Hansard -- Monday, May 12, 2003 a.m. -- Vol. 15, No. 8 (HTML)

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY



CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Private Members' Statements		6639
	Partnerships R. Harris R. Sultan B.C. is not alone: economic challenges in the Pacific Northwest B. Penner Hon. G. Collins The dairy industry in B.C. J. Les Hon. J. van Dongen School uniforms R. Nijjar Hon. C. Clark

Motions on Notice		6648
	Recommittal of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries ministry estimates (Motion 98) J. MacPhail Hon. G. Collins

R. Harris: Today I want to spend a little time talking about partnerships. Webster's describes partnerships as a sharing of risk for profit. In today's political climate some believe partnerships are synonymous with privatization. It is the proverbial political football.

Partnering is anything but privatization. It is certainly more than just a business arrangement. Governments old and new have used varying degrees of partnering for years to accomplish their goals. Certainly, the challenge facing rural communities and our government is how to turn the tide of depopulation and see these rural communities start to expand. I think what is in the minds of most community leaders, though, is not just how we grow but how we accomplish this in a manner that is sustainable. The heartlands communities of the north make up 70 percent of B.C.'s land base, but for many years we have felt that we didn't have a voice in Victoria.

The Premier established the northern caucus to be an advocate for the north, to ensure that all legislators understand the needs and strengths of our part of the province. For heartlands communities, partnerships may well be the instrument of choice to achieve the goal of economic growth. As a northern caucus we are building working partnerships with the organizations that will be instrumental in framing the future of the north. We are working closely with the northwest tribal treaty group and the North Central Municipal Association to bring a consensus on what sustainable development will look like.

More critically, we are bringing continuity to the planning process. It is a relation-building exercise that starts to build a common vision for our region. We are actively partnering with northern Alberta communities through the NCDC. This is truly a public-private partnership that focuses on developing the transportation corridors that are critical to opening up the north.

The Stewart-Omineca resource road holds tremendous potential for communities around the northwest. This community-driven project brings industry, government and first nations together in partnership. It will open up the lower Bowser basin to mineral, gas and oil, forestry and tourism opportunities.

A new partnering arrangement for B.C. Rail holds the possibility of rail service through the north, possibly to Alaska. Imagine the benefits of rail access to the northwest corners of our province. The province is partnering with communities, industries and Alberta to advance the container port on the north coast. This single project holds the greatest potential to change the landscape of rural northern communities.

In the past central governments have provided services, and depending on the pressures of the day, these services may expand or contract. Local communities feel the impacts of those decisions. Partnering allows the opportunity for communities and organizations to participate in how services may be delivered. By sharing the risk and the benefits, communities are motivated to ensure that the processes don't become more important than the results. The direction of Minister Hogg — in developing a regional, community-based service delivery model for his ministry — is a great example of community partnerships that are sustainable. It is through partnerships that the risks and benefits become shared. They bring local organizations, businesses and communities into the decision-making process.

Historically, we have measured economic growth by the number of jobs we create. Today an interesting scenario is taking place in the United States. They are experiencing economic growth in the economy along with rising unemployment. The major factor for this has been the effects of improved productivity. The need for improvement is driven by the demands to maintain a competitive advantage. The fact is that technology and working smarter will have more to do with dictating employment levels in the traditional industries in the future. Where growing the economy is important, how we grow it becomes more critical from a people perspective.

The world has certainly changed in the last decade. No longer does any one country or region have immunity from global pressures. The number of new competitors in every market and industry has grown. Countries we once saw as emerging markets in some cases are now competitors. China, as an example, was viewed as a huge potential for the aluminum industry a few years ago, and last year they became a net exporter of aluminum.

With new competitors, the competition for capital investment or reinvestment also becomes tougher. Capital flows to the place of best return, and borders have become artificial barriers to its movement.

Last week I had the pleasure of spending some time with Eugene Huang, who is the secretary of technology for the state of Virginia. Eugene is that state's lead person for the development of their high-tech industry. We talked extensively about how Virginia has transformed itself into the IT capital of the United States. They have used a number of vehicles to realize their success: a clear vision, government policy that attracts and facilitates the growth of the IT sector, and strong working partnerships with industry and the educational institutes throughout that state.

One comment he made that struck me was that he felt the biggest challenge facing policy-makers in the future was not having policies in place to meet the challenges of today but rather creating the economic platforms that would foster the culture and development of ideas and products yet to be thought of.

I had the pleasure a month ago to go to Fort McMurray to attend the northern Alberta development conference, a meeting of the municipal, provincial, first nations, Métis and business leaders from the northern regions of that province. Now, it strikes you when you arrive in Fort McMurray that if you don't know or haven't seen what a boom town looks like, this is it in spades. Everywhere you look, construction is taking place, and help-wanted signs are the order of the day. The types and growth and economic activity going on there are things that many of our northern communities are hoping to see in their futures.

What struck me more was how these people are in no way content with the present but are already looking to the next economy that will continue to sustain their communities. They have already accepted the fact that the industries that have provided the economic boom that they are experiencing today will employ fewer people tomorrow. They see their role as politicians to assist those local industries in maintaining their global competitiveness so that these industries survive but also to put in place planning models that position the region for the next generation of investment. That means that their communities must continue to evolve and change if they are to create those new employment opportunities for the citizens who will be searching for new employment as their old jobs disappear.

The communities, on their own initiatives, are setting up private-public partnerships to build new east-west connectors to position themselves, and they are pushing the province in a policy direction that creates a level playing field for attracting investment. But most importantly, they're getting on with it.

I guess that brings me back to partnerships. Why are they so important? The world we live in is changing rapidly. It's not a case of whether we like it or not. It's a fact. If our goal is sustainable growth in the heartlands, then strategic partnerships will play a significant role.

R. Sultan: It's an honour to be invited to respond to the member for Skeena and his observations on this deep topic of partnerships, which are so fundamental to the way our society and our economy operate.

I would like to base my remarks on a wonderful trip that I took to the Skeena-Terrace-Kitimat area at the invitation of the member — tagging along, one might say, behind the Deputy Premier, who was up there to give a major address to the constituents. It was a marvellous experience. The quality of the people, the quality of the leadership, the quality of the politicians represented in Victoria and the tremendous assets of the region struck me because it had been many, many years since I'd been in that part of British Columbia.

It also struck me that the partnership which had been the basis of the economic prosperity of this corner of our province — the partnership between, essentially, Alcan, British Columbia and the forest industry — was no longer working as well as it had in the past. One might say the old, simple partnership with Mother Nature — water, land and trees — was breaking down and could no longer be depended upon to provide the prosperity and income in the twenty-first century that we had come to take as our natural due.

As I made the rounds with the member for Skeena, we talked about how the heartlands economic strategy of this government would apply to the Skeena riding. Together we brainstormed four key points that I think will, in fact, form the future basis of prosperity of this corner of our world — namely, the regional hub which the member already talked about, the transportation corridor, the resource industry and finally Alcan.

Just to touch briefly on each of those. The services hub of the region, of course, is a matter of great rivalry between Prince Rupert, Terrace and Kitimat, not to mention the new Nisga'a nation and even portions of southeastern Alaska. Through sheer geography but also, I think, the quality of the civic leadership in Terrace, it seems that this is in fact becoming the service hub for the region, and the market forces seem inexorably leading in that direction. As one considers the future for this region, I think that serving as that services hub will certainly be a fundamental element.

A second point upon which the economic destiny of this part of British Columbia will be based is, as the member has already pointed out, its critical location on the transportation corridor between the bustling economy of Alberta, on the one hand, and the newly renovating and revitalizing port of Prince Rupert. With containerization, with new tourist cruise ship facilities and with tremendous existing bulk cargo-handling capacity, the forgotten corner of our province in many ways, Prince Rupert — at one time considered the transcontinental destination which would rival Vancouver — will finally come into its own. Good on them. I think we in Vancouver deserve and welcome that competition from the newly revitalized port of Prince Rupert in which Terrace, again, because of its situation on the corridor and as the service hub of the region, will benefit immensely.

It will require something else as well. Here I talk about the partnerships that the member has stressed. It will require close partnerships with the federal government, which controls many of the transportation infrastructure. I think the strategy of this government to introduce more honey and a little less vinegar into the relationship with Ottawa is paying off. Thank goodness for that. With new leadership in Ottawa forthcoming, we already see further hopeful signs.

As far as the resource industry is concerned, the third leg of the future strategy, I think the Skeena Cellulose saga will play itself out. It is, however, a sobering case study of what can occur in terms of disappointments when politicians dabble in business affairs and a lesson for all of us — not on our watch, of course, but something we've inherited and have struggled with.

