is, one would assume that every single minister in their own respective portfolio would be wanting to ensure that employment equity is taking place in his or her ministry. If that's the government's agenda and approach to employment equity, then every minister has the responsibility to make sure that is reflected in hiring practices through human resources.

It's not to say that ministers would be directly involved in hiring or anything like that but rather to ensure that the government's approach to employment equity is adhered to and that attention is paid. That was why, under former governments, this phrase was actually there. It was a statement, and every minister has a responsibility to make sure that is, in fact, the case.

Now that this statement is gone, I think it speaks volumes in terms of what the direction of this government is, which is that this government no longer places a priority on being the employment equity employer. I think that's what it speaks to, and that's why the information is now gone from the correspondence from government.

Let me ask the minister this question. The minister referred to the report around pay equity that was tabled a little while ago. It's titled Working Through the Wage Gap. How many submissions did the committee investigating pay equity receive?

Hon. G. Plant: I am informed that the task force received over 50 submissions.

J. Kwan: Could the minister please advise what process was embarked on in eliciting these submissions?

Hon. G. Plant: I am informed that the head of the task force wrote to all readily identifiable stakeholder and interest group folks across the province who have an interest in pay equity issues, and invited submissions. She did more than that. She also posted the project on the Ministry of Attorney General's website, and that included the invitation to the public at large to provide her with submissions.

J. Kwan: Did the committee travel to different regions of the province in hearing the public make submissions or were all these written submissions presented either by website or correspondence?

Hon. G. Plant: I don't believe that the task force held public hearings, if that's what the member is talking about.

J. Kwan: The report states that it is necessary for the government to provide staff and funds to increase awareness of the right to equal pay for equal work. How much staff and funding is the government committing to achieve this objective?

Hon. G. Plant: As I said earlier, we have just received the report relatively recently. We're giving consideration to the recommendations, including that recommendation. As of this point, no decision has been made one way or the other on that issue.

J. Kwan: What kind of time line does the minister anticipate, then, for decisions to be made with respect to the recommendations from the task force on pay equity?

J. Kwan: When the minister says in the coming months, does he…? I assume that means within this year, in the next two or three months or so. Or is he talking about months as in 12, 24, 18 months? What kind of time frame are we looking at, and can we anticipate and see action from government on this front?

Hon. G. Plant: Coming months is the coming months. We have just recently been provided with a pretty thorough and detailed analysis of a pretty complicated subject by someone who's devoted a lot of attention, time and care to try to understand the subject. I think it behooves us as government to spend, on this occasion at least, a fair bit of time thinking about it. I don't consider the subject closed, so to the extent that people continue to have an interest in providing government with their views on that subject, I think that's perfectly legitimate.

In the context of the administrative justice project, we are looking at the most effective way to organize the delivery of services around things like employment rights. I expect as we continue our consideration of those issues, some of Ms. Iyer's recommendations will be part of that consideration.

As the member knows, the report recommends that the protection afforded to equal pay for equal work be moved from the Human Rights Code to the Employment Standards Act. That's one of the recommendations we're looking at. In addition to the broad consideration we're giving to that issue, we are also specifically looking at that issue in the context of our examination of how best to organize the protection of workers' rights and the processes for dealing with disputes that arise in the workplace.

J. Kwan: In terms of funding within the ministry now, how much money is dedicated towards achieving this objective? Is there any funding dedicated towards pay equity for women, and also, are there any staff allocations for achieving this objective in this year's budget?

Hon. G. Plant: I think the fair answer to the question is that we are still formulating our response to the

report. That includes thinking about the recommendations. Until we have a better sense of what we think we are going to do as government, I think it's premature to talk about whether we have put in place any particular funding or arrangements to do something we haven't decided whether or not we're going to do yet.

J. Kwan: In other words, right now within this year's budget there is no funding from government dedicated to the issue of pay equity, and there are no staff allocated to this issue.

I can tell you that formerly, for previous governments, the issue around employment equity was a priority of government. There was dedication around not just pay equity but the whole issue of employment equity. I gather from the minister's answer that no funding and no resources are allocated to this objective now, irrespective of need.

Hon. G. Plant: I'm not going to allow the member to confuse two issues which we have, I think, relatively successfully kept separate. On the one hand, there is the issue of the way in which government implements its commitment to employment equity as an employer, which is not something that I have unique or special ministerial responsibilities for. On the other hand, there are the responsibilities that I have in my ministry around program delivery.

The member is interested in pay equity. As the member knows, equal pay for equal work is currently a part of the Human Rights Code of British Columbia. The Human Rights Code is administered by the Human Rights Commission, and there is a Human Rights Tribunal. Both of those are funded by government. In fact, through my ministry there is substantial funding provided to support, among other things, the enforcement of equal pay for equal work as a protected ground of discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

Looking at the estimates for 2002-03, there are $3.9 million for the commission and $1.2 million for the tribunal. Those are dollars that are, in fact, part of the way government supports pay equity in workforces outside government. I suppose, because complaints could be made under those provisions against government, it engages that part of the issue as well.

J. Kwan: Well, then, the minister just finished saying that he wasn't going to prejudge what kind of resources government would put into the issue of pay equity, how many staff are working on that or how much money government is prepared to put into it on the basis of the recommendations.

Aside from the recommendations on the issue around pay equity, I was trying to get at how many resources are being dedicated towards it right now. The minister just said that there are some resources allocated to it under the Human Rights Commission, especially on the basis of complaints and dealing with tribunals.

Let me ask the minister this question: how many staff members are currently reviewing the pay equity report and developing policies on pay equity?

J. Kwan: "Enough" is a relative word. I'm sure that within the minister's own mind, cutting legal aid by $40 million is enough in providing access to justice. Others may have a different point of view.

From an open and accountable government's point of view, I think it would be important for the minister to actually provide specifics, not his own interpretation of what is termed to be enough. Let the public make that determination of the open and accountable government. I ask the minister to please provide that information to my question.

How many staff members are currently reviewing the pay equity report and developing policies on pay equity?

Hon. G. Plant: There is a policy branch within my ministry that includes people who are studying this report. The senior executives in my ministry have been spending some time looking at the report and thinking about it. I have spent some time looking at the report and thinking about it. A number of people inside my ministry are looking at this report. They are giving some serious thought to the important work that Ms. Iyer has done and the very serious recommendations she has made, to see what we think is the best way to go forward.

As I've said, there is also the administrative justice project, which is something I am responsible for. That does have people helping from a variety of perspectives, not all inside government. I think some parts of this task force report are undoubtedly being studied by the people who are participating in the administrative justice project, particularly those people who are looking at the workplace issues and processes I described earlier.

J. Kwan: In other ministries…. As an example, in the area of housing, when I asked the minister responsible how many staff he has dedicated to housing policies, he was actually able to come forward with a concrete number of staff assigned from B.C. Housing on housing policy issues.

On the question around pay equity policies and specifically in relation to the recommendations that have come forward from the task force on pay equity, how many staff has the minister dedicated to reviewing this report? He's mentioned, so far, two people that I could count that he has identified, but has he specifically assigned staff to this task? If so, how many staff are working on reviewing the report and its recommendations and developing pay equity policies within his ministry?

Hon. G. Plant: The subject matter of Ms. Iyer's report is of interest and importance not just to my minis-

try but also to the Ministry of Skills Development and Labour, partly because of the recommendations we've already talked about that have to do with, or could affect, the operation of the employment standards branch. The report is also of interest to the Minister of State for Women's Equality and, I'm sure, is being looked at by people in that ministry as well. Across government I'm sure the report is being studied by a number of people and being given the attention it deserves.

