Hansard -- Monday, April 28, 2003 p.m. -- Vol. 14, No. 9 (HTML)



CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Introductions by Members		6251

Tributes		6251
	Rosemary Brown P. Sahota L. Mayencourt Jim Spilsbury H. Long Rosemary Brown J. MacPhail Hon. L. Stephens

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		6253
	Business Number Act (Bill 36) Hon. R. Thorpe

Statements (Standing Order 25b)		6253
	Family Services building for Vancouver-Burrard area L. Mayencourt 2009 World Police and Fire Games P. Sahota Clinton Annual Ball W. Cobb

Oral Questions		6254
	Sale of B.C. Rail assets J. MacPhail Hon. J. Reid Police services in Surrey B. Locke Hon. R. Coleman Impact of SARS on tourism industry I. Chong Hon. R. Thorpe Fair Pharmacare registration S. Brice Hon. C. Hansen J. MacPhail Development of offshore oil and gas industry B. Belsey Hon. R. Neufeld

Tabling Documents		6257
	Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform: Terms of Reference and Duties of the Chair

Ministerial Statements		6257
	Day of mourning for workplace injuries and deaths Hon. G. Bruce J. MacPhail

Tabling Documents		6258
	Auditor general report No. 10, 2002-03, Adopting Best Practices in Government Financial Statements — 2001-2002

Committee of Supply		6258
	Estimates: Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management (continued) Hon. S. Hagen J. MacPhail Estimates: Ministry of Advanced Education Hon. S. Bond J. MacPhail

P. Wong: Joining us in the House today, representing several ridings in the lower mainland, we have a group of 30 members and their spouses from the Wongs' Benevolent Association seniors group, led by the committee chair, Kenny Wong, and former president, King Yeung Wong. They are as follows: Mr. Foon Hong Wong, Yuen Kuen Wong, Don Wong, Wai Lan Wong, Ken S.F. Wong, Wing Yue Wong, Kai Sui Wong, Sing Wong, Kam Wong, Chung Chiu Wong, Ying Lan Wong, Henry Wong, Ena Wong, Siew Hong Wong, Looi Laan Wong, So Ching Wong, Stanley Wong, Gin Hong Wong, Sang Lok Wong, Lee May Wong, Kerry Wong, Stanley Chow, May Wong, May Yu, May Lan Wong, Kim Sek Wong, Sue Lun Wong and Mae Wong. Will the House please give them the warmest welcome.

Hon. S. Hawkins: I have two introductions to make today. In the gallery with me are members of the British Columbia Association of Optometrists. I would ask the House to please help me welcome Dr. John Gentles, Dr. Mary Lou Riederer, Dr. Paul Geneau, Dr. Joan Hansen, Dr. Paul Neumann, Dr. Michael Kellam and Cheryl Williams, who is the chief executive officer.

My second introduction is to three very special people. They are constituents and dear friends of mine from Kelowna. Cindy Lombard and her two children, Jamie and Brianna Guy, are visiting here to see how the Legislature works.

Jamie is an avid hockey player. He's a goalie in the regular season on his team for the Kelowna Ice Hawks. This spring he's played on an all-star team and just finished a tournament where he got a best player award, so I'm pretty proud of him. Brianna is in grade 5. She's an artist. She's a gymnast. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, those are two of the best little campaigners you've ever seen. I'm hoping they'll continue to learn about our political process and work on campaigns with me. I'd ask the House to make all three of them very, very welcome.

H. Bloy: It gives me great honour today to introduce some more great campaigners that have worked very hard in the last few years for the B.C. Liberal Party. It's the second-largest club at Simon Fraser University. It's the British Columbia Young Liberals. We have their president here today. They represent the people of Simon Fraser University. They supported the tuition increases, because they know it created more classes and more professors.

I would like to introduce the students. We have the president, Allan Spence from Coquitlam-Maillardville. We have Woosang Lee from Burquitlam, Jessica Fuchs from Vancouver-Fairview, Brock Stephenson from Burnaby-Willingdon, Miles Lunn from Burnaby North, Dave Harrison from Burquitlam, Angus Ou from Burquitlam, Jessica Marola from Coquitlam-Maillardville, Chantel Elloway from Port Moody–Westwood, Steven Wheelhouse from Surrey–Green Timbers and Jared Zanette from Port Moody–Westwood. I would like to thank them for all their hard work.

My colleague from Surrey–Green Timbers will be introducing the balance of the members.

B. Locke: I, too, would like to recognize and welcome some Young Liberals that help me a great deal in my riding: Brandon Langhjelm, Adam Picotte and Esther Park. I notice that Steve Wheelhouse has already been introduced, but I'll introduce him again.

As well, I would like to also introduce my daughter, Ashley Locke, and her friend Jesse Hangengartner, who are in the chamber. Would the House make them welcome.

V. Anderson: I'd ask the House to join me in welcoming Charles Hung, who is here today. He is a constituent in my riding, and he has a guest with him, Ali Oguz Dirioz from Turkey, who is interested in construction and energy development.

R. Stewart: I'd like to introduce an accomplished businessperson in my riding and a member of the Rotary Club in Coquitlam: Valerie Gilbert. Visiting us from the Rotary Club of Dee Why, New South Wales, Australia, is Mr. Tony Webber. Would the House make them welcome.

D. Hayer: It gives me great pleasure to introduce 28 students from grade 5 visiting from Pacific Academy School in my riding of Surrey-Tynehead. Joining them is their teacher Mr. David Buzza, as well as several parent volunteers who have taken time out of their busy schedules to accompany these students. Would the House please make them very welcome.

Hon. G. Abbott: In the gallery today is Kevin Penstock of Vancouver, a recent friend of mine and an old friend of my ministerial assistant, Cameron Thorn. Would the House please make him welcome.

G. Trumper: In the gallery today is someone who manages to keep me organized most of the time: my constituency assistant, Maryann Washington. Accompanying her today is her husband, who is celebrating his birthday. Would you please make them welcome.

P. Sahota: It's with sadness that I note the passing of Rosemary Brown, a former member of this Legislature and a former MLA for the riding of Burnaby-

L. Mayencourt: I also want to join with the other member in noting the passing of Rosemary Brown. She also served this Legislature as the member for Vancouver-Burrard, and I know she was a great contributor to this chamber but also in her fight for social justice for women, for gays and lesbians, and for other visible minorities within our society. I also pass my condolences to her family.

H. Long: I also rise today to note the passing of a legendary British Columbian. Jim Spilsbury was one of the defining personalities of west coast life. He was raised on Savary Island and made the inlets, bays and harbours of the coast his back yard. The radios he built opened communication lifelines all along the coast of British Columbia. The airline he founded, Queen Charlotte Airlines, became Canada's third-largest airline in 1949.

Many British Columbians are familiar with tales of his pioneering life on the coast, thanks to his books Spilsbury's Coast and The Accidental Airline. They are two of the most successful books published in British Columbia.

He was many things: an inventor, an entrepreneur, a pioneer, a painter and an author. B.C. is poorer for his passing. I offer my condolences, and I ask this House to offer theirs to his family and friends. He will be sorely missed.

J. MacPhail: Thank you to the colleagues who have already acknowledged Rosemary Brown. I, too, rise today to mourn the passing of someone who is truly one of B.C.'s most respected former MLAs.

Rosemary Brown was a passionate defender of human rights and women's rights, and she passed away at the very early age of 72 this weekend. I know that all of our thoughts go out to her family and her loved ones. She is survived by her husband Bill, three children and seven grandchildren. I know I stand not only with everyone in this House but with all British Columbians in mourning this great loss to the province of B.C.

Rosemary Brown was an intelligent, articulate spokesperson for progressive causes for all of her life. She was the first black woman elected to a Canadian legislature. She was an officer of the Order of Canada and a member of the Order of British Columbia. After completing her studies at McGill University and the University of British Columbia, Rosemary became the founding member of the Vancouver Status of Women Council and a founding member of the Vancouver Crisis Centre. Rosemary was elected first to the B.C. Legislature, as the member from Vancouver-Burrard pointed out, for that riding in 1972, and she stayed in this Legislature until 1986, so she sat with many of us present in this chamber during that time.

In between, she ran for the leadership of the federal NDP. Her impact carried far beyond the work that she did in this House. She affected the lives of thousands of people. After politics, Rosemary served as the CEO of Match International, which was a development agency to promote women's issues on a global basis. She also served as chief commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

Rosemary had a great impact on me personally and on my decision to get involved in public life. She really did ensure, everywhere she went, that the voices of women and people of colour would be represented. I think it's safe to say that Rosemary Brown led the way for women who wanted to play a role in public service.

Rosemary Brown created a committee to eliminate sexism in textbooks and educational curricula. She introduced legislation that would prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex or marital status. Through her efforts, there was a marked increase in the number of women represented on boards, commissions and directorates.

I think that if Rosemary were in the House today, she would be eloquently standing up for the many voices of society that never make it into this Legislature. Her legacy will live on amongst thousands of women and people of colour who were inspired and have become involved in politics through her role as an activist, an educator and a role model.

Many of us who worked with Rosemary for three decades remember this quote that she made at a function that many of us attended. She said: "Fighting for equality is like washing the dishes. You've got to keep on it every single day." May we all give our condolences to her family.

Hon. L. Stephens: I share the sentiments of all the members of this House when, over the weekend, we were saddened to learn that a former member, Dr. Rosemary Brown, had passed away. She was a passionate woman who came to Canada from Jamaica in the 1950s. She served our province as an MLA from 1972 to 1986 with distinction. She was a social worker, a university professor, founder of the Vancouver Status of Women Council, and served as chief commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, as the Leader of the Opposition has stated. She was also the founding member of the Vancouver Crisis Centre.

She was a tireless worker in the struggle for the rights of women, men and children everywhere. She's been honoured around the world for her life's work, and she became an inspiration in the field of social activism. She was an officer of the Order of Canada and a recipient of the Order of British Columbia.

Rosemary was a wonderful person, a role model and a great British Columbian. She will be most remembered for her vigilance, commitment, courage and vision. She will be sadly missed by everyone who knew her, but her passion for justice, fairness and

equality will live on in all those who were touched by her energy and determination to raise awareness and to open dialogue, debate and discussion for a better society for all. I join with all members of this House, Mr. Speaker, and ask that you express our sincerest condolences on behalf of all the members of this House.

Hon. R. Thorpe presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Business Number Act.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Hon. R. Thorpe: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to introduce Bill 36, the Business Number Act. The Business Number Act will establish the adoption of a business number as a common business identifier for British Columbia businesses. The act also establishes the information system, the B.C. Hub, to be developed by the single business number initiative to support business number processes.

The federal business number is currently used as a common business identifier in selected programs in the provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Ontario. Manitoba is currently developing a common business identifier project using the federal business number. This legislation does not contain significant policy change, but it does enable the implementation of the single business number initiative, which is consistent with our government's new-era directive of reducing business processes and the regulatory burden for British Columbia businesses and follows up on our government commitment to establish e-government to business services.

Without this legislation, businesses would continue to have to use various numbers when accessing different levels of government and services. The business registration would continue to be complicated and time-consuming. It is important to note that several provincial and national business organizations strongly support the single business number initiative.

Bill 36 is consistent with our government's commitment to assist British Columbia businesses to succeed. The Business Number Act will simplify the relationship between business and government and will assist in restoring British Columbia as a world leader in e-government.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 36 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

L. Mayencourt: I've spoken in this House on a number of occasions about the wonderfully diverse community I live in. We have a lot of seniors. We have the gay and lesbian community. We have new urban singles. We also have one other group, and that's the street-entrenched youth. Though they may not have an address in my constituency, I do consider them to be my constituents, and I am committed to serving them.

It gives me great pleasure to rise in this House today to speak in favour of the construction of a 9,000-square-foot building in the downtown south that will house the Family Services of Greater Vancouver's programs. The building will be set to house the existing street youth services, Street Youth Job Action and Dusk to Dawn shelter programs and will provide transitional housing for youth in this neighbourhood.

There's massive redevelopment which is occurring in the downtown south of Vancouver, and it's causing some resources for homeless youth in the area to become strained. The construction of a centralized and integrated provider of youth services will help prevent these youngsters from being exploited into the sex trade or the drug world.

The construction of such a building will make an integrated service delivery model for street-involved youth much more feasible, and it will allow for an operating schedule seven days a week. Programs in this building will offer outreach, counselling, support, advocacy, drop-in services, drug and alcohol counselling, health services, life skills, hygiene, employment training and recreational services. It is anticipated that if we get this off the ground, we could have this project completed by September of 2004 with operations commencing shortly thereafter.

I'm proud of the work that Family Services is doing in this neighbourhood, and I fully support their efforts to move forward in the construction of this building and amalgamate their services for youth. I know it will be a welcome addition in the downtown south and to all citizens of Vancouver who will enjoy the benefits their services create.

P. Sahota: I have some great news. On Saturday the 2009 World Police and Fire Games were awarded to

British Columbia. This is the second-largest event outside of the Summer Olympics.

As many in this House know, for the past number of months my colleagues from Burnaby and I have been working hard on this bid. Last October the four Burnaby MLAs endorsed the 2009 bid. Last month the entire Legislature endorsed a motion to support the games. Last week the selection committee was in the lower mainland and inspecting the sites, and they were impressed with what they saw.

There were many people that made this happen, so I want to congratulate the entire bid committee and the many organizations who worked together to create this successful bid for our province, including the city of Burnaby, the city of Vancouver, Tourism Vancouver, our law enforcement agencies and, of course, our 2010 Winter Olympics bid committee. I would also like to congratulate Burnaby firefighters — in particular, Jeff Clark and Miles Ritchie — for their tireless work and unwavering dedication to bringing the games to British Columbia.

I also want to thank some of the people in our own government. I want to thank the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services and his staff for their hard work and commitment to this bid. I also want to thank the Solicitor General and the Minister of Forests, who took out time last week to address the selection committee. Lastly, of course, I want to thank the Premier, who addressed the entire federation board of directors on Saturday.

Together we had a successful bid, and we are ready to do this for 2009. I know this is a testament of this government's commitment to our protective services and to sport. This will help build a future for British Columbia that is strong, healthy and prosperous.

W. Cobb: My comments today are in the form of an invitation. On Friday, May 23, 2003, the 136th Clinton Annual Ball will take place in the Clinton Memorial Hall. This is the longest-running annual event of its kind in Canada. It has continued through two world wars, the Depression, population decline and diminishing resources. From the numerous volunteers that have worked on the ball to the support by way of donations and attendance, the community has preserved an enchanting piece of early pioneer spirit.

Held in 1868, the first ball was the idea of Mrs. Smith, co-owner of the old Clinton Hotel, the biggest and best hotel in the Cariboo Gold Rush Trail. By invitation, people came on horse-drawn equipment from as far away as San Francisco and Chicago. The annual soirée lasted for days as guests, dressed in elegant, important fashion, dined and danced in beautifully decorated halls. Dignitaries attended and honoured the contribution of a dedicated community.

The Clinton community wish to extend their welcome and invitation to you to join us in making this year's event a spectacular reflection of the Clinton Annual Ball that began so many years ago. I encourage everyone, even if they may not be able to attend, to purchase a ticket as a donation to assist the community of Clinton in having this event declared a heritage event, to pursue some of the great history we have in the Cariboo. I have tickets if you so wish. [Applause.]

J. MacPhail: While this House was in recess, the Minister of Transportation admitted to an audience in Prince George that the government was breaking its promise not to sell B.C. Rail. She would only say that the government would try to live by the spirit of that promise. Before the Easter break the Minister of Transportation stood up in the House and contradicted the Premier. She said that B.C. Rail's tracks were not for sale and that those tracks would remain publicly owned. Does the Minister of Transportation stand by that promise, or can we expect it to be sacrificed as part of their government's plan to abandon northern communities?

Hon. J. Reid: We have been clear. We have been consistent. I've spoken with people in Prince George. There is going to be continued public ownership of the rail track and the right-of-way, and we are proceeding in looking at a partnership to strengthen the rail services. This is at the request of both the shippers and the communities who rely on those industries.

We're working with the communities on this proposal, and we believe that this is going to be a good, sound business plan to move B.C. Rail into the future.

J. MacPhail: All this government has done is make it as clear as mud about what the plans for B.C. Rail are.

It was only a few weeks ago that the Premier went on provincewide TV. He said that B.C. Rail's tracks will not be sold. But as recently as two weeks ago, in a letter to first nations in the north, the Premier would only promise that he would "not transfer the ownership of the rail bed to a third party." Can the minister explain why, if she stands behind her commitment to not sell B.C. Rail's tracks, the Premier will now only say that the rail bed beneath the tracks will remain in public hands?

Hon. J. Reid: They're both going to remain in public hands, and, again, we've been consistent.

J. MacPhail: Well, actually, if this House extends its sitting much longer, there will be several more vague promises shifting back and forth, because here's the evolution….

J. MacPhail: Here's the evolution of the new-era promise not to sell B.C. Rail. It's a fascinating study in Liberal logic. The promise has gone from keeping the whole operation in public hands — that was during an election — to keeping just the freight service, to only keeping the tracks and now to keeping the land upon which the tracks sit. In fact, the promise that they're only going to keep the right-of-way may wither away, which the Premier has said.

Actually, I don't think British Columbians will be surprised if soon the Premier says that his promise not to sell B.C. Rail only included the air in the general area of the B.C. Rail tracks.

J. MacPhail: Will the minister stop this silly charade and admit that she and her Premier are trying to spin their way out of a promise not to sell a profitable public corporation that is essential to the northern economy?

Hon. J. Reid: I'm glad we do agree — the member opposite has clarity on that one fact — that indeed this is an essential operation for this province and especially the north of this province. This has been a consistent statement…

Hon. J. Reid: …and in looking at an operating partner in moving forward, in working with the communities, we are anticipating that is going to provide the long-term stability and the long-term investment back in B.C. Rail to support the industries and support the communities of this province.

B. Locke: My question is to the Solicitor General. The Solicitor General is working on an integration plan for some RCMP detachments in the lower mainland. In my view, integrating this makes sense because we know that criminals do not care about municipal boundaries. However, Surrey council is considering opting out of this plan and creating its own municipal police force at a great cost to the taxpayer. Can the Solicitor General tell my constituents what he believes will be the most effective and efficient policing system for the residents of Surrey?

Hon. R. Coleman: There are really two questions there. First of all, through to the member, there is no opting out of integration and policing in the province of British Columbia. It is the model for the twenty-first century of policing. Things like serious crime, homicide, sex crimes, forensics and ident should all be integrated cross-border so information is shared by police departments seamlessly for the investigations of any crime in this province.

To the people of Surrey: I can tell you right now you have a world-class police force in the RCMP in Surrey. They are one of the best in the world. We should remember that those people are out on your streets every night doing a job on behalf of your community, and that discussion that's taking place because someone may not like the design of a management model is only damaging the morale of those professional people in the field of policing in the province of British Columbia.

It is not the position to encourage or approve new police forces in British Columbia. We want to see integration; we want to see modernization. That's why we're doing PRIME. That's why what we're doing in policing is strong for the future, and we'll continue to stand by our plan for policing.