The good news is that the Ministry of Forests, with its new forestry plan to introduce new market signals

and new elements of deregulation into the sector, will help rejuvenate that sector. On the mining sector, the member for Skeena and I are working on a newly appointed task force for mine deregulation and revision to our mining laws which will assist immensely. Finally, one more minute to mention the great future for Alcan as it tries to reinvent its destiny after 50 years of an existing formula. It does face rigorous competition, but I'm confident that under this government Alcan will make the commitment to the next 50 years for Alcan.

R. Harris: I'll keep it brief, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. I do want to thank the member from West Vancouver for responding.

I think one of the interesting partnerships that we've brought to government is the fact that you can have a member from Vancouver who was senior vice-president of the Royal Bank of Canada, and also a professor at Harvard, getting up to speak to a private member's statement from someone who spent 20 years in the Queen Charlottes working in the logging industry. That's one of the partnerships that we bring as a government.

The heartlands strategy, in fact, truly reflects a partnership of urban and rural ideas and an understanding of how important it is to develop our rural economies and the part they're going to play in bringing this province back to the number one position in this country. I appreciate the fact that he speaks about the forest revitalization plan — mining, gas and oil — because he does truly understand that his riding and his city will benefit as our communities benefit.

I will keep this brief. I appreciate the comments from the member. I think that as a province, we are going to benefit from the fact that this is one government that truly has brought all of the MLAs together for a very good strategy for how to bring this province back to the number one spot.

B. Penner: This morning I would like to speak about economic challenges and how they can lead to serious budget problems. Perhaps some people would expect me, then, to speak about British Columbia. In fact, I'm going to speak about circumstances facing some of our closest neighbours. It's easy for us as legislators to focus exclusively on the state of the economy in our home province. That's natural. But I think it's important to occasionally step back and put things in perspective.

I've always believed in the value of learning from others, perhaps in part because my father was a teacher before he retired. There are plenty of reasons and lessons we can learn from each other in the Pacific Northwest.

Shortly after the 2001 provincial election, the Premier asked me to lead B.C.'s participation in an organization known as the Pacific NorthWest Economic Region. The acronym is PNWERand is pronounced "penwar." Since last June I've had the privilege of serving as PNWER president. Among other things, it's given me an opportunity to learn more about the potential and the problems in our region.

In Washington State a dramatic economic reversal has taken place. For most of the 1990s while the economy in British Columbia stagnated under the NDP government, our neighbour to the south experienced boom times. Microsoft, Boeing and Starbucks all helped bring unprecedented prosperity to the Evergreen State. Large state surpluses resulted but are now, sadly, a thing of the past.

With the meltdown in the tech sector, post-9/11 jitters in the airline industry and a general economic slowdown, Washington State was confronted with a projected $1.8 billion (U.S.) budget deficit last year. Most U.S. states are required to present a balanced budget every year. This meant a series of budget cuts, fee and tax increases, and what I call creative financial manoeuvres such as bonding or, in essence, borrowing against the tobacco lawsuit settlement in order to get a projected balanced budget.

In fact, last year when I had an opportunity to address both the Democratic and Republican House caucuses, the first question I was asked in Olympia was: "Do you have a deficit?" I assured them that we in B.C. do, in fact, have a deficit and that we can certainly "feel their pain," to quote a famous, now former U.S. President. Legislators were startled to hear that we in B.C. had a $4 billion deficit last year but were somewhat comforted to know that it's just Canadian dollars we have to deal with. State legislators were also surprised to learn that the previous NDP government doubled B.C.'s total debt in just ten years, as there is no requirement to balance the provincial budget on an ongoing basis.

I pause here to note that our B.C. Liberal government has passed balanced-budget legislation requiring us to balance the books by next year and, thereafter, every year. I recall that prior to the last election, some commentators criticized us for not committing to balancing the budget immediately upon being elected. Not surprisingly, some of those very same commentators now suggest that balancing the budget over a three-year period — starting last year — is too quick.

Back to Washington State, where no such luxury of waiting a few years exists. On top of last year's $1.8 billion (U.S.) belt-tightening exercise, legislators are now grappling with a projected $2.6 billion (U.S.) shortfall for the next biennial budget, representing more than 10 percent of general fund expenditures. The situation is so serious that Governor Gary Locke's budget office has stated a goal of "lopping off big chunks" of the budget. This very afternoon Washington State legislators are being recalled back into special session to deal with the budget crisis. Already the De-

mocratic-controlled House has passed a proposed budget that raises $359 million (U.S.) in higher fees and taxes, and cuts spending by more than $2 billion (U.S.). Keep in mind that these are U.S. dollars, so that even with the recent decline of the U.S. greenback internationally, that would still equate to almost $3 billion (Canadian) in spending reductions.

Some of the options being considered include laying off state employees, freezing their salaries, finding ways around a $100 million collective bargaining agreement for home care workers, dropping people from state health care rolls, reconsidering the provision of prenatal care for illegal immigrants and further increases to college tuition. In a word, the situation is grim.

Incidentally, both the House and the Senate have agreed on a 5-cent (U.S.)-per-gallon gasoline tax increase in Washington State — the first such gas tax increase in 13 years. Washington State is by no means the exception in the Pacific Northwest. Even the new Governor of oil-rich Alaska has proposed a 12-cent (U.S.)-per-gallon increase in gasoline taxes, and a number of rather imaginative revenue enhancements are being considered to help close that state's projected $896 million gap between revenue and expenses — a shortfall representing a whopping 37.8 percent of the Alaska State budget.

Things don't look any better for next year, with the projected $1.2 billion deficit staring lawmakers in the face. The Alaska Legislature has been looking at enhancing revenue by imposing a head tax on every tourist that steps off a cruise ship, charging tourists a so-called "wildlife viewing fee" of $15 per person and levying a seasonal sales tax timed to hit tourists in the summer.

Oregon is also suffering, with some of the highest rates of unemployment in all of the 50 U.S. states. With the spectre of spotted owls effectively ending the dominance of forestry in the 1980s, Oregon looked to the high-tech sector and microchips as a way to the future. But the brutal dot-com fallout means state revenues are also hurting, resulting in a projected $2.7 billion deficit for the next two years — about 27 percent of Oregon's state budget. In response, education funding has been hit. More than 50 school districts have shortened or will shorten the school year to save money. In Portland the school year will be shortened by an eye-popping 24 days of instruction per year. I've heard talk of a 5 percent across-the-board pay cut for teachers in Oregon, and universities raised tuition another 13 percent this spring. A number of prisons will be closed or have their openings postponed.

Idaho has a projected deficit representing 10 percent of the state budget. Last year when I met with Governor Dirk Kempthorne on the day after the largest protest in that state's history, he told me that 5,000 teachers swarmed the state capital to protest against a modest increase in the education budget. Evidently, the teachers union didn't feel it was enough. Hearing this made me feel right at home in Boise, by the way. However, as the Governor pointed out, the education budget was the only one which was actually increased in Idaho. Other state government departments saw decreases of up to 10 percent.

Looking east to Montana, things aren't much better. They have been cutting their child care budget for some time, with 500 child care centres closing just last year. Belt tightening has been in effect for several years, but still a projected deficit amounting to 5 percent of the state budget confronted lawmakers during this spring session. Among additional reductions are possible cuts to mental health care funding, affecting 4,500 people with serious mental health problems.

This is the situation facing our American cousins in the Pacific Northwest. For an update on our situation here in British Columbia, I'll look forward to hearing from our Minister of Finance.

Hon. G. Collins: I do want to take a few moments to respond to my colleague from Chilliwack, because I think he's raised an interesting issue. We here in British Columbia often tend to just look across the country to compare ourselves and look for how we fit in with the other provinces. The reality is that we should look at other jurisdictions as well.

Certainly, as you look throughout not just the Pacific Northwest but indeed around the United States at almost all of the 50 states, they're all experiencing significant budget pressures. Most of them, if not all — I don't think it's all — have requirements that they balance their budget each and every year. That in itself is not a big problem. One of the challenges I think they have is that they have different sources of tax revenue than, perhaps, we do here in British Columbia. They have some that are similar and some that are different. To a great extent, I think they are seeing some real erosion in their tax base above and beyond, perhaps, what we might see here in Canada as a variety of provinces.

There is certainly a lesson to be learned by what is happening in the United States — and the Pacific Northwest in particular, as the member mentions, given that their economies are not, to a great extent, dissimilar to ours. They are, to a certain amount, dependent upon the resource base. Certainly, Seattle has a little more diversified economy with some larger players in Boeing and Microsoft, etc., which have allowed for diversification of their economy, but some of those sectors have been hit hard as well. Boeing's been hit hard as a result of the events of 9/11, the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc., and a drop-off in the tourism sector. Microsoft was also hit by some of the challenges we see in the high-tech sector and the meltdown that occurred there.