J. Kwan: I'm glad to hear the report is being looked at cross-ministerially. That's a good sign. I suspect each of the different respective ministries will have their own staff team working on it, and sometimes they cross with other ministries on this front. With the minister, with his own ministry particularly, which is responsible for this issue, how many staff? Maybe he doesn't have any of his staff dedicated to this issue. If that's the case, he simply needs to advise me. I'm just trying to get a sense. How many staff has the minister dedicated from his own ministry — not from other ministries — to this issue?

Hon. G. Plant: My ministry is working closely with the other two ministries that I just identified to consider the report and its recommendations. We have people in the policy and planning shop who are spending a lot of time on this. There are people in my ministry who are responsible for the connection we have, the responsibility we have, in respect of funding the human rights agencies. Those people are interested in and working on these issues. I'm satisfied that we have in place inside my ministry and the two ministries I've identified a good solid core of committed, informed civil servants who are giving this report the attention it deserves. In the fullness of time we'll come forward as government with recommendations for action in response to the report.

J. Kwan: While the minister may have full confidence, what I'm trying to determine here — not from the minister's perspective — is what kind of resources are being put into evaluating this report and developing the policies around pay equity so that the public can make that judgment on whether or not the government is putting resources into it. When the questions were asked of the Minister of State for Women's Equality, she wasn't able to answer. In many instances she referred the questions back to the Attorney General, suggesting that the report came from the Attorney General so he would be the appropriate person to ask these questions.

Here we have a situation where I'm asking the Attorney General these questions, and he's saying, "Well, other ministers are doing this and that," and we should go and talk to them. When those questions were asked of the Minister of State for Women's Equality, she referred them back to the AG's estimates that would be coming up shortly. We're not getting any answers at all with respect to this issue. What we've learned is that what this government says is one thing, but the public has the right to judge for themselves whether or not enough resources are being put into this area, and how much resources are being put into this area, from this government. That information would help the public make that determination on whether or not enough resources are being put into it.

I'm asking the minister a very simple question in terms of how many staff are dedicated to this task. Let me ask this question: has he assigned staff to look at the recommendations and develop pay equity policies for his review?

Hon. G. Plant: That's putting the cart before the horse. We're still studying this report and deciding how we're going to move forward with it. When we've made those decisions, then of course there will be decisions made about how we're going to staff our implementation of these issues and so on.

To be clear, I'm not telling the member she has to go and ask anybody else anything. I'm happy to answer questions about the important issue of pay equity. I'd be interested in knowing what the member thinks about the recommendations in the report and what she thinks about the analysis of other schemes for legislated pay equity that the author of the report has undertaken. Ms. Iyer has concluded that legislated pay equity is generally not a success in the jurisdictions where it's been tried, and in some of those it's been in place for years and years. The member herself has ministerial experience as a former minister of the Crown here in British Columbia, and she would be in a good position to offer insight that would be useful in terms of the issues raised by the report. I can assure the member that we would give her views, thoughts and response or critique every consideration.

J. Kwan: If I were the minister, I would be happy to provide answers to the questions that are being asked with respect to pay equity. This is the estimates of the Ministry of Attorney General, and the Attorney General is the minister, not myself. It's an opportunity for members to ask the minister questions and get answers to questions in his area of responsibility.

Pertaining to the issue around pay equity, I don't think it's putting the cart before the horse when I'm asking the question about how many staff are reviewing the pay equity report and developing policies on pay equity. That's not to say that government would actually take action on it. Normally when you have staff work on these issues, they review the report and develop policies or recommendations for the consideration of cabinet and the minister. The staff has to actually undergo that work and then make the presentation to the minister and subsequently to cabinet, and then ultimately a decision would be made.

I'm simply asking how many resources are being put to this task. If the minister says this is important work and it needs to be done and that they are indeed

working on it, it should be a relatively easy question to answer — that is: how much resources are being put towards this from the minister's ministry?

Hon. G. Plant: There are people in my ministry who are responsible for policy and planning. Their job is to examine and consider issues like this very issue. We chose, as a government, to implement a new-era commitment that we had made to ask someone outside government to have a look at the issue of pay equity. She went and did a pretty extensive job of listening to people, asking questions, doing research and thinking about the situation from the perspective of someone who has experience herself as a human rights tribunal officer and a lawyer. I think we're doing what governments ought to do when they get a good report like that. We're having a good read and a good think. For all I know, others of my colleagues around the cabinet table may be doing the same thing with this report. I'd encourage them to do so.

Inside my ministry, we have people who are working on and thinking about this report and what government ought to do to respond to it. They are in fact working with staff in other ministries, as I've said. I am absolutely convinced that we have in place the resources and the team we need at this point to undertake the work we have to do.

I think there are as many as 40 full-time-equivalent staff who work in the policy planning and legislation division or area of the corporate services branch of the Ministry of Attorney General. The budget for the policy planning and legislation group for the fiscal year that we're here to talk about is just about $3.4 million. Those people inside that group provide input, advice, recommendations and policy development work on a variety of issues. That includes the responsibility to study Ms. Iyer's report and to help me as a minister and us as a government formulate a response to it.

J. Kwan: There are 40 FTEs working in the policy branch of the ministry. Of those 40, how many are dedicated to reviewing this report and making recommendations to the minister?

Hon. G. Plant: The number I gave the member a moment ago was 40 FTEs. There are 40 FTEs in the branch we call policy planning and legislation. That's the entire staff complement in that branch. There are people inside that branch who are dedicated to human rights, broadly speaking. I think there are three of those people. This particular report and the consideration of this report are priority items for those staff people.

Those aren't the only people looking at or thinking about this report in my ministry, but those are people who do have particular staff responsibilities in relation to this issue and this report.

J. Kwan: Of the 40, there are three staff who are asked specifically to look at this report. There are other staff members who are reviewing the report, as well, but out of the policy branch of the ministry three individuals are working on this report to make recommendations to the government. That's what I understood the minister's response to be.

Within the ministry's staff complement, what other areas might be working on this report as well? What other areas within the ministry?

Hon. G. Plant: I mentioned some of those earlier. Senior executives within the ministry are taking this report into account, and so am I. The sort of front-line responsibility at the staff level for considering this report inside my ministry is, I believe, inside the policy planning and legislation branch. It is a priority responsibility for three people who have, in particular, responsibility for human rights issues.

J. Kwan: I take it from the minister's answer that he has read the entire report and absorbed most of the report. If that's not disputed by the minister, I'll take it that this is what he meant by his response earlier.

The pay equity report recommends that the government use the educational system to teach people about employment equity. In the work of the ministry in evaluating the recommendations and the work of the task force, is that something the government is also contemplating? Has the ministry in their intergovernmental approach to pay equity also involved the Ministry of Education in this area?

Hon. G. Plant: We're in the early stages of dealing with a comprehensive report about a fairly complex subject. All of the issues raised by Ms. Iyer are, from my perspective, on the table for consideration, as are her recommendations. We're looking at them and trying to get a sense of what we think an appropriate response for government would be.

I think there's a role, frankly, for all of us as citizens to encourage discussion about the need to ensure that the workplaces of British Columbia are respectful of gender differences and that we provide opportunities for men and women across this province to succeed in whatever their chosen field of endeavour is. Clearly, the law has a role here. Government also has a role. The private sector has a role, as Ms. Iyer has pointed out. She believes that the business community has a very important role, both in identifying the extent to which there is a wage gap in industry and in identifying which industries may have that as a more significant problem, and then a role for industry in responding to that. We are, all of us, in one way or another, as citizens, as members of government, as businesspeople…. Wherever we are in B.C., I think all of us have a duty to pay attention to this issue and to try to make a difference in people's lives.

J. Kwan: The minister talks about responsibility and that everybody has a responsibility to realize pay equity for our province, for British Columbians. My question was actually quite specific in the area of the educational system, particularly to teach young people about employment equity and whether that's something that is within the strategy of government in addressing the issue around pay equity.

Has the minister or ministry been involving the Ministry of Education and the Minister of Education in this respect? I just need a simple yes or no.