I. Chong: Over the past few weeks I've heard from business owners in greater Victoria concerned about the potential impact on tourism due to the SARS outbreak. Yesterday the minister participated in a conference call with federal and provincial tourism ministers from across the country. Can the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise update us on what this government is doing to ensure that the tourism industry, which is so vital to many parts of our province and in particular to greater Victoria, is not being harmed?

Hon. R. Thorpe: We will continue to be very vigilant in our work to contain SARS in British Columbia, where our health workers have been very, very successful, and we should all be very proud of them.

On the conference call on Sunday between the federal minister and the provincial and territorial ministers, it was agreed that we would all work together to develop an action plan. We are meeting in Toronto on May 9 and May 10 to review the first draft of that action plan. We will then meet again on May 23 and May 24 in Vancouver. We are all going to work together. We're going to remain very vigilant, and we're going to develop our marketing plan to release to our key mar-

kets at the appropriate time. Together — by everyone in the tourism industry working together — we will have a successful tourism year.

S. Brice: My question is to the Minister of Health Services. With the May 1 deadline for registration of Pharmacare about to occur, I have heard from constituents who are not understanding just what the consequences are going to be if they don't get signed up by the deadline.

Would the minister please explain what the consequences will be for those who don't get signed up by the deadline, but who do require services after that?

Hon. C. Hansen: The first thing I want to emphasize is that there is no deadline for registering for the new Fair Pharmacare program. The program takes effect on May 1, but an individual can sign up today, sign up next month or sign up next year if they want. But in order to be eligible, if they think they qualify for financial assistance under the new Fair Pharmacare, then we obviously encourage them to sign up sooner than later.

There are two groups that should really take the effort sooner than later, and they are low- and middle-income seniors and non-senior families earning under $50,000 a year. Under the new Fair Pharmacare program they will actually be eligible, by and large, for greater financial assistance than they would have under the old program. I am pleased to tell the member that if a British Columbian doesn't get themselves registered before May 1 and they would qualify for benefits prior to them becoming registered, we will in fact, at the end of the year, be reimbursing those individuals for any overpayment they may have made from the period from May 1 until such time as they do get themselves registered.

J. MacPhail: I wasn't actually going to ask a question on this, but the misinformation on this is astounding. The minister just gave out some new information, so they've changed the program again. Here's the confusion, Mr. Speaker….

J. MacPhail: Not only is the telephone call or the on-line access to this registration not the completion of actually getting your benefits, but, indeed, the minister has just changed the information about how those benefits would apply. We have evidence directly to the contrary.

But let me ask this question. The telephone call that can't get through and the on-line access that you can't get through…

J. MacPhail: …is just the beginning of the registration process. You then get a form mailed out that you have to sign and send back before you're actually registered. How many affidavits has the minister received to date?

Hon. C. Hansen: I'm delighted to get the member's question, because this Fair Pharmacare is actually a great program. What I have found is that British Columbians, particularly British Columbia seniors…

Hon. C. Hansen: …when they find out how it's going to impact them, are really quite thrilled, because they will see greater financial assistance under the new Fair Pharmacare program. We today on our telephone lines are able to register 8,000 families an hour. We can register 7,000 British Columbians on the website simultaneously. Already to date, we are in excess of 850,000 British Columbia families who are registered.

Just to put that in perspective, under the former plans A and plans E in Pharmacare that the new Fair Pharmacare plan is replacing, there were about 440,000 British Columbia families that had tapped into benefits in the past. We already have 850,000 families signed up.

To address the member's specific question about the forms: the member is very correct when she says it is a two-stage process, but from the minute you register on phone or on the website, you are registered and you are eligible for benefits under the Fair Pharmacare program, and….

Hon. C. Hansen: The member is talking about privacy. The whole issue of privacy has been discussed with the office of the privacy commissioner…

Hon. C. Hansen: …and we have taken all the measures necessary to make sure an individual's privacy…

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please! When I ask for order, I expect order in this place. The Leader of the Opposition will come to order and listen to the answer.

Hon. C. Hansen: It is a two-stage process, as the member had indicated earlier, but I'm told that an individual can actually go to a pharmacy counter with a very expensive prescription and the pharmacist can advise them what that prescription might cost. They can literally walk over to a telephone, get themselves registered, walk back to the counter, and they will be in the system and be eligible for benefits.

There is a follow-up on that. We do have to confirm what they declare as their income, and we do that through the form that's subsequently sent out. But that is after the fact, because the individual becomes eligible from the minute they are registered, whether it's via telephone or via the website.

B. Belsey: My question is to the Minister of Energy and Mines. I'd like to ask a question that will help pay for the health care system which that member would like to see.

The development of offshore oil and gas industry in B.C. is bringing a new spirit of hope to the economies of coastal communities. After recent comments by the Minister of Natural Resources, it appears that the federal government may finally be willing to address the offshore exploration moratorium in B.C. However, last week the federal Minister of Environment offered comments that seem to contradict and confuse the position of the federal government. Can the Minister of Energy and Mines clarify for the House the status of the federal review process and what this means for offshore development in British Columbia?

Hon. R. Neufeld: The opportunity of offshore oil and gas off the west coast of British Columbia is great news for British Columbians, and we will do it only if it's environmentally sound and very sensitive to the environment. We want to make sure that we're able to continue to provide health care and education in this province.

The federal government has committed to a process. We're attempting to work with the federal government as best as we possibly can to make that happen quicker — but making sure we do the right steps to make sure it happens for us. In that vein, we have just written another letter to the minister relaying our concerns and wanting to work with them.

As far as the Minister of Environment goes, federally, he seems to be a little bit off base with his colleagues in Ottawa in a lot of his comments, but we hope that through the good work we're trying to do, someday he will finally realize that good jobs are available in the oil and gas industry off the west coast of British Columbia — just like it is on the east coast, which he supports. We hope he starts to remember that and that we need some money in British Columbia to continue to provide health care and education and that we'll do it in a very sound, environmentally friendly way.

Hon. G. Plant: I seek leave to table a document entitled Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform: Terms of Reference and Duties of the Chair.

Hon. G. Bruce: I rise today to make a ministerial statement. Today is a day of mourning. We pay tribute to workers who have been injured or who have died as a result of workplace accidents or diseases. Today, April 28, marks the International Day of Mourning, recognized in nearly 100 countries. In keeping with the importance of this occasion, flags are flying at half-mast in the legislative precincts, at government buildings throughout the province and across Canada.

This day of solemn remembrance is also about our communities. In 2002, 157 British Columbians lost their lives, and in every case a community lost someone whose memory is held dear. Perhaps it was a soccer coach who helped your kids or a neighbour who could always be depended on or simply a friendly face that you were used to seeing as you went about your daily business.

Earlier today I joined a group of people — employers, employees, members of the board from WCB and families of injured or deceased workers — in a memorial ceremony in Vancouver. Similar gatherings have been taking place today in communities throughout the province and across the country. That's because in every community including my own, we have felt the tragedy of losing someone we care about.

As government we must continue to work with businesses, labour associations and communities to reduce the human, social and economic loss that results from workplace accident, injury and disease. Regardless of our different views, we need to work cooperatively to make every B.C. workplace a safe and healthy

J. MacPhail: Today I, too, mourn the loss of productive workers in this province, either through injury or death, and the effect that has on all of us. In the 1990s, April 28 became recognized in this province as the day of mourning for injured workers. The flag is flying at half-mast in acknowledgment of that.

I joined with the Minister of Labour today at a ceremony in Vancouver, which was as moving as I have ever experienced. We all shared the statistics and the desire to make things better in British Columbia in this horrible toll. Then we heard from a mom and her two kids, which brought tears to every single one of us. The mom's husband and the father of those two kids died about a year and a half ago in a completely preventable worksite accident. The eloquence of all three of them should be repeated in this Legislature. I hope we all take the time to review what the people around this province are saying, the people who have been affected directly by workplace injury and death — how it is on their lives.

We are consumed with SARS and rightfully so. We as a nation are consumed with SARS. But one of the statistics we heard today, where there are people behind every single one of those statistics, is that the number of people who have been killed worldwide by SARS falls short of the number of people who have been killed in only one year in British Columbia alone due to workplace deaths. We must also recognize that those who are fighting SARS on the front lines are workers themselves, health care workers, and they are showing bravery in challenging that.

I know it is only the time to join together with common goals and a common purpose on this day of mourning. I join with everyone in this House, looking forward very, very much to the day when the day of mourning is no longer necessary.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, I have the honour to present the auditor general's report No. 10, 2002-03, Adopting Best Practices in Government Financial Statement — 2001-2002.

Hon. G. Collins: I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we'll be debating the estimates for the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management.

Hon. S. Hagen: There were some questions raised by the hon. member opposite on the Thursday afternoon that we were last in here. I have some answers to those questions, together with a map that I will give to her. I just want to give a response to some of the questions asked with regard to…. Discussion was around the areas that are not recommended for fish farms.

Hon. S. Hagen: The discussion was about areas not recommended for fish farms. You talked about that.

The AOS mapping process was completed on March 12, 2002, and was the first step in completing a North Island straits integrated plan, which was completed December 10, 2002. The AOS maps are to be used to facilitate finding sites for those farms identified on the provincial relocation lists, not to show where existing farms had a conflict. The maps were accompanied by a letter that contained caveats and limitations.

The maps are to be used as a very coarse filter. Map data and siting criteria used to build the maps were used at a very broad scale. Therefore, it is possible that within the areas shown as unavailable due to siting criteria, local area investigations may identify sites that in fact meet the siting criteria. The maps are at a broad scale, and the subsequent NIS, North Island straits, plan will provide more detailed direction.

The subsequent plan shows that all the farms occurring within the North Island straits aquaculture no-opportunity areas fall into the following category: the uses acceptable at existing levels of tenure, subject to limited modifications as required by government. Applications for new tenures should not be accepted. Abandoned or underutilized sites should not subsequently be made available for the same use.

The scope of the NIS plan was to address potential new sites and not to comment on whether or not existing uses should be removed. This is accompanied, by the way, by an Excel spreadsheet showing the marine tenures. I'd like to give this and the map to the member opposite.

J. MacPhail: I appreciate that. That was my first follow-up for things promised. Did the minister bring the briefing note on the sale of the land on the Victoria waterfront? During the estimates these were questions he answered with: "I'll get back to you later."

Hon. S. Hagen: I have a two-page briefing note which I'd be pleased to share with the member.

J. MacPhail: Can the minister provide the documentation he promised regarding the consultation that took place between Land and Water B.C. and the city of Courtenay and between Land and Water B.C. and the Comox-Strathcona regional district?

Hon. S. Hagen: We do have the timber survey, but the information is confidential until the sale is completed.

J. MacPhail: Then I'll get to that in a moment. Did the minister bring the socioeconomic study of the South Chilcotin Mountains Park?

Hon. S. Hagen: We have a socioeconomic study that is outdated, and we're presently working to update that. I can give you the outdated one, and I'll be pleased to share the updated one which will be ready, hopefully, in a couple of weeks.

Hon. S. Hagen: We started engaging first nations in September of 2002. We have been in talks with first nations, arriving hopefully very shortly at an agreement with them for participation on the Lillooet plan. So that's the information that we will be incorporating into the new socioeconomic study.

J. MacPhail: I have a follow-up question on the issue of the sale process of the Lannan forest. I was reviewing our debate over the two-week break from the Legislature. I'm wondering whether the minister can actually go through the sale process from start to finish — dates, everything.

Hon. S. Hagen: Yes, I'd be pleased to read the chronology on the sale of Crown land at Lannan Road in the Comox Valley to the Silverado Land Corporation.

December 21, 1989. A fax from Silverado indicating interest in acquiring Lannan Road property.

June 5, 1990. A letter from Silverado repeating interest in acquiring the Crown land.

September 10, 1990 — and I'll be pleased to share this, by the way, with the members. A letter to Silverado stating that Crown lands will initiate deletion from the provincial forest and hold for disposition by public competition once services have been extended to the property by Silverado.

February 8, 1995. A letter from Minister Sihota to Ruth Masters stating that B.C. Lands has not accepted an application from the Comox-Strathcona regional district to acquire the land for a sports centre.

February 13, 1995. A letter to consultants returning the regional district's application for site to use as a sports centre.

March 7, 1995. A letter from the Ministry of Forests stating support for deletion from the provincial forest if the land is used as a sports centre.

October 2, 1995. A letter from the regional district to B.C. Lands indicating intent to apply for land as a nature park, an urban fringe buffer to protect visual value.

February 2, 1996. A letter to the regional district stating that B.C. Lands does not provide Crown land for urban fringe buffers or preservation of visual values.

February 13, '01. A request from the Ministry of Forests for a statement of British Columbia Assets and Land Corporation's interest in the Crown land as part of a review of the regional district's application to manage recreation trails on site under the agreement with the Ministry of Forests.

May 3, '01. E-mail from BCAL to the Ministry of Forests stating that the land should be administered by BCAL.

October 22, '01. A memo from Jack Hall to Greg Koyl of the Ministry of Forests requesting that a licence not be issued to the regional district pending completion of a review of the property by BCAL.

January 30, '02. An application to the Ministry of Forests from the regional district to take over maintenance of trails on the property.

February 5, '02. E-mail to Land and Water B.C. from the Ministry of Forests regarding willingness for clarifying status of Lannan Road and Lerwick Road properties.

March 12, '02. A memo from Land and Water B.C. to the Ministry of Forests requesting that a licence not be issued to the regional district pending completion of Land and Water British Columbia's review of the property.

March 13, '02. A letter to the regional district from the Ministry of Forests stating that its application is not accepted but that the regional district may apply to Land and Water B.C. for a licence of occupation.

March 21, '02. A note from Ministry of Forests that Land and Water B.C.'s letter of March 12, '02, had been sent to the regional district.

April 5, '02. Land and Water B.C. signed a memorandum of understanding with Silverado regarding purchase of the Crown land to expand Crown Isle golf course from 18 to 27 holes.

April 5, '02. A draft MOU presented to the city of Courtenay regarding processes for properties at Lannan and Lerwick roads as well as Millard Creek.

April 30, '02. Memo to Ministry of Forests from Land and Water B.C. requesting deletion from the provincial forest and forest land reserve of the Lannan and Lerwick Road properties.

July 3, '02. A letter from the Ministry of Forests to Land and Water B.C. confirming that deletion from the provincial forest is proceeding.

September 18, '02. Land and Water B.C. declined the regional district's application for a free Crown grant.

October 10, '02. A letter to Minister Hagen from the chair of the regional district regarding Crown land on Hornby Island and at Lannan Road, expressing surprise that Land and Water B.C. had declined its request for a licence of occupation on the Lannan Road property because it was being managed by the development and marketing division. The regional district asked for an update on the status of the Crown parcels and indicated that they wished to secure tenure over both.

October 11, '02. A letter to Land and Water B.C. from Art Meyers, indicating that Silverado wished to proceed with the purchase of the land.

October 15, '02. A letter from Land and Water B.C. to Art Meyers, stating that Land and Water B.C. will prepare a sales contract with the sale subject to deletion from the provincial forest and the forest land reserve and inclusion of the land within the city.

October 28, '02. A letter to Minister Hagen from the chair of the regional district, indicating concern that the province will no longer issue free Crown grants for local parks, with Lannan Road indicated as an outstanding concern.

November 8, '02. Letter from Minister Hagen to chair of the regional district, advising that the Ministry of Forests is removing the land from the provincial forest to allow for disposition by Land and Water British Columbia. The letter noted that Land and Water British Columbia had scheduled a meeting for November 8, '02, to discuss the regional district's interest in trails on the property adjacent to Crown Isle.

November 8, '02. Land and Water British Columbia met staff of the regional district in Courtenay and advised them of the discussions regarding the sale to the owners of Crown Isle and that the purchaser and the city were expected to agree to establishing trails around the perimeter of the property.

November 15, '02. Land and Water British Columbia received offer of purchase and sale from Silverado.

December 4, '02. Letter to Minister Hagen from the chair of the regional district thanking him for Mark Hallam's visit on November 8, '02, and stating that the regional district remains opposed to the sale and development of the land.

December 9, '02. Comox Valley Land Trust sent a letter to Minister Hagen regarding the loss of Crown land in the Comox Valley, including the Lannan Road property.

December 11, '02. Revised MOU regarding three Courtenay properties sent by Land and Water British Columbia to the city of Courtenay.

December 12, '02. Revised offer of purchase sent to Silverado by Land and Water British Columbia.

December 18, '02. Land and Water British Columbia received a copy of a letter to the ombudsman from Bob Campbell.

December 19, '02. Land and Water British Columbia signed offer to purchase from Silverado.

January 9, '03. Letter from the ombudsman summarizing allegations that Land and Water British Columbia was unfair and unreasonable in its administration of the proposed sale of the Crown land.

January 9, '03. Ministry of Forests approved the deletion of the land from the provincial forest for residential development.

January 17, '03. Letter from Minister Hagen to chair of the regional district advising that Land and Water British Columbia has signed a sales agreement with the owner of Crown Isle. The letter states that Land and Water British Columbia was aware that the regional district was interested in acquiring the land as a park but was also mindful of economic benefits from the expansion of the golf course.

January 28, '03. Land and Water British Columbia e-mailed to city councillor Larry Jangula, explaining that the sale was based on the appraised value of the property and that there was not a bidding process as the owners of the adjoining golf course were in a unique position to develop the Crown land.

January 29, '03. Letter from ombudsman requesting delivery of Lannan Road file for review.

January 30,'03. Letter to Land and Water British Columbia dated January 8, '03, from the Hamatla Treaty Society opposing the sale of the land due to treaty concerns and alleging breach of provincial policy on consultation prior to the alienation of Crown land.

February 21, '03. Land and Water British Columbia applied to Courtenay to include the Crown land into the city.

March 14, '03. Land and Water British Columbia solicitor wrote to the Comox Valley Record to ask for a retraction of a statement attributed to area B director Barbara Price that Hallam was lying about information the regional district about the sale of the property.

March 28, '03. Land and Water British Columbia prepared a chronology for Bill Valentine.

March 31, '03. Bill Valentine and Mark Hallam addressed the mayor and council of Courtenay re Lannan Road.

For some reason the next is an unknown date. It says that the minister responded in the Legislature to a question from the chair of the Comox-Strathcona regional district regarding the decision to sell the property to Crown Isle, including the consultation process.

April 7, '03. Bill Valentine wrote to the city of Courtenay and the editors of the Comox Valley Record and the Comox Valley Echo summarizing the presentation made to the city council.

April 8, '03. Land and Water British Columbia responded to the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, information and privacy branch, analysis of

April 9, '03. Land and Water British Columbia responded to the city of Courtenay's letter of March 10, '03, advising that it was unable to comment on the status of any inquiry by the ombudsman's office.

April 23, '03. Land and Water British Columbia responded to Shirley Ward's e-mail of April 4, '03, advising that Land and Water British Columbia was preparing a statement of its procedures for the marketing and sale of Crown land and would provide a copy when available.

April 24, '03. Land and Water British Columbia responded to the Hamatla Treaty Society's letter dated January 8, '03, regarding Land and Water British Columbia's consideration of first nation interests at Lannan Road.

April 25, '03. Land and Water British Columbia provided a briefing note to the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, information and privacy branch, re Lannan Road FOI, advising that it may be preferable to release the proposed sale price, even if this may affect a subsequent sale of the land.

