Hansard -- Tuesday, April 8, 2003 a.m. -- Vol. 14, No. 3 (HTML)

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY



CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Committee of Supply		6095
	Estimates: Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries Hon. J. van Dongen J. MacPhail

	Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		6108
	Estimates: Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management Hon. S. Hagen J. Bray B. Bennett W. Cobb P. Bell B. Lekstrom J. Les

Hon. G. Plant: I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management in Section A, and in this chamber we will be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I am very pleased to present the 2003-04 budget estimates for the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.

I would like to introduce the staff who are with me: first of all, the acting deputy minister, Bud Graham, and acting assistant deputy minister of resource development and sustainability, Al Martin. Behind me we have the executive director of finance and administration, Jacquie Kendall. I'd very much like to express my thanks to the dedicated and professional staff of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. They have done a great job in the past year on behalf of the people of British Columbia.

When we were elected, we were given an overwhelming mandate for change. We as a government are delivering. The B.C. economy grew 1.9 percent in 2002, faster than the 0.7 percent expected at the time of last year's budget. This is according to B.C.'s independent Economic Forecast Council. The council now expects growth in B.C.'s economy to be up to 2.7 percent in the year 2003.

With the 2003 budget we are beginning to see the benefits of our fiscal discipline. The Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries met its budget target at $64 million. Our government's new B.C. heartlands economic strategy is opening up new opportunities for economic growth throughout our entire province. The Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries will support this initiative through its work with the agriculture and seafood sectors.

As the oldest ministry in the province, I could say that the heartlands strategy is just catching up with what we have always done for coastal and rural communities. Indeed, agriculture and seafood production provides important benefits to rural and coastal communities. Farming and fishing, and the large and small businesses that support them, provide stability to local resource-based economies. Our role is to provide an effective policy framework so that the agriculture and seafood industries have the ability to thrive.

We state our service plan vision as a competitive and profitable industry providing safe, high-quality food for consumers and export markets. With that vision guiding us, these industries can expect continued economic growth while managing environmental and social expectations. The ministry is adapting and changing to address challenges and opportunities by building partnerships and relationships with food industry organizations, other ministries and other governments, including first nations, through targeted advocacy on behalf of the industry, with effective policy and legislative frameworks and by giving industry the tools to be more self-reliant and less dependent on government.

As I mentioned, the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries brought spending in on budget at $64 million in the past year. This year we'll bring in our budget at $49 million, and by '04-05 we'll be on target for a budget of $45 million. The bulk of the reductions for the coming year, $9 million, comes from phasing out the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority. The final stage of the program will be delivered by Investment Agriculture.

The plan for the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries was a tough one. The ministry chose to make changes early on, to refocus what we do and how we deliver. As I told this House last year, six district offices were to be closed by March 31 of this year, and this has been done. The long-planned closures resulted in more than $1 million in savings. Other savings already announced include almost $3 million for a reduction to the whole-farm program and close to $1 million for the crop insurance premium subsidy.

The Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries is now able to fully focus on achieving its vision, specifically through six key areas: industry competitiveness, food safety and quality, risk management, environmental sustainability, fisheries and aquaculture management, and corporate services. For industry competitiveness we want to see an agriculture, fisheries, aquaculture and food sector that is competitive in a global economy while providing economic benefit and stability to British Columbia's rural and coastal communities. We can do that by taking on an advocacy role to ensure that B.C. farm and fisheries interests are considered in government programs, services and regulations; international and interprovincial trade negotiations; and a fair share of federal funding.

We're helping industry with self-funding systems so they can increase self-reliance and reduce their dependence on government. Last year we started the shift towards industry-elected councils. New dairy industry and tree fruit councils were established.

We want a food system that provides consumers and customers with full confidence in the safety and

quality of B.C. food, agriculture and seafood products. Last year, for instance, staff handled significant health and plant issues, such as E. coli in irrigation water, insect problems that threatened hay imports and support in isolating the listeria problem in a small cheese plant on Vancouver Island. We signed two agreements to control foreign animal diseases and the gypsy moth.

We believe B.C. can have both environmental sustainability and resource development. This year we'll roll out the environmental farm planning strategy that we finalized last year to get environmental farm plans and best management practices in place. Our goal is to have 50 local government agriculture advisory committees that represent the major agricultural lands in the province. There are 18 local agriculture committees in place already. We'll keep working with municipalities to facilitate support of local government agriculture bylaws, and we'll advocate with other agencies for access to land and water for farming and resource stewardship.

This year we will see the signing of the new national agriculture policy framework, which will bring a major change in risk management programs such as crop insurance. Over the next five years Canada and B.C. farmers will have new tools, services and options to strengthen their businesses, increase prosperity and meet the demands of consumers at home and abroad. Part of that will be continuing to move crop insurance to the private sector as appropriate.

Under corporate services, one of our main goals is to streamline legislation and regulations. Last year we said we wanted to reduce the regulatory burden by one-third over three years. We are on track. We reduced unnecessary or duplicated requirements by more than 12 percent in the past year.

Our final core business area is fisheries and aquaculture management. Our goal is to see an optimum economic benefit to British Columbians from fisheries and aquaculture while protecting the environment. We're already on that path. We have developed one of the most comprehensive regulatory regimes in the world for our aquaculture industry.

Government has a responsibility to put in place good public policy and to reduce risks by putting in place tough regulations and strict monitoring and enforcement to make sure the public interest is protected.

With respect to aquaculture, in the past year we were able to finish putting in place a strict regulatory framework before lifting the moratorium. That means a new escape-prevention regulation, a new waste management regulation, improved fish health management, addressing siting and relocation issues, supporting alternative technologies and research and development, and putting in place a comprehensive compliance and enforcement strategy. Indeed, we will continue to review and improve regulations to make sure that our environmental goals are met.

Last year we worked out with DFO an allocation decision for pacific hake that supports processing 100 percent of the harvest onshore in B.C. communities. This was a major achievement in support of B.C. jobs.

We developed a proposal for the creation of the Canada–B.C. Council of Fisheries Ministers. This new forum would update the agreement on the management of pacific salmon fisheries issues. We initiated a full analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of the marine, commercial and recreational fisheries that will help us address changes to support revitalization of the industry.

The ministry continued the surveillance and monitoring of fish health issues such as IHN and sea lice, and we received cabinet approval to develop a strategy to improve the provincial government's influence on federal decisions regarding the management of marine, commercial and recreational fisheries.

In conclusion, I am pleased to be here to talk about the plans of the B.C. Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, and I'm proud that our government's fiscal plan is working. It hasn't always been easy. There are more changes required, but we are beginning to see the benefits. We are now able to concentrate on encouraging further growth and investment in B.C.'s heartlands, providing jobs and economic activity for both native and non-native communities. The Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries work will be taking place within the context of government's overall fiscal plan — a fiscal plan that is on track and ahead of schedule, a plan that is prudent, responsible and focused on the future.

J. MacPhail: Thank you to the minister. I note that the minister introduced two of his senior executives as "acting." Can the minister tell me what activities he conducted yesterday as minister on behalf of his ministry?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I was in a meeting interviewing candidates for deputy minister.

J. MacPhail: Is it the practice of the Liberal government that ministers interview for deputy ministers?

Hon. J. van Dongen: It is a practice in terms of the final stage, the final decision, of hiring a deputy minister.

J. MacPhail: Perhaps the minister could describe that. At what stage was it yesterday, and what exactly was the role of the minister?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I was involved in a process that involved the interviewing of the final two candidates for the selection of a deputy minister.

J. MacPhail: Just to confirm, then, that this is the practice of the Liberal government — that ministers involve themselves in interviewing for candidates for deputy minister. Is that correct?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I can simply state for the member that I was invited to this meeting by the Pre-

J. MacPhail: But that the minister was involved…. It wasn't a confirmation hearing. It was that there were two candidates and that the Premier asked the minister to attend. That's the information around hiring a deputy minister. Who else was at the meeting?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I simply confirm for the member that I was at a meeting yesterday at the Premier's invitation to interview two candidates.

J. MacPhail: I'm going to explore recent events with the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, both the events that led up to his resignation and the recent reappointment. The minister's biography on the ministry website that's been posted called that little period a hiatus, so I want to discuss the details that led to the hiatus and what caused the removal of the hiatus and the minister being back in cabinet.

The minister, of course, in his opening remarks talked about the ability of his ministry to now perform compliance and enforcement responsibilities. These are line items, and this is what I want to discuss with the minister, including his ability and his credibility. I must say that the opening question leaves me troubled, Mr. Chair.

Recently the CBC television program Disclosure ran a story that featured the controversy that forced the minister to resign. I want to run through that story and get to the truth of what happened. The government has not released the special prosecutor's report. There is a past practice of special prosecutors' reports being released. In this particular case, the government has decided not to. We hear from the Attorney General's communications director that there was no criminal intent. I have no other details, so I need to explore this here with the minister.

This goes back to a fish farm owned by Stolt. It's the biggest player in the B.C. salmon farming industry. It donated $12,000 over the last two years to the Liberal Party. It donated zero to any other political party, as far as I can tell. It was reported that this farm suffered a massive escape and that thousands of Atlantic salmon poured into B.C. waters. According to the CBC, this was Stolt's second major escape in the past year. Could the minister explain why his ministry chose not to lay charges?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The member indicated that she is reviewing the issues involving my conduct as a minister. I will simply confirm that I did step aside when I was informed that I was under investigation by the police on that issue. They have done their investigation. The special prosecutor that was named has reported out, and she should consider his work to determine what happened in the process.

J. MacPhail: Oops. Oops. I'd be happy to consider his work, except that the government won't release the report. The special prosecutor's report is being kept secret by the government. I asked for the report. The minister now — the minister, then backbencher — was sitting in the House when I asked for it. It has not been released.

The minister is back in cabinet. There is no one else I can ask these questions of, so please — through you, Mr. Chair, to the minister — answer the questions. Could the minister explain why his ministry chose not to lay charges against Stolt?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The member should approach the Attorney General on the issue of the Crown counsel's report, if that's her interest.

J. MacPhail: The Crown counsel's report on not laying charges against Stolt?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The Crown counsel report that was done in terms of my conduct as a minister on that file.

J. MacPhail: That's not what I'm asking questions about. I'm asking questions about the actual events. We're not going to get the special prosecutor's report. The Attorney General is not going to release it. He's made that quite clear, even after asking. These aren't anything to do with the special prosecutor's report, I assume. I don't know — unless there are answers in the special prosecutor's report. If those answers to my questions are contained, I'd be happy to review that report, but this government isn't going to release it.

It's got to do with the minister's compliance. My questions are around the minister's ability to enforce regulations and ensure compliance. He referred to that himself in his opening remarks. That's what all my questions are about. Could the minister explain why his ministry did not lay charges against Stolt?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I can assure the member that all of the procedures for investigation and enforcement will be maintained and continued within our ministry. We have always been very clear with the industry, both before being in government and in government, that we would effectively enforce regulations and that we viewed it important public policy that the government is a third party enforcing regulations against the industry. If the member wants to canvass these issues, she — as I said — should approach the Attorney General in terms of my conduct, and she did indicate that's why she's asking the questions.

J. MacPhail: Sorry. I'm going to keep asking my questions, and this minister can keep trying to stall and stonewall if he wishes. It has nothing to do with the criminal investigation, unless the minister can prove it does by releasing the report. But this government is not going to release the report.

J. MacPhail: Actually, we did. The Minister of Finance comes in and always adds his helpful comments.

Hon. J. van Dongen: Simply to confirm for the member that if there's an allegation of non-compliance or if there's a report of something like an escape, our ministry will investigate and does investigate through the compliance and enforcement branch. They write a report. The report goes to Crown counsel, and the charging decision is made by Crown counsel.

J. MacPhail: Even though the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries didn't lay charges, the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection was conducting an investigation. Internal documents show that Water, Land and Air Protection was going after Stolt Sea Farms. Could the minister tell this House what his role was in advocating whether to pursue or not pursue Water, Land and Air Protection's investigation?

Hon. J. van Dongen: This matter was fully investigated by the special prosecutor, and that ends the matter. It was all reviewed by that prosecutor.

J. MacPhail: What the public knows about the special prosecutor is that there was no criminal intent. We know that from the AG's communications director, not from the special prosecutor and not because the report has been released. That's all we know.