Hon. G. Plant: Well, I'll try this again. We just got this report. We're looking at it. We're thinking about it, and we're studying it. We're working on what we think government's response ought to be, but we haven't figured that out yet. The member uses the term "strategy." Here's my strategy: we're going to read the report. We're going to study it. We're going to think about it, and we're going to figure out what we think government ought to do with it.

We haven't done those things yet. We've just begun. Only within the last few weeks did we get the report. It is, as I say, a comprehensive study of a relatively complex subject and one that deserves attention. It will get that attention and is being given that attention now, as we speak. There is, in fact, no action plan beyond that which I have indicated.

I say again and repeat my invitation to the member that if she has an idea or a suggestion of what we should do as government to move forward on this, this is as good an opportunity as I can think of for her to provide that input.

J. Kwan: The minister says he's inviting my input. Well, I have a very simple piece of advice, then, for the minister. The government repealed the previous government's private sector pay equity legislation. I would suggest to the minister to bring back that piece of legislation. That's a very good beginning to addressing the issue of pay equity.

That could be a very good starter to indicate government's action and support for pay equity. The legislation has already been drafted; it's already there. The government could choose not to repeal that and bring that piece of legislation back to the Legislature and debate that. That's my first piece of advice to the minister on the issue around pay equity.

My question around the Ministry of Education and the Minister of Education, I think, is an important one. That, too, is my advice to the minister as they embark on looking at what to do with this report.

I think there are some elements of the report that raise excellent points, one of which was the recommendation that government use the educational system to teach people about employment equity. To begin that process, you know, is to engage discussions with the Minster of Education, with the Ministry of Education, and to bring them into the loop.

I was trying to see whether or not — if the minister, indeed, is thinking about the work arising out of this report — he's done that. He said no. He hasn't talked to the Minister of Education as of yet. Nor has the minister involved the Ministry of Education. My question, then, to the minister is: where he said it's everybody's responsibility, there's a key role here for the Ministry of Education and the Minister of Education to be playing. One would assume the minister would commit to making sure that the Minister of Education and the Ministry of Education are committed to working with the government on the implementation of these recommendations to advance pay equity.

Hon. G. Plant: The Minister of Education is committed to working with the government on all aspects of government policy. She's an excellent Minister of Education, and I've really come to appreciate her commitment to government over the past few months. I know she'll have an interest in this issue. I know she does have an interest in this issue, and we'll certainly have an opportunity as a government to take the report into consideration and decide how, as a government, we intend to respond to its recommendations.

J. Kwan: If the sentiments of the minister around pay equity ring true — and that is that he believes every British Columbian has a responsibility to advance pay equity and to bring about pay equity in British Columbia — then one would assume that it's a no-brainer for government to determine whether or not pay equity is a high enough priority to move forward and to realize pay equity for all British Columbians. One would assume that would be work they are already embarking on and that the recommendations from the task force would be something the government would be committed to achieving. The minister says he is committed to pay equity, but on the other hand, it seems to me that the action does not necessarily reflect that sentiment.

Let me ask the minister this question: how much money did the pay equity study cost the government? How much money was put towards this report?

J. Kwan: The cost of that was $320,000. Could the minister just advise, for my information, how long it took for the report to come together? Was it a contract for a month or for two months? I'm not sure how long it took for the report to be completed.

Hon. G. Plant: Well, the task force was commissioned, if that's the right word, in late July or early August. I can't remember the exact date. It reported out on

February 28. However many months that is, that's the length of time the task force was at work.

J. Kwan: What recommendation does the minister consider to be the most important component of a plan to eliminate the gender wage gap in the private sector?

Hon. G. Plant: We're studying the report and considering all the recommendations. At this point I'm not in a position to say that one recommendation is my personal favourite or not. This is an important issue, and it deserves to be taken seriously. We're looking at the report and its recommendations as a whole.

J. Kwan: Are there any of the recommendations that jump out at the minister in terms of the issue of advancing the wage gap?

Hon. G. Plant: Well, one that's interesting is this. The member stood up a few minutes ago and said her first recommendation for how to deal with the gender wage gap would be to reinstitute private sector pay equity legislation. That is in fact a subject that Ms. Iyer studied at some length. She concluded that the models for private sector pay equity legislation that have been put into place have been singularly ineffective in achieving the goal they were established for in the first place.

Clearly, from a perspective of dealing with people who are concerned about addressing wage discrimination in the workplace, whether or not legislation can be an effective tool to respond to that is an important issue. It is one of the reasons why I wanted to have someone go out and look at the subject. It is interesting that the recommendations and the analysis in the report are directly at odds with the member's recommendation to me of a few minutes ago.

J. Kwan: The minister criticizes the legislation that the minister had repealed on the issue around pay equity. I actually take a different perspective from that. I think that was a good start to begin to address the issue of pay equity. Is that the end-all and be-all answer to pay equity? Probably not, but I think it was a good start to begin there and embark on that process.

The minister says that's the one thing that jumped out at him from the report. Are there any other recommendations — any recommendations — from the report that jump out at the minister in terms of the implementation of pay equity?

Hon. G. Plant: Well, one of the other aspects of the report that I think is interesting is the focus on the need to involve the private sector in this issue. Ms. Iyer's analysis on that is very interesting. If we as a government choose to accept it, it means that we have some work to do to work with the private sector to ensure that they, too, pick up the challenge, if you will, that is placed before them by the recommendations and by the analysis in the report.

I have to say that I think the whole report is cogent, well thought out and truly deserving of attention. I don't think that it's fair, frankly, to say that one part of it stands out any more than another. I think that what we all ought to be doing is looking at the report as a whole, pointing out and thinking about some of her conclusions and recommendations. She clearly has not been persuaded that private sector pay equity legislation has worked. That clearly is important for government looking at what role legislation might play here.

Equally clearly, though, she thinks that equal pay for equal work is important. That's part of the law of the British Columbia already. It's also important to recognize that she thinks government should reorganize the way it administers protection for equal work of equal value. She talks about whether that should be a provision of the Employment Standards Act rather than the employment standards branch. I think that's a recommendation worth looking at.

To come to where I started, I think that when she talks about the role of industry in learning more about the extent to which gender wage discrimination is or is not a reality in particular workforces in British Columbia and the role of industry in moving forward to address those issues, those are very, very important things to think about.

It is also important to talk about the challenge we face as government in terms of thinking about what government's role and responsibilities are here, to recognize that at this moment in the history of British Columbia, government has a lot less money to spend than it has had or than we might want it to have. When we examine these issues and these recommendations, we're certainly going to be doing so from a perspective that takes into consideration the fiscal realities that face government and a host of other considerations.

J. Kwan: It is interesting, though, to note the pieces that did jump out to the minister. Some of the pieces that jumped out at me talked about providing staff and funds to increase the awareness of the right to pay equity for equal work. They were, for example, to target funding for vulnerable communities — i.e., refugees and immigrants — to use pamphlets, telephone access, online information and publicity; to target educational organizations; and to work with employer associations and chambers of commerce to encourage self-policing.

Other pieces that jumped out at me talked about implementing a dispute resolution process to settle complaints. One of the recommendations suggests that reviewing complaints around pay equity should be removed from the Human Rights Commission and be put into the Employment Standards Act. That is interesting, but I have some concerns, especially from a resourcing point of view and pending changes that are coming to the Employment Standards Act. Can we actually ensure that pay equity provisions and rights that should be afforded to all British Columbians are in fact going to be protected?

These are some of the things that actually jumped out in terms of the report. Given that I just heard the

minister praise the report, one would assume that the minister is going to be recommending to his colleagues that they adopt the report and adopt and implement these recommendations.

Let me ask the minister this question. Has there been within his ministry the establishment or coordination of a cross-ministry initiative in studying the report, or is it being left right now to each individual ministry to decide how they will respond?