Those are all challenges that we all face to a lesser or greater degree. The lesson that is available to us is one we shouldn't ignore. That is why we have done some things here in B.C. that are a little different from what's done in other jurisdictions. We now have three-year service plans, three-year fiscal forecasts and three-year economic forecasts, so we can look out in the fu-

ture and try to prepare for the inevitable ups and downs in revenues and in economic activity that happen with the business cycle, and try and plan around that to a certain extent.

The other lesson that's important is to make sure, when you have fiscal forecasts and revenue forecasts, that you try and be as conservative as you can in realizing that the good times in whatever sector don't last forever. Certainly, we've seen that in the United States. We've seen it in Canada and in British Columbia with the hits to the forest sector, which had always been and still is our single largest industry, but which had always provided a fairly steady stream of revenue to government. That has been hit pretty hard in the latter half of the last decade. Certainly, in the last couple of years the softwood lumber dispute has been something we've been worried about. The impact on revenues hasn't been as significant as was originally forecast, but it is a challenge.

We also have something in our fiscal plans called a forecast allowance. That is a buffer that's worked into the fiscal forecast to ensure that in the event there are some unanticipated economic impacts that impact on the revenue stream, there's a buffer in the plan to deal with that so you're not taken by surprise.

You'll recall that in the 2001-02 fiscal year, we came into office partway through. At the very beginning of that, in July of that year, we brought into the House a fiscal update and had a forecast allowance built in there. When we concluded the end of that fiscal year, despite the events of September 11, we were still able to come within budget and within using some of that forecast allowance. That's what it's there for. If you have some unforeseen circumstances or an event that erodes your fiscal outlook, then you have a buffer in there to deal with that. That avoids how some of the activities the member raised that you see in some of the states…. He mentioned particularly Washington State, but there are other states, as well, where they're forced within one year — because of having no buffer and no room — to make some pretty significant reductions in their spending virtually overnight.

Certainly, as we tried to balance our budget and as we moved towards our 2004-05 legislated target of a balanced budget, we were able to reduce our spending in a progressive, phased way with some real planning behind it. Rather than going out — I think there was one quote from the Governor — and "lopping off huge chunks of spending…." We were actually able to say, "We need to be a smaller government; we need to be more efficient; how do we do that?" rather than just going out and cutting big chunks out of the budget without any thought.

I think the lesson there for us is that some of the things we brought in as a government are helpful. We need to continue to do that.

The last lesson, I think, that's important not just for those in the United States but for us here in British Columbia is that when the good times do come and you find that you're starting to run surpluses, don't inflate government to the maximum possible fiscal capacity. Inevitably, there's some compression on the revenue side as well, and you need to live within the longer-term outlook. I think that's a lesson for all of us. Hopefully, we'll have the opportunity to benefit from that in a couple of years.

B. Penner: I thank the Minister of Finance for those remarks. By no means do I or my colleagues take delight in the task of reducing spending or looking for additional sources of revenue in order to balance our budget; nor do our counterparts in various state legislatures to the south.

There is one jurisdiction within the Pacific NorthWest Economic Region that is faring much differently, I have to report, and that is the province of Alberta. Far from facing budget deficits, Alberta has had an embarrassment of riches of late, with surplus after surplus for the past number of years. Yes, the oil and gas industry is healthy now and brings in huge amounts of revenue, but even when that sector was weak during the 1990s, Alberta imposed fiscal discipline and managed to balance their budget. With surpluses dedicated to paying down the debt, Alberta now is reaping the dividend of lower interest costs. Money not spent servicing the debt is available for more useful things like improved transportation infrastructure, health care and education.

I'm confident that we are on the right path here in B.C. I hope that once we start seeing surpluses in our province, as our Minister of Finance has indicated, we will start paying down some of our debt and free up funds to be spent on important programs and services.

One of the other functions of PNWER, the Pacific NorthWest Economic Region, is to look for best practices throughout the region and share them with legislators and lawmakers. To that end, PNWER is hosting its annual summit this year in Calgary, Alberta. That's being held from July 13 to 17. We'll focus on a range of issues, and not surprisingly, being in Alberta this year, a major theme of the conference will be the potential of energy and how that can help lift the entire North American economy.

Clearly, within this region we have huge reserves of energy that are going to be increasingly needed to maintain a stable supply for North America. We don't have to look any further than the recent conflict in the Middle East to realize how unstable that region can be when it comes to relying on them to supply our energy needs.

PNWER will be hosting this summit this summer, July 13 to 17. I hope that as many members as are able will come and attend and participate.

Energy is not the only topic. We'll have discussions revolving around forestry, tourism, telecommunications, high-tech and, of course, infrastructure security and border movement. One of the primary issues of concern for PNWER is, post-9/11, the extra impediments to legitimate trade and travel that these security requirements for crossing the international border between Canada and the United States are presenting.

If you're able to, please attend the conference. I look forward to continuing to work with our colleagues in the Pacific NorthWest Economic Region to pursue prosperity for the people we serve.

J. Les: I wanted to spend a few minutes this morning talking about another one of British Columbia's important industries, and that is the dairy industry. As members will be aware, representing the riding of Chilliwack-Sumas, I probably represent what could be called the milk bucket of British Columbia, although that might be a misnomer in that milk isn't really carried in buckets anymore; but it certainly used to be in the past.

When you look at my riding and the communities of Sardis, Atchelitz, Greendale, Yarrow, Sumas Prairie and Arnold, we're talking about a vast expanse of agricultural land where there's quite an array of agricultural activity ranging from the growing of turf grass, for example, to the production of poultry and eggs and other agricultural products. Still, to this day dairy farming trumps them all.

Dairy farming is B.C.'s top agricultural commodity, with sales of $290 million annually. I should say it's B.C.'s top legal agricultural commodity. As I understand it, there are certain illegal commodities that are grossing considerable revenue today as well.

I spent my early years growing up on a dairy farm, and I still treasure that experience today. It seems to me that those of us that grew up on dairy farms were lucky in many ways. True, it's fair to say that we worked hard, but it's the experience of growing things, caring for things and caring for animals that I think is an important part of my background that I cherish very much.

In the early years, of course, going back to the fifties and the sixties, dairy farms weren't as modern and mechanized as they are today. We relied much more on pitchforks than we did on front-end loaders and other machinery, but hard work never did anyone in. Again, I think that's an important formative experience.

Back in those days, stanchion barns were the order of the day. That's where you milked the cows, and in fact, you did carry the milk out with buckets. Today, of course, milking parlours are the order of the day — very highly mechanized. In fact, in my riding of Chilliwack-Sumas the first robotic milkers are being installed so that the dairy farmer actually could be at home in bed while his cows are being milked robotically, which I think is quite an advance. I'm not sure that I would personally buy into that kind of animal husbandry, but it is, in fact, technologically possible today.

The number of dairy farms in British Columbia is decreasing. Back in 1991, only 12 years ago, there were 1,002 dairy farms in British Columbia. Today there are only 706. I think that correspondingly, there is also a decrease in public awareness of what the dairy industry is all about. People today, I believe, are losing touch with their agricultural roots. They don't know, frankly, where milk comes from other than from a shelf in the store. Some, I suspect, even think that you crank the tail of the cow and milk flows out somewhere. It's really too bad, I think, that many young people grow up in British Columbia and around the world today not being more aware of the agricultural traditions.

You also don't see cows in a pasture anymore in the Fraser Valley. It used to be around the first of May in the spring, when the grass was greened up, that cows would be put out to pasture. Today that grass is harvested for silage and in that way fed to cows on dry lots or in barns to far better and more efficiently utilize that feed to maximize the production of milk. Cows are also under much less stress under this form of management, and that leads to higher production as well.

B.C. has 114,000 dairy cows today, which is 6 percent of the dairy cows in the country. It's interesting that those 6 percent of the dairy cows in the country produce 8 percent of the milk produced in Canada, which means that British Columbia has the highest-producing dairy cows in Canada.

It is not unusual for cows to produce more than 100 pounds of milk per day, which perhaps doesn't mean too much if you express it in raw numbers, but many members will recall that years ago milk was shipped to processing plants in milk cans, and those milk cans each held about 100 pounds of milk. To think that an individual cow can fill one of those milk cans every day kind of puts it in a slightly different context.

B.C. has only 3.6 percent of the dairy farms in Canada, but we have the largest farms in Canada in terms of the number of cows per farm. Over the last 25 years there has been no increase in the number of cows in British Columbia, but production has increased by 25 percent. This is due to advances in nutrition and genetics.