Could the minister tell me, then, how the public is supposed to find out the answers to these questions?

Hon. J. van Dongen: That issue is not within the control of my ministry. As I said, I'm referring the member to the Attorney General and the Ministry of Attorney General on her question.

J. MacPhail: Sorry, that isn't going to work. The Attorney General has already been asked to release the report. He has refused. Would the minister like to stop estimates until he actually gets legal advice on this question about how he's supposed to conduct himself in estimates?

These are legitimate questions. They go right to the responsibility of the minister. In fact, they would be legitimate questions if the special prosecution investigation had not occurred. They would be entirely in order. I'm not quite sure why the minister is hiding behind the special prosecution, about which nobody knows anything, and why the government refuses.

I asked the question about what the role was that the minister played in either helping or hindering the Water, Land and Air Protection investigation into Stolt because of comments made recently by members of the Public Service Employees for Environmental Ethics. People in that organization claim there was a great deal of secrecy surrounding the decision of one ministry to press charges versus another ministry not to. These are employees of the minister's ministry. They have a public role to play. Could the minister explain whether that discrepancy as alleged by them is legitimate or not?

Hon. J. van Dongen: Again, I would refer the member to the Attorney General. She may not like the ministry's answer, but it's something that I can't answer and I can't provide.

J. MacPhail: Why can't the minister provide the answer to this? What has this question possibly got to do with the criminal investigation? Were these questions asked during the special prosecution investigation?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The matter was fully investigated. All of the issues that the special prosecutor considered relevant were available to him. Again, I refer the member to the Ministry of Attorney General.

J. MacPhail: No. I'm going to continue, Mr. Chair, to ask this minister these questions, because it's his responsibility to answer. It's his responsibility to answer these questions. He was reappointed after what his website calls a hiatus. The reason for the occurrence of the hiatus and the ruling of reappointing him is secret. This is the only time that members of this Legislature have to ask this minister questions directly about his responsibilities. These questions have to do with compliance and enforcement. The minister himself introduced in his opening remarks the fact of how proud he was of his record on compliance and enforcement.

I'm prodding that claim. That's what I'm doing here. These questions have nothing to do with the special prosecution, unless the minister can prove that they do by revealing that report.

In the Fisheries ministry service plan on page 8, it states: "An improved and harmonized compliance and enforcement regime for the finfish and shellfish aquaculture industry."

The paragraph continues to say that this minister is the "provincial lead on all compliance issues associated with the industry." Can the minister explain what Water, Land and Air Protection's role is, then, if this ministry has the lead?

Hon. J. van Dongen: We do have a compliance and enforcement agreement — a memorandum of understanding — with the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection on compliance and enforcement procedures. That agreement sets out the respective responsibilities of each ministry for the different pieces of legislation and the different requirements that we need compliance on.

Hon. J. van Dongen: To the best of our recollection, the date of that agreement is approximately February or March 2002.

J. MacPhail: March or April of 2002, I think, is what the minister said — was it? He can just nod.

Hon. J. van Dongen: The ultimate decisions on enforcement procedures are made by the ministry whose responsibility the particular act is, which that investigation was carried out under. For example, if it's a Waste Management Act issue, the ultimate responsibility is the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. If it were a fish escape issue, it would be the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries under the provincial Fisheries Act.

Hon. J. van Dongen: Certainly. We can provide a copy of that document to the member.

J. MacPhail: Yes, I'd appreciate that before estimates finish, please. I'm sure that some officials are listening. Maybe some of my questions would be answered by it.

What happens, according to the memorandum of understanding, if one ministry wants an investigation and the other does not? Is it the ministry who has the lead under the legislation that gets to decide whether to proceed or not?

Hon. J. van Dongen: Again, the ministry with the respective responsibility for a particular act under which a particular investigation would be conducted has the final authority about whether or not an investigation is conducted. Again, if it were an investigation under the Waste Management Act, the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection would have the final authority to investigate that decision. If it were something under the provincial Fisheries Act, the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries would have the authority to make the decision on whether or not to investigate.

J. MacPhail: Who has the responsibility for investigating fish farm salmon escapes?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries under the provincial Fisheries Act and the escape regulation.

J. MacPhail: So that's the minister's direct responsibility. Let me ask this then: on a written account of the Disclosure story relating to the Stolt Farm salmon escape, it said: "We know Stolt wanted the investigation stopped."

Did this minister know that Stolt wanted the investigation stopped? How did he know that?

Hon. J. van Dongen: Again, that matter was part of the review done by the special prosecutor, and I will refer the member to my earlier answer.

J. MacPhail: Well, I'm sorry. The minister is just digging himself deeper and deeper. He just admitted that he has the authority for investigating salmon farm escapes. He's the lead on it. He's the minister responsible. He's got to answer the questions. Please stop obfuscating. What is the minister trying to hide? What's going on here? He's trying to hide behind the criminal investigation report that the government won't release, and now he's trying to hide from his own duties. How did he get back in cabinet? What's he doing back in cabinet if he won't answer these questions?

Hon. J. van Dongen: Again, as set out in the compliance and enforcement agreement, I can assure the member that all escapes and all reports of escapes are investigated by the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.

J. MacPhail: Here's an e-mail that was exchanged by departments. It comes from…. Let me just say that one e-mail is from the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection around this escape. "Thanks, Lance, for this and also the meeting agenda. On this one I'm a little curious why Jon" — J-O-N — "is still apparently dabbling. I am also curious why the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries would be criticizing us for undertaking an investigation or whatever."

That comes from Water, Land and Air Protection. Now, we have searched out how many Jons — J-O-Ns — there are in the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. There is only one Jon — J-O-N — that this could be referring to, which was, I think, this minister's previous deputy, Jon O'Riordan. Is it? Was that the minister's previous deputy?

Hon. J. van Dongen: Again, I refer the member to the fact that a special prosecutor has reviewed this matter and has reported out. That ends the issue.

J. MacPhail: I'm sure the minister would like it to end the issue, but he's back in cabinet, and he's got to earn his living. The way he does that is to answer for his ministerial responsibilities. Here's a simple question: did the minister ever have a deputy minister named Jon O'Riordan?

Hon. J. van Dongen: There is a fellow named Dr. Jon O'Riordan, who is the Deputy Minister of Sustainable Resource Management.

J. MacPhail: Ah, yes. Here's another memo from Water, Land and Air Protection: "I understand from Jon…." J-O-N — and I'm sorry…. The minister is correct. Isn't this good that we're having this exchange? The minister is correct. The only Jon — J-O-N — that could be at the deputy minister level is in Sustainable Resource Management. Thank you.

Here's another memo from Water, Land and Air Protection: "I understand from Jon" — J-O-N — "that a great deal of discussion is continuing at John van Dongen's level regarding the follow-up investigation we initiated into the Sergeant Pass Stolt fish escape that occurred in the spring of 2000. The criticism of our action is coming from Stolt, B.C. Salmon Farmers Association and the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries." There's a memo that's in the public domain.

That e-mail exchange pretty much shows that this minister was involved in the discussions around the escape from Stolt into — sorry, I want to make sure I've got the pass right — Sergeant Pass. The minister has admitted that it's his ministry responsible for enforcement around fish farm escapes. What were those discussions?

Hon. J. van Dongen: Again, the matter was fully investigated, and I refer the member to my earlier answer.

J. MacPhail: In the same e-mail exchange, another public servant that I've already read from states: "I'm curious why the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries would be criticizing us for undertaking an investigation." Let's just generalize, then. That's what actually happened. The minister refuses to answer any of these questions. He's back in cabinet, God knows why. God knows why he's back in cabinet. He won't come clean, so let's just generalize.

If there's a dispute about investigating a salmon farm escape, whose decision is it in the final analysis to actually pursue the investigation and recommend — if needed — charges?

Hon. J. van Dongen: As I stated in my earlier answer, under the compliance and enforcement agreement it sets out the responsibility for the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries to enforce the provincial Fisheries Act. An investigation is conducted with respect to any complaint or any allegation of an escape or any report of an escape, and the results of that investigation are forwarded to Crown counsel for a charging decision.

J. MacPhail: If it's this ministry's responsibility to do the investigation on fish farm escapes, under what circumstances would the minister feel it necessary to criticize Water, Land and Air Protection for doing and for participating in such an investigation?

Hon. J. van Dongen: Again, the matter of my conduct on that file was fully reviewed by a special prosecutor, and I refer the member to that process.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I was asking a general question. Maybe the minister could look at the memorandum of understanding, of cooperation, between the two ministers about compliance and enforcement. Under what circumstances would the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries be advising Water, Land and Air Protection that an investigation was inappropriate? Just generally — just talk about it generally.

Hon. J. van Dongen: Again, I refer the member to the compliance and enforcement memorandum of understanding which sets out the respective responsibilities and authorities for each ministry that has legislation that governs fish farms. In the case of a waste management infraction, the decisions around that would be governed by the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. If it's a fish health issue or fish escape issue, the decisions around that are the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.

J. MacPhail: Okay. Well, I'd be happy to take a five-minute recess if the minister can give me that memorandum of understanding now.

Hon. J. van Dongen: My understanding is that a copy of the agreement will be available to us shortly.

J. MacPhail: It's clear from the documents about the original investigation for which this minister was responsible that he did object to an investigation being done by the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection — very clear by the exchange of memos. We'll just have to see what the memorandum of understanding says in terms of this minister's ability to stop an investigation.

Does the minister often have conversations with major fish farm operators that are under investigation or potentially under investigation? What system is in place for the minister to know about potential investigations and guide his behaviour accordingly?

Hon. J. van Dongen: My conduct with respect to a fish farm file is fully investigated. I want to simply say that the member has her options to deal with the Attorney General on that. Other than that, I can assure the member that the normal procedures of staff doing an investigation, writing a report to Crown counsel if they consider it necessary — all of those procedures — are in place.

Hon. J. van Dongen: The investigations staff have a policy and procedures manual that they follow in the process of conducting an investigation and writing a report in that investigation.

J. MacPhail: When do they notify the minister of investigations? The minister clearly knew about this investigation into Stolt. He's back in cabinet now. What's changed?

Hon. J. van Dongen: Again, the procedures that staff would follow are set out in their policy and procedures manual.

J. MacPhail: Could the minister tell me what those procedures are, how they've changed since the time that…? I mean, the minister hasn't denied that he called Stolt and told them about the investigation. That's part of the public record. He himself admitted to that. Now, people are judging his ability to actually do his job on the basis of that, but it's not secret. It's part of the public record. How have the policies and procedures changed, post–criminal investigation?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I can report to the member that in the past year and a half, there's been a lot of work done in terms of improving the escape regulation itself. There were improvements done in the policy and procedures manual and further upgrading of that. There was further training of enforcement staff done, and there were two additional enforcement staff detailed to deal with aquaculture issues and fisheries issues.

J. MacPhail: Again, what's changed in the policy and procedures about informing the minister of investigations?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I'm not aware of the details of changes in the policy and procedures manual that have been done in the past year.

J. MacPhail: Well, that's interesting. How many fish farms are under investigation right now?

Hon. J. van Dongen: We don't have that detail with us today, Mr. Chairman, but we can get the member that information.

J. MacPhail: My gosh. I wonder if the minister didn't think it was going to come up. Maybe he thought I was going to be absent or something. The fact that the Premier put him back in cabinet without any change in the policies and procedures required of him means he got off scot-free. Well, here we are. It's unbelievable that the minister doesn't have the information about how many fish farms are under investigation now. How many have been under investigation in the last year?

Hon. J. van Dongen: We can get that information for the member, Mr. Chairman.

J. MacPhail: How would the public have any reassurance that this minister isn't talking to fish farms under investigation, when he can't even provide me with that information? How many fish farms in the last year have been found to be in non-compliance with either Water, Land and Air Protection on their specific responsibilities for fish farming or the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries regulations in their specific area of responsibility?

Hon. J. van Dongen: In response to the member, I can inform her that on an annual basis, there is a compliance and enforcement report which is tabled. It is put on the website of the respective ministries. There was one tabled and made public sometime last spring for the previous fiscal year, and sometime this coming spring there will be a report on the past year by both ministries. I can't report on the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection's data, but I will get the data for the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.