Hon. G. Plant: I'm grateful to the member for her summary a few minutes ago of some of the other aspects of the report, because those, too, are important aspects of the report and are certainly part of why I think the report deserves to be taken seriously.

I've already answered completely all of the questions about the process that government currently has underway to study and consider the report.

J. Kwan: No, my question to the minister is very specific: is there a coordinated approach right now that is being established from the minister's ministry to do that work? What he said was, "Everybody's working on it," but is there a coordinated approach from the minister's office in reviewing this report?

Hon. G. Plant: Yes, and I have already talked about it. I've talked about the fact that we're working with the Ministry of Skills Development and Labour and the Ministry of State for Women's Equality. We are working together to take into consideration the report and decide on government's response to it.

J. Kwan: Can the minister advise which ministries are involved? All the ministries that he has now coordinated — which ones are those?

Hon. G. Plant: The member will be surprised to hear that the ministries involved are the Ministry of State for Women's Equality and the Ministry of Skills Development and Labour as well as the Ministry of Attorney General.

J. Kwan: Why is the Ministry of Education left out of that process specifically when there's a recommendation that deals with the education component around pay equity?

Hon. G. Plant: I have actually answered questions for quite a long time now about the fact that the government of British Columbia recently received an important report that it commissioned on the subject of pay equity. We really are in the early stages as a government of studying the report and examining its recommendations.

It's clear that its recommendations and the issues that are the subject matter of the study directly engage the ministerial responsibilities of my ministry, the Ministry of Skills Development and Labour and, also, the Ministry of State for Women's Equality. But all aspects and branches of government that are appropriately engaged by consideration of this issue will in the fullness of time be part of the conversation about how we're going to respond to this report. We'll get around to it.

J. Kwan: I've got to tell you, Mr. Chair, judging by the comments that the minister has made so far, it doesn't give me a whole lot of confidence that this report is actually on the priorities list within the minister's agenda. It doesn't give me a whole lot of confidence that there is a thorough look and review of this matter from across government, because when I asked a question, the minister said there was a coordinated approach with respect to reviewing this report between the government ministries.

I asked him specifically which ministries were involved, and he named two: the Ministry of State for Women's Equality and the Ministry of Skills Development. Yet in the report — if the minister has read the report, and he says he has — there are specific recommendations that deal with education. I really have to raise the question: why would the Ministry of Education not be part of the coordinated, intergovernmental, interministerial review and team, if you will, working on this report for government's consideration with respect to his recommendations?

That only leads me to think that either it is not really that high a priority within the government's agenda in terms of the work that needs to be done arising from this report, or that the government is approaching it with almost a carelessness in not inviting a broad base of ministries to be involved in the review of this report and to make recommendations to government. That causes me concern.

The minister has risen up and said he's confident the government will do a good job and respond to this report. So far, the indicators indicate otherwise, especially when questions are asked to one of the ministers responsible in this coordinated approach in response to the task force recommendations on pay equity.

The Minister of State for Women's Equality admitted that she hadn't even read the report and deferred most questions, in fact, to the Attorney General. The head of the ministries and, in this instance particularly, the Minister of State for Women's Equality seemed to be deferring most of the issues arising from this report to the Attorney General to the point where she even responded by stating that she hadn't read the report. It causes me concern from that perspective in terms of government's attention or lack thereof and dedication to the issue of pay equity. It causes me great concern in this area.

On the question around assisting women in the area of receiving the necessary training and support to enter into non-traditional fields for women, the pay equity report calls upon the government to encourage women to enter into traditionally male-dominated industry sectors. From the government's perspective, from the minister's perspective, how will the government assist women in receiving the necessary training and support to enter into these fields?

Hon. G. Plant: As I've been saying for a while now, we're looking at the report, giving it the attention it deserves and deciding as a government how and on what basis we would move forward with it, which of its recommendations we will accept and act upon, which of its recommendations we may not accept or act upon. So it's early days yet to answer a question of the sort just asked by the member.

J. Kwan: The other question I have for the minister, then, is this: again, it goes to the notion, really, of a coordinated response across government in reviewing the document and therefore making recommendations to government on action.

The B.C. Human Rights Commission. The minister didn't advise whether or not the Human Rights Commission was at the table specifically on reviewing the recommendations on this. Will the Human Rights Commission be invited to the table in reviewing this report and work with the interministerial team that the minister has set up?

Hon. G. Plant: Well, I've said where we're at, and as government moves forward, we'll consider how to respond, think about and deal with the recommendations made in the report. That includes considering who should be part of the conversation inside and outside government.

The other issue that was interesting — it wasn't that interesting, frankly, Mr. Chair, but it was raised by the member — was the role that the Minister of Education might have in relation to this. As I recall, most of the comments about education that are made in the task force report actually have nothing to do with the ministerial responsibilities of the Minister of Education. They are, in fact, related to advocacy and education roles that might be assumed by such parts of government as the employment standards branch or my ministry. That's certainly part of my thinking in terms of whether or not we need to engage, at this point, the involvement of a minister whose fundamental responsibility is to deliver funding for the administration of the K-to-12 education system in British Columbia.

J. Kwan: I have to say that, again, what the minister has displayed so far in his response to my questions, I think, indicates a lack of….

Hon. G. Plant: You did nothing about this issue for ten years, until the last hour and half you were in government.

J. Kwan: Well, Mr. Chair, with all due respect to the minister, he is incorrect, actually, on this issue. The fact of the matter is that legislation was brought to the table, and it was this minister who repealed that piece of legislation.

You know, we'll get to the whole notion about this minister wanting to hold the previous government accountable. Maybe in that process, this minister will want to avoid being held accountable himself in spite of fact that they campaigned on the notion this is a new era and is open, transparent and accountable. When members of the public, including opposition members, try to hold this government accountable, this minister accountable, he displays his annoyance at that challenge.

I think that on the issue around pay equity, which is what we're talking about in these estimates right now, this minister has prime responsibility, and I'm canvassing where this government is at, how they're dealing with this report and what work has been done. The minister talks about how they're coordinating their efforts and who has been involved, and it seems to me there really hasn't been all that much work done. It seems to me there hasn't been that much coordination in involving pertinent partners across ministries within government in this area, the Human Rights Commission. I would think it would have a direct role to play.

One would have thought that in this coordination of intergovernmental agencies and interministerial agencies, as an example, they would be at the table in reviewing this report. The minister talked about education as not really being a pertinent role. One would have thought that education, particularly educating young people so they understand the importance of pay equity, has a critical role. One would have thought the Ministry of Education would have contributions towards this and that they would be involved in the process, but so far it's displayed that there is no attempt by government in that regard to broaden the scope in that way.

I have to go back to when questions were asked of the Minister of State for Women's Equality. When these questions were asked of her, she was unable to answer many of them and deferred most of those questions to the Attorney General. Here we are in the Attorney General's estimates, so I'm canvassing these questions with the minister. He seems to be annoyed at the fact that these questions are being asked of him, especially in light of the fact that the Minister of State for Women's Equality couldn't answer questions and deferred the questions to this minister.

I'm going to continue to proceed along the lines in this area. The minister is saying he is working on it, although there seems to be very limited information around what work has been done so far. He seems to identify few government agencies that are involved. Now, he says the time will evolve and that other people will be involved over time. What other agencies is the minister considering pulling in and coordinating their involvement into the evaluation of this report?

Hon. G. Plant: The report we're talking about took seven months to put together. It was expensive but was

thorough, comprehensive and dealt with a complex subject. We received the report four weeks ago. We're working pretty hard, I think, at giving it the consideration it deserves. In the weeks and months to come, we'll continue to make progress in thinking about the analysis and the recommendations and in formulating a position and a response across government for this important issue.

J. Kwan: I appreciate that work is ongoing. I do. I appreciate that. The minister has so far identified two other ministries that he has undertaken to coordinate with in putting a response, in determining and doing analysis on the task force report on pay equity. I'm asking the minister: what other ministries or agencies does he envision would have a role to play in this work?