Nutrition, for example, is influenced by the stage at which crops are harvested. I easily remember 30 years ago, for example, when the first crop of grass would be taken off in June sometime. It would be rather coarse, and it would dry up very quickly, but it's also true that the nutritional value of that resulting hay or silage was not very good. Today, if you look around the Fraser Valley — and it's May 12 as we speak — you will find that the first crop of grass has already been removed. Nice and young and tender and green and full of nutrients, properly dried and properly put up in bunker silos, it makes excellent feed with high protein content and the correct mineral content. That, too, works towards ensuring that cows are able to transform that into high levels of milk production.

Similarly with genetics, embryo flushing, artificial insemination and embryo transplantation have been part of the dairy farming reality in British Columbia for many years now. That ensures there's widespread distribution of superior genetics available to the entire industry.

The B.C. dairy industry is an efficient, world-class part of our provincial economy. Dairy farmers no

longer fit the nostalgic stereotype of the bib overall–clad hayseed. They are sophisticated businessmen and people running multimillion-dollar businesses.

Consumption patterns of dairy products have also changed. I'll talk about that in a few minutes, but at this point I will defer to the Minister of Agriculture, who himself has a very significant background in the dairy industry.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I'm very pleased to respond to the member for Chilliwack-Sumas on his statement about the dairy industry. At the farm-gate level, dairy still represents over 20 percent of the total farm-gate receipts in British Columbia — hence it's very, very significant. I think that sometimes, because the system works well and the industry has been very progressive, we may somewhat take it for granted.

Our dairy system is based on a regulated marketing system, otherwise known as the supply management system. That system has really two principles. One is that as a national system — and we're in an agreement with all other provinces and a federal agency on that — the system is designed to bring forward the amount of production that's required for the marketplace and a product that is of high quality and meets all of consumers' needs.

The other part of the equation is that the price paid to the farmer is a competitive but fair price. A farmer has to be average or better to survive at that price, one that is very competitive. This system has been in place in British Columbia since the fifties and in Canada since the early 1970s. As I said, it's a system that has worked very well. Consumers have enjoyed high-quality products at a price that is competitive with anywhere in North America and, in some cases, lower. The impact of the system at the farm level has been very, very significant in the sense that farmers have invested heavily in their operations, have become much more efficient and productive, and have brought forward a very high-quality product.

Before I talk about those things, I should mention that even though we have a very significant industry in the Fraser Valley, I also want to acknowledge that we still have very active dairy industries all over British Columbia: in southern Vancouver Island, Port Alberni, Comox, Bulkley Valley, Vanderhoof, Prince George, the Okanagan and the Creston Valley — even one or two farms in the Rossland-Trail area. These farms have all improved very, very significantly over the years in terms of food safety and quality standards.

Nationally, the industry is currently in the process of putting in a new Canadian quality milk program, which is a HACCP-based program at the farm level, combined with additional security measures, for example, that our B.C. Milk Marketing Board is working on in dealing with milk transport. There's a lot of progressive activity taking place. Even today the constant improvement that is taking place in the industry is very significant.

The member talked about the larger scale of the farms. Again, it's not obvious, government is not involved in it, but we see tremendous transition. We see tremendous consolidation at the farm level. An average herd size that maybe used to be something like 40 or 50 cows is now around 90 cows. Those cows, as the member said, are producing a lot more milk, so that 10,000 litres today is quite ordinary, where it was unheard of 20 years ago. The member mentioned the progressive genetics, for example. We have some of the most progressive breeders and veterinarians in the world active in our industry in this area.

Efficiency has been driven by many young farmers taking over the family farm. I just happened to talk to my neighbour over the weekend. He is now milking close to 200 cows with three full-time people, which is unbelievable productivity. He fills up two-thirds of one of the milk trailers that you see on the highway. That's one farm — very, very significant. So there's been tremendous improvement in labour productivity. We do have some of the most progressive feed companies in North America, which are also helping with that efficiency.

What is the role of government in the dairy industry? We went through a core review process on regulated marketing. Certainly, it was our decision, based on advice from the George Morris Centre and other sources…. They did a significant economic analysis and indicated that for the foreseeable future, it is in B.C.'s economic interest to maintain the current regulated marketing system. That is the pragmatic approach, and our government made the decision to maintain that system. We will continue to be active participants in the national agreement, focusing on food safety, competitiveness and market orientation.

J. Les: My thanks to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries for those comments.

I was talking about the consumption patterns of dairy products, and we're certainly seeing some changes there. Consumers are more concerned today with healthy nutrition, and therefore they're decreasing their consumption of whole milk, 2 percent milk and buttermilk, and they're increasing their consumption of 1 percent milk, skim milk, specialty cheeses and yogurt.

B.C.'s dairy processing industry has adapted well to these changing consumer preferences. From farm gate to store shelf, B.C.'s dairy industry is one that we can all be very proud of. The future, I think, for this industry is excellent. We have productive land, we have mild climates, we have leading genetics and technology, and we produce an excellent product.

In terms of challenges for the future, the recent ruling by the World Trade Organization hampering Canadian access to world dairy markets is certainly a challenge that will have to be dealt with. I look forward to working with the minister and others on that challenge.

I will always support this industry. It is vital in terms of its contribution economically to British Co-

lumbia. As I have attempted to point out, it's also a vital contributor to the social fabric of many parts of our province. It is a natural fit, given B.C.'s amenable environment. In short, it is udderly fantastic.

R. Nijjar: A few weeks ago I raised the topic of dress codes and school uniforms in public schools throughout British Columbia. In that time, as many of you know, there has been much media attention on that issue. I have spoken with many organizations throughout the lower mainland — from school trustees to parent organizations, PACs, principals, etc.

I know from the radio talk show call-ins, e-mails I've received and the many, many conversations I've had that there's a lot of support for this, especially in areas of the big cities of the lower mainland and here in the Victoria area. Since then, as I had said in those interviews and at that time, I will be working with the Minister of Education and the ministry to see how we can seriously look at having some degree of a dress code in public schools.

Of course, we're not here to reinvent wheels. We're here to look at what has worked in other jurisdictions, see how we can emulate that in British Columbia and see if it is to the benefit of our students and our parents. In the United States, in the many jurisdictions that have dress codes or school uniforms, and in Ontario, which is the only province in Canada that has them, we have seen some underlying principles that are fundamental to the success.

One is the parental involvement. No program has worked without the core principle of parental involvement. That's fine. That's great, because that's exactly what we as a government have been trying to do, what the Minister of Education has been trying to do with our school system over the past two years — everything from the legislation that gives PACs and parents more power to volunteer in schools to the new councils that allow parents to participate in the decision-making process and to give advice on the decision-making process of the schools. It's all about empowering parents, creating more choice.

In my riding, in Nootka Community Elementary, there's a fine arts school brought in through the powers given by this government that allow parents really to have choice of what type of school they would like to send their children to. In that line, we can also do the same thing with dress codes, meaning that I have asked the Minister of Education to consider the possibility that parents would choose by vote whether they want a dress code or school uniform in their schools. If they vote by majority that they would like a dress code, then it is up to them to decide what that dress code would be. It may be as simple as saying there's just certain clothes that they do not accept — such as low-riding pants, revealing tops, ripped jeans, shirts with slogans on them or whatever it may be — to saying that there are only certain things that they will permit, such as dress pants or khakis and a dress-collared shirt. That is up to them.

There is a wide, wide variety of options available, and it should be up to the parents to choose what that option is. If, then, the parents choose that there should be a dress code, as you've seen in many examples in the United States and Ontario, with the participation of the students, it actually is a very enjoyable, interactive process throughout the school to choose exactly what that outfit would look like, how they would reflect the culture and the community around them, how they would reflect the style of that school, what image they want to give it and what statement they want to make. That's all part of the interactive process where you engage students and you engage parents.

Also, then, the parents could decide how they want to accommodate those families that are underprivileged and may not be able to afford the implementation of the dress code or uniforms, although jurisdiction after jurisdiction shows that school uniforms and dress codes are cheaper than the regular clothes that parents buy for children. Nevertheless, it's always healthy for parents to be able to choose another forum so that children that need the assistance can have the assistance. For example, when choosing a supplier company — and there's many in British Columbia — parents can choose to pay an extra 2 percent or 1 percent that would allow the school to buy an extra 25 pants or shirts or so forth for the children that are underprivileged. What some jurisdictions have done is partner with local small businesses. Those businesses have bought pools of uniforms or dress-code clothing for their schools. Also, there are programs arranged by the parents so that when their children graduate from grade 7 — as I said many times before, almost every single example in North America is in elementary school — they would donate their uniforms or clothes back to the school. They could be used in the pool. So there are many, many options available to parents.

Instead of having school boards dictate what the choices should be, instead of having PAC executives dictate what the choice should be or the provincial government, I believe it's fundamental that the voice of the parents always be paramount and override any of the three bodies that I just spoke of.