J. MacPhail: Maybe the minister could just hint at what the trend is in compliance or non-compliance.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I'll use escapes as an example — fish escapes from fish farms. Based on the requirements of the new escape regulation, there are very stringent reporting requirements, so we're seeing more diligence in reporting. We're seeing more investigations in the short term, but we're seeing a higher level of compliance with the legislation and a reduced number of escapes.

Hon. J. van Dongen: We put new escape regulations in place in April of 2002.

J. MacPhail: It's been reported by the David Suzuki Foundation — Jim Fulton…. I'm sure the minister will disregard his value, but he is a world-renowned spokesperson. Here's what he said: "A company like Stolt has huge clout. When they call and want to go to the Premier's office or to the minister's office, they're in, and they're in at the top. They don't deal with bureaucrats. They don't deal with enforcement."

Let's just review that statement. According to the policy and procedures or the memorandum of understanding about investigation, where do people like the companies go when they have concerns about investigations? Where do environmental groups go? Where do first nations go when they have concerns about investigations?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I want to confirm for the member that with respect to compliance and enforcement issues, our staff are open to meetings with all stakeholders. Similarly, the minister's office is also open to meetings with all stakeholders.

I can assure the member that I do listen to things that Jim Fulton and others say and to reports that are written. I've always had a policy of being open to all comments with respect to the aquaculture industry and, in particular, comments of concern on environmental issues and the wild fishery. We pay attention to all of the comments of our critics.

J. MacPhail: I'm sure the minister wouldn't now be standing up and saying that if people have concerns about an investigation, they go to the minister. I'm saying: where do they go to?

Hon. J. van Dongen: Again, the member is asking questions about my conduct, which was part of a special prosecutor report. I refer her to my earlier answer.

J. MacPhail: Actually, I'm asking questions about how you're not conducting yourself. I would hope the changes in the policies and procedures show that the minister doesn't get involved in investigations. I'm surprised he didn't stand up and say: "That's right. I don't get involved in investigations."

My question is: where in the ministry do people concerned about investigations go?

Hon. J. van Dongen: Based on the compliance and enforcement MOU that we have, people can go to the manager of licensing and compliance. They can go to a fisheries officer or a conservation officer.

J. MacPhail: Well, that's good to know. Clearly, Stolt Sea Farm didn't know that. Let me just read this letter into the record from Stolt Sea Farm vice-president Dale Blackburn of west coast operations. The Stolt vice-president sent off a stern letter to the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection, Joyce Murray, dated October 4, 2001.

I break here for a moment to show I'm very anxious to see how this procedure has changed. That's why I'm asking for all of this information.

J. MacPhail: Sorry. The Attorney General is objecting, and I accept the Attorney General's objection to naming people. Unfortunately, I'm reading from the record of a letter, but I accept that. I'll try to adjust it in the future.

It is important, though, Mr. Chair, just as I cited. It is important in this area because the people named have been Fisheries ministers at the same time as well. I was trying to distinguish on that basis.

It was carbon-copied to the then — the former and now again — Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. It was copied to the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management, copied to the Attorney General, copied to the MLA from Vancouver Island north and copied to Earl Warnock, the regional director of Vancouver Island.

I'll go through some quotes and ask the minister what's changed. This is his responsibility now. This is why the minister is back in cabinet, I would assume. From the letter: "In addition, the recent meeting…with yourself" — meaning the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection — "and your colleagues" — the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management and the Minister of Fisheries — "buoyed myself and other salmon farmers, as the tone of the meeting indicated a strong willingness on everyone's part to repair and rebuild troubled relationships."

That was a meeting that the minister had at the time of an investigation. So what's changed?

Hon. J. van Dongen: Again, I repeat for the member. I have acknowledged publicly that I have made a mistake with respect to that particular fish farm file, the Stolt file. The matter has been fully investigated by the special prosecutor, and he has reported out under the normal procedure to the Ministry of Attorney General.

Hon. J. van Dongen: In response to the member's question, we did develop the compliance and enforcement agreement between the two ministries, which sets out the respective responsibility of each ministry under the legislation they're responsible for.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I'm just going to ask for a minute, if I may. I just got the document — thank you to the minister — and I'll just take a minute to look through it. The minister is referring me to it.

J. MacPhail: I'm going to try and get some outside help on looking through this document. The minister just gave me the compliance and enforcement document. I noted that Water, Land and Air Protection just signed off on it earlier this year, '03, so we'll have to….

The Stolt Sea Farm vice-president felt buoyed after that meeting. Fair enough. The minister clearly isn't going to talk about that period of time. He thinks he doesn't have to answer questions on that particular letter. Tell me this: if there hadn't been a criminal investigation into the minister's behaviour, would he still refuse to answer questions about that letter?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The question is a hypothetical question. The matter has been investigated. I refer the member to the Ministry of Attorney General.

J. MacPhail: Well, it's actually not a hypothetical question, because the avenue that the minister is offering me to explore these very issues has been closed off by his government. The door has been slammed; a veil of secrecy is over it. I'm not sure what the government is trying to hide. I'm not quite sure what the minister himself is trying to hide. But these letters would be on the public record regardless of the criminal investigation into the Minister of Fisheries, and the minister is the minister. He's back in office. He's making a big salary. He's got a lot of power. He's still got powers over these very issues. He's the minister responsible for salmon escapes, and he refuses to answer questions on them. It's ridiculous, Mr. Chair — absolutely ridiculous.

Mr. Blackburn refers to efforts to repair relationships, and he means relationships with the salmon aquaculture industry. How's that going?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I can state for the record that my compliance and enforcement staff have always had a standing order to investigate and enforce thoroughly and effectively. They've always had that standing order, and they have that standing order today.

J. MacPhail: No, Mr. Blackburn refers to repairing troubled relationships. I want to know the specifics on that.

Hon. J. van Dongen: Again, on the issue the member is asking about, my personal conduct was fully investigated, and I refer the member to my previous answer.

J. MacPhail: Okay, let me try this. How's his relationship with environmental groups around salmon aquaculture? Has he had meetings, such as the one he had with Stolt Sea Farm, with environmental groups?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I'm open to meet with environmental groups at any time. I've had many meetings over my term as minister with environmental groups, including one as recently as a week ago.

J. MacPhail: How's it going? I guess the minister is willing to answer this question: how's it going?

Oh, I'm sorry. As recently as a week ago in his capacity as Minister of Fisheries?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The meeting I had a week ago was as an MLA. As I said, I'm open to discussions with environmental groups at any time. Our ministry has had a process through the salmon aquaculture advisory committee, and we are very anxious to work together with the Pacific Fisheries Resource Conservation Council recommendation of a salmon aquaculture review process that involves all stakeholders — and one that we're looking to engage with John Fraser to put that process in place….

J. MacPhail: Who was at the meeting a week ago, both on the government side and the environmental group side?

Hon. J. van Dongen: It was simply a meeting I had as an MLA with an environmental group.

J. MacPhail: Coastal Alliance for Aquaculture Reform. Sorry. Who's in that alliance?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I can give the member a list of the groups that are part of that coalition, but they do

include groups such as the Raincoast Research, Watershed Watch, Living Oceans Society, David Suzuki Foundation, Raincoast Conservation Society, Georgia Strait Alliance.

J. MacPhail: Tell me: as a local MLA, what are the interests that the minister has in salmon aquaculture? Are there any aquaculture farms in the minister's riding?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I certainly have an interest in all of the issues that impact rural and coastal communities. Our government has been very committed to trying to foster and develop new jobs and new economic opportunity in coastal and rural communities. I've always taken an interest, as an MLA, in both environmental and economic issues.

J. MacPhail: When was the minister told that he had been cleared of charges by the special prosecution and that he would be back in cabinet?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I received a phone call from the Premier sometime after the press release that was put out by the criminal justice branch.

J. MacPhail: How many meetings, then, did the minister have on aquaculture as an MLA? Was he continually involved in the file throughout that period of time?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I stepped aside as minister, and Minister Hagen took over responsibility for the ministry. I was not involved in the operations of the ministry.

I am getting more and more troubled by the minister's answers. He refuses to answer questions about his involvement in aquaculture and his involvement in compliance and enforcement. He refers the matter to a special prosecution report that will never be revealed by this government — never. It appears that he's been meeting groups while he was a backbencher — that has absolutely nothing to do with his MLA responsibilities — and while he was still under investigation. He didn't know that he wasn't under investigation anymore — or did he? He's meeting with the industry by himself, and we're supposed to just accept all of this. The minister refuses to answer questions about his behaviour and his role and his credibility.

From the time the minister stepped down as Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, how many meetings did he have with anybody concerned with aquaculture until he was reappointed?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I simply confirm for the member that as a minister and in my involvement as an MLA, I've always been open to meeting with all stakeholders. It's as simple as that. The member is creating an issue where there is no issue. We have been open to meeting with all stakeholders, including environmental groups.

J. MacPhail: How many meetings with stakeholders — whether industry, environmental or first nations — did the minister have concerning the aquaculture industry in the last three months?

V. Roddick: A school, Southpointe Academy, from Tsawwassen has just joined us in the gallery. There are 31 grade 5s, two teachers, the headmaster and three parents.

We just had an excellent question period in the foyer about an hour ago, and I would ask that the House grant them a good resounding welcome.

Hon. J. van Dongen: Simply to confirm for the member, as an MLA, I continue to participate in committees such as the Government Caucus Committee on Natural Resources and to maintain an interest in these issues that affect rural British Columbia. I can't answer the specific question. The point is that we have always been open. I have always been open to meeting with all stakeholders, including the environmental groups. That's the point.

J. MacPhail: How many meetings did the minister have with the then Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries while this minister was on his hiatus?

Hon. J. van Dongen: As I said, I stepped aside as minister, and the minister that was named by the Premier had full charge of the ministry. I was not involved at all.

J. MacPhail: How many meetings did the minister — this minister — have with the minister responsible for the file while this minister was on hiatus? It's a simple question. Zero, two, 15?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The answer to the member's question is that the only meetings I participated in

were meetings that involved my role as a member of government caucus committees.

J. MacPhail: Was this meeting that the minister had just last week with the environmental group, the Coastal Alliance, part of…? He said he did it alone. Was he mistaken when he said that?

J. MacPhail: Boy, I'll tell you, Mr. Chair, I think it is unbelievable the way this minister is stonewalling — unbelievable. He refuses to come clean on any front.

Let's go back to the letter from Stolt Sea Farm. It says: "I am requesting that the recommendation to lay charges against Stolt Sea Farm be dropped." The minister was copied in on this letter, by the way. "At the same time, I would like to suggest that your staff be asked to work with us rather than against us…." What avenue should Stolt Sea Farm have followed rather than writing this letter requesting that charges be dropped?

Hon. J. van Dongen: Again, the matter was fully investigated by a special prosecutor, and I refer the member to the Ministry of Attorney General on those issues.

J. MacPhail: I'm looking for change here. I'm looking to see how things have changed. Nobody knows what the special prosecutor reported on these matters — nobody outside of the little cabal over here, nobody — so I'm trying to figure out what's changed. We have Stolt Sea Farm writing directly to a minister asking her to drop charges. If that same scenario occurred today, what should Stolt Sea Farm do?

Hon. J. van Dongen: Again, I refer the member to the compliance and enforcement MOU, which has been developed between the two ministries. It lays out the respective responsibilities and procedures for dealing with investigations and enforcement issues in aquaculture.

J. MacPhail: Okay, let's go there. First of all, it's a service agreement on coordination of compliance and enforcement programs between the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries; the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection; the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management; and Land and Water British Columbia Inc. In fact, I note in this document that the time lines for implementation of all of this…. The transition phase is supposed to be complete by April 2003. Theoretically, according to this document, it should be in full force and effect.

I note on page 2 the goals of the service agreement. Here are the goals of the service agreement: "Development of this service agreement is based on the following common goals: efficient use of staff resources to minimize duplication, one-window approach to aquaculture development, high level of compliance, early intervention to avoid non-compliance, effective enforcement, successful prosecution and rehabilitation where required, public confidence and" — here's a key — "transparency."

I'd say the kind of goals I'm trying to explore here are high levels of compliance, early intervention to avoid non-compliance, effective enforcement, successful prosecution and rehabilitation where required, public confidence and transparency.