Hon. G. Plant: What other ministries does the member think should be involved?

I appreciate that the minister wants to ask me and canvass questions from me and hold me accountable as an opposition member on these issues, but we are in the estimates of the Attorney General, and the minister is the minister. The process is such that the minister is to be held accountable himself, so I hope he will live up to his responsibility in this area and answer the questions.

As I said, I appreciate the opportunity to offer my thoughts. No doubt I will, and so, too, will my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings, on an ongoing basis. Right now, we are in the estimates of the minister, so I am canvassing from the minister's perspective what his thoughts are.

Hon. G. Plant: Let's be clear, Mr. Chair. I can't imagine a better place to have a discussion about issues having to do with my ministerial responsibilities than an estimates debate.

Before we were elected, I spent some time with my then opposition colleagues talking about what we could do, how we could reorganize this place and how it works so that an estimates debate would actually become an opportunity for a policy discussion and exchange as opposed to a sort of cross-examination about how many staff people have offices on the fourth floor of a building somewhere.

I think pay equity is an important issue — important enough, in fact, that we campaigned on a promise to spend tax dollars to appoint a task force to study it. The task force went out, and Ms. Iyer did an awful lot of work. It's manifested in a comprehensive report that's about as long as I ever want to see — 154 pages. It's a pretty thoughtful, careful analysis.

It's early days for government in responding to this report. I don't think that if you canvassed political history, you would find very many instances where government reacts and responds comprehensively within a period of less than four weeks to a report that is as comprehensive as this. It took seven months or more to put together.

We are working at formulating a response, and I've explained at some length some of the ways we are doing that — the people inside my ministry who have responsibility for that work and the relationship that other ministries already have to that work. That's certainly part of it. I don't question for a moment that the member is entitled to find out and hold government to account for the work we're doing in getting to or thinking about this report. I've tried to answer those questions fairly thoroughly.

It is also, in my view, perfectly legitimate to have a conversation about these issues, to have a conversation about the fact that we went out and hired an independent person who came back and said: "I've thought about this issue. I've studied it. I've looked at models for legislated pay equity in other jurisdictions. I've talked to people in Ontario about the experience there."

She comes back and says that in her view, the role of government here is something we'd better be thoughtful about in terms of its effectiveness in dealing with the issue of pay equity. You can't just wave a magic wand as government and suddenly transform all the workplaces in British Columbia. The situation is more complex. It's more industry-sensitive than we've probably been thinking. That is, there are probably pockets of our economy where gender wage discrimination is more of a reality than it may be in other parts of our economy. We don't know enough about that. I think Ms. Iyer says that as part of her recommendations.

If that is so, if those aspects of her recommendations are worth taking into account, then I think it's legitimate to say there is some issue with respect to whether legislated private sector pay equity would be effective in British Columbia. As I say, we're thinking about that issue. We're certainly thinking about it in the context of the report we were given, and we intend to do so. If the member has thoughts on this in addition to the ones that she's already offered, for which I am grateful, I'd certainly be happy to engage in a continuing discussion.

J. Kwan: The minister suggests that exchange of ideas is valuable. I agree. I agree that sharing ideas would be very important in bringing forward new approaches in addressing a whole array of different issues — in this instance, the issue around pay equity as it impacts British Columbians.

The issue at hand here, though — surely the minister recognizes this, because he flaunts that in the House from time to time — is that the government ultimately takes the responsibility of implementing recommendations or bringing forward policies and making decisions. That's the role of government.

Opposition members, by and large, don't have the opportunity to make those decisions. In fact, so far , when opposition members have risen up in the House

by way of a private member's motion or any other format to suggest and put forward ideas to government for implementation or actions, changing policies or programs and so on, the government has rejected every single one of those to date.

I appreciate the minister offering the opportunity for us to exchange ideas. I appreciate that. I also appreciate that the estimates debate are for the opposition to canvass the intentions of government, what plans they have in place and what they are doing, and by that process to hold the government accountable and also to try to get answers to questions relating to each minister's areas of responsibility.

That's why I'm asking the minister his perspective on the reports, rather than standing here and listing all of my opinions on the issues. I'm not afraid to do that, but I want to use this valuable time to seek answers from the minister, because we don't have the opportunity to do that very often. The appropriate time to seek answers from the minister is during the estimates debate.

The minister talked about the process they have embarked on with respect to campaigning on doing a study on pay equity. This is what the government has done. Last year after the election they repealed the pay equity legislation, and then they commissioned a task force on pay equity. The issue, in my mind, is not just what the Liberals campaigned on by commissioning or committing to doing a study. The issue is: now that the study is done, will the government commit to implementing its recommendations?

If you follow the logic of the Attorney General, which is that he campaigned during the election on doing a study on pay equity, then it would follow that it's the intention that they would adopt the recommendations of that study. So far I haven't received that confirmation from the minister. He's talked about how they're reviewing it. Even the way of reviewing that report — who's been involved — seems to show a lack of prioritizing by government in dedicating their resources to reviewing the recommendations and therefore coming forward with a plan of action.

When I asked the question about who is involved, we found that there have only been two ministries involved so far. Right off the top it seemed to me that there needs to be a broader team than that. I asked the minister who else he might be considering, and he has not answered that question.

J. Kwan: Oh, the minister is now saying that he hadn't heard a question. I asked a question: who else is he thinking about bringing to the table to review the task force report on pay equity?

Hon. G. Plant: We've had this report for four weeks. We've already begun an active consideration of the report, engaging staff in my ministry and in two other ministries, as I indicated earlier. In the weeks and months to come I expect that we will make further progress in giving serious consideration to the analysis and the recommendations contained in the report in a way that engages government appropriately.

J. Kwan: At this point in time, then, from the minister's perspective, there is no other ministry that the minister thinks needs to be involved in the analysis of this report? I suggested the Ministry of Education. Would the minister bring the Ministry of Education into the evaluation and analysis of the task force report on pay equity?

Hon. G. Plant: When I look at the way in which ministerial responsibility has been assigned across the government of British Columbia from the perspective of the issue of the role that government might have in legislating or encouraging responses to gender wage discrimination, I have to admit that the first three ministries that occur to me as being the ministries that would have primary responsibilities for this issue would be my ministry; the Minister of State for Women's Equality, because this is largely an issue about equality for women; and the Ministry of Skills Development and Labour, because this an issue about workplaces. So it seems to me that those are three key ministries for an issue like this, and they are a good place to have the work being done by government in thinking about its response to this report.

I should say that I don't foreclose the involvement of any other ministries, but neither do I predict or forecast it.

The Chair: This line of questioning has gone at some length. I would urge the members not to be repetitive in their questions and to move on to more productive lines of questioning.

J. Kwan: Thank you, hon. Chair. Estimates are supposed to be productive, especially when questions are asked and if answers are forthcoming. Unfortunately, that's not always the case. Unfortunately, one has to canvass, sometimes repeatedly, to try and find answers within that.

The minister has suggested that he has not made a decision on involving the Ministry of Education in the reviewing of the report, nor has he foreclosed it. I suppose that's a good sign because he hasn't eliminated the idea altogether.

Let me make the suggestion to the minister, and it actually goes to the point, Mr. Chair, that opposition members can raise suggestions and so on, but ultimately it's the government's decision on whether or not they accept those recommendations. Ultimately, from the opposition's perspective, it's vitally important that we find out what the thinking is within government on

I would advise the minister as one suggestion on this front: involve the Ministry of Education. I do think they have a vital role to play. I do think it's a good place to start in terms of educating young people on the issue of pay equity. It would pay dividends long into the future for all British Columbians if people are educated at a young age to understand the importance of equity in the workplace. Then, hopefully, the next generation would ensure that these kinds of problems don't surface in our communities and would be more readily able and committed to tackling these challenges.