There's also, then, the option of deciding the opt-out provisions in school uniforms. For example, in the United States they have mandatory dress codes, but they still have an opt-out provision where parents can say: "I refuse to have my child wear those pants or that shirt." They found over and over again in jurisdictions that maybe 2 or 3 percent of the parents will say that. You still have compliance even with an opt-out provision of 97 percent by the second year. That is an option — for parents to decide how they want to do it.

Also, expressions of importance such as religious expression or expression, say for example, when there are votes for student council…. The students may wear buttons or other paraphernalia that make a statement. I think that is up to the parents, through the PACs and

with the school, to decide what is acceptable and what isn't. This allows parents to participate, and it still allows for them to implement what is, I believe, a social and economic equalizer throughout our schools.

Hon. C. Clark: I am delighted to hear the member get up and speak about something I know that he's passionate about. I want to thank the member for Vancouver-Kingsway for taking such a passionate interest not just in this issue but in all of the education issues that have come before our House and our government. He's been such an active member of the Education Standing Committee and will be continuing to serve in that role this year as well, I know, and has been tremendously helpful to me in providing me with advice as minister on the issues of education that I know are tremendously close to his heart.

Our government's primary goal in education has been to improve student achievement. If a dress code or school uniforms is one way to do that at some schools, then certainly I think parents should have the ability to choose whether or not they want to do that.

My colleague from Prince George, as a former school board chair, was one of the pioneers in this area when her school board brought in rules that would allow parents and neighbourhoods — if they expressed a majority will to do so — to bring in uniforms in their schools. On her watch they created two schools that had uniforms and that were traditional schools.

One of the values of bringing in uniforms at schools is often that schools that use uniforms have a higher level of parental involvement. It's not just the uniform; it's the whole package. It's the focus on the three Rs. It's more discipline. It's that whole package that comes with being a traditional school — works at some schools, won't work at others. I don't think by any stretch the member would argue — and nor would I — that every school in British Columbia should have a uniform or every school should necessarily have to have a certain dress code and make it all the same.

What I do support, though, is the suggestion that perhaps we should actually allow parents to make decisions about what kinds of schools they want. Maybe they want a dress code. Maybe they want uniforms. Maybe they want a Montessori school. Maybe they want a fine arts school. Maybe they want an enriched reading program. Maybe they want a regular neighbourhood school.

The point is: parents should be in control of making those decisions, and parents should be able to design schools that meet the needs of their children. No one will argue that every child is the same. And if every child is different, then why should every school necessarily be the same?

In other jurisdictions in Canada, we find that 60 percent of students do not attend the school that's nearest to them because there's such an array of choice in the public system that they choose to travel to find the education that most likely meets the needs of those children. In Ontario they're passing a law requiring school boards to implement school uniforms where a majority of parents have requested them — again, following the lead of places like Prince George, made-in-B.C. solutions that we should import across our province.

Too often I've heard from parents that they'd want to have uniforms, or they want to have some other kinds of choices represented at their school, and they find the door closed to them at the school board level. So our obligation as a government that's deeply committed to more parental involvement is to make sure there's a framework in place — that there's some kind of road map for parents to follow — if they'd like to be able to pursue a school of choice for their neighbourhood or local school. That's a road map for school districts. It's a road map for government. It's a road map for teachers. It's a road map for students.

Most importantly, it's a road map for parents, because I believe that parents know what is best for their children — not government.

I believe in a world where parents are supported and communities encourage good parenting and good, supportive home life, but where parents are ultimately responsible for their children. If we believe in that, then surely we should follow that with a system that allows parents more say in where their children go to school and the kind of education they get.

I fundamentally believe that our public education system can compete toe to toe with independent schools any day of the week. We do just as good a job in terms of student results. Students get just as good marks when they come out of university. We produce some of the smartest, brightest, most articulate kids from our public school system.

All we need to do is make sure that we in the public school system are in a position to be able to compete. One of the important ways to do that is to provide an array of choice in our public system that is equal to none, to be able provide an array of opportunities for parents to be involved that is equal to none. That is what is going to build the greatest public education system in this country and one that will compete with a public education system anywhere in the world.

R. Nijjar: I'm very happy to hear the minister say that the critical goal is increasing student outcomes. I believe that having a clear dress code in schools definitely does that. In jurisdictions that you look at throughout North America, there's example after example that not only do school outcome improvements increase but, just as importantly, the negative effects such as bullying, vandalism, unruly behaviour, the need for detentions, etc., decrease to create a clear atmosphere in the school where children can learn and learn peacefully. I know there are many examples of school boards who understand that — that have policies. Unfortunately, the policies aren't uniform, and the policies aren't always enforced.

I'd like to see parents have some weight behind their vote, which allows them to actually follow through with the decisions they want to make in their

schools and for their children. Definitely, Ontario is an example of what can be done in Canada. I will continue to work with the Ministry of Education to ensure that everyone in the ministry is aware of the Ontario example and how we can try to implement parts of that here in British Columbia.

Deputy Speaker: Members, unanimous consent is required to proceed to Motion 98 without disturbing the order of the items on the order paper. Shall leave be granted?

Well, that sounds all very technical. What relevance does it have to the workings of British Columbia? Well, let me just explain what this is. Vote 10 is the way that British Columbians, through us, allocate money to the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. It is how that ministry continues to operate. It is the way we debate allocation of tax dollars.

You may recall, Mr. Speaker, back in the days, I think it was of W.A.C. Bennett, there was a…. No, I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. That's not correct. That's absolutely not correct. In fact, you probably don't remember even the younger Bennett days. You were much later than that. You may recall that there was an edict that everybody embraced, which said there would not be a dime of taxation without debate. The way we debate how to allocate money to ministries is exactly that concept. That's what our job is here in the Legislature.

Now, some of us take that job more to heart than others. My colleague from the riding of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and I spend hours and hours in research and then hours and hours in debate to ensure that the money allocated to various ministries is done properly and done with the greatest of efficiency, effect and economy to the various ministries.

I must say that Motion 98 standing in my name, if passed, will do this: it will recommit the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries to the Committee of Supply. Committee of Supply is the technical legislative name for the debate that takes place about allocation of taxation.

J. MacPhail: I note that the member from Chilliwack mentions ferries. We'll get to that. He might be a little bit embarrassed that he raises the issue of ferries, but we'll get to that as a reason why this motion is in order.

I put this motion forward, along with my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, in order to pursue a critical line of questioning with the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries which that minister avoided during the debate of his estimates — his allocation of budget — during the debate on April 8. On several occasions the minister refused to answer questions regarding his conduct in an investigation of Stolt Sea Farm. He absolutely refused.

It was a little bit embarrassing how the minister had been given what the Liberals refer to as a "message box." It's a scripted answer that they say, no matter what the question is. It was embarrassing, I must say, that the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries — no matter what question asked — would give a scripted answer, and that scripted answer was his denial of answering any aspects of the investigation of the Stolt Sea Farm. Instead, he dodged his responsibility every single time I asked him a question, referring me to the Attorney General. In fact, when he wasn't referring me to other ministers for answering his questions, he in the majority referred me to the Attorney General.

For the information of the House and the folks watching at home or in the chamber today, I would like to revisit the controversy and the issue that brought us here today. Let's go through it. Earlier this year the CBC television program Disclosure ran a story about the escape of thousands of Atlantic salmon into our British Columbia waters, and that escape came from a fish farm. Normally, any escape would be considered a serious threat, as there are many ongoing unresolved concerns about the impacts of those escapes from fish farms on our wild Pacific salmon stocks.

This case was no different. The appropriate officials took the appropriate steps to protect the public interest. However, it became clear to many that political interference at the highest level compromised justice and the processes designed to protect our natural heritage, the wild Pacific salmon fish stocks.

In April, during the estimates debate, I tried to run through the CBC story with the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries and get to the truth of what happened. However, the minister deliberately blocked my efforts at every single step. Even though it is the responsibility of members of this Legislature to get to the bottom of every single issue facing ministers such as the Minister of Fisheries, he blocked me at every turn.

It's not like any other Liberal MLA in this House stood up and asked questions. Not one of them rose to

hold this minister to account in his blocking this chamber from hearing the truth.

Here's the story. The story began with the fish farm owned by Stolt Sea Farm, the biggest player in the B.C. salmon farming industry and a major provincial B.C. Liberal donor. In fact, Stolt Sea Farm has given to the Liberal Party $12,000 just over the last two years. It was reported that this farm suffered a massive escape, and thousands of Atlantic salmon from the fish farm poured into our B.C. waters. According to CBC, this was Stolt's second major escape in that past year.