Before this document was in effect, Stolt Sea Farm thought it just fine to write to a minister telling her to back off from the investigation. What would happen now? That's my question. Well, here's what this service agreement says. Environmental monitoring: "For the purpose of this service agreement it is agreed that environmental monitoring activities pursuant to the aquaculture waste control regulation will remain with the lead regulatory agency, Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, with participation by Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries inspections staff."

Can the minister explain the relationship now between WLAP and the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries?

Hon. J. van Dongen: Using the example of the Waste Management Act, the investigation would be controlled and directed by the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection but would involve participation by MAFF inspection staff in terms of doing the base inspection of the issue.

Hon. J. van Dongen: It's the same in the sense that there wouldn't be any involvement by the minister.

J. MacPhail: Okay, so that's a change then. The minister isn't supposed to be involved in any of this stuff, so I don't know why the minister just didn't stand up and say: "Yeah, I'm not supposed to be involved in any of these things."

It says here that the agencies agree to conduct joint environmental monitoring activities on site in order to achieve harmonization between compliance inspections and on-site activities. How does that work?

Hon. J. van Dongen: All fish farms are inspected on an annual basis for the range of compliance issues. This section sets out the goal of the various ministries involved to coordinate those inspection procedures to avoid the situation where we have duplication of activity and different visits at different times. This is an ef-

fort to coordinate activity to get more efficient use of inspection staff but also to ensure that all of the issues that need to be inspected for are fully inspected.

J. MacPhail: No. 7 of this service agreement says: "Compliance and Enforcement Roles and Responsibilities: For the purpose of this service agreement, it is agreed that the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries has the lead role in compliance and that the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection has the lead role in enforcement." Is that the way it's working now?

Hon. J. van Dongen: Yes, we're moving in the direction of the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection being responsible for enforcement.

J. MacPhail: It says here, then: "The Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection will also assume the lead role in consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries" — but they'll be the lead — "when environmental conditions at marine finfish facilities exceed the 'trigger' level established in the aquaculture waste control regulation."

What does "trigger level" mean? Is this where people can complain? Is that the stage at which people can complain?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The trigger level refers to a specific standard at which non-compliance would come into effect or the performance of that farm would be in non-compliance with the regulation under the Waste Management Act.

J. MacPhail: There really is no role for the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries in enforcement. If there was no role, why did the minister have anything to say at all with any aquaculture farms around enforcement of investigations after investigation? I mean, according to these documents, there's a zero role for the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries in enforcement, and there sure ain't any role for the minister. Is that correct?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The section cited by the member deals with the Waste Management Act, which is exclusively the ultimate authority of the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection.

J. MacPhail: Is this document limited to the Waste Management Act? It just says "Coordination of Compliance and Enforcement Programs." Let me see whether I can find compliance and enforcement somewhere else. It turns out, no. This is the only section that talks about compliance and enforcement. I'm just working from the minister's own documents. I've had ten, 20 seconds to read it. Maybe my questions are wrong, but I certainly am willing to have the minister stand up and tell me that.

Okay, here's another section: "Compliance and Enforcement, Roles and Responsibilities, continued."

Hon. J. van Dongen: Yes, these two sections are a change and lay out in our MOU the way that our respective inspection enforcement staff will divide up the responsibilities. Sections (a) and (b) set that out for our staff. Our staff in the two ministries work as a team, and this provides the parameters as to how they do their jobs of effective investigations and enforcement.

J. MacPhail: My last question is on 10, "Resolving Differences," of this agreement:

This clearly indicates there's no role for the minister. I'm wondering why the minister then couldn't stand up and answer my question and say straightforwardly: "I have no role and no information about investigations."

Hon. J. van Dongen: Well, section 10 is self-evident. It sets out the procedure now where we have disputes. Previously, before this MOU existed, we had no formalized way to resolve disputes between the two ministries where there were joint or overlapping enforcement capabilities.

J. MacPhail: It's only by my revealing this that the minister confesses to that. He couldn't answer the question prior to my revealing this. In fact, if I hadn't actually brought this forward, the public might think that the minister is still involved in investigations — still interfering — because God knows, it doesn't come from inside him to understand the role of a minister in administering his responsibilities.

J. MacPhail: Why does the minister's service plan, on page 8 again, say: "The ministry takes the lead on compliance and enforcement"?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I'm not sure which part of the service plan the member is referring to. On page 8, line 4, we talk about our ministry having the provincial lead on all compliance issues associated with the industry. What that refers to is the fact that in pooling our inspection staff, we would do the base inspection as set out in the compliance and enforcement agreement. When it's an issue that involves the Waste Management Act, all of the governing authority is with the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection.

J. MacPhail: I don't know what the minister's having trouble with. It says…. I'll just read it:

It says that this ministry is the lead on it. Well, let me ask this, then. It's clear from this document that Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection is the lead on enforcement and that it is staff that are supposed to take the lead on all of this stuff. There is no ministerial role in compliance and enforcement.

I want to ask some questions about how that's changed at the staff level, then. According to the CBC, the Water, Land and Air Protection investigator around the Stolt Sea Farm fiasco got a personal call from Mr. Blackburn. The members will remember that he's the vice-president of Stolt Sea Farms.

Now, that matter was investigated by the RCMP, and we'll never know what the result of that was. We do know that someone inside government leaked confidential details of the case to Stolt. We'll never know whether it was the minister himself. He admits to calling them. He admits to faxing them. No, I guess, actually, he doesn't admit to that. Some of his colleagues have admitted that on his behalf.

It was clear that the Water, Land and Air Protection investigator on that file got a call directly from Mr. Blackburn. Can that occur under this service agreement?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The issue that the member refers to was fully investigated. I've acknowledged that I made a mistake on that file. Again, I refer the member to my previous answer, which is for her to go to the Attorney General's ministry.

J. MacPhail: Oh yes, the minister has admitted that he made a mistake. What I'm trying to figure out is what's changed since he made his mistake. Can the likes — the people who are…? Sorry, that's rude of me, Mr. Chair. Can people like Mr. Blackburn, a vice-president of a fish farm company, call a Water, Land and Air Protection investigator directly?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I'll refer the member to my earlier answer, where people could contact the manager responsible for compliance and licensing. They could contact the fisheries officer. They can contact conservation officers who are operating under this MOU agreement in terms of their responsibilities to investigate and enforce effectively.

J. MacPhail: My last question before we rise for lunch is…. The minister said he made a mistake. Well, what was it that he didn't understand about his oath of confidentiality that he took as a minister, which he didn't…? What was it that he didn't understand about that?

Hon. J. van Dongen: As I acknowledged publicly, I made a mistake in the handling of a document on this file. The matter has been fully investigated by the special prosecutor. The results of that investigation are available to the member from the Attorney General's ministry.

J. MacPhail: No, they're not. The government is keeping the documents and the report secret. They're not available. Through you, Mr. Chair, to the minister: stop saying they are, or table the report.

I'm trying to find out about what's changed with this minister now that he's back in office. What does he know? What would he do differently? What does he now understand about his oath of confidentiality? He understands that his oath of confidentiality is keeping things secret from the public. The oath of confidentiality isn't to work against the public. It's supposed to work for the public.

Mr. Chair, I have many, many more questions. Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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

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

Hon. S. Hagen: This is the third time I've had the honour of presenting the budget estimates for the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management. With me today is Deputy Minister Jon O'Riordan and Sheila Taylor, acting assistant deputy minister, corporate services division. I would also like to briefly note that not here today but certainly worthy of mention are the hardworking staff of the ministry and the agencies which report to me.

The ministry role. Our government supports excellent health and education. They are our priorities, but we know we need a strong economy to underwrite those priorities. A thriving economy is more important than ever if we hope to support such vital social programs. In the new year the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management will continue to help to diversify the province's economic base, especially in British Columbia's heartlands communities.

Reduce conflict, strengthening relations with first nations. We will also contribute to enhanced certainty on the land base. Certainty is essential for economic development and to support the goals of the B.C. heartlands economic strategy.

The draft sustainability principles we have developed and the science-based data for LandData B.C. will also play an important role. We base our decisions on these foundations, sustainability and science — decisions that are crucial to the long-term well-being of B.C.'s communities.

The Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management will continue to work hard to realize our vision of a vibrant economy and to support the social and environmental values of British Columbians.

We're exploring new economic opportunities and looking for innovative ways to add value to natural resources. Let me take a minute to talk about those resources. Too many naysayers are trying to say our government's land use decisions are primarily for extraction of trees or minerals or oil. I want to remind everyone of the other valuable resources in our heartlands: the culture of our first nations, the diversity of our environment and the purity of our water resources.

Our goal is to make decisions that enhance, value and support all the resources that make up B.C. We won't carve this wonderful province into a patchwork of single-use ghettos; we will accommodate other sectors like oil and gas in the Muskwa-Kechika or tourism in the southern Rockies and Golden, protecting key environmental values.

I can tell you that the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management assists much of that economic development through our ongoing land use planning, whether it's in Lillooet, the central coast, the north coast, the southern Rockies or the Queen Charlotte Islands–Haida Gwaii. We're striving to come up with land use plans that strike the right balance between economic, social and environmental concerns.

We are making progress and finding sustainable solutions with all parties at the land use tables: first nations, industry and communities. We are making progress on the central coast LRMP. We've extended the time line for this to be resolved, and for good reasons. This decision gives the coast information team time to ensure the application of appropriate science and information for the table to use, and it gives first nations more time, as well, to negotiate government-to-government agreements on land use plans.

We are also proceeding with the north coast LRMP. I'm pleased to say we've recently signed a framework agreement with the Haida for the Queen Charlotte Islands–Haida Gwaii land use plan. The people at the table are taking an ecosystem–based management approach. That includes using environmental risk assessment and other innovative modelling and analysis tools to develop land use options.

We expect to receive final land use recommendations for the central coast table by the end of this year and the north coast table by the spring of 2004.

In the interior we're moving quickly at setting land use objectives. These will support the results-based code for forestry. We are setting balanced objectives that will protect biodiversity while providing access to the forest resource. In the end, sound land use planning now will help achieve sustainable economic development in the future.

I'd like to talk briefly about the working forest. Our government is taking bold steps to ensure that we have a leading-edge forest industry once again. The forest industry makes an enormous contribution to the provincial economy and to communities throughout the province. However, over the past several decades it has been subject to unprecedented change.

The management of B.C.'s forest resources has fundamentally changed. It now incorporates a variety of values, including timber, biodiversity, ecosystem conservation, fish and wildlife habitat, recreation, trapping and tourism, and that is how it should be. But it also means the commercial forest land base deserves legal recognition through a new land base designation. Therefore, we plan to introduce legislation to create a working forest land base, something our government committed to in its New Era document.

I have to take a minute to make something clear, to undo some of the misinformation being bandied about. The working forest is more than just forestry. The working forest recognizes other uses, including tourism, mining, ranching and recreation. It is, in fact, a working landscape, a stable land base for activities that meet many objectives. But make no mistake: there is no intention to privatize the forests, none of the hidden plans some people insist upon. The working forest is about providing greater certainty for the forest industry, the communities and all other uses and values from the land whether it is tourism, recreation, mining, oil and gas initiatives, agriculture opportunities or ranching. None of the existing land use planning going on — efforts to secure treaties with first nations or the province's obligation to consult with first nations, all current parks, protected areas and private land — is impacted by the proposed working forest designation. Those who cry doom are deliberately missing the point.

As you know, the public comment period on the working forest discussion paper has been extended to April 30, 2003. We've made this decision in response to several requests from different groups who want more time to analyze the proposal. As well, I have written over 200 individual letters seeking input from British Columbians from all walks of life. We are getting many, many responses on our website, and staff are meeting with a wide range of groups. We will consider all responses as we arrive at the best public policy.

I would like to say a few words about how the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management is living up to the government's throne speech commitment to first nations. As we move forward on land use and resource access, our ministry is on the front line to accord first nations the respect, support, and social and economic opportunities to which they are entitled. This past year the ministry led the development of a new provincial policy for consultation with first nations. We are now building new relationships across ministries with various first nations, new relationships that are key to rebuilding the trust and certainty we all seek. We do this through consultation and accommodation in our land use planning processes. We are helping first nations' capacity to participate in planning processes — in resource allocation, like forestry, and in economic progress, like tourism or industrial park development.