J. MacPhail: I heard two uses in the application — one, to put nine holes of golf course in. Then in early January — I missed the exact date — was the application for residential development?

Hon. S. Hagen: I guess the short answer to that question is that the uses the property will be put to will be determined by the zoning of the city of Courtenay.

J. MacPhail: I appreciate the minister giving me this, but it does say: "Ministry of Forests approved the deletion of the land from the provincial forests for residential development." That's January 9, '03. So Crown Isle gets the land, but it's up to the city of Courtenay to determine what they can do with that land?

Hon. S. Hagen: Crown Isle may or may not get that land. I mean, it depends on whether or not the city takes it within their boundaries. If it comes within the boundaries of the city of Courtenay, then the city of Courtenay will determine the zoning on that property.

J. MacPhail: Why is that up for question? Is it not established now whether the land is inside Courtenay? Maybe the minister could expand on that. Is there some rezoning going on as well?

Hon. S. Hagen: There are two conditions, apparently, on the offer. One is that it come within the boundaries of the city of Courtenay. The second is that the cabinet authorize through OIC the extension of those boundaries to take in that land. It's a boundary extension application.

Hon. S. Hagen: Those are conditions agreed to by both the purchaser and the seller.

J. MacPhail: One of the reasons why I was asking for the timber survey was because there's been quite a bit of a reaction to the minister revealing that the amount of timber is worth $40,000. Is the minister standing by that evaluation?

Hon. S. Hagen: Yes. Having seen the two values, I'm very satisfied with that number.

R. Sultan: I would like to introduce to the House this afternoon an old friend, Mr. Bill Jennings, who has the distinction of holding several world powerboat speed championships. Should any members miss the ferry, give Bill a call.

J. MacPhail: All right. Well, we'll have more discussion as information comes up about the timber survey and that, because that got quite an interesting reaction from the community. Disbelief wouldn't be too strong a word, but we'll just wait and see the timber survey. It will be interesting.

I think the minister just said that of the two, he's satisfied, so I'm not sure what he meant by that. What did the minister mean by of the two, he's satisfied?

Hon. S. Hagen: I've seen two numbers. The two numbers I've seen make me very satisfied with the number I gave you.

On Muskwa-Kechika. I understand the ministry commits a million dollars annually to the Muskwa-Kechika board and then matches the board up to another million. How much did the board raise in '02-03?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm told the number is around $150,000. We can get the exact number if you would like that.

J. MacPhail: Yes, I would, because when this government took over, the funding for the Muskwa-Kechika board was $3 million. This government cut it to a commitment of $1 million and then made a great hoo-ha over the fact that there would probably be an-

other $2 million there because the board itself could raise $500,000 and the government would match it. I assume the funding now is the equivalent of about $1.3 million, which is less than 50 percent of what it was just two short years ago. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Hagen: For '02-03 there was a carryover from the previous year, so the budget for last year was about $2 million.

J. MacPhail: We'll get to the bottom of this, so that's not an answer. An annualized budget of what this government has committed is the equivalent of about $1.3 million, as far as I can tell — $1 million from the government, $150,000 that was fundraised by the board, and then I assume the government is matching that. So that's $1.3 million for an annual budget, and it was $3 million when this government assumed responsibility. Am I off base?

J. MacPhail: Then I guess the minister's going to be putting out a news release that's taken the glow off the news release he released when he changed the funding for this and had great hope that the private sector would rush in and donate. That was why there was no reason for the government to commit to the board funding for this wonderful, world-class area. Does the government consider the sum raised by the board sufficient to continue to protect the Muskwa-Kechika?

Hon. S. Hagen: This is where the answer I gave previously comes into play. There's still the potential for the board to end up with a $3 million budget. However, because of a shortfall in fundraising for this year, their budget was reduced to about $2.3 million, and that's what they have to carry out their operations for '02-03.

J. MacPhail: Okay. I'd like that information before we complete estimates. I'm curious as to why it's not available right now. How much of the $150,000 raised came from the oil and gas industry?

Hon. S. Hagen: As I said in answer to your last question, we'll get that information for you just as quickly as we can.

Hon. S. Hagen: I'd be pleased to provide the member with the annual report, which was released not that long ago.

Hon. S. Hagen: We'll provide the latest annual report and also the budget for '02-03.

J. MacPhail: Okay, Mr. Chair, this is the time when I'm supposed to get information, not have to wait for information. But I'll just keep the estimates going, because to shut down the estimates without answer means that the public gets denied the information that it is due.

What progress did the Muskwa-Kechika board make during '02-03? What changes occurred in the area?

Hon. S. Hagen: Actually, they had a very productive year. They've completed the pre-tenure planning for the Besa-Prophet area. They've done a contract with the Nature Conservancy of Canada for environmental mapping for the area. They've made good progress on two other pre-tenure plans. There was first nations consultation and also a joint venture with the Ministry of Energy and Mines on geological potential for natural gas.

J. MacPhail: Well, I'll have more questions when I get the information that the minister has promised on donations.

If the minister needs to notify staff, I want to talk about contaminated sites. How much money has the ministry devoted to contaminated sites in '02-03, and what's the budget for '03-04?

Hon. S. Hagen: There was no money allocated last year because the contaminated sites were just transferred to the ministry in the latter part of '02-03. In '03-04 we have budgeted $400,000.

J. MacPhail: Yes, I just want to remind the minister. He may not have been listening to the estimates with the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, but they delegated all these questions around contaminated sites to the minister, and of course it was this minister that responded to the auditor general's report on contaminated sites that was released in December 2002. How does this budget of $400,000 for this upcoming year compare with the amount spent on contaminated sites last year?

Hon. S. Hagen: My information is that there was no money spent in '02-03 because of the transfer of responsibility to SRM. The $400,000 that I mentioned is budgeted for '03-04.

J. MacPhail: Okay. And of course, the auditor general did release a report in December of 2002 on contaminated sites. How much goes to developing "governmentwide policies that will guide management plans for contaminated sites on Crown land"?

Hon. S. Hagen: The answer is about half, about $200,000, to develop policy across ministries.

J. MacPhail: And how is this governmentwide policy-making that the minister said he was carrying out…? How does it work? Perhaps he could outline for us how it's working right now.

Hon. S. Hagen: Identifying, inventorying, assessing and prioritizing sites; establishing a process for resource allocation and funding; and rationalized performance targets for the governmentwide business plan with staff and resources.

J. MacPhail: And who sits on…? What ministries are involved in this? I know the minister made a commitment to governmentwide, but what are the exact ministries involved in this policy-making?

Hon. S. Hagen: The Ministry of Transportation; Ministry of Forests; Ministry of Energy and Mines; Land and Water B.C.; Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection; B.C. Hydro; BCBC; B.C. Ferries; B.C. Rail.

J. MacPhail: What resources has the minister dedicated to the creation of a central registry of contaminated sites? Perhaps he could describe how the registry will operate.

Hon. S. Hagen: The establishment of databases will be complete at the end of fiscal year '03-04 in working with the agencies and ministries I mentioned.

J. MacPhail: And what will the registry look like? Is it public? How do we access it?

Hon. S. Hagen: Yes, it's part of our integrated registry work that we are doing in the ministry. The information will be public, and it'll be posted on our website.

J. MacPhail: Now, I must confess, Mr. Chair: I'm a bit taken aback by a budget the size of $400,000. Let's be clear. That's $400,000 that will be committed over 24 months. The minister has said nothing was spent in '02-03, even though the auditor general's report came down at the beginning of December and there were four months left in that fiscal year where activity could have taken place.

We have $400,000 over 24 months. The minister has said $200,000 will go to establishing the governmentwide policies. That only leaves $200,000 for real work. What's that being spent on?

Hon. S. Hagen: I just want to correct the member. It's $400,000 over 12 months. The previous 12 months are gone.

Hon. S. Hagen: We're working on a business plan to confirm the contaminated sites registry, a site inventory; establish the database; develop governmentwide policies relating to management of contaminated sites and reporting guidelines; and then work on managing the individual sites.

J. MacPhail: My point about the 24 months was this. At the end of the '03-04 budget, over the course of the two years previous to March 31, '04, this government will have spent a total of $400,000. Nothing was spent in '02-03, by the minister's admission, and he's spending $400,000 this year. Over a period of 24 months the government will have spent a maximum of $400,000.

How much money…? I didn't hear anything being listed for dedication to the remediation of contaminated sites.

Hon. S. Hagen: The $400,000 does not include money for remediation. Remediation would be the response of the agency or the ministry in which the responsibility lies. If we were to need more money in SRM, we would have to go back to Treasury Board.

J. MacPhail: Yes, but this minister is in charge of this project, by his own admission. How much money across government is being spent on remediation of contaminated sites, then?

Hon. S. Hagen: As I said previously, we do not have the responsibility for remediation. That responsibility lies with the Ministry of Forests or the other agencies, B.C. Hydro and the other agencies that I read out — Land and Water B.C., B.C. Ferries, etc.

J. MacPhail: The minister said this — not only to me just now but to the public when the auditor general's report on contaminated sites was released: he was in charge of governmentwide policies that will guide management plans for contaminated sites on Crown lands. Does this mean that you're not discussing how to remediate contaminated sites — that the minister has no information about this? How can you be in charge if you don't know?

Hon. S. Hagen: My ministry provides the information and the data necessary to identify these sites, and the remediation is carried out by the agency or the ministry responsible.

Hon. S. Hagen: My ministry will be auditing the sites, and also, we have to report back annually to Treasury Board.

J. MacPhail: What's the nature of the reporting you would do? Sorry, Mr. Chair. What's the nature of what the minister would do? Is there a requirement to list the number of contaminated sites that have been remediated? What's the budget?

The response to the auditor general was that this minister was taking charge — taking charge governmentwide. So far we have $400,000 being spent on this over the course of 24 months. That's piddly. I can't get any information about how much is being invested in remediation. When will the minister know? When does the monitoring start about remediation?

Hon. S. Hagen: Our job is to have a central place for gathering the data and the information that is needed. WLAP's job is the regulations. We are to report back annually to Treasury Board, including the liability number we see in each site.

J. MacPhail: Okay, but this minister is the one who's responsible for Crown land. No matter which way you look at it, this minister gets paid the big bucks because he's in charge of Crown land. If he's not remediating Crown land, who is?

Hon. S. Hagen: In the case of the mining companies, they are responsible, under their permit, to clean up their sites. B.C. Hydro is responsible for its site cleanup. B.C. Rail and any of the other agencies are responsible to clean up the individual sites they're involved with.

J. MacPhail: There are contaminated sites on Crown land that don't involve any of those agencies or Crown corps, so what's happening?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm not sure if the member opposite has a specific example of that. I mean, the mining companies operate on Crown land. They have to remediate their site. These things take place on Crown land, so I'm not exactly sure where you're going.

J. MacPhail: Here we have a situation where an auditor general's report has been released. In order to get off the hook, this government said: "Oh yes, we agree with the auditor general's report. We're going to take action." I'm trying to figure out what action the government is taking. So far, nothing. Does he go to the mining companies and say: "Please remediate land"? What if they've abandoned the land?

Hon. S. Hagen: The mining companies have a statutory responsibility under the Mining Act and have also posted a bond, which can be called if they don't do what they're supposed to do.

Hon. S. Hagen: That's exactly what we're doing. As I read out to the member opposite, we're confirming the contaminated sites registry, which is ongoing, and we will be releasing the site inventory at the end of the third quarter of '03-04.

J. MacPhail: Okay. Here's what the auditor general recommended: "Government identify a lead agency to coordinate a governmentwide policy for management" — that's this minister — "creation of a comprehensive information regime, a registry that prioritizes sites on risk. The establishment of an accountability framework that includes financial liability, expenditure and accomplishment…." Is that what the minister's working on now?

Hon. S. Hagen: Yes. What the member did was read out what I actually read to her. I can read it out over again, but I won't. Anyway, yes, she's right.

J. MacPhail: It's my job to ask the questions, and it's the minister's job to show what action has been taken on this. I guess maybe by December or January, the minister might have a registry. What happens after that, then? How do we actually get the companies to clean up the land on Crown land, for which the minister is taking no responsibility? What's the next step?

Hon. S. Hagen: Our first priority is to go to the polluter. As I said to you, WLAP sets the regulations. If the polluter has left or is gone or has no ability to do it, then there's an assessment made of the liability, and my ministry goes to Treasury Board to ask for the funds to do the cleanup.

J. MacPhail: How does the ministry decide whether or not Crown land should be remediated?

Hon. S. Hagen: The Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection sets the standards and the regulations, and we go under their direction.

J. MacPhail: Well, I'm not going to allow for a merry-go-round on this. The Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection referred me to this minister, so what are those standards? Do those standards have to be met before the land is released for tenure?

Hon. S. Hagen: The standards are set out in the Waste Management Act, which comes under the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection.

J. MacPhail: You know, it's unbelievable. I'm the only one asking questions, and these ministers as a group dodge and weave. They refer to their colleagues; they won't answer the questions. The Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection referred all of these questions to this minister, and he stands up and refers it back to her. It's pathetic. It's nothing short of pathetic. Does this minister not know the determinants that are used?

J. MacPhail: Then perhaps the staff could tell the minister, who could tell me, who could then…. It could be on the public record.

Hon. S. Hagen: The standards are public. They're on the website of the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. Also, a report that has been done recently is on the website about which areas might need to be modified.

J. MacPhail: Does redevelopment have anything to do in ranking properties for remediation?

Hon. S. Hagen: Yes. In answer to the question, redevelopment may be an issue as far as the sites are concerned.

J. MacPhail: I wonder how much. The reason why I'm asking this is because I want to know whether the government is going to commit valuable resources to remediation of certain Crown lands in order to promote development and attract business, when other Crown lands may have a higher priority for remediation.

Hon. S. Hagen: We presently have a special vote in our ministry for two specific sites: Britannia, $75 million, and Pacific Place, $50 million. This is a special vote under our budget. It's not part of the ministry budget.

J. MacPhail: So did the minister answer my general question with those two specifics, thereby implying that those are the only two sites for redevelopment that are given priority for remediation? Is that why he answered in that way?

J. MacPhail: What list was the minister reading from? Is there a list of sites that are ready for remediation?

Hon. S. Hagen: There was a partial list in the auditor general's report which covered those two sites and a few others.

J. MacPhail: Given a budget of 400,000 bucks, where would the minister rank remediation of contaminated sites in his priorities? Is there an outcome goal listed in his service plan, for instance?

Hon. S. Hagen: It is in our service plan, and certainly if there were an issue of public health involved, the rating would be very, very high.

J. MacPhail: Maybe the minister could tell me then what the criteria are for determining high priority. I'm trying to get him to put it on the public record. I'm having difficulty.

Hon. S. Hagen: The rating would be very high in instances of public health potential damage and also any potential damage to water, land or air.

J. MacPhail: The moneys that were committed to the Expo lands and to the Britannia mine lands were committed by previous governments, the previous Social Credit government and the previous NDP government. This government hasn't committed any money of its own to remediation.

What does this ministry do if lands are contaminated and there is no owner still in operation or no identified owner-polluter for Crown land?

Hon. S. Hagen: Actually, I already answered that, and the answer is that we go to Treasury Board to ask for the funds.

J. MacPhail: Yes, except the minister can't tell me how he's identifying that. That's what I'm asking. Is there an inventory of such sites where there is no identified owner to target? And where are they?

Hon. S. Hagen: As I mentioned beforehand, the contaminated sites management program consists of doing the business plan and, in specific answer to the member opposite, confirming the contaminated sites registry and doing the site inventory. That's what we're working on right now.

J. MacPhail: Well, Land and Water B.C has plans to aggressively market land tenures and sales of Crown land. Is the minister doing that where the information about the site being contaminated or not is not yet available?

Hon. S. Hagen: No. I don't think that Land and Water B.C. would be marketing land that had environmentally damaging products on it.

J. MacPhail: Well, let's explore what Land and Water B.C. is going to do. They're going to, by their own admission, aggressively market land tenures and sales of Crown lands. They said: "It's an untapped market."

What check does the minister have that ensures there are no contaminated sites? What check does the minister have to ensure that there's public consultation in the sale of Crown land?

Hon. S. Hagen: Any Land and Water B.C. site that has any potential liability from an environmental standpoint goes through an environmental assessment process.

J. MacPhail: Okay — and the question about the check on public consultation?

Hon. S. Hagen: If there is environmental liability on a piece of property that originally was put up for

sale — if there's found to be that liability — it will be taken off the market and not sold.

J. MacPhail: Sorry. I'm moving on a little bit, broadening the discussion. I appreciate the minister's answer, but I'm broadening the discussion generally about tenures and land sales now and what checks and balances are in place around that. One question was on making sure the site was not contaminated. The next question was on ensuring public consultation during a sale process.

Hon. S. Hagen: The service plan for Land and Water B.C. lays out the things that Land and Water B.C. look at in the sale of a property. One of the most important things is the sustainability principles which we have. They have to be met in the sale of a piece of property.

Hon. S. Hagen: Land and Water B.C. works very closely with local governments when they're looking at a piece of property. It does market surveys and other information to find the value of the property. It looks at the assessed value of the property. But generally speaking, it works with local governments.

J. MacPhail: What are the guidelines that Land and Water B.C. follow when allocating land?

Hon. S. Hagen: The guidelines that are presently in place at Land and Water B.C. are out of date. They came in about four or five years ago. The board has looked at a revised set of guidelines, and when they've reached a determination on those guidelines, they'll be presented to me. I've not yet seen them.

Hon. S. Hagen: Yes, they're using the ones I referred to as outdated. This is all part of the file we inherited with the long list of outstanding applications for Crown land and water. The staff determined at that time that the guidelines would have to be updated. Those are the updated guidelines that are now being looked at by the board, and when their work finished, they'll be passed up to me.

J. MacPhail: So for two years, I guess, this minister has been operating an operation for which he says the guidelines are outdated. That's interesting.

What does Land and Water B.C. do to assess potential environmental impacts of tenure holders' activities as they apply?

The Chair: Would the Leader of the Opposition like to repeat her question, please.

J. MacPhail: I'm wondering what Land and Water B.C. uses in the area of guidelines to assess the potential environmental impact of the tenure holders' activities who are applying for either lease or Crown land ownership.

Hon. S. Hagen: The guidelines are reviewed. They look for conflicts and try to resolve the conflicts. There's a referral process that then refers it to other ministries or agencies. There will be conditions that are put on the tenuring process. If there are violations of those, the land officer who finds the violation has the ability to penalize or pull the tenure.

J. MacPhail: Does Land and Water B.C. investigate the potential socioeconomic impact of the potential tenure holder's activities?

Hon. S. Hagen: The staff makes sure that it's a viable management plan and makes sure the tenure applicants can meet the conditions that are imposed in the tender offer and that due diligence is done.

J. MacPhail: Does the management plan require submission on socioeconomic costs?

Hon. S. Hagen: Yes. That's an issue where there might be conflicting uses or conflicting tenures, and the socioeconomic study takes a big play in that.

J. MacPhail: Is there a ranking of factors like environmental or socioeconomic? Does the government rank importance?

Hon. S. Hagen: There is no ranking. If there are significant environmental liabilities or possibility of that, then that would be a big part of the consideration. But we try to accommodate and we try to find ways to settle the conflicts that may be there at the beginning. When the parties sit down together, they can usually resolve those conflicts.