During the debate with the Minister of Fisheries in April, I stopped the story there and asked if he could explain why his ministry chose not to lay charges against Stolt Sea Farm — a simple question regarding a single straightforward issue directly within his responsibility. However, the minister refused to answer, and the government refused to release the investigation report into that escape — the criminal investigation report, Mr. Speaker. Everywhere I looked, people were working hard to ensure that the truth was kept hidden from British Columbians. So I continued on getting answers.

Just as an aside, let me review that the Minister of Fisheries on April 8 had been kicked out of cabinet earlier in the year because of the criminal investigation into this very fish-farm escape of Atlantic salmon. He had been removed because he was under criminal investigation. Yet when the special prosecutor conducting the criminal investigation, working with the RCMP, released its report to the Premier and the cabinet — not to the public — the Premier himself determined, with no public input or public discussion, that that minister should be returned to the role of Minister of Fisheries. The Liberals posted on their website that that minister — during the months of January, February and March — had been on hiatus, giving new meaning to the word "hiatus." Anyway, that very same minister was back conducting the debate around his budget in April.

What answers did we receive about the criminal investigation that had occurred? We could find out no more information. What better time to discuss it than during the time that the Minister of Fisheries is supposed to stand up in this chamber and answer every question that is in order? Well, as it turned out, even with this large Atlantic salmon escape from Stolt Sea Farm, the Fisheries ministry, under that minister, did not lay charges. However, the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection was conducting an investigation into that escape. Internal documents obtained by the CBC showed that the Water, Land and Air Protection ministry was going after Stolt Sea Farm. This is the ministry charged with protecting our environment and ensuring that our natural heritage — our wild Pacific salmon stocks — is preserved.

I asked the minister if he tried to stop that investigation. Again, all he would say was that there was a special prosecutor's investigation. He referred me to the Attorney General if I wanted any more information. The reason I asked that question was because of comments made by members of the Public Service Employees for Environmental Ethics. People in that organization claim there was a great deal of secrecy surrounding the decision of one ministry to press charges versus another ministry to not press charges. It all seemed very confused and unclear.

The members of the organization — Public Service Employees for Environmental Ethics — work directly for government. They are the public servants who are required to protect the public interest and were working in both the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries and the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. So their charges needed to be answered. However, one thing became clear once reporters examined the documents they received from a freedom-of-information request around the Stolt Sea Farm investigation. It became clear that Stolt Sea Farm wanted the investigation stopped. A major Liberal donor was upset. That became clear.

So what happened? According to one e-mail exchange from ministry employees, a letter stated: "A great deal of discussion is happening at John van Dongen's level regarding the follow-up investigation we initiated into the Sergeant Pass Stolt fish farm escape." I'm quoting directly from the letter, Mr. Speaker, naming the minister. In the same e-mail exchange another public servant stated: "I am curious why the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries would be criticizing us for undertaking an investigation." The Minister of Fisheries was involved, and he was criticizing public servants for doing their jobs of protecting the public interest.

The extent of his involvement remains a mystery because the minister refused to answer my questions. All he could say is that he'd made a mistake, the matter had been dealt with, and talk to the Attorney General. It was his opportunity to clear up the confusion. Yet he refused to answer any questions. Well, that's not good enough. The minister is the person charged with compliance and enforcement of the aquaculture industry. We need to know all the details if the public is going to have any confidence in his ability to carry out that function.

The story doesn't end there; it gets worse. The released documents show that Stolt's vice-president sent off a "stern letter" to the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection, the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management, the Attorney General and this Minister of Fisheries. During debate I highlighted a few quotes and asked some questions around that letter. However, time after time the Minister of Fisheries refused to disclose any information or provide any answers.

Here are some of the quotes from the vice-president of Stolt Sea Farm, which the minister refused to respond to in this very chamber during his estimates debates that we are now asking to have held again. Here's what the Stolt Sea Farm letter said: "In addition, the recent meeting our industry had with yourself" — the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection — "and

your colleagues" — the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management and the Minister of Fisheries — "buoyed myself and other salmon farmers, as the tone of the meeting indicated a strong willingness on everyone's part to repair and rebuild troubled relationships." That's the end of the first quote.

Second quote from the same letter from Stolt: "Instead of working with us, I see this recommendation to lay charges as just one more effort to discredit B.C.'s salmon farming industry and our operations here in Campbell River."

The third quote: " I am requesting that the recommendation to lay charges against Stolt Sea Farm be dropped. At the same time, I would like to suggest that your staff be asked to work with us rather than against us…." That was addressed to the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection, the very minister responsible for investigating environmental disasters and protecting our waters against the effects of that. Pretty interesting quotes from the very company being investigated.

So there you have it, Mr. Speaker. A major Liberal donor criticizes the government employees and the ministry for doing their jobs. Then, all of a sudden we have a minister interfering in an investigation, giving out crucial information to the company, standing in the way of public servants and also refusing to answer any questions about those activities. Oh yeah, he was forced to step down for a period of time, but he was reappointed. He was reappointed on the basis of the Attorney General's spin doctor — not even the Attorney General — releasing a news release describing the special prosecutor's report and saying there was not enough evidence to lay criminal charges — nothing else. He's reappointed to cabinet, and the public has not one whit more of information about what really went on in this matter.

Mr. Speaker, there are questions here that need to be addressed in an open and transparent manner. I thought this was the place to do that. In fact, that's what the electorate was promised back two years ago — that this would be the most open and transparent government and that this Legislature would be the body to conduct that openness. I wonder what other promise around parliamentary reform will fall as flat on its face as that promise has. Will all electoral and parliamentary reform promises be treated with such disdain by this government?

Maybe it's simply the case that all the critics have it right: the fish farming industry has this government in its hip pocket. That was the very charge. Those aren't my words — "hip pocket." That was the very charge made by the federal Alliance MP for Delta–South Richmond. That is the very charge made by the Canadian Alliance — half of whom, provincially, are members of this very caucus, half of whom are Canadian Alliance members at the federal level. That's my understanding. It makes for an uneasy alliance internal to the provincial Liberal caucus, but for any provincial Liberal to not take seriously the allegation of the federal Alliance MP for Delta–South Richmond would be to discard their very own memberships, I would say.

Since no one has been willing to answer questions, we can only assume that the charge from the federal Canadian Alliance MP for Delta–South Richmond is correct. This government's priority is the aquaculture industry even when members within that group show a clear disregard for the rules, regulations and public interest. Why else would a ministry official get a personal call from Mr. Blackburn, the vice-president of Stolt Sea Farm?

Unless we can go back and ask that very question, we will never know. Not only will we in this Legislature not know, but the public of British Columbia will never know.

Perhaps the minister could clear this all up. Perhaps it is as simple as he says: "I made a mistake." Perhaps it is as simple as that the minister didn't understand his job or was misinformed. After all, he would not be the first minister of this cabinet to plead innocent because they didn't understand their portfolio. You'd have quite a long line of ministers in this government having to make that claim.

Maybe it is simply a case of incompetence, or maybe there is much more to it. In order to find out, we need to go back to Committee of Supply, which is the debate where those very questions need to be answered. It is the only forum where the public can get the answers it deserves.

They're simple questions. What was the Minister of Fisheries' motivation for spilling the beans? Why did the Minister of Fisheries make the decision he made? Why did the Ministry of Fisheries not recommend charges? What were the conversations that the Minister of Fisheries had with Stolt Sea Farm around this investigation?

All of these questions and many more deserve to be answered. The point is made even more clear when you go back to the documents released by CBC. As a result of this Minister of Fisheries' actions, one Water, Land and Air Protection ministry public servant said in an e-mail: "The outcome of this investigation has been significantly compromised." Another public servant said: "Justice has not been served in this matter, and I find that troubling."

I find those comments to be extremely troubling as well. How can British Columbians have faith that this minister is even capable of carrying out his duties in a way that is not biased toward large corporations? The special prosecutor in this case — we think, because the spin doctor from the Attorney General's ministry told us so — cleared the Minister of Fisheries of criminal intent. That's what it said in his news release that he wrote.

That does not mean that the questions can go unanswered. I tried for hours to get the Minister of Fisheries to come clean and respond to these issues, but he refused. He hid under the special prosecutor's report and referred all of my questions to the Attorney General. So, left with nothing else but to go to the Attorney

General, I did exactly that next day during the Attorney General's estimates — the time when the Attorney General is supposed to answer all questions to the public in his budget debate. I tried to put the questions to the Attorney General. His response: "Don't ask me."

On April 9 the Attorney General said: "There is no restriction I'm aware of that flows out of the special prosecutor process, which in any way constrains the ability of the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries to answer questions with respect to what the reason for the investigation was — as he understands it — what actions he may or may not have taken or what policies existed in the ministry with respect to those matters."