Under consultation this ministry has signed 26 planning protocols with numerous first nations groups on the coast and in the interior. These agreements provide a framework to complete our land use plans and objectives and provide certainty for economic access to Crown resources for all our major land use plans. We have significant agreements with Turning Point on the north coast and with the Kwakiutl tribal council on the central coast and with two dozen others around the province. Under accommodation, another 66 agreements, signed or in discussion, deal with economic measures and data sharing to build capacity for first nations to access the economy. Some examples are a coordinated regional tourism strategy with coastal first nations, an economic development strategy with the Gitanyow nation and a number of traditional new studies. As you know, we are engaged with first nations and others regarding the Lillooet LRMP. Further steps in this area are expected this summer.

Meanwhile, we have a timber and economic recovery plan in place that involves many of the first nations. We have strategies that cover regional units in the province. One is on shellfish aquaculture opportunities assessment. Another provides an aboriginal tourism strategy for B.C., and a third is an information-sharing protocol for a range of first nations. Such agreements, strategies and frameworks bring clarity for first nations, business and communities. Goodwill and stronger government-to-government relations have developed with first nations throughout the province, and they will grow in the coming year.

I'll take a few minutes to talk about the budget of the ministry. Last year the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management kept its spending on budget at $117 million. That will be held to $92 million in the coming year. Some of that reduction reflects a transfer to Land and Water British Columbia for the administration and licensing of Crown water resources. That means water and Crown land allocations are now fully integrated into Land and Water British Columbia.

We have also transferred the capital and operating budgets for park and ecological reserve acquisitions to the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection.

I'll spend a few minutes talking about our agencies. In addition to the activity of the ministry and its staff, I am also responsible for several other agencies. These include Land and Water British Columbia, known as LWBC. It is responsible on behalf of the public for optimizing two of our most valuable provincial assets: Crown land and water. These assets offer us significant opportunities to contribute to the economic, social and cultural well-being of British Columbians. By placing a continued emphasis on innovative business approaches, enhanced client service and continuous improvement, LWBC can facilitate economic development and job creation through enhanced access to Crown land and water resources.

As an example, Land and Water British Columbia is turning around more than 90 percent of all applications within 140 days. Changes made in how they work means that applications are processed in half the time. It is no longer a goal, no longer even a bragging point; it is just good service and good business.

LWBC has successfully eliminated a large backlog of over 1,480 land applications and a longstanding backlog of 1,980 water licence applications. The success that has been achieved in the water program reduces the backlog to its lowest in more than 30 years and for the first time implements strong service levels and target turnaround times.

The environmental assessment office is a neutral agency that undertakes environmental, economic and social reviews of proposed major projects. The provincial government is committed to more flexible, efficient

and timely reviews of proposed major projects to help revitalize the provincial economy. This is why a new, streamlined environmental assessment process was introduced last year. This year's target is to have 90 percent of application reviews completed in 180 days or less.

The Agricultural Land Commission has been restructured and renamed to be more regionally responsive. This year it aims to reduce the number of regulatory requirements by 70 percent from 2001-02 and to have 80 percent of applications decided within 90 days.

The Assessment Authority of B.C. reduces uniform property assessments that form the basis for local and provincial taxation and provides real estate information to the public. The Assessment Authority's broad business strategy is to provide property tax bases that are predictable and stable for tax authorities and property assessments that are fair and equitable for property owners. The BCAA has set a number of specific targets for this year that make it even more efficient and effective.

Other agencies, boards and commissions that report to me as the minister include the Fraser Basin Council, the Muskwa-Kechika Advisory Board and the central region Clayoquot board, and we are just completing the first year with responsibility for the property assessment review panels and Property Assessment Appeal Board.

I look forward to discussing my ministry's plans in detail as this estimates debate continues. We'll be debating my ministry's budget for the fiscal year 2003-04. Net operating expenditures will be $92.297 million. Our projected FTE utilization for the coming year is 954. Each agency and board under my portfolio has separate budget and FTE allocations, which we can discuss in further detail if you wish. I welcome questions and comments from all members.

J. Bray: I certainly appreciated the opening comments that the minister had. I just have a few questions this morning. I know that many of my colleagues also have a lot of questions.

First of all, I want to acknowledge the minister's service plan. As I have said before many times, service plans sometimes seem to be documents that governments churn out. Sometimes people aren't aware whether they provide any benefit or not. Certainly, having come from the public service, I know the importance of service plans for giving direction and guidance to the ministry to ensure that staff know what the goals and objectives are and also for the public to really get a sense of where ministries are going, where government is going and how to actually measure those goals and objectives and whether or not they're being met.

Certainly, the staff of the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management should be commended, because it's an excellent document. It's very detailed and very thorough. It provides both government and the public with a lot of very valuable information on the ministry, and I encourage people to have a look at it. I just want to acknowledge the hard work by members of the minister's staff that obviously went into producing this document.

I have a couple of questions on the working forest legislation and that process. I appreciate the minister's initial comments in his opening address. Certainly, constituents of mine — where there's not a lot forestry — are somewhat concerned by that. They're not necessarily entirely clear as to the intent of the working forest legislation. I understand there is quite a bit of information on the ministry website, but I'm wondering if the minister could just clarify. The working forest is not about handing over Crown lands to private companies; it's a planning context in which there's certainty provided for forestry industries in conjunction with all other users. It's not about giving away land to the private companies but more about making sure that investors have a sense of what is available for them as a first-choice use. All other considerations are still there, and in fact, the Crown still retains full title. I'm wondering if the minister could clarify that.

Hon. S. Hagen: It's an important point, and that's why I made that comment in my speaking notes. The working forest initiative and proposed legislation will be another piece of the puzzle that we have to construct to ensure we have certainty on the land base. The other pieces of that puzzle are the results-based code, the consultation with first nations and the other changes to forestry that the Forests minister has brought in. It's part of that.

What we want to be able to show the public and prospective investors is that there is surety on the land base in British Columbia even though we're still going down the path of negotiating treaties, which I look upon as a medium- to long-term part of this puzzle. We will actually be able to see the working forest on a map, the lands that are available for working forest in the province of British Columbia. That message will then translate to certainty, investment and jobs.

J. Bray: One of the concerns members of my community express is around environmental issues. From the minister's comments, then, is it fair for me to say that the working forest planning context has absolutely no impact on the strong environmental regulations in place and the emphasis on sustainable management of our forest resource — that this is not in any way affecting the environmental standards we've set up in this province?

J. Bray: I also understand, and I have been suggesting to constituents of mine who've got concerns, that there is a public consultation process currently underway for members of the public to actually make their comments directly to the ministry, based on the information that's on the website of the Ministry of Man-

agement Services. Can the minister advise whether or not that public consultation is still available and when constituents have an opportunity to put that input forward?

Hon. S. Hagen: We've extended the time period for that public input to April 30, so there is still about three weeks left to go. We've had considerable input from a number of groups. I sent out over 200 letters to very specific groups like industry, the environmental community, first nations and community leaders to make sure we got a broad cross-section of information coming back to us. That is happening. We will certainly take all of the feedback we get into consideration. This is going to be a very important piece of public policy, and we want to make sure we've got it right.

J. Bray: That's certainly good news. I know my constituents appreciate the opportunity for real consultation, and I'm pleased to hear that on an issue that's important and generating a lot of interest, access for public input has been increased. I think that's excellent news.

The other area I'd like to canvass the minister on is one of the areas the minister is responsible for, B.C. Assessment. There have been some changes recently with respect to how some properties have been assessed. I'm speaking specifically about bed-and-breakfasts.

In a community like Victoria, which relies heavily on tourism and also has a lot of older heritage homes, individual entrepreneurs have taken up the provision of bed-and-breakfast as a mainstay employment for them. In fact, there are several hundred units available in the Victoria area through bed-and-breakfasts. However, the changes that occurred recently changed the classification under B.C. Assessment for some bed-and-breakfasts and had some significant tax implications.

There has been a process of consultation underway with respect to that. I know the minister has heard from me and from various industries, both in resort towns and in urban areas like Victoria. I'm wondering if the minister could update us as to where the consultation is with respect to this whole area of assessment and, in particular, bed-and-breakfasts — if he can provide some information on where that's at.

Hon. S. Hagen: An excellent question. I want to compliment the member, because he's really been quarterbacking a lot of this for me and has introduced me to a number of people in Victoria who operate bed-and-breakfasts. I realize we have significant problem here.

First of all, I went to B.C. Assessment Authority and said: "Look, we've got a problem. Can we try and solve it?" That didn't work. I actually commissioned an independent contractor, a chartered accountant and longtime municipal administrator to do a report. I received that report yesterday, I think. I've only had a chance to give it a cursory look. We're going to be discussing it with my ministry staff and B.C. Assessment staff later on this week.

I'm hoping there are some ways to accommodate these problems. They're very serious problems. We take them very seriously. We're honestly looking for a way to solve this issue so that it's seen as fair by everyone.

I don't have any more questions, but I want to commend the minister for working so hard on this. He's met with several members of my community who run bed-and-breakfasts. It's clear he's heard their concerns and is working with the community to try and develop some positive solutions. I'd like to thank the minister for the effort by himself and his staff to work with these very important members of our community and our tourism industry.

B. Bennett: I have a few questions for the minister. Before I ask those questions, I would like to say I've had probably more interaction with this ministry in my riding than any other ministry. It's been a very positive experience. The staff located in the Kootenays, based out of Nelson and Cranbrook, do an excellent job. They're very professional and good to work with.

I wanted to start my questioning by going right back to the creation of this ministry and hearing from the minister, if I could, about the reason why the ministry was created with respect to bringing all the different ministries together, the different disciplines, to take a more integrated approach to land use planning. My constituents, and constituents in rural B.C. generally, are still a little bit in the dark as to what this ministry is about. Some of my constituents — and I've talked to others in the province — think that Sustainable Resource Management is the same as Land and Water B.C., and, of course, it isn't. Perhaps I could ask the minister to clarify what makes up the ministry and what its focus is, particularly with regard to land use planning.

Hon. S. Hagen: Thank you for the question. I can only assume that you're going to have some questions on coal later on.

I think the people who put this ministry together tried to gather all of the parts of government that deal with Crown land and water. That includes the agencies I'm responsible for, whether it's the Land Reserve Commission or Land and Water B.C. or B.C. Assessment. All of these things have something to do with the land base and the water base in the province.

The other thing that's happened — certainly since I was in government last time — is there have been a number of conflicts that have taken place between uses of land. Usually the conflict is between an environmental expectation and an economic development expectation. The ministry was created to try and find the balance between economic development opportunities

and environmental integrity, maintaining that integrity. Wherever you live in the province, people are concerned about both those issues. They're obviously concerned about jobs and economic development opportunities. They're also concerned about our environment. It doesn't matter whether you live in downtown Vancouver or downtown Cranbrook or in Bella Coola; people do have that concern.

What we try to do is resolve conflicts. You complimented my staff, and I want to compliment my staff too, because I think they do an exceptional job. As I've travelled the province, we've come into communities where there's been a conflict between snowmobilers and caribou, for instance. This was certainly something I never thought I would get involved with as a politician, but the reality is there are conflicts out there like that. That's another thing we do.

The other area of expertise we have generated, particularly in the last 20 months, is the interaction with first nations, building those relationships of trust and respect with first nations around the province. We're continuing to do that. As you heard in my notes, we've done something like 92 agreements with different first nations bands around the province. A lot of those are economic development opportunities, and some are related to land use planning.

We're here to serve the public. Our staff understands that. We look upon the public as customers coming in, and we assist agencies like the Oil and Gas Commission, for instance, in processing those applications for drilling. We are responsible for areas like the Muskwa-Kechika where the high values of environment have become known, but there are also high values from an economic development perspective. We have people around that table, from environmentalists to first nations to industry people to community people, who work at solving those issues before they really become huge issues.

B. Bennett: The minister answered two or three of my questions there, which is a good thing. I am interested in going a little further with the land use planning process, as the ministry is involved in it.