Let me ask the minister questions around legal aid in public education. In the minister's service plan there are five goals identified for the ministry. Goal 3 is: "High quality legal services are provided to government." None of the goals committed to providing high quality legal services to citizens…. None of the goals identified that. Does the government consider legal aid a core responsibility, or is it just a peripheral issue?

Hon. G. Plant: The point that the member refers to from the service plan is of course related to the fact that in my ministerial responsibilities is included the legal services branch which provides legal advice and representation to the ministries of the Crown.

I get letters from private citizens who are asking about legal problems they have, who think the Attorney General of British Columbia has a responsibility to give them legal advice or representation. In fact, my responsibility as Attorney General is as the official lawyer to government. That often would put me in a conflict of interest as Attorney General in terms of giving legal advice to other people, so we don't do it. I think that's wise.

Legal aid is an important topic, and provision of legal aid is, I think, an important function of government. We have a core business area in the service plan described as: "Assisting the Vulnerable and Victims." Some of the objectives included in that core business area are the strengthening and enforcing of family maintenance orders, expediting the resolution of child protection cases and supporting access to justice for victims of violence and other vulnerable persons. Some of the strategies in relation to those core business areas, which are part of the service plan and part of the commitments of the Ministry of Attorney General, include the provision of legal aid. Legal aid is a very, very important part of what the Ministry of Attorney General does.

J. Kwan: The government has imposed a tax of 7½ percent on legal services for the purpose of raising money for legal aid. The tax currently generates approximately $90 million in revenue, yet the government has only decided to give $54 million of this money to legal aid. How can the government justify this action?

Hon. G. Plant: Well, this government didn't impose this tax; it was the former government that imposed the tax. At the time the former government extended the sales tax to legal services, some members of the former government, I think Glen Clark and Moe Sihota in particular, made speeches in the Legislature justifying the extension of this tax by arguing that the funds collected from it would be dedicated to legal aid services. That was a political promise made by the member's political party and by the government of which she was a member.

I always believed, as opposition, that it was right to hold that government and that political party that formed that government to account for the promise it made and, when it didn't keep that promise, to hold the government to account for its failure to keep that promise.

I also argued pretty consistently around the province, at bar association meetings and community gatherings, for most of the time I was an opposition justice critic, that I thought it was bad public policy to connect the revenue from the tax on legal services to the provision of legal aid in the manner that is often contended for. The reason is this: there's not necessarily at any moment in time any particular relationship between the amount of revenue that would be generated by taxing lawyers' accounts and the need that exists in society and, indeed, that can be afforded for the provision of legal aid services.

The better public policy approach would be to establish a sustained funding commitment for legal aid services from government. That was the position I argued pretty consistently when I was an opposition member and that, in fact, is exactly what we are doing. We have a three-year service plan. For the first time in the history of British Columbia, agencies like the Legal Services Society that receive funding from government know now what the level of funding is that they are going to receive, not just for the fiscal year that we are currently embarked upon but actually for the two years following that. That is, we have a three-year plan for funding to legal aid.

It's important to get the numbers exactly right. The restated estimates for the base funding for the fiscal year that's just about to end for the Legal Services Society — the grant that government makes to that society — is $87.8 million. Now, in fact, in the last few weeks, as part of the implementation of the service plan, we have identified two other items of expenditure, or two other bits of money, that are going to become or are parts of the additional grants, if you will, to the Legal Services Society that are part of the total grant the society will receive from government during the fiscal year 2001-02.

Starting from a base of $87.8 million, the two additional, one-time grants we are making for this year

include a $4 million amount for indirect salaries, restructuring and transition costs and a $3.74 million amount that is a grant that will allow the Legal Services Society to reduce its accumulated debt or its carry-forward deficit. When you add those three amounts together, the amount this government is providing to the Legal Services Society this year will be $95.54 million, which is an increase to the amount provided by the member's government at the beginning of the fiscal year.

Those two items I've referred to are important. The $3.74 million item and the $4 million item are important because they are a part of our government's commitment to ensure that the Legal Services Society can move forward through the next three years of its service plan in a way that allows it to focus the greatest amount of its resources on the actual provision of legal aid services.

Instead of worrying about the repayment of the accumulated debt, which has been a burden for the society for a number of years, particularly during the years in which the member was a member of the government, we have said that in order to help the society ensure it can devote the majority of its resources over the next three years to providing services, we will in essence forgive $3.74 million of the remaining accumulated deficit. That is in the order of $5 million or $6 million, so it's very significant progress towards eliminating that aspect of the society's current financial obligations.

The $4 million one-time grant, which has to do with restructuring transition costs, is also important. It allows the society to move into the service plan, which does involve a reduction in staff and a reduction in office space, without also having to carry forward the costs associated with reducing staff and reducing office space — again, with the intention of ensuring that the dollars that are available for legal aid over the course of the next three years are going to be able to be spent primarily on services to clients.

Then we get into the three-year service plan. I think it's really important for all of us participating in this debate to be sure we recognize that the reductions in the budgeted grant to the Legal Services Society are phased in gradually over three years. Next year the Legal Services Society grant will be $71.435 million. That is the grant for the fiscal year '02-03.

I acknowledge that it represents a significant reduction over the $87.8 million base budget for '01-02. I also want to point out, because I'm sure we'll come back to this theme, that next year, at $71.435 million, the government of British Columbia will be funding within 5 or 10 cents the most expensive per-capita legal aid program in the country. Even after we implement the first stage of reduction, we will be funding one of the most expensive legal aid programs in Canada. At a time when our economy cannot sustain the most expensive social programs, we will be continuing to ensure that legal aid is a priority for this government.

Then we will get to '03-04, and there will be a reduction to $62.465 million. Finally, in '04-05, according to the service plan of the Ministry of Attorney General, the projected budgeted grant to the Legal Services Society will be $53.873 million. As the society moves through this period of expenditure reduction, there will clearly be significant changes in the way services are provided. I know that significant changes and reorganization are already happening in the society, and they are going to have an impact.

They are certainly going to have an impact on people who have a sense of what the status quo means for them. That includes, for example, lawyers. After all, the millions of dollars we're talking about for legal aid don't get paid to clients. They get paid to lawyers who provide the services for their clients. These are important services, and I think we are in a position over the next three years to ensure that the most important of those services will continue to be provided. More importantly than that, we will be a partner with all other partners in the justice system, including the Legal Services Society, in reordering, rethinking and redesigning how we deliver legal aid.

This is not just about reducing expenditures. It's about rethinking how we deliver the services that people are entitled to expect from government. We are going to work awfully hard in this ministry to help the Legal Services Society, in a way that respects its independence, to come up with the ideas — many of which are already there on the table — for changing the way services are delivered so that we can in fact reach the most number of people and provide them with the services that are a priority and that are absolutely necessary for government to provide.

Yes, there will be a reduction, but to conclude by referring back to the topic that was part of the member's question, it's important to be clear about one thing. The NDP broke their promise to the people of British Columbia about legal aid funding, but the tax they imposed on the services that lawyers provide to their clients went into general revenue from the day it was imposed. It continues to go into general revenue today.

Because it's part of general revenue, it's used to fund the operations of government. It's there to help fund the operations of the Ministry of Attorney General when it provides funding for legal aid and family justice programs. It's there to support all of the work done by government in the provision of the services that people are entitled to expect from government. That includes, of course, the fact that in addition to the legal aid grant, my ministry will spend $25 million a year throughout the course of this service plan on family justice programs intended to give people the tools they need to stay out of the court system and resolve their issues without recourse to traditional litigation.