J. MacPhail: Sorry. Could the minister repeat the deadline for when he expects the new guidelines to be in place? When is that expected? Will they be subject to public review?

Hon. S. Hagen: The interim draft guidelines have been presented to the board, as I mentioned. The final guidelines I will expect to see in about a month, and they will be posted on our website.

Hon. S. Hagen: There was no public consultation done. What was looked at was what the province of

Ontario does, what the province of Alberta does and what the Canada land corporation does.

J. MacPhail: How many applications for lease were made in '02-03 and how many applications for sale in '02-03, and how do those figures compare to those two categories for '01-02?

Hon. S. Hagen: The increase in tenure and licence activities in '02-03. There were 1,529 new land tenures issued. There were 691 new water licences issued, over 2,000 replacement tenures issued and 492 water licence amendments issued.

The reduction of backlog and elimination of delays. There was eliminated land application backlog — over 1,480 applications. Exceeded the 90 percent target for reduction in historical water licence backlog — over 1,980 licences, to its lowest level in over 40 years.

Referral agreements in place with provincial agencies. Land and water application processing. We redesigned an integrated application process to achieve 50 percent reduction in processing time and a more streamlined process for clients; 90 percent of new land applications were processed within 140 days. We exceeded the 90 percent target for processing land replacement tenures — over 1,690 tenures — developed and implemented a 140-day turnaround processing time for all new water applications, effective April 1, 2003.

I can go into revenue and expenditures if you would like those numbers — $93 million generated in land sales and tenure management activity, which is an increase of $20 million over the previous year. Forecasting net profit of $746,000 for the year ending March 31, '03. We'll complete the year below the current expenditure limit of $22.5 million.

Achieved a reduction of $2.73 million in expenditures from last fiscal year. Substantial improvement in revenue collection — 92 percent of land rents collected within 90 days. Reduced cost–gained efficiencies resulted in improved revenue and expenditure ratio from 3 to 1 to 4 to 1.

The comparison numbers that you asked for on land backlog applications. There were 40 in '01-02 and 30 in '02-03.

J. MacPhail: I'm sorry. Did the minister say the jump was from 700-odd to 2,300-odd in oil and gas tenders?

J. MacPhail: Okay. Well, when you take that out, what's the…? I mean, I'm interested…. Believe you me, let's give credit where credit is due. This sounds like a good record. But when you take the oil and gas tenders out, what's the…? Does that have an effect on the change in terms of successful statistics?

I mean, I do understand that the backlog is disappearing, because what I'm trying to find out is…. The minister said that he's using the same guidelines that are outdated, but that's what he's been working with. If you remove the oil and gas tenders, what's changed?

Hon. S. Hagen: One of the reasons for the turnaround is that we're now processing applications in 140 days. I want to clarify that not every land application is approved; 40 percent of the applications for Crown land tenure are not approved.

J. MacPhail: What was the turnaround time in '01-02 or 2000-01? What was the turnaround time then?

Hon. S. Hagen: I am told that it used to be two years for a land application and 15 months for water. There was no target set until the year 2002.

J. MacPhail: Well, it's all right for the minister to be glib. I'm not trying to say the minister is trying to attack the record of Land and Water B.C., but there were major changes to BCAL in 1999, which is the precursor to Land and Water B.C. I'm trying to figure out what it is that the minister and Land and Water B.C. are doing differently, using the same guidelines that were used previously. Are there fewer steps? Are there fewer things that the tenure holder or the applicant has to do? What is it?

Hon. S. Hagen: Well, we realized that we needed to make some changes with BCAL, which became Land and Water B.C. The first thing was a change in management, more client focus. The people who now work in Land and Water B.C. are really focused on giving the client service. We set targets for revenue and also for application turnaround.

J. MacPhail: So being more client-focused has led to this. You take the same rules and guidelines that you had before, but you're more client-focused. That's what's led to the reduction? I mean, this is a business, so there's got to be an explanation of where the reduction in time has occurred. Were there nine steps under

the previous guidelines, and you're now using these same guidelines in four steps, or what is it?

Hon. S. Hagen: The whole application process was taken apart. I have to say that I am very complimentary with regard to the staff at Land and Water B.C., because they have done an exceptional job not only in reducing the backlog but also in the approach they take to dealing with current applications. As I say, 90 percent of those applications are dealt with in 140 days.

J. MacPhail: Well, I don't want to start off a second part of a session accusing the minister of not giving me answers. I'm actually trying to figure out what it is that has changed that has led to this success, and the minister is unable to tell me — unable to tell me. That was why I asked my questions earlier about socioeconomic costs or environmental costs having to be identified. Is there greater priority or less priority given to those? Anyway, I'm frustrated already, I must say.

Hon. S. Hagen: Consultation with first nations is based on the assessment of interest that first nations may have on a particular piece of property. The consultation guidelines for Land and Water B.C. are presently being reviewed. We are in discussions with first nations on that as well, but it depends on the assessment of interest of the particular first nation.

Hon. S. Hagen: The obligation, as you know, is on us, Land and Water B.C., to consult if there is an assessment of interest. The response from the first nations may be a combination of things. It might be in writing. It might be a no-response. It might be discussions around a table to reach an accommodation. It might be looking for potential partnerships with first nations. It can involve any number of consultations and accommodation.

J. MacPhail: Is it up to the first nations to go through the websites and figure out what applications are made? How does that work?

Hon. S. Hagen: As I said, we are very proactive on this. The obligation is on us to do the consulting.

J. MacPhail: Are the decisions published, or are they communicated to first nations? Are they communicated to local residents? How are the decisions made? How do we find out, including first nations, about decisions?

Hon. S. Hagen: If Land and Water B.C. is in consultation with first nations, then we are obliged to let the first nations know of our reasons and our decision. The reasons are also posted on the website of Land and Water B.C.

Hon. S. Hagen: Certainly, the issue of accommodation, as the member knows, is new. We are working on a framework together with the treaty negotiations office on accommodation. Again, it will vary. It can vary from band to band, from property to property. There is a range of activities. Land and Water B.C. works very closely with the staff at the TNO and also the Sustainable Resource Management ministry on consultation and accommodation.

J. MacPhail: Is that duty listed in the consultation document that the government issued a few months ago in terms of consultation with first nations? Where would I find that?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm told you were provided with a copy of that document, the consultation guidelines. If you'd like another one, we'll provide you with that. Those consultation guidelines were updated because of the recent court cases like Haida, Haida 2 and the Taku River Tlingit.

J. MacPhail: I have the consultation document. That's what I just said. Are the guidelines for Land and Water B.C. the same guidelines that are included in the duty to accommodate across government?

Hon. S. Hagen: The guidelines that were sent out last fall are operational guidelines for all ministries. In the meantime, all ministries and agencies like Land and Water B.C. are developing their guidelines using that, I guess, as an example to make sure the guidelines we have in Land and Water B.C. will work for Land and Water B.C. and the first nations.

J. MacPhail: How many applications are being challenged by first nations now?

J. MacPhail: I'm going to move to agricultural land reserve. This minister is responsible for the Agricultural Land Commission. I understand the Agricultural Land Commission committed to increasing its profile in rural British Columbia. I wonder how the minister is doing that when the number of FTEs in the Agricultural Land Commission is declining from 43 in '01-02 to 20 FTEs by '04-05.

Hon. S. Hagen: We have a delegation agreement with the Oil and Gas Commission, which has taken

some of the work away. The regional panels that were set up — I think there are six — have been doing a good job. That saves decisions coming back into the head office.

J. MacPhail: Well, sorry. Are panels not counted as part of the 20 FTEs or something?

Hon. S. Hagen: No, the panels are commissioners actually. They're not FTEs. They're commissioners that are appointed by OIC.

J. MacPhail: The panel work in the regions is in addition to the work of the Agricultural Land Commission staff. Are you saying because those panels are in the regions, that's a higher profile? If the answer to that is yes, perhaps the minister could explain how that works.

Hon. S. Hagen: Definitely, the Agricultural Land Commission has a higher profile in the regions. The commissioners meet with every applicant. They actually look at every piece of property. The number of applications has not changed. It's about the same — about 500. The largest reduction in FTEs came…. There were apparently five FTEs working with the forest land reserve, which we've done away with.

J. MacPhail: The Agricultural Land Commission didn't do this work before. Is that right?

Hon. S. Hagen: I am told we have the same number of staff in the Agricultural Land Commission working on applications and carrying out those applications as before. There was a reduction in some mapping staff. That work has been taken over by Sustainable Resource Management, which, if you recall, has consolidated all of the mapping and data collection the government does.

J. MacPhail: If it's the same number of staff doing the work they did before — and I actually have information doing it in exactly the same way — how is the minister actually getting a higher profile — the Agricultural Land Commission? What's the advance? That's what I'm looking for.

Hon. S. Hagen: Great question, actually. The advance is that we actually have local panels now in the regions making those decisions locally.

J. MacPhail: Yeah, well, I'm sorry. That's the way it was done in a lot of cases before as well. I'm trying to get the minister to explain to me why this isn't window dressing. Unfortunately, he's not that great a salesperson. Of the 20 FTEs that will remain, how many are scientists?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm told that we have the same number of professionals as we've had for the last ten years.

J. MacPhail: Part of the Agricultural Land Commission professional staff is one?

Hon. S. Hagen: Yes, there's one professional agrologist, which is the number that I gave the member opposite. There are also four planners, who are professionals but don't carry a designation, and five regional research officers, who are also professionals but don't carry a professional designation.

J. MacPhail: Who are these people that have been cut, then? The minister said five, because the minister has done away with the forest land reserve. So of the other 23 that are to be cut or have been cut, who were they?

Hon. S. Hagen: There were three professional foresters that were reduced when we did away with the Forest Land Commission, two administrative officers, three administrative support and one mapping person.

J. MacPhail: That's so far. Am I wrong in saying that staff is being reduced from 43 to 20?

Hon. S. Hagen: In '01-02 there were 33 staff. That's being reduced in the service plan to 20 by '04-05.

What is the work that's been contracted out to the Oil and Gas Commission? What percentage of that work constituted the Agricultural Land Commission's work?

Hon. S. Hagen: It's just fewer than 50 applications that will be done by the Oil and Gas Commission, which would have before come to the Agricultural Land Commission.

J. MacPhail: I heard the minister say earlier there were about 500 applications, so it's 10 percent of the work that has been contracted. And is it contracted or just relegated?

Hon. S. Hagen: It's a delegation agreement with the Oil and Gas Commission which lays out the specifics on how they may have to make the decision. The decisions, of course, have to be reached under the act, which is there. But I think if my colleague the Minister of Energy and Mines does the job that he says he's going to do, the number of applications could increase.

J. MacPhail: Well, I'm curious. With the expansion of methane gas production and the change in land that

results from methane gas production, will challenges to that in terms of land use now be decided by the Oil and Gas Commission?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm told that the commissioners for the northeast are actually up there today meeting with landowners and talking about coalbed methane, but we don't know what the results of those discussions are.

J. MacPhail: I understand this work has been delegated to the Oil and Gas Commission. Is that not correct? My question was: is that the kind of delegated work that the Oil and Gas Commission is now responsible for — determining land use between agriculture and coalbed methane production? Is that what the Oil and Gas Commission is now responsible for determining?

Hon. S. Hagen: Yes. The short answer to your question is that the Oil and Gas Commission will be making those decisions, but I'd like to qualify that by saying that one of the terms of the delegation agreement is that no more than four wells per quarter section can be authorized by the commission. If there are any more applications than that, it has to come to the Agricultural Land Commission.

J. MacPhail: Yes. There are those who would even dispute that, though, and the minister probably knows that from the public meetings that have been taking place in areas like Hudson's Hope, etc.

What has changed in the law that prevents a conflict of interest in such a situation? What's the delegation authority that prevents a conflict?

Hon. S. Hagen: There's a section in the act that lays out which powers we can delegate in the agreements. Annually, there's an audit done by an independent auditor on the status of the company that has the lease.

J. MacPhail: Perhaps the minister could read into the record what the law says about that.

Hon. S. Hagen: I'll be happy to do that as soon as someone brings me a copy of the act.

J. MacPhail: In terms of the delegated authority, is that delegation with compensation, or is it just a responsibility of the Oil and Gas Commission? Does the Agricultural Land Commission pay the Oil and Gas Commission to do this, or is it free?

J. MacPhail: What kind of delegated authority hands over something free to the Oil and Gas Commission? I mean, what's the quid pro quo? If there's no compensation or exchange in a contract, what is the prevention of a conflict? You're asking the Oil and Gas Commission to do something for which you have no strings attached whatsoever.

Hon. S. Hagen: The delegation agreement would lay out all of those terms, and the delegation agreement would have to be in accordance with the regulations and with the act.

J. MacPhail: Yes, and I'm actually trying to get the minister to tell me — because the last time we debated this, there was nothing in writing that the minister could provide — when the act was changed, etc. Is that public? Is that a public document? Is there somewhere I can reach it now, or do I have to FOI it?

J. MacPhail: I am going through the service plan right now of the Agricultural Land Commission, and as I understand it, there were 43 FTEs in '01-02. Is that not correct, or am I totally wrong? There were 33 in '02-03 because the government cut ten from '01-02 to '02-03.

Hon. S. Hagen: In the service plan that I have, the total staff FTEs for '02-03 is 29.

The Chair: Member, you'll address through the Chair when the minister is finished.

Hon. S. Hagen: I am told by the CEO that they've never had 43, that the most they've ever had is 33.

This contract and delegation authority is available at the local level, is it, to the Oil and Gas Commission?

Hon. S. Hagen: The delegation agreement will be available to everyone. It will be published on our website.

J. MacPhail: But these discussions are happening now in the community. What information does the community have now around the…? What's the commission doing today? What document are they working with today when they're up there?

Hon. S. Hagen: The commissioners are up there today meeting with four owners, apparently, to discuss issues and potential issues around coalbed methane. There will then be a series of meetings held, which will be public meetings and stakeholder meetings, over the next several months.

J. MacPhail: This contracting-out document — although it's contracting out without any resources being

provided, so I don't know why the Oil and Gas Commission would feel that it has to abide by what the Agricultural Land Commission has to say — will be ready before any action is taken on coalbed methane production? If the answer to that is yes, what is the time line for that?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'd like to point out that this is a voluntary agreement. There's no obligation on the part of the Oil and Gas Commission to do this. It's a voluntary agreement. We hope to have the final agreement in place in two to three months. We don't have a time line on the coalbed methane discussions.

J. MacPhail: Well, if it's a voluntary agreement, and they refuse to do it or think that it's a conflict — which would be wise on their part — then who does it?

Hon. S. Hagen: The purpose of doing the voluntary agreement with the Oil and Gas Commission is to streamline the process and to give a quicker response.

J. MacPhail: Well, we'll see. I am interested to see how many Liberal MLAs tout coalbed methane as going to be the saviour of the economy any day now. It's very controversial amongst farmers and ranchers up in the Peace particularly. There's been many a discussion, and I'm sure that's why the Agricultural Land Commission is up there right now. I would expect that the great, speedy time line expected by this government isn't anywhere close to being met for coalbed methane production, and rightfully so.

What's the time line for determining whether the Oil and Gas Commission can actually determine land use?

Hon. S. Hagen: As I mentioned, we're going to start the stakeholder consultation and the public consultation. We expect, after taking the comments that we receive into consideration, that we should have the document in place and signed in the next two to three months.

J. MacPhail: No, I didn't mean whether you're successful. What's a cut-off point for saying it just isn't feasible for the Oil and Gas Commission to do it and that we're going to get the Agricultural Land Commission to do it? Or is the minister just assuming that there's going to be a delegation, regardless of conflict?

Hon. S. Hagen: The Oil and Gas Commission, as I said previously, will have to abide by the regulations and the act, and the way they do their business in consultation with Water, Land and Air Protection and any other affected ministries doesn't change.

J. MacPhail: The Agricultural Land Commission used to be the body that determined land use for protected land within the agricultural land reserve. The minister has just said about 10 percent of applications for land use inside the agricultural land reserve has been delegated — the determination for that land use has been delegated — to the Oil and Gas Commission. In the North Peace or in the Peace, there is a brewing potential conflict between coalbed methane production and agricultural use on land inside the agricultural land reserve. That determination of land use is now going to be referred, as I understand it, to the Oil and Gas Commission.

I'm trying to find out, if there is no resolution to the potential conflict of the Oil and Gas Commission in determining land use — whether it be agricultural or oil and gas production, which seems like a pretty obvious conflict to me — when the minister says: "Enough. We're going to now revert to the Agricultural Land Commission making those decisions."

Hon. S. Hagen: Since 1974 the Agricultural Land Commission has worked with the Oil and Gas Commission. There have been thousands of wells approved on agricultural land during that time. The purpose of the consultation, which will take place over the next two or three months, is to come up with the terms of reference and how these conflicts, if they materialize, will be dealt with.

J. MacPhail: Yes, but in the past it was the Agricultural Land Commission that made the determination around land use. Yes, they worked great. I think the Agricultural Land Commission is a fabulous body. I wish it were as strong as it was before. I wish it would grow ever stronger. But it was the Agricultural Land Commission that made the decision about land use. This government is delegating that decision to the Oil and Gas Commission.

I think my point is made. The minister either doesn't understand what his government has done in absolutely engraining a conflict around land use in the Peace, or he does understand and is trying to obfuscate.

Before a piece of land in the agricultural land reserve is released, the Agricultural Land Commission assesses the potential impact of that decision on land use for agriculture. Who does that work now? Have any of the people who did that assessment been laid off?

Hon. S. Hagen: No. I'm told we still have the same number of people, the same expertise.

J. MacPhail: So all of that is still done. Is that done in the area of the Peace? Or is it the Oil and Gas Commission that will be assessing that?

Hon. S. Hagen: I wonder if the member could clarify that. Are you talking about the Peace only, or are you talking about the province with regard to the numbers of people dealing with applications?

J. MacPhail: I'm talking about the work that has been delegated to the Oil and Gas Commission.

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm told that in all the years the Oil and Gas Commission and the Agricultural Land Commission have been working together, there has been one application refused. That's why the Agricultural Land Commission feels very comfortable in doing a delegation commitment with the Oil and Gas Commission. They will be held accountable, and the Oil and Gas Commission has a number of in-house professionals who are very capable of dealing with these decisions, but they will have to be dealt with under the act and under the regulations that are presently in place.

J. MacPhail: I appreciate the historical review, except that in the past the final determination of land use has always been with the Agricultural Land Commission. That may actually influence the outcome of a decision. Now that the Oil and Gas Commission has that responsibility and that right to determine land use, things may change. That's what I'm trying to say here.

What are the checks and balances on the Oil and Gas Commission about land use decisions? Referring to past history is absolutely useless, because it's this government that has set the Agricultural Land Commission aside and has put the Oil and Gas Commission completely in charge. That's the difference.

I'm sure there have been no disputes or only one dispute in the past, because the Oil and Gas Commission has understood that the final decision rests with the Agricultural Land Commission. That check, that balance, is gone now under this government.

What's the government's plan? Does the government still commit to compensation if lands are removed from the agricultural land reserve or committed to non-farm uses?