One of the issues for people in rural B.C. is that previous administrations have concentrated more on the environmental leg of the sustainability stool, if you will, and less so on the second and third legs, the social and the economic. Because we are identifying and acknowledging all three legs of the stool, some people in rural B.C. have said that we are weighting one leg more than the other and, in particular, that we're giving more emphasis to the economic side than to the environmental side. To bring it down to specifics, in my riding some folks have expressed concern that we're weighting the economic factors in planning higher or greater than we are in wildlife. I wonder if the minister would like to comment on that.

Hon. S. Hagen: There's no question that the economy is important to British Columbia. I can speak from experience here, because when I was in government in 1991, British Columbia had the strongest economy of any province in Canada. In five relatively short years — long to some people, I guess, but relatively short years — we were demoted to last place, to number ten among the provinces in Canada. I don't think that's something the people of British Columbia accept, and I don't think that's something the people of British Columbia believed would ever happen.

If you think about that and extend it to the fact that we are now classified as a have-not province — that we have actually received transfer payments from the feds, probably for the first time in our history as a province — I don't think that's something the average British Columbian accepts either.

Our challenge in the ministry is to find that balance where we can drive the economy and provide the opportunities to the private sector to create jobs and, at the same time, not compromise our environmental integrity. That's the balance we try to find. When I talk to people around the province, there's no question that I give accent to the economic part of the ministry. If we don't improve our economy, we're not going to be able to afford to deliver the health care and education and social services the people of British Columbia need. I think there's a difference between saying what they expect and what they need. We're trying to fulfil the needs aspect of it.

I would like to think that we are maintaining our environmental integrity, but there is no question, if you look at applications for Crown land and water, that we do focus on the economic development opportunities, on who that land may be sold or leased to. That's one of the questions that's asked. We want to know how many jobs are going to be created and when that's going to happen.

B. Bennett: Just one further question on the land use planning exercise as we know it here in British Columbia. Prior to the election of this government in May of 2001, when government talked about land use planning, what that meant to most people in rural B.C. was reduced access to the land. There was this implicit assumption that if land use planning was going to take place, it was going to result in reduced access for recreationalists, for industry, for commercial tenures, etc.

I understand from reading the service plan and from some direct experience with the ministry that the planning the ministry now does today has a different emphasis — more around certainty and identification of an inventory of values and that sort of thing. I wonder if the minister could comment on that.

Hon. S. Hagen: I think it's very safe to say that our government is approaching land use planning differently than the previous government. One of the issues that came out of your part of the province was the fact that too much land had been set aside and there wasn't enough land to generate job-building or economic development opportunities. I don't want to repeat what I

As you know, we went back into your area, and I want to thank the member for the quarterbacking that took place there. It is important, again, to find that balance. There's no question that our government is focused more on economic development than the prior government was. I think that's one of the reasons the public gave us the overwhelming mandate they did. The public has this innate sort of knowledge that when things are not going well they want to change governments. Certainly, the average British Columbian understood that prior to the election in 2001. That's why this government was given the overwhelming mandate to turn things around so that people don't have to leave the province.

I live in an area of the province on Vancouver Island where WestJet runs very successful flights from Comox to Calgary and Comox to Edmonton. Then I found out that one of the reasons it's successful is because people live in the Comox Valley and work in Calgary. That's certainly not my idea of what a province should be, and I doubt that's the idea anyone in this room has. We do have a responsibility to the electorate and to the people of British Columbia to build back the economy we once had.

B. Bennett: I'd like to switch gears a little bit and just ask the minister for some comments with regard to a specific issue that he's aware of in the East Kootenay, the West Kootenay, the Cariboo and parts of the north, certainly, up in the Smithers area. It's the grasslands restoration issue. Another way to put it, I guess, would be the wildlife-rancher conflict. Another way to put it is the forest ingrowth situation that we have.

Where we had fire-controlled ecosystems in this province and no longer have those ecosystems because we put the fires out, we have a situation where we're losing grasslands at a very fast rate, and we're losing all of the wildlife that depend on those grasslands, as well as reducing the amount of forage available for cattle. It's kind of a double whammy.

We've had this minister up in the East Kootenay to look at that problem. We've had the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries up there to do the same thing. We have the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection coming in May to take a look at that same problem. There is a myriad of regulations, particularly within the Ministry of Forests mandate, that seem to prevent us from dealing with this very difficult problem.

On behalf of my constituents I would just like to take this opportunity to allow the minister to comment on that and ask him specifically whether he might be able to take a leadership role in helping us resolve this problem.

Hon. S. Hagen: It's a huge problem, and I wasn't even aware of the problem until you took me around. I don't want to talk too much about going out at night with a spotlight, but I certainly was made aware of the issue. Thanks to you and other MLAs and also some of the citizens of your riding and adjoining ridings, I understand the seriousness of the problem. Up until last Friday I was playing a direct role in this for a couple of months.

This issue is being dealt with by WLAP, Forests and the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. As to our role in it, we assist with the land use planning aspect and also the inventory aspect. When we're finalizing the working forest paper, which will lead to legislation, we're also going to involve ourselves in the grassland or the encroachment issue. I realize it's something we have to come to grips with, and I'm aware of all of the players and the various aspects and the involvement with licensees and contractors from a forestry point of view as well as cooperating with the ranchers. It's a huge issue, and we remain committed to fixing it.

B. Bennett: I have one additional question. I didn't have a chance to ask the estimates leader whether we're doing Land and Water British Columbia questions around tenuring and that sort of thing.

I have a question about the way Land and Water British Columbia manages their tenure process for commercial tenures, particularly in the back country. There is a concern out there — and I don't speak strictly for my riding in the East Kootenay — across rural B.C. that we as a government are so committed in a positive way to improving the economy that we may have encouraged Land and Water British Columbia to layer tenures one on top of the other.

For example, if you have an existing tenure for a guide-outfitter or some sort of back-country operator and allow another tenure to go in and use the same area of land, perhaps for a different type of tenure…. Perhaps it isn't another guide-outfitter or another hiking operation; maybe it's a different kind of tenure. The concern out there is that by layering tenures one on top of the other, we're doing two things. First, we may, in fact, be reducing the business viability for the operation, and secondly, we may be reducing the overall quality of the back-country experience if we have more than one or two tenures operating on the same piece of land.

The question is really for the minister to comment on the terms of reference, I suppose, that Land and Water British Columbia uses to decide whether they will approve that application for a tenure. On what basis do they approve that application for a tenure when there's already an existing tenure on the ground?

Hon. S. Hagen: This is an issue that we are currently engaged in, and we've been asked by Treasury Board to bring a submission to them by June 30. That submission will also be going to the Cabinet Commit-

tee on Economy and Environment before that time. We realize there is an issue here, whether it's overlapping tenures or non-single use or whatever the issue is. It's something, I think, that has become more of an issue the more tenures we do. When you start doing them, it's not an issue, and then as you get more applications, it becomes an issue. It's one of those important questions that we are presently engaged with, and we'll have a submission in to Treasury Board, as I said, by June 30.

W. Cobb: Well, as you know, I've been involved in a lot of land use planning over the years, and I'm appreciative of the fact that we do have a ministry now that's trying to address and find ways to manage some of the concerns.

I'd like to go one step further on what the member from the Kootenays mentioned in regard to the different agencies. If you go to page 9 in your service plan, it has to do with stronger emphasis on client services and interagency cooperation, ensuring effective cooperation and coordination with the ministries and agencies.

I guess one of the problems I have in my riding is exactly what the member from the Kootenays was talking about. I have lodges and businesses that have been there for 20-odd years and what not and have built their businesses around some of these tenures. Now with us going out to bid for tenures on different issues, we have people who would be eligible to bid who have no infrastructure in place. They have no investment or anything.

Will those kinds of issues be addressed in that work you just mentioned you were doing with this report that will be in by the end of June? It is a major concern, especially when you've got a couple of hundred thousand dollars invested and all of a sudden somebody can come in…. It's overlapping. There are rod-days with the other ministries. Will it all be tied together, and will those kinds of things be considered when these new tenures are being bid for?

Hon. S. Hagen: The answer is yes, they will be. It's not just in your area of the province where these become an issue; it's on the coast as well. What we don't want Land and Water B.C. to get into is a situation where somebody gets a tenure and then flips it for a profit instead of actually wanting to generate jobs and activity on it. There are a number of issues around the province that we're having to deal with, but that is part of the overall examination that we're giving that part of Land and Water B.C. and will be dealt with in their Treasury Board presentation.

W. Cobb: I'm glad to hear that, because that is one of the issues, with rod-days as an example — the guy who's built up his business, and then I as an individual could go out there, get rod-days and virtually flip them and have to sell them back to him for him to be able to meet his client commitments. So that's good to hear.

With some of the conflicts that have happened on the land…. I know with reductions and the core review process there has been elimination, in my area, anyway, of what are called regional resource boards. The funding for those kinds of agencies is gone now. My question would be: if there are conflicts now, what mechanism will be in place to address some of those conflicts if we don't have local groups that can actually be an intermediary, rather than have the ministry do it?

Hon. S. Hagen: The boards themselves weren't done away with; it's the funding that was done away with. In many areas the boards are still operating, and they've sought funding elsewhere. The other thing we are doing is working very closely with other agencies and other ministries in these regions so that we can combine our resources and then provide the people to help work through some of these conflicts.

I think of an example up on the Babine River, where fishing lodges have been concerned about forestry activities up there. They sat down together at a table brought together by our manager in Smithers, and they've actually resolved that issue. The opportunities for resolution are still there, but because of fiscal constraints, we haven't been able to fund those activities through our ministry.

W. Cobb: I understand the concerns with funding and what not, but I think sometimes maybe all these groups need is just a little encouragement. The fact is that they were actually doing a good job. I'm sure the one in my area, at least, will continue. Thank you for that. I think we do need to encourage them. It sure takes a load off other people when they know they've got some place they can go when there's a conflict rather than having to go in and deal with ministry staff.

As mentioned earlier, there's still some concern about the working forest. I guess the concern still there is that there isn't enough emphasis put on tourism, ranching or trappers. I think it's more of a misconception than anything.

My question would be: how are the reports coming in? I know the working forest strategy is on the Net, and people can respond. My question would be: how has the input been? Are you getting a fair input on it, or are people just out there wondering what's happening and not actually commenting on it?

Hon. S. Hagen: One of the reasons I extended the time was to give as many people or groups as possible the opportunity and time they needed to give a response. I understand there's a meeting going on April 10 with the Cattlemen's Association up near where you live. I think we've had two meetings with the Council of Tourism Associations so far, and the woodlot owners association.

As I say, I sent out over 200 letters under my signature to make sure, first of all, that people would know about it and hopefully respond and also so that we wouldn't have groups coming to us at the end of this and saying: "Well, we didn't know that we had a

chance to respond." Therefore, I sent those out to a broad cross-section, including the environmental community, industry, first nations, community leaders and some individuals. We really do want a broad-based response so that when we stand up at the end of the day and introduce this legislation, we can say that full consultation took place.

W. Cobb: I've encouraged anyone that's contacted me on it to get on the website, if they can, and get their information in. I do believe it's important. If we're going to solve some of these issues, it's crucial.

One of the other things is with the regionalization and changes in offices, and regionalization particularly in our area, I have a huge geographic area, and many times these individuals have to drive five or six hours to get into town — specifically for the mapping and how it fits on the mapping. That is now moving to Prince George, which is another three hours or so away from Williams Lake, so they've got to get into the main community, and then it's another three hours from there.

Is there going to be some other avenue where these people can actually get some on-the-ground assistance? When they go into the water and land office now, with the changes being made, they're saying: "Well, you have to get that information from Prince George." If it's the registering and everything else, okay, it may have to go to Prince George. But will they actually be able to see the maps and see it on the ground in the local offices? Who will be there to make sure they've got the information?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm told we are going to be maintaining a presence in Williams Lake, for instance, so they will be able to get the answer there, even though there might be some movement of people to Prince George. But we're going to have a presence there, so there will be an actual person that people can talk to.

One of the other issues, of course, that was brought up is the assessments. As you know, we've had to deal with some assessment problems. With the recommendations you're making with the assessments and what not, are there going to be some clear guidelines on how a place is assessed?

What we have in one particular case, which I'm sure you're aware of, is lodges and small operations. Basically, we've got about a three-month season for some of these lodges to operate. The difference is in what they're classifying for residential use compared to commercial use. There seems to be an anomaly. Is there going to be a clear mandate for the people who actually do the appeals to know exactly what the guidelines are? And is everyone is going to be treated the same? Or is it going to be left open for interpretation, because the interpretation seems to be where it always falls apart?