We simply cannot sustain the funding promises made by the previous government, which have left us with this huge deficit and a growing debt. Yes, we have had to make some tough choices. I am convinced that within the atmosphere and environment of these tough choices, we can make good decisions about how to

J. Kwan: The minister is a little bit defensive, I would say, on this issue. I think he knows that what this government is doing is wrong in their 40 percent cut — 38.8 percent, to be exact — to the legal aid budget. By the minister's own admission, he stated on February 1, 2002, in the Vancouver Sun: "I expect there will be people who will have an even harder time finding access to justice than before." I think the Attorney General understands that the cuts his ministry has imposed on legal aid will make it harder for British Columbians to have access to justice, a fundamental right in a democratic society, yet the ministry is proceeding with these crippling cuts to legal aid.

The minister talked about the tax that was imposed. It's true. It was the former government that brought about the tax on the legal profession, but it was this government that increased that tax on the legal profession. The calculation of the tax is such that it would generate about $90 million in revenue to government in legal aid services.

I believe that in addition to that, if my memory serves me correctly, there will be about $12 million from the federal government in legal aid funds. That would actually cover the budget well without cutting legal aid services to the tune of some 40 percent, just to round off the number of 38.8 percent. It would actually well cover that.

It is interesting, though, to think about the minister's perspective. The minister, as opposition critic, stated in an interview with Vaughn Palmer that: "As opposition critic for the justice system, I think I led the charge in accusing the former government of failing to keep its promise." If he was so instrumental in ensuring that the previous government lived up to its commitment to using the legal service taxes for legal aid services, why won't he hold his own government to the same standards in protecting legal aid funding? Why wouldn't he do that? Why wouldn't he apply the same logic?

Then the minister went on to say earlier that he had thought the taxes imposed for legal aid should not have been collected. If that's the case, the government is actually in the position to eliminate the tax on the legal profession, if that's the wish of the government, if that's the wish of the minister. He could also take that approach as well, but he has chosen not to do it.

Those were the words of the then Attorney General critic, who is now the Attorney General. If he fundamentally believed in that statement, then why doesn't he rectify that now? He is in the position to do that now. Instead, what the government is doing is imposing a very hefty cut on legal aid services over the next three years.

Then the minister also tried to imply that in British Columbia, we have some of the highest spending in the legal aid area. As the Canadian Bar Association president, Carman Overholt, has pointed out, and I quote this from his interview with Vaughn Palmer on Voice of B.C: "There are other numbers that I think are more helpful, I must say. The number the Attorney General uses doesn't take into account the fact that we have one of the highest marital breakdown rates in Canada. As well, we have the second highest crime rate in the province."

The minister, when he was the critic, had strong positions around legal aid funding and around all of the taxes collected from the profession being put towards legal aid services. I accept the criticism of the previous government for not having done that, for not putting all of the dollars in. I accept the criticism, but I now ask the minister: why the double standard? When he was critic, he said the former government should have put all the money in. He's now in the position to make this decision. Instead, he is cutting legal aid funding by 40 percent over the next three years.

Hon. G. Plant: Let's be clear. When I was the opposition critic, I criticized the former government for failing to keep its promise. The quote the member refers to is a quote from one of those debates. I had them here in this room year after year. I made those comments elsewhere. I said it was wrong for the former government, of which this member was a member, to make a promise to the people of British Columbia about why it was introducing or increasing a tax and then break the promise. I believe today that it was wrong for the former government to do that. It was as wrong the day they stood up and made the promise as it was on all the days they broke it.

Here's the other thing that is a really important part of this debate. It was also wrong of the former government of British Columbia to mismanage the economy of the province and its own finances to such a point

that we no longer have the resources as government to do all of the things we might like to think we ought to do. We're in fact facing a $4.4 billion deficit in the province. Billions of dollars. It's easy to say but hugely difficult to come to terms with.

The justice system is not immune from the reality that a $4.4-billion deficit means we have to make some hard choices, and we have made some hard choices. I want the member to understand this with all of the passion I can possibly bring to bear on this. I hold her personally accountable for the situation that the province faces today and the fact that we as government have to make these tough choices.

It is absolutely essential that we continue to remind ourselves that we are where we are fiscally in the province because for ten years the government was mismanaged and the economy of British Columbia was mismanaged by the government. We are going to have to pay a price for that. We are paying a price for it. Ordinary citizens in British Columbia are also going to have to pay a bit of a price for that, because while we dig ourselves out of this hole, government will not be in a position to be all things to all people. Government will have to make and is making some tough choices.

It's making choices that involve a selection of priorities. Health care and education funding are not just being maintained but are being increased. The Ministry of Attorney General is experiencing one of the smallest reductions of any of the ministries of the Crown, because the government recognizes the importance of the justice system to the people of British Columbia, but the government also recognizes that we have to change the way we deliver justice services. We are going to do that.

Next year, within a legal aid budget of $41.435 million in the province, we will still be operating, within 5 or 10 cents, the most expensive per-capita legal aid system in the country. And you know what? In many ways, that's not acceptable. We have to find a way to provide legal aid services less expensively so that ordinary taxpayers can be assured that when we provide legal aid services to people, they're effective and affordable and that they're doing the job that they're supposed to do. We are going to work in this government to make sure that it happens.

Next year in British Columbia, the Ministry of Attorney General will spend $45 million on family justice and family legal aid programs. I think $45 million can make a heck of a start towards ensuring that the resources, the advice and the assistance people need that they can't get from any other source are available to them to assist them in resolving their family law issues.

I know the ideas are out there, because we've already had this conversation. We've begun this conversation in the profession. The legal profession of British Columbia is filled with people who recognize that the way we have been doing things traditionally doesn't work, particularly in the family law area.

It doesn't work in the criminal law area. The member talked about criminal law. We will be maintaining all adult and youth criminal–legal aid services in British Columbia that are necessary, but we need to change how we do it. The member may not know this, but it's a matter of continuing interest to me that in fact the provision of legal aid services to young offenders is not means-tested. We as a government have an obligation to provide legal aid to a 16-year-old kid who borrows Daddy's BMW and goes and smashes up the neighbourhood. It's ridiculous.

We, in fact, have that obligation, and we will be discharging that obligation. I can assure the member that I think we should be working to persuade the federal government that young offenders should get legal aid when they need it. That is, when they can't afford to obtain legal services from their own resources. What happens is this: every time we fund legal aid for someone who could pay for a lawyer, we have less money available for the people who don't have access to legal representation — don't have it yesterday, won't have it tomorrow — because we spend money providing legal aid services to young offenders who could afford to pay. Maybe they can't afford to pay the whole thing. Is it wrong to ask them to pay $50?

These are interesting, important questions. They're also difficult questions, and they're complex questions. Can we rethink how we deliver legal aid services so that we can stretch the dollars we have to reach the need that is the greatest? I am certain we can.

In the meantime, yes, there will be some tough impacts for the next little while. I acknowledge that. But you know, they won't put British Columbia much out of sync with the rest of Canada. In the province of New Brunswick the entire budget for legal aid is $3.3 million, a fifth of what we spend in British Columbia. When people say legal aid is expensive because the cost of providing legal services is expensive in British Columbia, I say: why should we accept that? Why should we accept being the province that has the most expensive legal services in Canada?

If we have a higher-than-national-average incidence of marital breakdown, then I say that is all the reason we need as government to find different ways of helping people adjust to life after the marriage breakdown — different ways, other than standing in front of a Supreme Court judge and arguing for days on end about who gets the dining room furniture. I'll tell you; I know those debates happen. I have sat in court and heard those debates happen in front of Supreme Court judges. They're not necessary, and they clog up the system that is so important to us, that has so many other things it should be there for. What's even worse is that the outcome of that dispute — a bitter, contested, adversarial dispute between a husband and a wife — is a poisoned relationship that won't help their kids and won't help the rest of their lives.