That's from the Attorney General. That's from the chief law enforcement officer in the province. He said that the Minister of Fisheries can answer the questions that I asked.

There you have it. The Attorney General clearly outlined that there was no reason to justify the actions taken by the Minister of Fisheries during his budget debate. He hid behind the special prosecutor's report and referred everything to the Attorney General. Well, the Attorney General — as he is required, and I must credit him for doing this — turned around the next day and referred me back to the Fisheries minister. He said that the Fisheries minister could answer the questions. There was nothing to prevent him from answering the questions that I was asking. However, by that point it was too late. The estimates, the budget debate of the Agriculture, Food and Fisheries minister, had passed. The minister had managed to dodge his duties. The situation needs to be rectified, and to recommit him to his budget debate and answer the questions is what this motion that I have before you is all about. It will do just that.

The Minister of Fisheries was not correct in his stance to avoid my question. There was no reason whatsoever for him to not answer my question. There was no reason to justify his position or to refer me to the Attorney General. As a result, crucial questions, issues and concerns were not addressed. They've never been addressed. They've never been addressed in this chamber or publicly by anyone on the government side.

The public deserves the chance to get to the bottom of this matter. Committee of Supply, the budget debate of individual ministers, is one of the best ways for the public to get that information. I understand that there's a budget debate that talks about generalities, but the Committee of Supply is the budget debate, the line-by-line debate of the estimates of the budget of individual ministers, and that's the forum in which these questions should have been answered. It is our duty to respect the rules of this House and its tradition. The minister should have answered my questions then, and he should be able to stand up and answer them now. The questions haven't gone away, and the lack of answers has exacerbated the confusion on this matter.

We need to recommit vote 10. We need to bring back the estimates, the vote of the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, and have a debate again in this Legislature.

The member from Chilliwack, as he's always wanting to do, likes to raise the issue of ferries. I notice most members are becoming increasingly quiet about the B.C. Ferry Corporation. Could it be that their changes to it are not working out well? Anyway, that never stops the member from Chilliwack — never stops it that he raised that issue.

Well, let me raise the issue of ferries in this House and in estimates debate. There is ample procedural precedent to support the motion on the order paper in my name. For example, on May 25, 1998, the government of the day recommitted the vote on B.C. Ferries for the benefit of the then-opposition MLAs who had let the vote slip by without questions to the minister. They forgot the B.C. ferries vote, but because the government of the day knew how important it was to have estimates debates that meet the rules of the House — but, more importantly, meet the test of the public in transparency — the government of the day recommitted the vote on B.C. Ferries, and the debate ensued. The opposition MLAs, who now sit as government, got to ask all of their questions — and did so with vigour, with competence — and had the public involved in receiving important information.

It is a simple request that the opposition makes, a very simple request, and one that the Government House Leader himself can fulfil. I wrote to the Government House Leader. I'll read that letter into the record in a moment. It is one that the Government House Leader has chosen not to follow like the previous Government House Leader in 1998 did. He has chosen not to do this. However, this recommittal of the vote is exactly what is necessary to shed light on a critical matter and hopefully bring closure to an issue which is hanging like a dark cloud over the aquaculture industry in British Columbia.

Many, many of the actions taken by this government have brought B.C.'s aquaculture industry into disrepute. I think that's awful. I think it is awful that since this Liberal government has taken office, the aquaculture industry has been tarnished — more so than since its existence in British Columbia. A major part of that tarnishing has been the performance of key cabinet members. The only place to hold those ministers accountable is in the Committee of Supply. If we as a chamber, as a Legislature, do not recommit vote 10, many, many questions will be left unanswered, and the public will continue to lose confidence in the Minister of Fisheries, the industry and this government's ability to protect the environment.

The public deserves to know the truth. If this government is as open, transparent and accountable as it claims, all MLAs will stand up in support of Motion 98. Let me just read, in conclusion, a letter into the record that I sent to the Government House Leader on April 14, 2003. To the Government House Leader, the Minister of Finance, from me:

That letter of April 14 is signed by me. In that letter to the Government House Leader I quoted at least two precedents for recommitting votes of supply, but here we are — the opposition MLAs being forced to call Motion 98 to recommit. I hope the Government House Leader, in his reply, will urge all of his members to do the right thing — to live up to their promise of openness and transparency and allow for Motion 98 to pass.

Hon. G. Collins: I am pleased to respond to the summation arguments of the member opposite. As I sat here listening, I was reminded of those great television shows from the fifties and sixties — the Perry Mason series — where the prosecutors would get themselves all worked up into a frenzy only to find that the arguments that the prosecutor made failed on a point of simple logic. Perhaps to modernize the argument somewhat, I was caught with an image of Lara Flynn Boyle standing up in The Practice and issuing her arguments to the jury.

The problem is this: the member's arguments don't stand up once you lift the cover and start to look at them, and I'll perhaps talk about why. First of all, the member makes a comparison to 1998 when the Ferries estimates passed through the House without the debate occurring.

Perhaps I can talk to the House a little bit about how that process works. Ministers who are responsible for Crown corporations don't have a separate vote — actually, a vote in their estimates — in which they discuss or debate the narrowness of a particular Crown corporation. It's usually done within the context of the overall debate. The debate that would have happened around B.C. Ferries would have happened in the context of the broader vote that was there for the ministry.

Without trying to provide an out for members who may have been responsible for the Crown corporation or any of the members of the opposition at the time — it's obviously your job to ask the questions and to know when the questions need to be asked — it's pretty clear that at the time, that wasn't done.

The reality is, though, at that time it was pretty difficult to keep track of who was minister of which ministry, let alone which minister was responsible for each Crown corporation. I believe the member opposite had nine different cabinet posts between 1996 and 2001. If you want to perhaps give a tiny, tiny little bit of sympathy to members responsible at the time, I suppose one could do that, but that's still no excuse.

There had been no debate whatsoever on the issue of ferries that year. Both government and opposition members felt it was important that there be at least some discussion of those estimates, and they were recommitted. There were hours of debate in this House around the Ministry of Agriculture and the issues that the member raises. In fact, if you go back, you can look at that and verify that. I know I sat here for some of it.

There's a couple of other issues that I think are important to raise when you examine the arguments put forward by the member opposite. She talks a little bit about how…. About two-thirds or three-quarters of the way through her summation today she said: "There are really simple questions." There are a few simple questions that's she's looking for answers to, and then she listed three or four questions — maybe five — that she thought were simple, one-sentence questions that she wanted to ask the minister. Really, I guess you could say that her whole argument for the recommittal of the estimates — taking the estimates back into the House and starting over again — was so she could ask those five, as she put it, very simple questions.

There's nothing stopping that member from asking those five questions. If the member wants to ask those five questions….

Deputy Speaker: Order, member. You've had your opportunity to speak, and the minister will respond.

Hon. G. Collins: It's interesting, because the member's motion…. I wasn't actually aware of the date until she mentioned it, but I did go back, and I looked at Votes and Proceedings. The motion that we're debating today actually appeared in the Votes and Proceedings on April 10, about a month and two days ago. It's pretty clear that at that point the member opposite realized she had other questions she wanted to ask, and….

J. MacPhail: I asked those very questions. Why don't you tell the truth during the debate?

Deputy Speaker: Order, member. The minister is speaking in response to your comments on the motion, and therefore I think it would be advisable to let him speak.

Hon. G. Collins: The fact of the matter is that there are always opportunities for members to ask whatever questions they want. She'll be aware of that. Certainly since April 10 there have been a number of question periods, any one of which that member or her colleague could have taken the opportunity to ask even one of those very simple questions.

To my recollection, not one of those five simple questions was asked in the time the member's had available to her. She's asked all sorts of bizarre questions in question period that often are repetitious, day after day. It's quite clear that the pipeline of scandal that the member has set up in her office isn't flowing anything out to her, so we've had these same questions over and over again — the same fearmongering day after day in question period about people being thrown off Pharmacare and benefits, etc. The fact of the matter is: when the government makes the announcement and actually rolls out the facts, the public, at least, understands that the fearmongering of that member simply wasn't true. We've seen that over and over again over the last two years.

So I would say, if I'm sitting there…. I've done it in opposition, Mr. Speaker. I've been in opposition; I've seen how it works. It would seem to me that if that member thought it was very important and if she felt this were the issue…. If this were really the challenge for democracy that she laid out and the erosion of transparency in parliamentary reform that she got herself whipped into such a frenzy about earlier this morning, then it would seem to me that those five simple questions — those five very simple, one-sentence questions — would have risen to the top of the member's agenda and would have been asked in question period at least once. That's when she's got the whole press gallery here. That's when the public, if they ever tune in to watch this Legislature, are actually paying attention. All the members in the House are here.