Hon. S. Hagen: I don't know whether the member has an example, but my information is that the owners have never been compensated.

J. MacPhail: I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I thought I read in the service plan that government was going to compensate if lands are removed from the reserve. I'll get the cite for it. It's in the service plan, as I recall reading it. I'll wait to ask those questions, although I did want to allow the commissioner, the CEO, to go on these questions. But I'll get that information for him.

Can the minister update me on what change has occurred in delegating decision-making authority to local governments? What's been the result of that?

Hon. S. Hagen: There's one delegation agreement in place. That's with Fraser–Fort George. And a letter has gone out from the Agricultural Land Commission to all municipalities, local governments in B.C., asking them if they're interested in doing a delegation agreement with the Agricultural Land Commission.

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm told the delegation part of it has been on the books for a number of years before the act was changed.

J. MacPhail: No, I thought it was…. Sorry. Okay. But it was this government that said they were going to make this a big centrepiece of changes to the Agricultural Land Commission — delegation to local authorities. We had lots of discussion on it. There were editorials written on it, about this government bringing in this change. There was an editorial in my own paper, which is a downtown Vancouver paper.

Or am I wrong? I feel like I'm in the twilight zone having this discussion around the Agricultural Land Commission, but I do recall this.

Hon. S. Hagen: I hate to tell the member opposite, but she is wrong. The delegation to municipalities or municipal governments has been in the act for a number of years. The change we brought in was to do a delegation agreement with an authority, like the Oil and Gas Commission.

J. MacPhail: I'm sorry, but what has that got to do with the Agricultural Land Commission? The delegated authority now is to the Oil and Gas Commission. Is that right? So this government didn't make any big announcement about giving more authority over land use to regions or local communities? Government didn't announce that? I made that up?

Hon. S. Hagen: When the announcement was made with regard to the regions, it was talking about the six regional panels that were being created. The ability to delegate to municipalities has been in the act for a number of years. The change we brought in was the ability to delegate to an agency like the Oil and Gas Commission.

J. MacPhail: I'm sorry. When did this delegated agreement occur — the one that's been done?

J. MacPhail: In terms of the regional panels set up, what's the local input from governments on land use determination through the regional panels?

Hon. S. Hagen: All applications are referred to local governments, who are asked for a recommendation. Those recommendations are weighed very carefully by

the commissioners. There are more meetings with local governments and closer cooperation with local governments.

Hon. S. Hagen: One of the considerations is that some local governments are more dedicated to the preservation of agricultural land than others, but it certainly is taken into consideration in the overall decision-making process.

J. MacPhail: Do local governments have more input now than they did before? That's what the government…. I realize I have to make my questions very specific. Even though there's just an opposition of one, this minister makes me ask every single question. What has changed for local governments now in relation to the agricultural land reserve? So far the minister says: "Nothing."

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm pleased to actually give some figures to the member opposite. As I mentioned before, the regional panels have made a difference in that they can look at every piece of property in question and they can meet with every applicant.

To help the member opposite understand the relationship of a recommendation that comes from a local government and how that impacts the final decision by the Agricultural Land Commission, the percentage of concurrence on the Island is 78.6 percent. On the south coast it's 67 percent. In the Okanagan it's 60.3 percent. In the Kootenays it's 75.3 percent. In the north it's 71 percent. In the interior it's 72 percent, for an average of 70.7 percent.

J. MacPhail: Yes, and how does it work? I gather what the minister is trying to tell me by those stats is that there's a lot of interest by local governments in land use decisions. Seventy percent of land use decisions involve local council input now. I gather that's what the stat is. What difference is it making?

Hon. S. Hagen: No, I need to clarify that. This is the concurrence, the agreement, between local government recommendations and the panel decision. Those were the numbers that I read out for you. In other words, if there was 100 percent agreement, that would mean there was no disagreement. These numbers indicate an average of 70 percent concurrence with local government recommendations and the final decision.

Hon. S. Hagen: We don't have the numbers, because this is something they just started tracking. The issue here is that the panels have brought the decision-making more local, particularly to the regions of the province.

J. MacPhail: I'm actually trying to figure out what's changed here. Is it just that the commission didn't keep track of the stats or that they didn't ask local government what they thought of the recommendation?

Hon. S. Hagen: Yes, you're absolutely right that the consultation with local government was always there. They just started tracking the results of that consultation.

J. MacPhail: Perhaps the minister could just update us, then, on how the system has changed in a way that is more responsive to those of us who care about preservation of agricultural land and yet at the same time takes into consideration community input.

Hon. S. Hagen: I'd just like to emphasize that the mandate of the Agricultural Land Commission has not changed. The act is still in place; the regulations are still in place. The difference is that the services to the public are now delivered through regional panels — six regional panels with three people on each panel — to give those people making the decision the chance to have the time to go look at each individual piece of property and also to talk to the individual applicants. That's what has made it more regionally responsive.

Hon. S. Hagen: In the last fiscal year ending in '03, there have been 1,902 hectares excluded from the agricultural land reserve — so 1,902 hectares out of a total of 4.9 million hectares.

J. MacPhail: And how does that compare to the previous three, four, five years?

Hon. S. Hagen: We'd be pleased to provide those numbers to you. I'm told that there's one anomaly in this — of 1,100 hectares in the Okanagan-Similkameen, which was an agreement made between a municipality and the Agricultural Land Commission as far as the agreement on removing it. If you take that out of the 1,900, it's about the same as previous years.

J. MacPhail: Has there been any change in what constitutes agricultural use of land inside the agricultural land reserve?

Hon. S. Hagen: Yes, there have been some changes with regard to uses through the regulations. One is the addition of bed-and-breakfasts, home occupation and campsites. But they're all a matter of public debate when the act was taken through the House last spring.

J. MacPhail: Just back to the Lannan forest, then. Is it because you've eliminated the forest land reserve

Hon. S. Hagen: If that deal goes through, then the city of Courtenay zoning bylaws take effect. Whatever the city of Courtenay zoning bylaws would allow on that piece of property, that's what would be allowed on it.

J. MacPhail: This government has eliminated the forest land reserve. Is that not right? The minister is nodding yes. Has permission for various types of land use for purchase of forest land reserve parcels changed as a result of the elimination of the forest land reserve?

Hon. S. Hagen: Yes. They are subject to local government zoning regulations.

J. MacPhail: Okay, let me ask this question. If the forest land reserve were still in place, would Lannan forest ever be allowed to be used as a golf course? I don't know the answer to it. These aren't trick questions. I don't know the answer to it.

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm not in a position to answer that because if it wasn't coming into the city of Courtenay, if it was under the forest land reserve — which is purely hypothetical — then the commissioners would make a decision as to whether or not to remove it from the forest land reserve or whether to allow whatever the prospective owner was asking to be placed on there. That's not a decision I make. It's a decision the commission would make.

J. MacPhail: Yeah, and that was my question. If the commission's responsibility for forest land hadn't been eliminated, would that kind of land use be permitted? That was my question.

It was an agricultural and forest land reserve before this government came into power. The forest land reserve land was protected; its usage was protected. This Liberal government eliminated the forest land reserve. Am I wrong? Is land use around the forest land reserve parcels no longer subject to review for use by the Agricultural Land Commission? That's my question.

J. MacPhail: Yes, a golf course would be permitted under the previous system?

Hon. S. Hagen: The question you asked was: would the land use have been permitted under the forest land reserve? The answer is — and I gave the answer before — that it would have been up to the commission to decide that.

J. MacPhail: That's why I asked previously whether golf courses were a permitted land use under the agricultural land reserve. The answer was no. Then I asked the question: under the forest land reserve, was permitted usage a golf course? Why is it that the answer is now: "It's up to the commission"? Isn't it a simple yes or no answer, the same way it was before?

Hon. S. Hagen: If the forest land reserve was still in place, which is a hypothetical situation, the commission would have made the decision. With the elimination of the forest land reserve, the decision is now made by local governments according to their zoning bylaws.

J. MacPhail: Yes. I'd like to put on the record that golf courses would not have been permitted as proper use of land within the forest land reserve, so a commission would have to make a decision saying: "No, it's not a proper use." This government, by removing the forest land reserve, has absolutely promulgated the opportunities for using land that was previously protected for golf courses now. That's my point, and the minister knows full well that's the point. Because of his government's actions, eliminating the forest land reserve, the protection against turning that kind of land into golf courses is therefore gone.

I'm going to switch now to the environmental assessment office. Hopefully, we'll get this done before supper break, and then we'll carry on after supper break.

The service plan for the environmental assessment office commits to making decisions based on "the best available information, knowledge and technologies," but it is also bound by a regulation brought in by this government, regulation 372/2002, to make a decision within 180 days. When faced with that time period constraint of 180 days and, I would say, diminished resources — because the government has cut the environmental assessment office's budget by 31 percent over the next two years — how will this minister meet or expect the environmental assessment office to determine comprehensively the potential risks to the environment, given those constraints? I'll start with that question.

Hon. S. Hagen: The 180 days in the act applies to the formal application period. What the environmental assessment office has done is extended the amount of pre-application work that is done. During this time they consult with the applicant and make sure that the right studies are going to be done. Extensive work is done with first nations and with municipalities, local government and other stakeholders. I'm told that this part of the application can take up to six or 18 months. The 180 days applies once the formal application is made to the EA office.

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm told that under the old act, there were one to two years of pre-application time and six months to two years of formal review of that appli-

cation. The new process under the new act has now made this possible within two years or less, including the 180-day formal application period.

Hon. S. Hagen: The new act provides the tools that are needed for the pre-application time. Also, during the pre-application time there's a much closer working relationship between the staff of the EA office to make sure that the proponent is consulting as much as they need to consult. There's a much more hands-on approach now, with the staff assisting the proponents to make sure they know exactly what's required, the studies that are required and the consultation that needs to be done.

J. MacPhail: How is that possible with staff cuts? Maybe I'm wrong on staff cuts again here. Have there been staff cuts at the environmental assessment office?

Hon. S. Hagen: The reductions of staff are…. We started with 43, and that may be where you saw the figure of 43; I'm not sure. That, over three years, is being reduced to 27. The new act has led to streamlining and focusing more on effectively delivering the services to the clients, to working with the clients, as I said before, and to making sure that the consultation that needs to be done is done. I think there's less time wasted in the exchange between the client and the EA office and also in making sure that the consultation that needs to be done is done.

J. MacPhail: Okay. My gosh, I hope that's not a slag against the staff who were there before — that they were operating inefficiently. What the minister is now saying is that with a one-third reduction — an almost 35 percent reduction — in staff, they're doing a much better job. Are there fewer applications? Are there fewer steps? Or was it lousy staff?

Hon. S. Hagen: Actually, the answer to the member opposite is none of the above. The new act has given flexibility to the staff to actually deal with more projects, and I'm very, very proud of the staff at the EA office. I think they do a great job, and they do their job well.

J. MacPhail: Does flexibility mean fewer steps that the applicant has to go through, or are they different kinds of steps? If everybody was doing their job before, and now there's 35 percent fewer people doing those jobs, what has changed? What doesn't get done, what gets done more quickly, and why does it get done more quickly?

Hon. S. Hagen: One of the main things that happened was the elimination of the project committee system that was set up, which had become very, very cumbersome, and was taking up a lot of staff time and taking up a lot of time that was costs to the proponents. What has happened now is that there's way more interaction between the EA staff and the actual proponents. It enables the staff that was tied up in the cumbersome committee system aspect of this to focus their time and resources on dealing with the other ministries that they need to get approvals from.

Hon. S. Hagen: The committee was made up of federal, provincial and local government representatives and first nations.

J. MacPhail: Is it just gone, that sort of coordination, whether it was effective or ineffective? What replaces that? Let me ask this question. The minister has said that there will be greater cooperation with the federal government and that there will be elimination of the overlap and duplication. How does that occur? By virtue of dismissing the committee, the overlap and duplication is gone, but along with it coordination is gone?

Hon. S. Hagen: The consultation still goes on with those bodies, but it's done more on a one-to-one basis and not tied up in a cumbersome committee system.

J. MacPhail: Okay. How does that work, as opposed to a committee having to meet? I don't favour committees at all. There have to be individual liaisons, assessments now. How does that make it more efficient?

Hon. S. Hagen: The committee process that was set up had so many legal issues attached to it that a very unproductive time was spent on procedures. Now the consultation is done on a more informal basis and is far more productive and time-saving.

J. MacPhail: Okay. Let me ask how many applications the environmental assessment office dealt with in '01-02 versus '02-03.

Hon. S. Hagen: In '01-02 three applications were completed, and in '02-03 five applications were completed.

J. MacPhail: How many applications were made? I understand there's been a change in who actually has to apply for environmental assessment. Is that not correct? The government changed the standards by which proponents had to apply. They raised the threshold. Is that not correct?

Hon. S. Hagen: The thresholds are identical. The same thresholds apply. The only difference is that there's now provision in the act where proponents can opt in on a volunteer basis. In other words, they are

doing a project that doesn't have to come in under the EA process, but they choose to do that. One of the reasons they choose to do that is that in many cases it's a selling feature to them when they go to the world markets for financing to say: "We have gone through the environmental assessment process in the province of British Columbia."

J. MacPhail: Okay, then. The minister gave me the stats for completed applications, for which I thank him. How many applications were made in '01-02 versus '02-03?

Hon. S. Hagen: We don't have that information, but we'll try to get it for you.

Hon. S. Hagen: There are currently 33 projects in the process at one stage of the process or another.

Hon. S. Hagen: The cuts were equal across the organization. There are fewer directors, fewer coordinators, fewer admin assistants and fewer Web staff.

J. MacPhail: I just want to ask, because I'm trying to get a sense of how the world has changed…. This government changed the Environmental Assessment Act last year, and this is the time where we debate the effect of those changes. This is what was put on the record about how the act that this minister brought in last year would change things. Now's the time to assess whether that was correct or not when the opposition put it on the record. We alleged that the changes this minister brought in would allow for considerable political interference in the design and conduct of the environmental assessment. The old act contains a number of detailed information requirements that need to be met in an environmental assessment certificate application. It also established project committees with federal, provincial and local government representatives, and the minister has said that they've been abandoned. These broadly representative committees played an essential role in the satisfactory completion of the environmental assessment by identifying and seeking further information throughout the course of the review. The minister has responded by saying: "Oh, that's gone. We just do that informally now."

The new act abolishes the project committee structure and provides no detail on the information requirements that are to be met in the application or how the review process is to be conducted. It merely states that the executive director or the minister is to determine the scope, procedures and methods of the environmental assessment. Under these provisions the executive director or the minister will also determine the information requirements for the environmental assessment and whether consultation will occur with the public, first nations or neighbouring jurisdictions. These provisions mean there will be very little certainty for either proponents or the public in how the environmental assessment is conducted.

That was last year. Those were the fears expressed. Were they fearmongering? What's the answer to those questions? The minister has already said: "Oh, those troublesome federal, provincial and local government committees are gone. They just raised silly little legal issues that are no longer dealt with. We don't deal with those legal issues anymore."

So how do the proponents know what the scope, procedures and methods of the environmental assessment are now? They were set out in legislation before; now they're no longer. How does that occur?

Hon. S. Hagen: The standards, as set by the individual ministries that are consulted with, have not changed. There has been no lowering of environmental standards with regard to the environmental assessment process.

J. MacPhail: But under the legislation brought in by this minister's government, it was the executive director or the minister that would determine the information requirements for the environmental assessment. How is that made public now? How is that determined?

Hon. S. Hagen: Of the 33 applications or projects that are in the mill right now, not one of those has come to the minister. They've all been dealt with by staff, all been dealt with by the environmental assessment office. The process, especially the pre-app process, is far more public than it was. There's far more opportunity for public involvement through public meetings. So I would like to repeat that there's been no lowering of environmental standards in the environmental assessment process.

J. MacPhail: Yes, but I'm asking whether what was previously determined in legislation is now determined by, I guess, the executive director of the environmental assessment office, if that's what the minister is saying. Are all 33 projects subject to the same standards and the same public consultation process? And what's the proof, if the minister could say, of how there's more public consultation than there was before? What's the evidence of that?

Hon. S. Hagen: Under the new act the environmental assessment office has the authority to order proponents to consult and on how they consult and with whom they consult so that when the application comes in, there's a much higher confidence in the application by the staff in the environmental assessment office. They know the work has been done ahead of time. They know what work had been done. They

know how it's been done. That's why the application can be processed within that 180-day period.

J. MacPhail: Noting the hour, I move that the committee recess until 6:35 p.m.

J. MacPhail: I just want to carry on with what's changed in terms of reviewable projects. I did some research in the supper hour. The reviewable projects regulation has changed. I understand, as a result of that, the regulation now exempts various types of mineral refining and smaller dams from reviewing, and there are actually some pretty significant changes in the reviewable projects regulation. The significant changes really reflect…. If the government wants to…. I mean, they made the changes, and I think the changes reflect their ideology, and that is to allow development projects to go through with greater ease.

I understand the change to what is reviewed is consistent with the government's agenda to exempt the mining industry from crucial requirements that serve simply to ensure responsibility but not act as barriers. I understand that the reviewable projects regulation sets the stage for allowing independent power producers to be established without review. There are all sorts…. We have the member from Chilliwack standing up regularly, touting how wonderful it is that IPP projects are going ahead under this government right now as we speak. So these are changes that have occurred. I mean, there are lots of things that aren't the same as they were before.

Hon. S. Hagen: The regulation changes the member opposite refers to were actually made to the old act apparently around May 8 of '02, and those regulations stayed in place when the new act came in at the end of '02. So the changes were put in place with regard to the old act. Presently a review is going on to review the threshold of IPPs, but no decision has been reached.

J. MacPhail: Well, whatever. Whether it was your government before you changed the act or after the act came in, the minister made the changes. So it doesn't take away from the fact that what I'm saying is correct — that the reviewable projects regulation has greatly changed what is reviewed in a reviewable project and what constitutes a reviewable project.

The only reason I make this point is because the minister stood up and said that nothing has changed, and it has changed. Also, there's now the ability for the minister to waive the requirement for environmental assessment at all, without public consultation. I assume from what the minister said before that he hasn't been involved in any project yet that…. He has yet to waive the requirement for an environmental assessment, or has he?

Hon. S. Hagen: That's correct. I have not waived the requirement for any environmental assessment on a project, but I want to reiterate that there has been no reduction in environmental standards.

J. MacPhail: Well, there has been. Various mineral refining and smaller dam projects are not subject to review because of this government. That's a change. And the fact that independent power producers will have different standards is a change. Is the minister kind of trying to hide from the changes that he's made? Is he embarrassed by them now?

Hon. S. Hagen: What the member opposite hasn't understood yet is that although we changed the process, the regulations under all of the other ministries and all of the acts that all of these projects come under haven't changed. That's why I can stand and say unequivocally that there's been no reduction in environmental standards.

J. MacPhail: Oh, yeah. The fact that several projects are no longer subject to review at all is not a change, because the minister is saying that for those that are still subject to review, the regulations remain the same. Well, the public isn't so stupid that they can't see through that. The public is pretty smart about seeing through the minister's false claim, and he is being false. He is falsely claiming everything is the same, and it is not the same at all.