Hon. S. Hagen: That's a very valid point. I've seen some clear examples of different interpretations in different offices or different areas. Certainly, from my perspective and, I'm sure, from your perspective we would like to come up with something that removes the chance of that happening. This is also referred to in the report, which I referred to in the previous question, from the person from whom I went out to get an independent sort of view on this. And he also has some recommendations in for different ways of looking at placing values on a business.

Having said that, whenever we make changes in how we do things, if it has an impact on the Crown, then we have to deal with Treasury Board. The challenge I have is to come up with a plan that actually works for the user out there but also is acceptable to Treasury Board, because they're pretty sensitive to seeing any sort of reduction in revenue coming in. But the fact of the matter is if something is not operating properly, then we have to fix it.

W. Cobb: I'm glad that some work is being done on it. I've continually had that problem with assessments in my own personal life. The problem I have is that when they value a building, premises, on the revenue generated, then I have a serious concern with it. In saying that, if I decide not to rent out my premise, does that mean I shouldn't have any assessment on it? It should be on the actual construction or replacement cost of it. What I'm able to generate in revenue shouldn't have anything to do with it, especially when you're looking at commercial property. There are other aspects that have to be looked at when you're looking at a land base and what not, but in particular commercial entities, and things like that. I'm glad to hear you're doing some work on it.

Lastly, effective delivery of client services. I must say that I don't know what you've had to do with it, minister, but the people in the Williams Lake office are doing an exceptional job. I think they deserve credit from you. With all the changes that have come down, they've done an excellent job. They're trying to deal with their clients, and I'm getting good reports from them. Thank you very much for the work you've done.

P. Bell: I'm wondering if you could give us an update — and I'm sorry if I missed it in the preamble — on the working forest in terms of the time frames for legislation and then moving forward to implementation.

Hon. S. Hagen: We've extended the time line on the input back to government to April 30. We plan on having enabling legislation introduced this session, and then the regulations will be coming in the fall. So we've got a hold on a slot for legislation for the spring and the regulations in the fall.

P. Bell: One of the concerns that's been expressed to me through the agricultural community is the loss of available ADA lands — agricultural development area lands — to working forests. I'm wondering if the minister can give us an outline of how that process would

move forward. Should that be a concern for folks in the agricultural community, or is that something we've taken into account in this process?

Hon. S. Hagen: First of all, within the working forest the agricultural land reserve will remain in place. It won't be replaced by the working forest. Anything that's under the agricultural land reserve now will be there under the working forest.

The second thing is, as I'm sure you know, there's a joint project of Land and Water B.C. and my ministry looking at the sale of agricultural leases at market value rather than stumpage value. Six agricultural leases are part of the pilot. Two of the leases have been sold. Negotiations continue on the potential sale of three others. The pilot project is moving along, but it's been slowed down somewhat due to issues around spring breakup and the beetle kill, market conditions and legal agreements.

Land and Water B.C. will be doing an evaluation of the pilot project over the next few weeks and will bring forward recommendations to the Cabinet Committee on Economy and Environment.

P. Bell: I'm actually looking perhaps not so much at the ag lease area as I am the ability to access ADA lands in future, not lands that are currently under agricultural land leases. There exists throughout the province — I don't know the exact number of hectares — a substantial amount of land that has been classified under previous land use designations as agricultural development areas, lands that are suitable for agricultural. Many of those lands are captured within the working forest. The concern on the part of the agriculture community is that those lands will not be available to them for agricultural purposes as a result of the working forest designation. I wonder if the minister can expand on that.

Hon. S. Hagen: I guess the issue there is the value of the land for forestry versus the value of the land for agriculture. One of the things we do is a socioeconomic analysis of the land to see where it would bring the best return to the province. This could impact on the analysis of how the SRMP impacts individual companies. I know some of the members have done some extensive work on trying to calculate the value of land under agricultural use versus under forestry use, and we've incorporated that into our process now as well.

P. Bell: Moving on, then, I wonder if the minister could bring some clarification to the issue of land use as it relates to the ability to mine in different parts of the province. There were, for many years, some grey areas in the province where it was unclear whether mining was allowed or not. I'm wondering if the minister can give us an indication of how much of the province, as a percentage, is actually out of bounds to mining and how much is available to mining at this point.

Hon. S. Hagen: Excellent question. To the mining industry, this is critical. We've introduced a two-zone policy, so the mining industry knows they can either mine there or they can't mine there. The amount of land that's been set aside and is unavailable for mining opportunities is approximately 12.3 percent of the province.

P. Bell: That would mean, conversely, that approximately 87 to 88 percent of the province is open and available to mining?

Hon. S. Hagen: The answer is yes, subject to the completion of land use plans that are underway, but I don't think the percentage will change substantially.

P. Bell: That's great news, and I'm glad the minister clarified that. At times the mining community appears to be unclear that this is in fact the case, so I'm pleased they'll be able to clip this out of Hansard and utilize it for future purposes.

I'd like to move on to a comment that was made last weekend by some executives of TimberWest accusing this government of the sale of forested lands. I'm wondering if the minister can put people's minds at ease around that particular issue.

Hon. S. Hagen: I read those comments in the media as well. I'm sure you saw the response of the Forests minister, and my response would be the same: this is not on the agenda of the government.

P. Bell: Moving on again, I wonder if the minister could fill me in on the role his ministry is playing, if he in fact has a role, with regard to the certification process in B.C. forests, and specifically if they've had any involvement with the Forest Stewardship Council and FSC standards as they relate to forestry in British Columbia.

Hon. S. Hagen: The lead on this, as I'm sure you know, is Forests, but we are involved because of the land use planning we do. We work with forest companies through the land use planning process, depending on which certification they want to be under. Some forest companies want to be under all of them, and some forest companies have chosen one or the other. We have an ancillary type of involvement in that exercise.

P. Bell: Can the minister outline for me some of the activities his ministry is taking to develop opportunities for first nations folks, and specifically in the northern part of British Columbia — say, as an example, the Carrier-Sekani tribal areas?

Hon. S. Hagen: When I meet with first nations wherever I meet with them around the province, I talk about the opportunities to move first nations into the economic mainstream of British Columbia. Depending on the capacity of the band that may involve anything from jobs to partnerships or joint ventures. We have

many areas of the province where there are presently joint ventures and partnerships underway with major licensees and contractors. I can't speak specifically with regard to the Carrier-Sekani, but I guess you could say that our ministry introduces these opportunities.

The first nations are very well informed about what government is doing. I'll give you an example. I was in Prince Rupert the day after the throne speech. We actually brought some hard copies of the throne speech with us, but the Tsimshian tribal council had already pulled the throne speech off the Web. They were very aware of what government had said with regard to opportunities for first nations.

Certainly in the forest industry there's good collaboration between companies and first nations. I think there are great opportunities there. On the coast we've got first nations who are going into an eco-based management type of logging, so we will actually know what that means instead of just talking about it. I think they're seizing the opportunities as they come up.

P. Bell: Since this particular minister is perhaps as old as many of our old-growth forests in the province and has certainly had many experiences within the political realm, I'm wondering if he could share with us. In his experience has any government ever been as progressive in terms of bringing forward opportunities for first nations to develop economic initiatives and actually expand their horizons and build some capacity? What are some of the unique initiatives this government has instituted?

Hon. S. Hagen: I say this because of what first nations people say to me. First nations leaders around the province have said to me on many, many occasions that they've seen more progress in the last 20 months from our government than they have seen for all the years leading up to that time. These are key leaders of first nations communities who have made these kinds of comments.

When I was in Prince Rupert, as I mentioned, I spent five and a half hours with the Tsimshian tribal council. One of the things they were really pleased to preview with me was a tourism project they have underway to take advantage of the prospect of cruise ships coming into Prince Rupert.

As I meet with first nations around the province, they're very excited to talk about the opportunities. Some of them government isn't involved with. I think of the Squamish band and their partnership with a development company in Vancouver, where they're building a huge shopping mall on band land in North Vancouver.

Certainly, the feedback that I get from first nations throughout the province is that they're seeing real progress. They're seeing opportunities like they've never seen before. In some cases, it's a case of us sort of keeping up with them, because they're quite aggressive.

We're working very closely with the federal government on these issues, as well, to make sure that we can get training dollars from the feds when they're needed. I was down in Ottawa last week and met with Minister Nault and also with Minister Owen and outlined to them the progress we are making as government. Both of them complimented the Premier and the government on the progress we're making.

P. Bell: Can the minister give us an indication of roughly how many different bands he's met with since entering his position in government? I don't, certainly, expect an exact answer. Oftentimes we hear that first nations feel like they haven't been appropriately consulted. I know the minister meets with various bands on an ongoing basis. I'm wondering if he could share with us approximately how many bands he's met with.

Hon. S. Hagen: I do appreciate that question very much. Maybe I should have kept track, but I don't keep track of it. Some of them I've met with numerous times. To give you an example, some of the nations are composed of a number of bands, maybe 20 to 25 bands. I'm prepared to say that I have met with at least half of the 198 bands around the province. We have, now, agreements of one kind or another with 92 of them. I'm sure I've met with at least half, maybe more, because of the multiple bands in some areas.

P. Bell: I think that is a clear indication of this government's commitment towards the development of a firm consultation process.

I'm curious. The minister indicated that there were some 92 agreements with various bands throughout the province, which represents close to half, I suppose, of the bands in the province. I wonder if the minister could outline for us two or three of the agreements he sees as really groundbreaking, agreements that have been very helpful in first nations communities to build capacity and move their societies forward.

Hon. S. Hagen: I don't want to allocate any sort of importance as far as ranking, but certainly the announcement we made a couple of weeks ago that we're joining with the Haida on the Queen Charlottes–Haida Gwaii, to do land use planning is, I think, pretty groundbreaking. I mean, we've been working for probably 15 or 18 months to bring that together. We also have agreements with the Kitasoo and the Gitga'at on some logging opportunities and economic development opportunities, which are right up there as well, I think.

Of those 92 agreements, 26 deal with land use planning. In many cases, as you are aware, the first nations were not really engaged at the table. They're an integral part of the discussions that are taking place at the tables now, whether it's the central coast or north coast. The north coast table, for instance, is co-chaired by first nations. The Queen Charlotte Islands–Haida Gwaii are co-chaired with first nations.

I think we've made a lot of headway. They're all somewhat unique and groundbreaking because the amount of participation before 20 months ago was from maybe nothing to very slight. By being an integral

part of the table as far as the discussion is concerned…. Also, in some cases, they've done their own land use plans, which they then integrate with ours. Those are groundbreaking as well, because it's all about relationship building, trust and respect.

P. Bell: Moving on, I know that at one point in time the ministry was looking at opportunities to integrate mapping initiatives between different ministries so that they could be cross-layered. As an example, highways could be cross-layered onto maps that might relate to forestry, that might relate to mining and that might relate to other sorts of resources.

I'm just wondering what headway the ministry has made and what the future holds for us on this matter.

Hon. S. Hagen: Before this ministry was created, mapping took place in, I think, nine different ministries of government. That has all been consolidated in the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management.

There were some differences. One ministry might have had a different scale. For instance, Forests might have been operating under a different scale than Highways or Mines or Agriculture. Now we're integrating those into some unanimity. This will make it easier for the private sector to access good information and also make it easier for government to provide information so that you can actually overlap maps. You might be overlapping maps with regard to biodiversity and forestry, for instance, to see where the intersects are.

It's a major project for us. It's a huge project. Another area we have is the data consolidation and bringing something like 202 computer systems down to a few that actually talk to each other.

P. Bell: What sort of time frame are we looking at for the implementation of this mapping system, where I would be able to go into perhaps a GA's office — I'm not sure who would provide me with that service — and acquire a map that would have the various types of data available on it?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm told that we have part of it completed now, and the rest will be completed over the next two to three years.

Hon. S. Hagen: That information would be available through our regional offices around the province.

P. Bell: Moving on, then, I'd like an outline, if the minister would be good enough to give me one, of what his ministry is doing to support mining and oil and gas exploration and development in the Muskwa-Kechika area.

Hon. S. Hagen: Important questions, for sure. In mining I meet regularly with the B.C. Mining Association and the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines and with mining company executives and exploration company executives. It's taken a while, but I think we're really establishing a good working relationship with those groups. We're also embarking — and we talked about this at the COTA convention in Kamloops — on a forum with the mining and tourism industries to come to some agreement on joint use of land around the province.

In the case of oil and gas exploration in the Muskwa-Kechika, we are presently working on some things that haven't come to the committees yet, looking at different ways that we can do things. The board in the Muskwa-Kechika comes up with a lot of conflict resolution. Also, we're doing the unit planning in the areas of the Muskwa-Kechika based on the prospects of oil and gas. In other words, we're trying to do the hottest areas first so that we can open up those opportunities for the oil and gas industry.

When I was up at the oil and gas conference in Fort St. John, there were so many compliments that came out of that audience to this ministry and to this government and to the leadership of the Premier. They've seen a total turnaround in their ability to create wealth and create jobs in British Columbia. I think we're making good progress.

You know, when you have government policies, as the previous government did, which actually run the mining industry out of the province, you don't just turn a light switch to change that and bring them back again. They have to be able to show their investors that things are really changing, that British Columbia really is back open for business. We're working very, very hard to make sure that message gets out there.

P. Bell: I agree with the minister. It was just shameful what the previous government did to the mining industry in this province. Unfortunately, we're all still paying the price for that.

I'd like, actually, to make a connection between two topics that I've just covered, the Muskwa-Kechika and first nations involvement. As the minister will know, I have two bands in the far north end of my riding, Tsay Keh Dene and Kwadacha, who border on or are part of the Muskwa-Kechika. Both of these communities are still suffering in poverty, even though there's a tremendous number of land-based resources available to them in the immediate area. I'm wondering if the minister has put any thought into the development of initiatives for these two bands, which represent a population of about 600 people at the north end of Williston Lake.

Hon. S. Hagen: We are working on an accommodation agreement for the bands in that area, which I understand is on the west side of the Muskwa-Kechika. We haven't concluded that agreement yet, but we are working on that agreement and numerous others around the province.

P. Bell: Both bands are certainly very eager to develop economic initiatives. In my view, both are quite

progressive, but both need the support of your ministry. I really encourage you to continue working with them and see what we can do to help develop those resources.

I know there are several forest companies that are interested in doing joint ventures with them as well. There are, certainly, significant mining properties in the area with gold and copper as well as run-of-the-river-type projects that would be available to them.

I have one more question and then a few budget-related questions. I wonder if the minister can outline his role in species-at-risk issues as they may relate to species such as the fisher, which is currently, I understand, under a bit of controversy.

Hon. S. Hagen: WLAP is the lead agency with regard to species at risk, but we provide the data to them on which they base their recommendations.

On page 158 of the light-blue budget book, under the heading "Integrated Land and Resource Information," the budget has increased from $63 million to $66 million, but there are external recoveries shown of just under $14 million. Those recoveries appear to be new this year, and they appear to be recoveries we haven't had in the past. I'm wondering what those recoveries might relate to and who will be paying those.

Hon. S. Hagen: That money has largely come from partnerships that we've developed with the federal government to do with the base-mapping project we're doing. We're also going out to the private sector to do P3s with some of the forestry companies so that we consolidate the mapping that goes on and we're not duplicating. We're spending money; the private sector is spending money. We're trying to do as much of that as we can because it'll save the taxpayers money in the long run, and we'll also be able to exchange information with those partners.

P. Bell: I'm not quite clear on how that would work, if we're hiring someone from an outside agency. I was under the impression that that was money we would be charging someone else, that recovery, and that we would actually be bringing dollars into government from an external source.

Hon. S. Hagen: To repeat myself, this is actually money coming to us from the federal government, which is part of the partnership. We also have a submission to Treasury Board on fees and licences, because we're determining what is a logical fee to charge the public for information. This money here is money coming into the province from the feds.

Over on page 161, the Agricultural Land Commission has been reduced from a budget of about $2.9 million to about $2.3 million. The comment under the vote appropriation description is that there will be efficiencies created within the system. I'm wondering if the minister can outline for us what types of efficiencies he's looking for and how he anticipates creating that sort of savings and still delivering the service that we need.

Hon. S. Hagen: Thank you to the member for that question. If you recall the new legislation for the forest land reserve, part of that was removal of the forest land reserve, which has gone out to the private sector. A lot of the savings are coming from not having to do that work anymore.

P. Bell: On the bottom of page 161 under the ministry group account classification summary, I note that internal and external recoveries in 2003-04 are estimated to be lower than they were in '02-03. I'm wondering if the minister can give us an indication of why those recoveries may be lower this year.

Finally, on page 162 — he may need to take this one under advisement too; I'm not sure — towards the bottom of the page, under "Disbursements, other" there's $1 million assigned to both '02-03 and '03-04. I'm wondering what that $1 million is designated for.

I wanted to close off by issuing a well-deserved compliment. I'd like to just mention that your staff in Prince George, the folks I deal with, are second to none in government. They're very proactive. They work extremely hard on your behalf. They represent you, the ministry and government extremely well and have taken the stance of trying to create some economic investments for our community. I'd just like to say thank-you for your staff. Specifically, Phil Zacharatos and Dan Adamson would be two of the folks I would like to send my compliments out to. I think they've done a tremendous job for you. All the folks in Land and Water British Columbia, as well, are very, very proactive and working hard. I'd like to pass that on to the minister.

B. Lekstrom: Thank you to the minister for being here to answer the questions. Many on my list have already been asked by previous members, but I do have a couple I'll bounce around a bit.

I note that in your service plan we talk about property notification on impacts, and so on. You've mentioned that. Has there been any discussion…? Your ministry encompasses so much out there as far as what takes place in our province. An issue that's surfacing

right now in my area in particular, oil and gas, is property notification on sale of tenure — sale of leases, for instance. Because property owners don't own the subsurface rights, we will go in and put a sale up, and it's sold. Is there any plan within your ministry, in cooperation with others, to look at a model where we could notify landowners who actually hold title to that property?

Hon. S. Hagen: That issue is being looked at by the integrated registries project we have ongoing in our ministry. That's one of the things being considered.

B. Lekstrom: Is there any time frame on that? Knowing what's taking place now with the new resource of coalbed methane, the extraction…. It's certainly at the forefront now. I attended a meeting with the Minister of Energy and Mines, the Hon. Richard Neufeld, who I feel did a tremendous job of answering the questions of the residents. But that was one of the issues that they had brought forward as far as the notification. If there is any time frame or projected time frame, I'd appreciate that.

Hon. S. Hagen: We have an issue paper going up to Treasury Board in about two months. We plan on implementing it about a year after that. We're going to be targeting northeastern B.C. as the first area of the province.

B. Lekstrom: I would like to now jump over to the Agricultural Land Commission and a question I have. I note in the service plan that our approval time has been raised from 60 days to 90 days for 80 percent of our applications. Can the minister comment on the reason behind that? Also, I'll do a two-sided question. The other 20 percent: what time frame are we looking at for resolution on those applications?

Hon. S. Hagen: I just need a clarification on that. Where did you see the 60 days?

B. Lekstrom: It would be on page 8, under the Agricultural Land Commission paper: "The target of deciding" — and this is the second paragraph — "80 percent of applications within 60 days…." It's that paragraph starting there.

Hon. S. Hagen: These dates that we're talking about, April to September 2002, were actually before the regulations came in on the new act. One of the major things that we're doing is signing delegation agreements with agencies like the Oil and Gas Commission. That will help us meet our efficiency targets as well. We're also signing some agreements with municipalities who wish to. We will be reducing that time. I think that this number refers to prior to the new regs coming in.

B. Lekstrom: I thank the minister for that. I know the goal of yourself and the ministry is, certainly, to compress that time frame and deal with the ones that are more straightforward in a timely fashion, although we do know there are some issues that have to be dealt with and some more complex applications, and I understand the time frame lengthening out.

I do have one final question I'd like to discuss with you, Mr. Minister and that's the issue of the accumulated impact we see throughout the province. I know that with resources, whether it be forestry extraction, oil and gas or mining, we will go in and do an impact analysis and look at that. It seems that the issue of an accumulated impact study — the impact on, say, a guide-outfitter or a trapper, for instance…. I'd just like to get your views on where we're heading in that direction. Are we going to look at full, accumulated impact studies? Quality of life is something that goes hand in hand with sustainable resource management. If I could get your comments on that.

Hon. S. Hagen: We are actually looking at the accumulated impacts that take place through the land use planning aspect. This is part of the submission that we're taking to Treasury Board in June of this year, which encompasses quite a number of issues. This is one of the issues that it will include.

B. Lekstrom: Thank you for that answer. It's certainly something that has been around a long time and has been an issue for many of the people who live in this province. When they know that we look at a study and look at the impact on a resource but don't branch that out and look at the accumulated impact…. It's been a very serious concern. It's very encouraging to hear that we're working towards solving that problem.

As I indicated earlier, many of my questions were asked by previous colleagues, and I would like to thank the minister at this time for the work that he does on behalf of not just myself and the members we work with but all British Columbians.

J. Les: I would like to spend a few minutes discussing the issue of the accretion of gravel in the Fraser River in the area of my riding and several of the other ridings in the Fraser Valley. I know the minister is quite familiar with this topic, as he took some time this past summer to come out to the Fraser Valley and spend a day on the water of the Fraser River to have a look at the massive accumulation of gravel. It is estimated, according to studies that have been done, that in an average year about 350,000 tonnes of gravel are washed down into the Chilliwack reach of the Fraser River.

Of course, since 1894 when we decided to start building dikes along the Fraser River…. I would hasten to point out that the minister was not around back then. Since that time we've started building dikes and setting out that area within which we expect the river to be contained. Along with that was a commitment that we ought to manage the river, which means from time to time there needs to be a responsible removal of

We all know that back in 1948 there was a flooding event. Back then, of course, the dikes were very substandard compared to the dikes in place today. We also had high water in 1972, although flooding was minimal. That event spurred on the then provincial and federal governments to undertake a major upgrading of the dikes, particularly in the Fraser Valley. In more recent history we've had a moratorium on the removal of gravel, and certainly there is a very evident accretion of gravel to levels that are now causing concern. Also, along with that there is considerable erosion of adjacent land along the Fraser River.

Some people have suggested what we ought to embark on is a continuous process of raising the dikes. Many of us would heartily dispute that because one of the first results of that is increased seepage onto the adjacent farmlands, and those raised dikes actually become more vulnerable to breach in the event of high water. In the more recent past we have made some progress by resolving to move forward and have some gravel removed. In the last few weeks a minor amount of gravel was removed. Some of the decisions that have been made recently give us some cause for hope in the future that we are going to address this in a substantial way that will protect the adjacent development in the Fraser Valley and at the same time do it in a responsible way that ensures the habitat in the Fraser River is protected. As an opening question, if I could ask the minister, does the ministry and our government now support the removal of gravel from the Fraser River?

Hon. S. Hagen: Yes. I can say that certainly as long as I've been the minister, we have always supported that, and we continue to support that. I've had two meetings in the last three weeks with the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and the topic of gravel removal from the Fraser River has been on both agendas. We have made some progress. We certainly aren't where we need to get to, but we did make some progress this spring.

I don't want to go into the makeup of the collaborative management group that has been structured that involves first nations, the federal government through DFO, Land and Water B.C. and local governments. Although there have been some frustrating times, we are making progress. I would like to compliment the management and staff at Land and Water B.C., because they've actually led this whole exercise.

Thanks to the members from the Fraser Valley, I had a look at a lot of the Fraser River and saw the evidence of seepage and what that does to the crops it affects. It's very, very serious. I agree with him that the answer is not to build up the dikes; the answer is to remove the gravel from the Fraser.

Certainly, when we had that last meeting with the municipalities and the first nations, there was no question from the first nations we met with that they agreed with us. They're concerned, as well, about some of the spawning beds along the Fraser that are building up with gravel. There is more of a consensus-building that's happening. That's not to say we don't have one or two challenges we have to face, but we're going to keep on working towards resolving that.

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

In addition to providing transcripts on the Internet, Hansard Services publishes transcripts in print and broadcasts Chamber debates on television.