She has a chance to go head to head with the minister; she has a chance to get up and ask those five simple questions. Mr. Speaker, compared to the amount of time it takes her to ask one question in the Legislature in question period, she could ask all five of those over and over and over again each day in question period. So one has to question the sincerity of what the priorities are of the member opposite.

I would like to argue the following. I think the member opposite has this little chart on her table or desk down in her office. She has the various groups that she views as being part of her political coalition, and she has so many minutes that she tries to allocate to each one of those groups throughout the session of the Legislature. She's finding she's a little deficient in the green caucus group, the environmental groups, which haven't been getting quite the weight in question period and in estimates and in legislative debate that perhaps they want.

The member says: "Okay, here's a way to give them something to hang onto." Rather than actually ask their questions in question period — those five simple questions that she thinks are the most important thing to be asked since parliamentary democracy was ever created…. Instead of actually getting up and asking them when the minister sits right over there…. Instead of getting up and doing that, she does it this way, because she doesn't want to infringe upon the time period she's allocated for those other members of her coalition, those other people she's reliant upon for support, those other people as she tries to rebuild her political base.

I don't think people should be taken in by the hysteria brought forward by the member opposite around this issue. The reality is that she can ask those questions. She could have asked them for the last month. She could have got up in this House any day in question period and asked them, and she hasn't.

If they're important questions, then ask them. Maybe she'll ask them today now. Maybe she'll ask them tomorrow. Maybe she'll ask them on Wednesday; maybe she'll ask them on Thursday. Maybe she'll ask them a year from now. I don't know. I don't know what drives that member's priorities or where she focuses her resources, but she's got the opportunity to do that.

What becomes very clear if you listen to what the member says and compare it with her actions is that she's really driving a political agenda. She's looking for an opportunity to encourage those people who support her, whip them into a frenzy and hope to draw them to her as a champion of their issues.

Let's just talk a little bit about some of the other aspects of the comments made by the member. Looking at the basis of the facts and looking at the basis of the arguments that the member makes, it's pretty clear that this isn't her most important issue. It's not even close to her most important issue. If it were, she would have asked those questions. She hasn't. She's asked all sorts of other questions. You just look at her priorities,

look at what it is she's done, look at her actions, and one can gauge the seriousness of the issue as she presents it.

I want to touch on a couple of other issues the member raised, because I think some of her comments were highly inappropriate. Some of her comments with regard to political contributions and the impacts that may have on policy are things, I think…. She should either put up with it or get off it and realize that all she's doing is raising the issue in a further attempt to build up her base of support.

The reality is that there are processes in place if the member has concerns about how that all operates. There is a conflict-of-interest commissioner, and one can make a charge or make an allegation or file a complaint with the conflict commissioner. To my knowledge, she's never done that. She talks a good line. She gets up and throws out allegations and comments, and she quotes from comments of other people in an attempt to throw mud on individuals or besmirch their reputation or impute motive to them, which is intended to try and move her political agenda along.

There are remedies there. If the member actually feels that's the case, if she actually believes that, if she really thinks those are facts, then there are opportunities for her to pursue those. Certainly, she can pursue that with the conflict commissioner if she thinks there's something there. To my knowledge, she hasn't. Maybe she has and it's been thrown out — I don't know — but certainly I haven't seen anything that indicates to me that she really does, in her heart of hearts, think that's the way things work. If she did, she'd have a wonderful political issue she could run with, a wonderful issue that the opposition could run with day after day after day.

The fact of the matter is that she doesn't pursue it because she knows it's not the facts. She knows it's not true, yet she gets up and raises it over and over again here in the House, out in the hustings, with the media, with her supporters. Really, it's an attempt to shift the focus on the record of the government she was such an integral part of and try and tar this government, which is the most transparent government this province has ever seen, with the same discredited brush with which not only were they tainted, but they actually fell in the paint can.

It's a bit much. It's also pretty hard to hear the member talk about how hard they work to make sure that their debates contain facts and how much time they spend on research. If the member had done some research on this issue, she could have gone back and looked at the conflict act, if that was an issue she wanted to raise. She could have gone to the conflict act and found other venues to raise this issue, but she hasn't.

I think she spends a lot of time in debate, not much time in research. I think the fact of the matter is that very often the arguments she makes aren't based on facts. Certainly, if you go back through her raising and fearmongering of issues through question period with regard to Pharmacare and benefits and disability benefits, one can see that in fact she goes out of her way at times to avoid the facts.

At numerous times, countless times, I've heard in this House ministers offer to provide the traditional briefing that is normally given to members of the opposition on specific issues so that they are better informed, so that the actual debate can focus on policy issues rather than on what the facts are. Normally, that's what happens. Ministers offer briefings to members of the opposition. They, in turn, take up that opportunity. They spend some time — it need not be a great deal of time, and at times it's often possible just to provide briefings to staff in the member's office — in order to make sure that the facts are clear. Then the goal is, at the political level in this House, to have a debate and a discussion on the policies rather than on what the facts might or might not be.

The fact that that member regularly avoids taking us up on those offers, regularly avoids her staff taking us up on those offers and continually gets up in the House and raises issues and makes arguments that clearly aren't factual, which clearly are not accurate, indicates to me that her goal is — rather than putting facts on the table — to try and create hysteria, to try and make people fearful, to try and create anxiety, and to use that as a political motive in an attempt to build up support for herself and take away support from the government, rather than have the debate on the policies that are at hand.

I think it's important that the member follow up on that. I think it's important that she check her facts. I also think it's important that when she reads items into the record, she puts them in their proper context. I have seen countless times — over the last couple of months, in particular, but over two years — where the member has stood up in the House and in a very cursory way has referred to a document and read selected portions of it, only to find when we go out into the corridor and actually get a copy of the document that that's really not what the intent of it is at all. Any person logically reading that document and trying to interpret what it meant would understand that the intent that was put to it or the motive that was put behind it by the member of opposition clearly is not accurate. Any right-thinking, commonsense person can see that.

Mr. Speaker, I think what you've seen today in the 35 or 40 minutes or so that the member spoke was a textbook example of how the member opposite has moved her agenda items before this House — particularly in the last couple of months, but in the last two years — where facts aren't important and context can be shifted and changed and put in the worst possible light. Motive is always applied, which is not there.

One thing I did learn in opposition is if you've got a case, you can run with it. You should run with it. That's your job. There are ways to pursue that. There are ways to do it through the conflict-of-interest commissioner. Given some of the comments and allegations the member made today, I would suggest that if she really believes that — if she really thinks that's the way

it works — she should take that and go to the authorities and present that case, because that's not the way it works. That's not factual. It's inaccurate — deliberately so — and it makes it very difficult to have a debate on the policies and issues before the public when the member continues to try and put that context on them without taking it the next step.

If the member wants to make those allegations, she should make them. She should make them officially. She should pursue them with all her vigour and all her energy and all her passion. Otherwise, she should back off and stop throwing things out that are clearly inaccurate and that are clearly irresponsible. I think she erodes the debate that does happen in this House and erodes some of the opportunities that have been given to members of the opposition to present their case before this House — well beyond what was ever the case in the ten years that I sat in opposition and that member sat on the government side.

I look forward to the numerous questions — I think it was five simple questions — that the member raised today, which clearly she has known of for over a month yet has failed to ask in this House. I look forward to her doing that, if that's what she thinks is the priority for her agenda and her government. I look forward to that when the member finally gets the chance to do that again in question period today.

There's one other item I wanted to mention. I'm just trying to look at my notes here, if I can. I wanted to talk a little bit about the estimates process and what it's actually for. The member actually opened her comments…

Hon. G. Collins: …with some discussion about how estimates work and the fact that we debate how tax dollars are spent. I would just like to put on the record that there were hours of debate in this ministry on how the tax dollars are spent, the policies of the ministry and its programs. This is clearly a partisan issue that the member thinks she needs to raise.

The member mentions a note. Just so the member knows, it was actually a note. It says that on April 3 the member did ask a question. On April 10 she asked about the minister's role in the investigation. I'm talking about since that item was put in the Votes and Proceedings, which would have been April 10. It would have appeared in Votes and Proceedings on April 11. I put that on the record for the member, so she knows what's there.

Since April 11, over a month ago, the member has had many opportunities to raise those five questions. I would think that she would take the opportunity to do that, if she felt it was important enough. I certainly look forward to her doing that.

The member also raises the issue of the Public Service Employees for Environmental Ethics — a nice-sounding name. It's pretty clear that there are some people in the public sector — I don't know who they might be — who feel that their duty is somewhat different than what it was they undertook with the government. They have another political agenda. I expect that perhaps it's some of those people, as well, that the member may be referring to in some of her comments.

Deputy Speaker: Members, pursuant to standing orders, division will be delayed until one half-hour before the House adjourns this day.

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