We have a lot of work to do, all of us, as partners in the justice system, to change the way we think about family law so we have fewer of those cases sitting in front of the court. You know what? I think we have the resources available, the intellectual capacity, the capital

and the ideas to effect those changes. We are already embarked upon a discussion with the other stakeholders in the legal profession, including the judiciary, including the Law Society, to make sure we canvass those ideas, tap into the expertise and build the solutions we need to ensure that we can, in fact, operate and deliver effective legal and justice advice and assistance for people who are experiencing marital breakdown.

We can think about delivering civil legal aid in a different way. The administrative justice project is a terribly exciting initiative about changing the way the administrative agencies of the province work so that they serve the interests of their clients, the citizens of British Columbia, more effectively so there's less need for appeals from decisions that should never have been made wrongly in the first place.

Improving the quality of appointments to tribunals, improving the standards of review and getting coherence around the principles of administrative justice are all hugely exciting opportunities, part of the commitment to making sure the law of British Columbia isn't just modern, relevant and effective but that it serves the public interest. That is our task; that is our duty. That is my task; that is my duty.

If we can make our administrative justice agencies work better, we will reduce the need for poverty law services. Imagine, if the Workers Compensation Board of British Columbia actually served the public interest effectively, efficiently and affordably, how much unnecessary angst and agony would be saved the workers of British Columbia, who are currently dragged through a process, when they make claims, that is endless: multiple layers of review, repeal, revisiting, second guessing in a Kafkaesque nightmare of procedural madness that is presented by the Workers Compensation Board.

We as a government are committed to fixing that, and we are going to improve the way the Workers Compensation Board works so that it serves the public interest more efficiently and affordably and also helps represent the interests of employers, as they are a vitally important part of Workers Compensation processes.

When we talk about civil legal aid and the impact on civil legal aid of the fact that we are going to be reducing expenditures in the form of a grant to the Legal Services Society over the next three years, I say: let's talk about how we can make the Workers Compensation Board work better. Let's talk about how we can make the BC Benefits processes work better. Let's talk about how we can, in fact, ensure that we have the best system of legal education and information — accessible on the Net, accessible by telephone, accessible by brochure, accessible to people across the province, so they have understanding of what the issues, their rights and their responsibilities are.

As we move forward, if we can, in fact, develop and put in place the infrastructure around the province in a much different way than we do it now to even make sure that people have access to advice and representation in appropriate cases, then I am willing to work hard towards that goal too. There are all kinds of opportunities for improving the way legal aid services are delivered in British Columbia. We can do it within the budget limits that we have, and I'm excited about it.

J. Kwan: You know, the minister talked about it being wrong for the former government to break promises. I wonder, from this minister, is it wrong for this government, his own Liberal government, to break promises? Is it wrong for him to break promises? Let's talk about broken promises for just one moment here. How about the broken promise that they would not rip up contracts? Then they come into the Legislature, and what do they do? They ripped up contracts. Well, that would be a broken promise. Is it wrong, then, for this Liberal government, this minister to break that promise to British Columbians?

Is it wrong for government to break the promise that they would not actually increase taxes, when, in fact, if you look at the budget of this government, everywhere you look there are hidden taxes that are being increased — and some not so hidden? The PST has gone up by half a percent — another broken promise. Maybe the minister should be asking himself that question and holding himself accountable, holding his Premier accountable, holding the Liberal government accountable. He seems to have failed to do any of that.

I can go on with a list of broken promises, because we have a long list of broken promises from this government. Do you want to talk about health care? Do you want to talk about education? Well, let's look at health care and education. I know, under the new-era government, they say that. This is their euphemism for protecting health and education. What it translates to is cuts in educational programs and health care services. What have we seen? Cuts in inner-city school funding. Talk to any school trustee that is out there now. I just came back from this meeting with the Vancouver school trustees. You know what they told me? They have received significant cuts in their education budget from this Liberal government.

This government says they're protecting education. Honestly, the picture and the reality are quite different from what the minister's visions are and perhaps what he imagines reality is under the new-era Liberal government.

On the issue around the economy, the minister suggests that the government cannot afford to fund legal aid, so therefore, they are forced to cut 40 percent of the legal aid. Well, they didn't have any problems when they were making the decision to give the biggest tax breaks to the wealthiest British Columbians. They had no problems whatsoever in making that a priority. In fact, they didn't even have to look at the books to make that determination.

They made the determination to cut taxes to the wealthiest British Columbians and the biggest corpora-

tions before they came and looked at the books and said: "Gee, can we afford to do that? Can we afford to give those tax breaks to the biggest corporations and wealthiest British Columbians? Maybe we can't, because we need the money for legal aid." Maybe if they took a minute and looked at the books they would have made that determination.

I know the Attorney General said that government is all about priorities. You're absolutely right. Government is about priorities. The question is: what is your priority? Is it funding and making sure that the people who are most vulnerable, who need access to justice, get access to justice? Or is to make sure that the wealthiest British Columbians have the biggest benefits by way of his tax cuts?

That's another thing that the minister himself and the Liberal government did not campaign on. They said they would not be looking at giving tax cuts to the wealthiest British Columbians and to big corporations. I remember very well that the now Minister of Education said that was something they campaigned on in 1996. They learned from their errors, and they were not going to do that. What does this government do? Before they even came in and looked at the books they gave the biggest tax breaks to the wealthiest British Columbians.

It is about priorities. Can we afford to pay legal aid? I beg to offer a different perspective. Yes, we can afford to pay for legal aid. It is a priority and a choice of this government that has made the decision not to do that. Let's just be clear about that. That is in addition to the fact that the budget was balanced and in addition to the fact that there was a surplus budget that was audited by the auditor general.

The minister talks about poverty law and justifies cuts to legal aid because there will be fewer people who will be in need of poverty law. We are actually engaging in the process of doing estimates with the Minister of Human Resources. I predict there will be a significant number of people who will need advocacy work in this area, who will need legal aid services in this area, who will need the law students who provide this service under the LSLAP program. Their funding is going to be cut. It's going to be gone. That access will be curtailed by the people in this government who are making wide, sweeping changes to human resources and income assistance, and therefore, again, penalizing the poorest of the poor, the people who are in greatest need in this province.

Let's not create the illusion that somehow this government is making the right decisions and that somehow they're protecting the poorest of the poor and the most marginalized. By the minister's own admission, with these cuts to legal aid, some of the people in the poor communities will not be able to get access to legal aid. In fact, the Chief Justices have entered into this debate and said it's not just the rich who need access to justice. It's also the poor who need access to justice.

I hope you pay attention to what some of your colleagues, people in your own profession, are saying to you. The people in the minister's own profession, Chief Justices, trial lawyers, Crown counsels, colleagues who are lawyers in the field are saying otherwise, saying that these cuts are wrong. The Canadian Bar Association…. I know there was a conference held in New Brunswick. I think it was a first. People from the profession across the country came together and said the direction that British Columbia was going was wrong, that it was going to negatively impact the people who needed access to justice and that it was going to curtail their opportunities to access justice.

Let's just be clear about what this government is doing. On the issue around the proud declaration from this Attorney General that British Columbia funds the highest amount in the area of legal aid…. This is irrespective of the fact that his own colleague in the profession, Carman Overholt, points out that you need to look at these numbers and look at them differently, not the way the minister has chosen to identify the numbers to suit his own needs when he is cutting some 40 percent of legal aid services over three years for British Columbia and knowingly…. I know that in the heart of this minister he knows when he makes these cuts that British Columbians will be hurt, and it will be the most vulnerable British Columbians who will be hurt and the most marginalized British Columbians who will be hurt.

If he wants to hold me accountable, by all means, hold me accountable, but let me just be clear: the minister needs to hold himself accountable. He needs to hold his Premier accountable, and he needs to hold his entire government accountable. Perhaps he should start there, and perhaps, then, he can do the right thing and ensure that the needs of British Columbians are met in the areas of legal aid, administrative justice and access to justice.

I can go on with a lot more comments around this area. We've only just begun the discussions around legal aid, but I am noting the time.

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