It is interesting that when the minister is confronted with his own changes, he wants to scurry away from them. I can't imagine why it is that he wants to scurry away from it, but clearly, he doesn't want to acknowledge that he is pro-development at the expense of the environment.

I want to spend time on reviewing fish farm relocation again, based on the information the minister gave me earlier today. The last time we were here, we talked a lot about the ministry's relocation process at Humphrey Rock. I'm going to recap, and then we're going to discuss it after the recap in the context of the information the minister gave me earlier.

Humphrey Rock is located on the east side of Gilford Island near Thompson Sound in the Broughton Archipelago. Again, for ease, the minister and I have maps that we've looked at before to show where this is. That site was granted to Stolt Sea Farm to replace their farm at Eden Island.

Many people are concerned that the new site is not appropriate because it's located along a wild salmon migration route. Earlier this month the minister admitted that the migration routes are not considered for siting requirements. He said that in estimates before we rose from the Legislature, although he did say that the requirements for siting are under review. But as of today, in the information he gave us, wild salmon migration routes are still not a consideration for siting.

However, the minister was able to clarify that the Humphrey Rock site was indeed on the migration route, and as part of his Broughton Archipelago action plan, some migration routes have been left with fish farms, while one route has been partially fallowed. That's his action plan. This is to help scientists determine the effectiveness of the plan, said the minister. Some pinks are getting safe passage, and others are being ignored. I'm not saying that they're being harmed; I'm just saying they're being ignored. That's the minister's own plan.

Then there was confusion about the status of the farm. I'm talking about the Stolt Sea Farm at Humphrey Rock. An April 9 article in the North Island Gazette quoted Stolt Sea Farm representatives, who said that the farm had been stocked despite concerns about sea lice and migration routes. But the minister stood up and said no, that was wrong. The farm had not been stocked. He said there were no fish in the water.

Since our last discussions that concluded on April 10, many people have contacted our office, hoping I would ask for some more clarification around this issue. First off, has the minister been in contact with Stolt Sea Farm about their comments in the North Island Gazette? On April 9 it was reported in quotes that…. I'm sorry. No, I can't verify that for sure, but it was reported that fish had been put into the pen. The minister denied that. Can the minister clarify exactly what actually did happen?

Hon. S. Hagen: Two weeks ago, the last time that we spoke about this matter, there were no fish in those net pens.

Hon. S. Hagen: There was an inspector on site up there, and also our staff in Land and Water British Columbia would have advised us.

J. MacPhail: Okay. I assume that someone is going to get it and bring it in as we speak, because it's pretty key.

On April 10 we also had a lengthy discussion about the Broughton Archipelago's action plan safe migration route. I raised a substantial number of concerns around the inconsistency of the fallowing pattern. I'll just recap that.

This minister, when he was Minister of Fisheries, implemented the plan but then wouldn't answer my questions because he claimed he was no longer in charge, and he wasn't any longer in charge.

I'm going to ask some more questions, because of course the current Minister of Fisheries won't answer any questions. I have more questions from the community, and I'm going to frame them in terms of siting, because this minister is responsible for siting for the locations of fish farms, so the minister will be able to answer that. Specifically, I asked previously why Humphrey Rock was being set up when it's clearly on a pink migration route. The minister responded: "What we've done is fallowed one of the routes that the pink salmon come out. There are other routes that the pink salmon also use, which the smolts use to come out. What we are doing is comparison testing between the fallowed routes and the unfallowed routes."

After reading through the debates that occurred in this Legislature, I can't tell you how many people were concerned about some of the things this minister said. For example, we were contacted directly by Alexandra Morton. The minister may remember that I quoted at length from a letter she submitted to cabinet. Alexandra Morton is a renowned scientist who has studied the issue of wild salmon stock in the Broughton Archipelago and the effects of fish farming on the wild salmon stock.

Here's what she said in a letter written in response to what this minister said in estimates debate earlier this month.

I think Ms. Morton raises some pretty interesting points. If migrating pinks from Knight Inlet go north into the Tribune Channel, they will connect with the supposed safe migration route. Furthermore, they will pass by two more fish farms in the Knight Inlet and the Humphrey Rock site. How does this impact the validity of the study the minister is trying to achieve?

Hon. S. Hagen: I appreciate the description of the migratory patterns of the pink salmon so eloquently

laid out by the member opposite. As to whether or not they'll come out Knight Inlet or go up the channel and come out the northern route, I don't suppose too many people know that. Whatever route they take, the testing that's being done by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is being done throughout the Broughton Archipelago so that we indeed will have the science information we need to make the decisions that will have to be made.

Wherever the fish go, that's where the fish are going to go. They will be tested throughout. I might say the test results to date have been extremely positive.

J. MacPhail: The minister stands up and said nobody would know that. I'm giving the minister information I have received. He's free to stand up and challenge it. Ms. Morton is saying she knows that as a migration pattern for the fish, and the commercial fishery people know that as well. The fishermen say exactly the same thing. What we now have is a migration route that goes past fish farms. Perhaps the minister could then say how he can make the claim that things are going extremely well. How does he know that?

Hon. S. Hagen: If the member opposite would check the results on the Department of Fisheries and Oceans website, she would concur with me.

J. MacPhail: Perhaps the minister could show some respect for the House and say what those results are.

Hon. S. Hagen: Just to put the member opposite on notice, this is the last question I will take with regard to fish health, because my responsibility is for siting. However, having said that, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans people were in touch with my ministry people on Friday to say there has been a constant decline in the fish lice that have been found on pink salmon and pink salmon smolts in the Broughton Archipelago.

J. MacPhail: Just for the minister's information, I'm getting quite used to every minister ducking questions over on this side — every minister. This minister, the Minister of Fisheries, the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection — they all duck. It's shameful how scared, how terrified they are to actually come clean on this issue — absolutely shameful. Nevertheless, I'm sure I'll get flooded with a dozen other questions tonight from a dozen other people saying: "Why doesn't the minister answer the questions?"

I'm sure there's bound to be confusion. I'm putting all of these in the context of siting requirements, because the minister himself has said the migration routes will be taken into consideration for siting requirements. He said that during the estimates last round or earlier this month. That's the basis on which I'm asking these questions.

I'm sure the minister knows there's bound to be confusion about migration routes. It's understandable. No one yet has a firm grasp on all of the migratory patterns. But the minister, in making his decisions along with his colleague the Minister of Fisheries, has said that local knowledge, DFO information and industry knowledge are taken into consideration. What have the local first nations said about the Humphrey Rock in relation to migration routes?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm just looking for a document here that shows when the licences were granted and what year they were granted. Four of the licences in the Broughton Archipelago were granted between the year 1991 and the year 2000. What we're talking about here are decisions that were taken by a previous government. We have to now try and mitigate this. We have to try to accommodate it. We are working very hard. We've been meeting with the first nations in the Broughton Archipelago. We're working very hard to consult with them. We're working very hard to accommodate them.

We're not running away from the problem. That's why we're doing all the scientific testing. This testing is actually the responsibility of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, but we've plowed $5 million into testing on salmon this year. We're not afraid of the results. I'm only pleased that the results are good. I'm pleased that the evidence of sea lice has been declining steadily since the testing was started this spring. To me, that means good news for the smolts and good news for a return in two years for a pink salmon run.

J. MacPhail: As always, the minister tries to say: "Oh, it was that big, bad previous government." Nobody believes him on that. Nobody believes that this government has done anything but damage the credibility of the fish farming industry completely. Everyone knows it's this government that did that.

It's interesting that somehow this minister would blame the previous government, which put a moratorium on fish farming and did a massive review — the only study upon which he relies. Somehow it was the big, bad previous government. No, no, no. It's the big, bad current government of which everybody is afraid for the future of the wild salmon stock.

I asked the question: what did the local first nations say about the Humphrey Rock migration route?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'd just like to read into the record, and for the benefit of the member opposite, the background on consultation. The Humphrey Rock is replacing the Eden Island farm. Eden Island was identified for relocation due to being within one kilometre of a first nation reserve and being subject to severe weather patterns.

Referrals for the Humphrey Rock site were sent to numerous bands and the tribal council. Responses were received from all. An open house to discuss siting impacts was offered; this was declined. A public open house was held in Alert Bay. Many of the hereditary chiefs did attend. DFO staff were in attendance. All information related to Land Act tenure siting was con-

sidered during adjudication. All information gathered through the open house process was shared with provincial and federal agencies.

There was, indeed, a lot of consultation. Having said that, one of the things that happened here is that the re-siting of this took place in between the changing of the consultation guidelines. What we're doing now is working with the first nations in the Broughton Archipelago under the new guidelines to see if we can find a way to accommodate what their interests and what their concerns are.

J. MacPhail: The information that the minister read into the record is exactly the same that he read into the record during estimates on April 10. It turns out that the very people he was referring to were watching it on TV.

Last week members of the Musgamagw Tsawataineuk tribal council, MTTC, sent us a copy of a letter about this issue. The letter is addressed to Duncan Williams, December 18, 2001. Mr. Williams is the aquaculture operations manager with Land and Water B.C.

I'll quote from the letter: "The MTTC is opposed to the relocation of Stolt fish farm from Eden Island to Humphrey Rock." The MTTC gave several reasons; however, I would specifically like to highlight reason No. 4. It says: "This area is a migratory route for finfish. It also has fish-bearing streams and is a holding area for pink salmon that migrate to Glendale Cove."

That was December 18, '01. If the ministry was aware that Humphrey Rock was on a migration route, why was approval granted without further study into the potential impacts? What did it rely on that would counter what the MTTC said?

Hon. S. Hagen: Well, that's exactly what we're doing now. We are actually doing the testing now to see what effect there is by having a salmon farm located on a migratory route, because this has never been done before. It wasn't done by the previous government or the government previous to that. We can't make decisions without scientific information. That's why we're doing this. We're going to make the right decision with the right information. At the end of this run-out of the smolts later on this summer, we will have the scientific information. We'll be able to look at the actual tests, and we'll know what the science is. So instead of making our decisions on the basis of emotion or on the basis of rumours or false information, we will actually have the scientific information we will need to make the proper decision.

J. MacPhail: I can't believe what the minister just said. Has he heard of the precautionary principle?

Let's be clear. This isn't some hypothetical situation. This is the granting of a fish farm licence to Stolt Sea Farm and put right in the water in the way of a migration route that the minister was advised of a year and a half ago by the very people who should know — the very people that he said he consulted. They said: "It is a migratory route, and don't do it." So he comes back and says: "Well, our science will be that we're going to ignore all that evidence, and we're actually going to put it right there and see whether anything bad happens."

Is that the direct opposite or the antithesis of the precautionary principle, or what? It's kind of like saying: "Let's put a school right next to Chernobyl and see what happens." That's exactly what he just said he was going to do. It's unbelievable.

So far we have independent scientist Alexandra Morton, the commercial fishermen, the first nations group and the minister all acknowledging that Humphrey Rock is a migration route. Nobody's denying it. What the minister has just added, though, is that we know it's a migration route, and we want to test it out to see how harmful a fish farm will be to that. Wow. Precautionary principle. No wonder this government doesn't want to get any scientists actively involved, when they dismiss a precautionary principle.

Only one group has different information — here. I know the minister doesn't like me to quote from that North Island Gazette. It got him in a lot of trouble a little while ago — that article I mentioned earlier in the North Island Gazette. Here is Dale Blackburn, vice-president of B.C. operations for Stolt Sea Farm. He said: "Humphrey Rock is outside the primary migratory route for pinks. Our research tells us this, local knowledge tells us this, and federal and provincial regulations also tell us this."

So is Mr. Blackburn wrong? And if he is wrong, why did the minister grant him a licence to place a fish farm there?

Hon. S. Hagen: There are many variables in dealing with this very complex issue, but as I've said many, many times, we're not afraid of the science. We've actually put money in to get the science — the right science that we'll need. Fish migratory patterns are sometimes a mystery, actually, but the mystery will end when we get the scientific data we need. We're not going to rely on one scientist who happens to be a specialist on whales, not on sea lice. We're going to rely on a group of scientists in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and scientists from Norway, from Scotland, from Ireland, from the United States and from Canada.

We'll come up with the very best scientific information that we can come up with and, as a result, hopefully, have a very viable salmon farming industry on the coast, which is providing 3,500 jobs to coastal community people. We will be doing this in a scientifically responsible way. We'll be working with industry and the environmentalists and the first nations to solve this issue. We will continue to consult and accommodate.

J. MacPhail: These are complex matters, but everyone, including the minister himself, has said it's a migratory route. He just admitted it. He said the reason why he placed the fish farm there was to see what would happen, putting a fish farm on a migratory

route. He just said it. Now all of a sudden it's a complex matter that Alexandra Morton doesn't know anything about because she studies whales? How insulting. How about the first nations who just wrote the minister a letter on December 18? How about the commercial fishermen who said it's a migratory route?

There's one person who said it isn't a migratory route: Dale Blackburn, v-p of Stolt Sea Farm, who got the licence. He's denying it's a migratory route. Is he misinformed?

Hon. S. Hagen: I can tell the member opposite that we don't take our direction from Dale Blackburn or any other person in the industry. If you look at a map, you can see that this is a possible migration pattern of the pinks. The whole Broughton Archipelago is filled with those migration patterns.

We are determined to get the proper science, to get the right science, so that we base our decisions on science, not on emotion. Really, what the member opposite is doing is lowering the level of the debate to rhetoric that gets us nowhere. Her government brought in 33 new fish farms in the time they were in power. We haven't brought in one new fish farm in the time we've been in power. So, you know, we can carry on with this debate as long as you want. We are not going to change from what we're doing. We are doing the testing. We are going to base our decisions on the science, and we want to get the best possible science we can.

J. MacPhail: I'm not sure what rhetoric the minister is referring to. He may be dismissive of the evidence I'm bringing forward, but it ain't rhetoric. Feel free to dismiss it, the way he has in the past — what he just did to Alexandra Morton. He didn't even reply to what the MTTC said. So talk about rhetoric. Well, has the ministry or LWBC corrected Mr. Blackburn? When they were up there examining it, did they correct him in saying: "Yes, you are on a migratory route"?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm dying to ask the question: what difference would that make? We're not in the habit of correcting every statement that's made in the newspapers — correctly or incorrectly — correcting people in the private sector. I mean, we're government — okay? We're in charge of what happens here. We're going to have the best principles and regulations. We do have the best principles and regulations in place to regulate the salmon farming industry.

We, unlike — and I can't believe that you're against salmon farming, with the number of people who probably support you who work in the industry…. We're in favour of a viable salmon farming and shellfish farming industry on the west coast of Canada. We believe the two industries can coexist together — the wild salmon fishery and farm salmon.

For the life of me, I can't figure out where the member opposite is going. Does she want to do away with the 3,500 jobs on the coast of British Columbia? Does she not care about the people who live in Klemtu, a first nations village that is virtually dependent on fish farming to provide sustenance and jobs for their people? Does she not care about the people in Bella Coola or in Port Hardy or Port McNeill or Campbell River or Nanaimo? I don't understand where she's coming from.

J. MacPhail: I can understand the minister wanting to shift the debate to silly accusations and false accusations like that. I can understand why he wants to avoid the debate. Of course, he likes to divide and conquer. Stop, please. Just stop. It's ridiculous. Answer the questions.

Here's why it would be important to correct Mr. Dale Blackburn, the v-p of the very company that this government gave a licence to. I'm not sure what the minister says, but they haven't taken any action in fish farming…. This Stolt Sea Farm got this licence at Humphrey Rock because of this minister — no one else. Here's what Mr. Blackburn needs correction on. Here's Mr. Blackburn again; let me read it again: "Humphrey Rock is outside the primary migratory route for pinks. Our research tells us this, local knowledge tells us this, and federal and provincial regulations also tell us this."

So wouldn't the provincial government — LWBC — want to say to Mr. Blackburn: "Stop using us wrongly by quoting us as saying we've told you this is not a migratory route"? Wouldn't that be the reason to call him up and correct him?

Hon. S. Hagen: The member is getting confused. I said that it was a migratory route.

J. MacPhail: I'm quoting from Mr. Blackburn, who said it wasn't a migratory route, and I asked the minister why he didn't call Mr. Blackburn and correct him. Is this a hard debate to follow? God, I asked you. And the minister said: "Why would I call Mr. Blackburn up and correct him?" I'm asking you: why didn't you call Mr. Blackburn up and correct him, because he's saying that the provincial regulations say it isn't a migratory route?

Hon. S. Hagen: We will all be in a better position to offer a view on all of these things when we have collected the science that we are presently collecting. That's how we want to base our decisions, not because somebody is yelling about something or somebody is putting false information out. We want to have the proper science in front of us so we can make the proper decisions and support the people who work hard in the province of British Columbia.

J. MacPhail: Yeah, I'm sure lots of people will have confidence in that, Mr. Chair.

Well, let me try it this way. The minister claims that he made his decision based on local input, first nations input, best science. He's not going to be emotional in these things. Mr. Blackburn was citing research. Does the ministry or Land and Water B.C. have Mr. Blackburn's research?

J. MacPhail: Okay. So I've provided local evidence, first nations evidence and scientific evidence about how the fish farm shouldn't be…. All people said: "Don't locate the Stolt Sea Farm there." The only people who said, "Locate it there," was Stolt Sea Farm, and they misrepresented the provincial government's position, but the provincial government didn't correct that. He claims to have research. What local research, then, did Land and Water B.C. use to relocate the farm here? Maybe he could table that.

Hon. S. Hagen: Land and Water British Columbia rely on information and the science that comes from the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries to make those decisions.

J. MacPhail: Oh boy, that was enlightening. I bet you all those people who are watching this and who were very concerned — deeply concerned — about the minister's answers two weeks ago will feel so much more confidence in his answers now. As we read this in Hansard, let it be noted I was dripping with sarcasm.

Okay, let's turn to another issue that the minister claimed great credit for: the issue of first nations consultation. On April 10 the minister provided the opposition with the breakdown of the record of consultation. It was what he just read into the record a few moments ago. It says: "Referrals for the Humphrey Rock site were sent to the Mamaleleqala-Qwe'Qwa'Sot'Enox band, the Kwicksutaineuk-ah-kwaw-ah-mish tribes and the MTTC on April 10, 2001. Responses were received from all." The document continues: "An open house to discuss siting impacts was offered by the MTTC. This was declined. An open house was held in Alert Bay on June 20, 2001. Many of the MTTC hereditary chiefs did attend." The minister read that two weeks ago into the record, and he read it just a few moments ago into the record.

The last time we were discussing these matters, the minister said that the MTTC and the Kwicksutaineuk were opposed to the site and that the Mamaleleqala were for the farm. The minister also stated that the new 2002 consultation guidelines were not used for this matter. The minister earlier said that the new consultation guidelines are now going to be applied. Well, does the minister feel that his record of consultation was adequate with first nations around this matter, regardless of any change? Does he feel it was adequate?

Hon. S. Hagen: We are still consulting with the first nations. I met with the first nations from the Broughton Archipelago just one week ago — one week ago tonight, actually. We're having very positive meetings. We're making good headway, and we're trying to come to an accommodation with them. The consultation procedure that we use will be ongoing, and we will continue to treat the first nations with respect and come to an accommodation with them to resolve this issue.

J. MacPhail: Yes, but there's one problem with that. Even as the minister tries to do what is legally required and what is just, he's approved the fish farm licence for Stolt Sea Farm. It's been up and running only within the last few weeks, even after opposition from first nations. What's the change in the consultation, in the meeting he had last week with first nations? What's the difference in the consultation? What's new that he uses as an example that perhaps was different from the consultation that was done around the Stolt Sea Farm location?

Hon. S. Hagen: One of the issues with the first nations there is that they're angry, really angry, with regard to the lack of consultation that took place in the nineties, when this member was in government. So we're having, again, to try and correct this and come to grips with it. I'm meeting with first nations all the time. My staff is meeting with the first nations from the Broughton Archipelago. We are making headway. We want to reach an accommodation, and we will continue to consult.

J. MacPhail: The minister has no credibility on saying what first nations are upset about on this matter — none whatsoever. I know he doesn't like these questions, so he always goes to: "Oh, wasn't the previous government awful?" Well, the first nations of that area are the ones who are asking me to ask these questions, so perhaps the minister could actually deign to treat them with respect and answer the questions, rather than getting into political rhetoric while he tries to shirk his responsibility.

What are the significant developments in the fish farm industry that have changed over the last two years?

Hon. S. Hagen: The most significant changes are certainly the new regulations that were brought in, which are the most comprehensive regulations with regard to waste management and environmental assessment in the world. The second thing that has had an impact on this is the recent court decisions which we are incorporating in this government into our decision-making, into our consultation process and into working with first nations to work our way through these issues.

J. MacPhail: No, no. I'm asking what's changed in fish farming. Is the consultation that he's carrying out now exactly the same as it has been for the last two years?

Hon. S. Hagen: The consultation that took place prior to the April '01 decision — the provincial decision to grant the move, remembering that it was the federal government that just approved this…. Certainly, the consultations that were in place then were the old consultations. Now the new consultation guidelines are in place, and it's under those new guidelines that we are

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, the minister makes it sound like it's just a legal requirement — that the only thing that has changed is a legal obligation to consult. Are there new issues arising in the consultation? For instance, the minister had a letter dated December 18, 2001, from the MTTC — the very people he claims to be wanting to consult now — who said: "Don't locate the fish farm there." So what's changed? He ignored them then. What's changed?

Hon. S. Hagen: I wonder if the member opposite could clarify her question. I don't understand it.

J. MacPhail: Okay. I asked the minister two weeks ago about first nations consultation. I read into the record just now a direct quote from him, saying who he consulted with. He read it into the record not only two weeks ago but just a few minutes ago about who had been consulted, who declined to attend, and he said that's the checkoff for first nations consultation. But I had presented evidence to him of a letter dated December 18, 2001, from the MTTC saying, "Don't put a fish farm there," and yet he ignored that. He proceeded.

What's the new consultation around fish farming based on? Are there factors being considered now that are different in the area of fish farming, which are being considered in the consultation now that weren't considered before?

Let me ask this question: if the MTTC resubmitted a like letter to the minister now, this month — exactly the same as they did on December 18, 2001 — would it be treated any differently now?

Hon. S. Hagen: As the member opposite knows, consultation and the consultation process is something that evolves as you learn more about the concerns of first nations. With regard to this whole question of what's changed, we won't know how much has changed until we get the test results. I mean, one of the reasons we're spending all this money and working with DFO and the first nations and environmentalists to do this testing is to get the answers we need to make the decisions. When we get those answers, we'll sit down with the first nations.

The first nations are aware of the results now. They're aware of the progression of results. They're aware that the threat is decreasing every two weeks. We'll sit down with the first nations and see if we can get an accommodation on that issue and all of the other issues — the issues of the clam beds and the other issues that are of concern. We're going to try our best to fully consult and accommodate.

J. MacPhail: Okay. And the science that the minister is getting is around sea lice. Is that correct?

J. MacPhail: Before I proceed, I just want to go back to the minister saying that the science upon which the decision to relocate Humphrey Rock by his government was done by the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. He has that science, and I'd like it, please. I'd like the information, the scientific information, upon which he based his decision to site the farm at Humphrey Rock. Will the minister give that to me?

Okay. The minister has just said there are developments they're examining in the fish farming industry upon which they're collecting science. It was escapement and sea lice — exactly.

J. MacPhail: Waste discharge. I'm sorry. In fact, the minister didn't include escape — did he? The minister is saying yes. Escapes, sea lice and a waste discharge are developments upon which the minister is doing scientific studies now. That's what's changed. When did the minister become aware that these were clear issues of concern?

Hon. S. Hagen: Just reminding the member that those are issues of WLAP and the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, but they certainly became an issue when we were developing the new regulations.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, please ask the minister to not avoid answering the question. He is responsible for siting. He has said to me over and over again that as they collect this information, it will influence siting. That's what we're having the discussion about. That's what the discussion around Humphrey Rock is about. He's responsible for siting of fish farms, so wherever he gets the information from, he uses it to determine siting. Therefore, these questions are relevant.

Was the Broughton Archipelago action plan sea lice conference the first scientific conference this government has had on the issue?

Hon. S. Hagen: To my knowledge, the sea lice conference held in February was the first sort of large proactive initiative of this government, although there has been a lot of work, which the government is paying for, being carried out at UBC with the centre for aquaculture excellence — I think it's called — and some at Malaspina. There may be some at SFU as well.

J. MacPhail: Here's what the public knows, and here's what we know, and feel free to add to this. I did a time line. The government took action to deal with sea lice in February of this year. That was the first conference. Then that conference on sea lice resulted in the Broughton Archipelago action plan.

The research that the minister…. Sorry. Does the minister want to reply to that? Is there something wrong that I said?

Hon. S. Hagen: Yes, the Broughton Archipelago plan was not a result of the sea lice conference that was held. I announced the Broughton Archipelago plan before that conference took place. There were some other meetings that took place in Port Hardy or Port McNeill as well, but I wasn't the minister then.

J. MacPhail: Okay, fair enough. All of this occurred in the month of February, so the order may be wrong. What I do know is that the government took its action to deal with sea lice in February of this year, 2003. That was the first acknowledgment that there was a problem with sea lice by this government — the Broughton Archipelago action plan. In fact, the minister had been beaten up pretty badly, wrongly or rightly, by people for his refusal or the perception that he was refusing to acknowledge a problem. So in February we had the Broughton Archipelago action plan — first acknowledgment.

But we also know that sea lice reports were coming into the ministry, to the government, in the summer of 2001, after the open house that occurred in Alert Bay on June 20. That's what the minister's referring to — Alert Bay. Meetings had taken place. This tenure, the Humphrey Rock tenure, was approved in 2002. So the government received new information about potential impacts of fish farms after the consultation process that the minister says sufficed. He's said it twice now. The consultation process around first nations the minister has said was adequate for the day, at the time — that it was done thoroughly and that it's irrelevant that the consultation guidelines have changed.

But at the time that he approved the licence, he already had information about sea lice as a problem, and he'd had it well before he made the decision to approve the relocation. So the government ignored requests from the MTTC, from the people of Gilford Island. He ignored their concerns. He ignored their objections even though his ministry had new information at that time about a sea lice problem. He just said nothing.

So let me just read into the record what the first nations said to this minister about fish farm relocation of Stolt Sea Farm. Mr. Chair, these first nations tribal councils sent these letters to me because they were so upset at how the minister portrayed the first nations consultation, how he portrayed it in estimates earlier this month. The first letter is from the Musgamagw Tsawataineuk tribal council. I apologize, as I try to do every single time, to the tribal council for my terrible pronunciation — MTTC for short. December 18, 2001, when the ministry and the minister already had information about the sea lice problem.

It's signed by Connie McIvor of the MTTC. She's writing that letter based on the assumption that the ministry already has the information about sea lice being a problem with fish farms. She assumes that because she knows that the ministry knows, the ministry will take that information into account.

The second letter is from Chief Percy Williams, who is the chief of the Kwicksutaineuk-ah-kwaw-ah-mish tribes. It's to Dan Saliken, the land officer of BCAL, which is now Land and Water British Columbia. It's dated December 19, 2001.

Again assuming that their complaints would be understood on the general knowledge of the problem of sea lice affecting a migratory route of wild salmon, because that information was known then.

Those letters are from December 2001. They acknowledge the concerns about migration routes and the impacts. They were done in the context of the information already gleaned by the ministry on the problem of sea lice. How is it that that consultation was adequate?

Hon. S. Hagen: As I've said before, consultation with first nations is something that we're learning about. It's something that we're learning a lot about, actually. My commitment to the first nations and my

commitment to the first nations in the Broughton Archipelago is that we will continue to work with them to fully consult and try to find a way to accommodate their interests. We will do that using the science we are presently gathering and continue to hold full and frank discussions with the first nations in a very respectful way.

J. MacPhail: Let's just see how that plays out. The duty to accommodate is not new. It isn't new at all. It certainly has been in place since this government took over.

Let's look at a closer issue around the land question, which the minister is responsible for looking at in the duty to accommodate. The minister has said, on the record, that the Mamaleleqala band has expressed support for the Humphrey Rock site. However, the Gilford Island band says that there is a conflict with the Village Island band, specifically Robert Sewid, about whose territory Humphrey Rock is actually in.

Those letters were written in December 2001. In that month, December 2001, the people of Gilford village asked the government to hold its decision to relocate Eden Island farm to Humphrey Rock until the land question was resolved.

The duty to accommodate those concerns was in place at that time — the legal requirements. What steps did the ministry take to meet those concerns, and where is it at now?

Hon. S. Hagen: Certainly in the Broughton Archipelago, as in many other places in B.C., overlapping claims present a challenge. That's why we have given the commitment to all of the first nations in the Broughton Archipelago that we will consult with them and try to reach an accommodation, which might mean a broad range of possibilities.

We're not going to give up on that. We've made our commitment to consult and to continue to consult and try to find accommodation.

J. MacPhail: Given all the information I've put on the record, is the minister still insisting that the duty to accommodate has been met, particularly for the Kwicksutaineuk?

Hon. S. Hagen: As I said, we are going to continue to consult, and we'll continue to try to find an accommodation.

J. MacPhail: Well, I expect the minister is being very careful in his words here.

Let's move on to October 2002. The ministry released new provincial policy for consultation. On page 13 of that consultation document, it says: "Consultation will ensure that aboriginal interests are considered in decision-making, and efforts will be made to accommodate sound interests." On April 10 the minister rose in the House and said that consultation on this issue — the relocation from Eden Island to Humphrey Rock — had occurred under the old policy of consultation. Has the minister…? Well, the minister said he's been up there talking to the first nations band. Has he been in touch with Gilford village or MTTC about this issue since October of 2002?

J. MacPhail: Has the minister said that he's going to use the new consultation guidelines on this? How did he explain how this relocated fish farm fell through the cracks, then? What explanation did he offer?

Hon. S. Hagen: Well, as I've said, the challenge of fully consulting and accommodating is a large one, but we've given our commitment to the first nations that we will continue to consult with them. We'll continue to try and find an accommodation. We'll be using the new guidelines in doing that, and we'll continue to meet with the first nations of the Broughton Archipelago.

J. MacPhail: The minister says he's met with the Gilford Island band. What was their response? Did they say: "Well, gee, we're glad that we didn't get…"?Or did they say: "Oh no, it's all right; you don't have to worry about your duty to accommodate"? What was the response in these meetings, these consultations?

Hon. S. Hagen: As I've said before, we will continue to fully consult with all of the bands in the Broughton Archipelago and continue to work with them to try and find an accommodation.

Continuing with page 13 of the methods, called "Methods of Consultation," the policy includes — and I quote from the government's own consultation document — "exchanges of information related to proposed activities." Did the minister provide the MTTC with information about sea lice threats and migration routes? Has he at any point?

Hon. S. Hagen: I don't know whether that was done before, but we certainly are doing it now under the new guidelines with the nations and the bands in the Broughton Archipelago.

J. MacPhail: That's interesting, because there was also an obligation under the old guidelines. Let me read from the aboriginal interest assessment procedures that were in place for BCAL, now Land and Water B.C., and were in effect in September '99. These are the old guidelines. On page 12 it says that if concerns remain — and clearly, in this situation, concerns did remain — "staff must either consult re potential for infringement or disallow the proposed disposition. Send a notification letter advising the first nations in the case of a disallowance." What happened in this case?

Hon. S. Hagen: As I've said reasonably frequently this evening, we are fully consulting with the nations

and the bands in the Broughton Archipelago. We will continue to do that. We'll continue to build a relationship with them. We'll continue to try and find an accommodation on this issue.

J. MacPhail: No, no, I'm asking for specifics on the case. I quoted the guideline. The minister said: "Oh, the new guidelines didn't apply at the time." I'm actually working from the old guidelines. I read the old guideline.

These are aboriginal interest assessment procedures. If concerns remain — and clearly, concerns from the two tribes remained — the BCAL staff "must either consult re potential for infringement or disallow the proposed disposition. Send a notification letter advising the first nations in the case of the disallowance."

It's not blue sky I'm asking for. The minister has said over and over again that the old guidelines applied. What happened in this case?

Hon. S. Hagen: I have already read into the record twice the consultation that took place. Based on that consultation, a decision was taken by Land and Water B.C.

J. MacPhail: Yeah, except that the minister can't show me. No matter how hard he tries to escape the issue, he can't show me. Well, let me ask this. With regard to the Humphrey Rock case, was there any concern on the file that the fish farm relocation might infringe on the rights or title of first nations, given the land question?

J. MacPhail: Interesting. Again, in the old guidelines, which are called the aboriginal interest assessment procedures, on page 15 it discusses the potential infringement. It says that if "the potential infringement is justifiable, staff will negotiate, when possible, to accommodate the first nations' interests and to mitigate the extent of the infringement." The MTTC contends that the Humphrey Rock area is used for traditional food and ceremonial purposes, and they therefore contend that the fish farm would interfere with commercial fishing for crabs, prawns and salmon. In other words, it would interfere with first nations interests.

What negotiations took place to mitigate the impacts of the Humphrey Rock site on local bands? Or is the minister dismissing it, saying that none of their concerns were justifiable?

Hon. S. Hagen: All information related to the Land Act tenure siting was considered during adjudication. All information gathered through the open house process was shared with provincial and federal agencies.

J. MacPhail: I'm not sure what the heck that means. I'm asking very specific questions. The Kwicksutaineuk…. I want to get this correct, because the minister could stand up and say he consulted with the Mamaleleqala. I'm saying the Kwicksutaineuk raised concerns about their interests. What correspondence or negotiations took place with them? Or did the ministry dismiss them as unjustified?

Hon. S. Hagen: With the issue of consultation with the first nations, we are in that process with them right now to see if we can find a way to mitigate their concerns and also accommodate their concerns. We'll continue to do that as long as they're willing to meet, and we'll try and solve this very complex issue.

J. MacPhail: If they're watching now, I guess the only conclusion that the first nations can come to is that the minister ignored the previous guidelines around consultation with first nations and rushed through the approval of this relocation for Stolt Sea Farm so that the current, new guidelines couldn't be applied either.

Going back to the 2002 policy manual on consultation with first nations, on page 13 it states that another method of consultation includes "researching existing studies or carrying out new ones if appropriate." Under this new policy, it would seem that the ministry should have updated the consultation process after new information on sea lice was realized.

Do the people of MTTC or Gilford village have any means left to pursue their concerns about the Humphrey Rock site?

Hon. S. Hagen: Absolutely. When we get the science results that we're now testing, we'll have lots of things to talk about with regard to the first nations in the vicinity of the Broughton Archipelago. That's the whole reason for doing the science that we're doing.

J. MacPhail: I want an answer specific to the Gilford village or the MTTC. What recourse do they have with the new information?

Hon. S. Hagen: It's not just the Gilford Island people who we will be meeting with. It'll be all of the bands that are in the Broughton, all of the people who live in the Broughton. When we get the science that we need, we'll be holding those discussions and the consultation with them.

J. MacPhail: What recourse do they have about this government's unilateral action of relocating a fish farm to Humphrey Rock? That's my specific question.

Hon. S. Hagen: There are probably legal things that they can do, but right now they've chosen to meet with us and continue to meet with us to try to resolve this.

J. MacPhail: Could the minister provide the exact details of the consultation that is occurring with the Kwicksutaineuk and the Gilford village bands?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'd be pleased to do that. We're in the middle of those consultations now. We've had a couple of meetings. The meetings have dealt with sharing the testing information and working through their fishery officers and involving their fishery wardens in the testing, so I think we're progressing really well.

J. MacPhail: What is the nature of the discussions in terms of ability to change what has already occurred, as they fell through the cracks of consultation? The ministry didn't apply the old guidelines, and the ministry claims that they don't come under the new guidelines. So what is the ministry offering?

Hon. S. Hagen: We have ongoing discussions with the first nations in the Broughton on the issues that I outlined in my previous answer. We'll continue to consult, and we'll continue to try to accommodate.

J. MacPhail: Well, I've done my best to try to get the minister to answer these questions. We'll see whether there's a whole slew of protest again in terms of submissions, because all of this information that I'm dealing with the minister on and asking questions on have come from the very people with whom the minister is claiming consultation is occurring and that everything's just fine. All of the information and the questions that I have raised have come from those very same people, and their concerns are legitimate — completely legitimate.

Now, the minister gave me some information on relocation issues, because I asked for that. I want to discuss that now as it relates to the North Island straits integrated plan. The minister gave me that information earlier today, and I thank him for that. I have had a chance to go through it, along with my staff, and we have some questions.

It's the big map. I can't roll it out here. I have actually asked questions on this matter before, and the minister provided me with the big map, so thanks very much.

The map shows 20 fish farm tenures that are located in the not-recommended areas. The minister explained earlier today that the purpose of the process that led to this map was not to comment on whether or not existing uses should be removed. Can the minister commit to getting me the original data documentation that outlines that fact?

J. MacPhail: I think the minister was making that comment because he was trying to say that the identification of various areas as not-recommended areas meant nothing, because that wasn't the original purpose of the documentation. So we'll see.

Even if the original purpose behind the map was to just identify areas for future fish farms, what's going to be done with the consequential information that was discovered — the 20 farms in the not-recommended areas?

Hon. S. Hagen: The farms that are listed on this larger sheet of paper, the marine tenures issued. If you look down the comments, it goes down site by site. The first one is: "The North Island straits plan states farms are acceptable at current levels." The same with the next one. Then there's one identified for relocation. Then the next one says: "North Island straits plan states farms at acceptable current levels." There's a mixture here. Some are identified for relocation, and some are okay where they're at.

J. MacPhail: There's been an examination of all of these, and some have been added to the relocation lists. Others have been determined to be…. What is it called — no-opportunity or something? Oh, identified for relocation — is that it? So there are two things: acceptable at current levels and relocation.

What's the scientific evidence available to determine ones that were on the map labelled as not-recommended areas, to then convert them to say they're acceptable?

Hon. S. Hagen: The map is very broad-brush; it's not site-specific. Now you get down to site-specific on this list here, and then the work gets done at a site-specific level to determine whether it's acceptable at current levels or not.

J. MacPhail: Yes. I'm asking on what scientific basis the decisions were made to say they're acceptable.

J. MacPhail: Oh, I'm sorry. You're saying that the scientific evidence for Humphrey Rock that you've agreed to give me, you'll give me for all of these sites? Is that what you're saying?

Hon. S. Hagen: I thought you were asking for all these sites. We'll give you the scientific information on all these sites, if you want.

J. MacPhail: Yes. That is what I'm asking for, but I didn't realize the minister was committing to that.

Why did the minister use…? Why the switch in language from "not recommended" to "no opportunity"? I note in the documents the minister gave me that it doesn't say "not recommended," which is what the map says, but it's now listed as "no opportunity." What does that mean?

Hon. S. Hagen: I can't see where it says "no opportunity." Can you outline the document for me?

J. MacPhail: It's in my…. This document that the minister…. It's in response to a question…. It's attached to…. It's the cover of…. It's page 2. You got it?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm told that the no-opportunity areas are where there is no new opportunity, and the existing areas are where the existing farms are suitable at acceptable and current levels.

J. MacPhail: Okay. Well, that's interesting, because in the legend of the map — the big map — the definition of "not recommended" is: "The area does not meet siting requirements at this scale." So even though the minister is trying to dismiss or brush off the designation of "not recommended," a lot of effort was put into reaching that conclusion, given the information the minister has given me. I assume the siting requirements referred to are the ones mentioned in the notes section of the map. That's in the top right corner of the map. I've got a copy here if the minister wants it. I read that into the record on April 10 about what the definition was — what the siting requirements were.

The minister confirmed those were still the siting criteria. Therefore, when one reads the map, one would assume the farms located in the not-recommended areas do not meet the siting criteria as was defined. So even if more work needs to be done on the scale issue, isn't it really the case that several of these farms, in addition to the six on the relocation list, may need to be relocated? Or has that already been decided?

Hon. S. Hagen: To the member opposite, through you, Mr. Chair. You have to read the covering note with that, because when it talks about the scale of the map, the scale of the map is large, and to get down to a site specific you've got to have a larger scale.

J. MacPhail: Yes, yes. I do understand that. And I said that even if more work needs to be done on the scale issue, is it not possible that several of the farms, in addition to the six on the relocation list now, may need to be relocated? Or is there not going to be any further work done?

Hon. S. Hagen: That's the reason we're doing the testing. That's the reason we've got the DFO out there testing for sea lice. When we get those results at the end of the runout time, which will be in a month or two, then we will have more information on which to base our decisions.

J. MacPhail: So the answer is yes. They may in fact have to be relocated. That was my question.

There are 14 farms that are called no-opportunity. The minister has given an explanation of what that means. I think he said "no future opportunity." So they're not in fact the ones that need to be relocated or are on the relocation list? Or are they the same?

Hon. S. Hagen: The "no opportunity" category are farms that can stay the size that they are, but they cannot be expanded.

J. MacPhail: So there's no overlap between the "no opportunity" classification and the relocation list?

Hon. S. Hagen: We don't know that yet. We're waiting for the answers to the scientific questions before we make that decision.

J. MacPhail: Okay. The information I was given from the minister also says: "Applications for new tenures should not be accepted." That, I guess, is the explanation behind that "no opportunity" means "no expanded opportunity." How many applications currently being examined by Land and Water B.C. are in the "not recommended" area?

Hon. S. Hagen: In principle, the answer would be no. My staff is reluctant to give me a categorical no, because they would want to go back and look at each of the applications, but in principle the answer would be no.

J. MacPhail: If that's the answer, I think that is the right answer, but I hope it's based on reality. The spreadsheet also says all of the farms not already listed for relocation are operating at acceptable levels. That's the spreadsheet that you referred to earlier. How many of those that the minister has listed as operating at acceptable levels are being fallowed under the Broughton Archipelago action plan?

Hon. S. Hagen: We don't have that information. We have the sites on the map, but with the information we have, we can't line up the sites with the list.

J. MacPhail: Let me put this premise to the minister. I actually would appreciate the information about whether there's any overlap. My staff had the chance to do an overlay. They count — and it's perfunctory, the review — at least four on the spreadsheet as operating at acceptable levels but are now fallowed under the Broughton Archipelago plan — so at least four.

I'm wondering how the minister justifies or makes the claim that they're operating at acceptable levels. Let me just clarify. What's the date, for the record? Can the minister say what the date was when it was determined those fish farms were operating at acceptable levels?

J. MacPhail: Okay. Summer of 2002 that decision was made. The ministry already had information about sea lice, escape and waste discharge. They made that determination. Then, by my count, at least four have been fallowed, according to the Broughton Archipelago plan. What information, then, has been changed? What has been changed in the ministry's determination of acceptable relocation as a result of the Broughton Archipelago plan? Why have some of them moved from acceptable levels to now being fallowed?

Hon. S. Hagen: It's a bit of a sequence. What we're trying to do is find out whether there's a relationship between salmon farms and sea lice. There is no scientific evidence linking salmon farms with sea lice. That's why we're doing the testing — to see if there's a difference in the test results in the areas that are close to salmon farms and the areas that aren't close to salmon farms.

J. MacPhail: I count that there are six farms on the minister's spreadsheet identified for relocation. Does that mean, by virtue of them being identified for relocation, that they're not operating at acceptable levels? Or could they be identified for relocation and also, in the ministry's own view, operating at acceptable levels?

Hon. S. Hagen: The sites listed on the spreadsheet as identified for relocation are sites that are presently sited unsuitably and should be sited in a more favourable siting from an environmental standpoint.

J. MacPhail: Is it possible for them to increase production where they are now?

Hon. S. Hagen: The ones that have been identified for relocation? I don't know specifically, but I would suspect they would not be able to increase production, because if they are identified for relocation now at the present level, they would be worse off if they increased production.

What's the government's position when it comes to extending or renewing the licences or the tenures of those fish farms who are on the relocation list?

Hon. S. Hagen: In the case of renewals, they have to produce a management plan, anyway, after each harvest and for the next cycle. That also is approved by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. That would all be part of the renewal process.

J. MacPhail: What about finfish farms that are identified as poorly sited applying for an extension of their tenure? Can they do that?

Hon. S. Hagen: The objective is to get them to move, realizing the length of time that this process takes, because it involves a CEAA process with the DFO as well. The objective would be to get them to move. I'm advised that there might be a temporary extension on that site, but the objective would be to move the farm.

J. MacPhail: Is there a limit on the length of the extension in those situations?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm told there is no overall rule, but there's a case-by-case decision that's made.

J. MacPhail: Can these ones on this list apply to increase their production? I know we examined some of that, but can they apply to increase production?

Hon. S. Hagen: They could apply, but they would have to demonstrate in their management plan that the environmental footprint they have would be decreasing as far as any damage to the environment.

J. MacPhail: Is the minister aware of any examples where such an application has been made?

J. MacPhail: While waiting for relocation approvals to be implemented, what conditions, if any, are placed on poorly sited tenures?

Hon. S. Hagen: All of the regulatory changes that were made when the moratorium was listed with regard to escapes with discharge and health.

J. MacPhail: What applies to a fish farm that has not been determined to be poorly sited? Do the same rules and only those rules apply to poorly sited tenures?

Hon. S. Hagen: Yes. That's true. But the objective is to move them, to have them moved.

J. MacPhail: In the situation where the farms are on the relocation list, what role do WLAP — Water, Land and Air Protection — the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries and Land and Water British Columbia officials have in the decision to grant tenure extension or production increases to the sites on the relocation list? I understand that the minister is saying it's on a case-by-case basis, but what's the process?

Hon. S. Hagen: There's a committee of directors, director-level people of aquaculture, and on that committee are WLAP, the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Land and Water British Columbia and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

J. MacPhail: The Minister of Fisheries gave me a document about how approval proceeds in matters around these — well, not directly related to this. What happens if there's a conflict? Does it have to be by consensus? Is it unanimous? What happens when there's not agreement by all three of those parties? Has that occurred, and what's the resolution?

Hon. S. Hagen: If in the examination of a farm it was found that the environmental questions could not be answered, then the farm would not proceed.

J. MacPhail: Is it Water, Land and Air Protection that determines the…? It's their responsibility, determining the environmental questions. Is that right? Is their point of view the determining factor on whether it proceeds or not, if there are environmental concerns?

Hon. S. Bond: I am pleased to rise today to present the 2003-04 spending estimates for the Ministry of Advanced Education. Before I begin, I would like to introduce the staff who are accompanying me tonight. First of all, my deputy minister, Gerry Armstrong; Jim Soles, assistant deputy minister, post-secondary division; and Tom Vincent, assistant deputy minister, management services division. I would also like to acknowledge the hard work and dedication of the staff at the Ministry of Advanced Education and our post-secondary partners.

Over the past year government has worked hard and successfully to increase access to post-secondary education and to ensure that British Columbia has the skilled professionals that it needs. We have kept our eye on our goal, which is creating a top-notch, responsive education and training system that is necessary to support British Columbia's economic and social development. We have stayed the course.

I'd like to give you a very brief overview of the ministry's accomplishments during 2002-03, as this is the groundwork from which we will build in the months ahead. We have added 2,700 new student spaces in 2002-03 — 825 of those to computer science and electrical and computer engineering as part of doubling the opportunity and 982 new spaces toward much-needed nursing and health care workers.

We've taken steps to expand the number of medical school graduates through the creation of the innovative medical school expansion program, which will link the University of British Columbia to newly established satellite medical schools at the University of Victoria and the University of Northern British Columbia.

Through the creation of the $45 million leading-edge endowment fund, we have fulfilled a new-era promise to create a cost-sharing program to establish 20 leadership chairs in the fields of medical, social, environmental and technological research. The first chair in spinal cord research has already been established.

In addition, we are supporting cutting-edge research and development through investments in the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research and the B.C. knowledge development fund. We have instituted a unique loan forgiveness program, providing forgivable B.C. student loans to graduating doctors and nurses who agree to practise in our province's under-served communities.

We have worked to find a workable solution for the students and faculty at Tech B.C., establishing a new SFU–Surrey campus to replace the institution, and beginning a strategy to double the number of student spaces there to 860. In order to increase access and flexibility, we have created BCcampus, an on-line learning initiative which, when fully functional, will allow students from throughout British Columbia to centrally access all on-line courses and programs offered throughout our province's public post-secondary institutions.

In 2002-03 we also passed the Degree Authorization Act to allow for expanded degree-granting opportunities at private and public post-secondary institutions. In a move to increase quality and return autonomy to our province's universities, colleges, university colleges and institutes, we lifted the tuition freeze, allowing our institutions greater flexibility in expanding programs and services to suit the needs of their students and their communities.

These are just a few of the highlights of the past year, during which we refocused our priorities, streamlined our services and laid the groundwork for a new and exciting direction in post-secondary education. And there's more good news. As a result of debt service savings and prudent fiscal management over the past fiscal year, the ministry has been able to allocate additional funding to key priorities in B.C.'s post-secondary system. For B.C. regional innovation chairs $7.5 million has been allocated, the creation of new social and economic development opportunities at British Columbia colleges, university colleges and institutes.

For one-time unconditional grants to colleges, university colleges and institutes, $10 million in funding was provided. An additional $2 million will go toward realigning industry training programs as the province moves toward a new model and $1 million for startup costs to accelerate the medical school expansion program currently underway at UBC, UNBC and UVic. The innovative program will begin taking students into the program in September 2004.

The year 2003-04 will see the ministry building on our accomplishments, those that have been outlined in

our service plan. We will increase choice for students. There will be increased accountability. We will be aligning costs and benefits of education and training. There will be improved links to both the public interest and the economy, and the creation of a much more coherent and integrated public system.

I'm pleased to report that the Ministry of Advanced Education is on track and even ready to exceed our new-era commitments by fiscal 2005-06. Education and training are integral to our province's economic prosperity, and government will maintain funding for post-secondary education in 2003-04.

Our ministry's almost $1.9 billion budget will support 160,848 student spaces this year, an increase of 3,154 seats over last year. Many of these new seats will be dedicated to addressing critical skill shortages in our province in the areas of health-care, high technology, social workers and child protection workers. An additional $2.4 million will be allocated to operating grants in the college, university college and institute sector to support the delivery of 87,000 student FTEs — an increase of 1,116, or 1.29 percent, over last year. An $11.5 million lift will bring total operational funding for the province's five universities to $669 million, in turn, supporting the delivery of 67,135 student FTEs — an increase of 2,038 over last year.

Funding for industry training programs will be maintained throughout 2003-04 with $63.8 million supporting the 7,818 student spaces in institutions throughout the province, as well as 350 secondary school apprentice scholarships. An additional $7 million will be spent on pilot projects and restructuring. Every effort is being made to ensure that a smooth transition process is in place for a new model, with more details on transition measures to be released soon.

Finally, I would like to mention the work being done on the post-secondary accountability framework. After much consultation, the framework, which will help ensure the post-secondary system remains the best possible educational and training opportunity for students in this province and for British Columbians, has been agreed to by all post-secondary partners.

One of our most exciting endeavours is our work toward the goal of becoming a world-class research centre, because we know that research is absolutely critical to our quality of life and our development as a society. The ministry currently funds three dedicated research programs: the British Columbia knowledge development fund, the B.C. leadership chairs and the B.C. regional innovation chairs. The latter two programs are administered through the independent Leading Edge Endowment Fund.

This year the ministry will work to expand funding for research infrastructure and work to explore and develop research partnerships with the public sector. Specifically, we recently announced the creation of $7.5 million to the British Columbia regional innovation chairs program. This program, which focuses on the establishment of research chairs in colleges, university colleges and institutes, is administered by the Leading Edge Endowment Fund. Each chair will receive a total endowment of $2.5 million, half from government and half from non–provincial government contributions. The goal of our regional innovation chairs program is to create new social and economic development opportunities at the college and regional level, in turn opening up the heartlands through research and innovation.

Last October government announced $95 million in capital expansion funding for British Columbia's public universities. These funds will support the "doubling the opportunity" initiative, increasing access for students in computer science and in electrical and computer engineering and doubling the number of annual graduates by 2005-06. Thanks to adjustments to our capital plan, the ministry was also able to proceed, six months ahead of schedule, with 12 post-secondary capital projects put on hold in 2001 while we focused funds on immediate new-era commitments.

Work on the $134 million medical school expansion program is well underway. Facilities will be expanded at the University of British Columbia, and satellite facilities will be created at UVic and UNBC. These new programs will increase the number of first-year medical spaces to 224, nearly doubling the number of medical school admissions by 2005 and, in turn, the number of graduates by 2009. The province will have a total of 680 medical school spaces by 2005-06.

The year 2003-04 will be a year of transition for industry training as we move toward the implementation of a new, more flexible model, one which will respond more quickly and effectively to the needs of students, industry and business. Now that the consultation period has ended, we will be moving forward with government policy to enact changes to the system this spring. In keeping with the transition to a new model, the budget for industry training will be increased slightly this year to facilitate program restructuring at post-secondary institutions and to support a number of pilot projects which will further solidify the direction that we are heading.

Every effort will be made to minimize disruption to those in the system. In order to facilitate this change, the Burnaby Metrotown industry training centre will be expanded to provide ongoing counselling and credentialing services and will be equipped with a toll-free information line. In addition, individual letters have been sent to all apprentices and employers, advising them of the changes to the system and providing them with updated contact information. I am confident that changes to the industry training system will benefit apprentices and employers and will better position our province to take advantage of future economic opportunity and growth.

I'm also pleased to report that despite fiscal challenges, the B.C. student financial assistance program will see an increase of $8.7 million this year. This will also allow the ministry to expand on its successful on-line student financial assistance application procedure. Since its inception in March 2002 more than 25,000 ap-

plications have been successfully processed, and the system is currently being piloted with nine private institutions. Student response to the streamlined process has been excellent, particularly with respect to the shortened application turnaround time and ease of access.

Increased efficiency — making the best use of limited resources — is a recurring theme for my ministry and for government as a whole. As our society further embraces the concept of lifelong learning, ease of access to and flexibility of education have become increasingly important. We need to develop an education and training system that responds to the needs of all learners, particularly those living in rural and remote communities and those whose lives demand a much more flexible schedule.

Last year we announced the creation of BCcampus, a new collaborative model for on-line and distance education that will build on the strengths and resources inherent in our post-secondary institutions. This year the ministry will be funding a total of 230 new spaces for on-line learning at B.C.'s post-secondary institutions, bringing the total number of FTEs targeted to BCcampus to 620. The strength of BCcampus is that it will provide an opportunity to coordinate B.C.'s growing number of on-line programs by offering a single point of contact and more choice, and reducing the cost of duplication as well as facilitating ease of access.

This budget is ultimately about putting students first, about creating an education and training system that meets the needs that are both present and future in British Columbia. We want to be responsive to our province's changing economy. I look forward to working with our partners and stakeholder groups to build on the solid foundations we have laid over the past year and to create the vibrant, thriving education and training system we need to carry British Columbia into the future.

J. MacPhail: If the minister could turn to page 30 of the service plan and tell me what the new numbers are for the resource summary now, please, given her announcements.

Hon. S. Bond: There is no change to the numbers that are indicated in the service plan as presented in the years '03 and '04.

J. MacPhail: There aren't? Well, let me just review, then, what the minister said in her opening statement and what she said recently while we were debating Bill 21, the University of British Columbia Services Continuation Act.

The minister stood up during the debate on that act and promised an increase of $11 million for B.C.'s five universities and an increase of $9.7 million for B.C.'s colleges. Then, I think, she also made an announcement on March 17 and 18 that there would be $12 million and $10 million in one-time funding. So where does that money come from?

J. MacPhail: There were four parts to that question. Where does the $11 million come from for the five universities that she announced during the debate on Bill 21? I've got the quote here, if the minister wants it. Where does the $9.7 million for B.C.'s colleges come from? And the minister made an announcement of $10 million of one-time funding but also a $12 million announcement on March 17.

Hon. S. Bond: The $11.4 million and the $9.7 million are increases that the institutions received this year over the anticipated number they got in the '02-03 budget. In other words, those are dollars that exceeded what we were indicating to institutions in the budget letter that was sent out in '02-03, so we increased those dollars. They were expecting less. We gave them that much more in '02 and '03. The $10 million was a one-time grant, as I said, saved from administrative savings and lower-than-anticipated debt-servicing costs. That came out of the '02-03 budget amount.

J. MacPhail: Whew, that's a relief. The government announces to institutions in '02-03 that the pain is going to be excruciating, and in '03-04 it's just awful, so we're supposed to give them credit for that.

Let's look at the summary on page 30, if we could, separate and apart from those glorious announcements that the minister is saying are so great — the line about the resource summary. The first line for operating expenses is for educational institutions and organizations. I would assume that's our universities, our colleges and our institutes. Their funding in '02-03, restated, was $1.407 billion. In '03-04 it's $1.4 billion, a reduction of $7 million. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Bond: There are other items in that subvote that are obviously decreasing, but the institutional money going directly to universities, colleges, institutes and university colleges actually increased. An example would be Tech B.C. That money was reallocated, so the money to those particular institutions went up while other areas within the subvote decreased.

J. MacPhail: There's so much to explore in that area, because that subvote is all about just education institutions and organizations.

Mr. Chair, I've got so much work to do, so I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management and progress on the Ministry of Advanced Education and ask leave to sit again.

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

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY