Hansard -- Tuesday, March 23, 2004 a.m. -- Vol. 22, No. 5 (HTML)


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Point of Privilege (Speaker's Ruling)		9551

Third Reading of Bills		9553
	Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act (Bill 2)

Committee of the Whole House		9553
	Business Practices and Consumer Protection Authority Act (Bill 4) (continued)
	Hon. R. Coleman
	J. Kwan

Reporting of Bills		9553
	Business Practices and Consumer Protection Authority Act (Bill 4)

Third Reading of Bills		9553
	Business Practices and Consumer Protection Authority Act (Bill 4)

Committee of Supply		9554
	Estimates: Ministry of Children and Family Development (continued)
	J. Kwan
	Hon. C. Clark
	P. Wong

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		9564
	Estimates: Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries (continued)
	Hon. J. van Dongen
	M. Hunter
	B. Belsey
	D. MacKay
	J. MacPhail

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, on February 10, opening day, the Leader of the Opposition gave notice that she would raise three matters of privilege. The next day she raised a matter of privilege — namely, that the Minister of Finance had been in contempt of the House by announcing and implementing a change to the rate of tobacco tax prior to the introduction of enabling legislation.

I have considered her submission and also the response of the minister, given March 3, with great care. I have examined the cases referred to in both submissions together with all supporting documentation.

The Minister of Finance raised a procedural objection that the matter had not been raised at the earliest opportunity. He argued that as the announcement had been made in December 2003 while the House was adjourned, the earliest opportunity would have been the morning of February 10 when the House was recalled by the Lieutenant-Governor for prorogation.

A review of the Journals of the House will indicate that notice of matters of privilege has been given on prorogation day and also on opening day, even though the House met in the morning for prorogation and the afternoon for opening. On April 5, 1990, notice was given on prorogation day, and Speaker Rogers advised as follows:

One high-profile privilege case in this House on March 3, 1980, the Nielsen case, involved the raising of the matter the day after opening day. These cases are not in conflict with the decision of Speaker Schroeder given November 25 and 26, 1982, and cited by the Minister of Finance but, rather, constitute an exception to the application of the rule due to the fact that prorogation and opening day are pro forma sittings which result from the exercise of the royal prerogative to summon the House.

Speaker Rogers's decision of April 10, 1990, makes it clear that the announcement outside the House of pending legislation does not amount to a breach of privilege but may, according to the nature of the announcement, involve a contempt of the House. In that decision the Speaker stated in part as follows:

I commend this decision to all members of the House. See the B.C. Journals, fourth session, 1990-91, page 16.

I have reviewed the press release and tax circular No. 049 which were tabled by the Minister of Finance. Both documents make it clear that the legislative measures required to implement the tax rate increase are proposed. For example, they will be presented at the next session of the House and be retrospective to the extent necessary. A review of finance and taxation bills presented to and passed by the House over many years indicates that a large number of them have retrospective application either to the date of introduction or an earlier date where required.

The Minister of Finance has advised the House that the questioned tax will be debated by the Legislature, and in fact it appears that the necessary amendments received first reading on February 17 in keeping with the undertaking given as part of the announcement of the tax in December 2003. The House has not been denied the opportunity to debate this tax measure, notwithstanding the legislation will be retrospective to the dates mentioned in the proposed amendment. Absent the undertaking to introduce legislation to support this change at the earliest opportunity, the situation would be quite different.

The device of retrospective legislation is not uncommon in Commonwealth parliaments. After a careful examination of the authorities and Speakers' decisions in this House and elsewhere, I am persuaded that the transaction relating to the Tobacco Tax Act does not constitute a breach of privilege or a contempt of the House. I do, however, agree with the observation of Speaker Fraser that proposed changes to the taxation system, absent statutory authority or an opportunity to debate the matter in this House, would be unacceptable in a parliamentary democracy.

Hon. members, the Leader of the Opposition raised a matter of privilege on February 16. This was the second of three matters of which notice was given on the afternoon of February 10, opening day. This particular matter involves statements attributed to the member for Surrey–White Rock while he was serving as Minister of Children and Family Development. During estimates debate on March 24, 2003, the Leader of the Opposition questioned the minister about the appointments of interim chief executive officers of the regional

authorities, aboriginal interim authorities and, finally, the interim authority for community living B.C.

The Leader of the Opposition contends that when the former minister responded with respect to the interim community living authority B.C., he misled the House by stating: "Currently, the senior government representative is Elaine Murray. They will be going through a selection process sometime in the next number of months." The Leader of the Opposition suggests that the member misled the House by not addressing the role played by Mr. Doug Walls in the interim authority and thereby hindered the effective functioning of the House and the opposition.

In support of her claim, the Leader of the Opposition read from and submitted the following documentation: (1) correspondence from the chair of the interim authority for community living B.C., (2) the signature page from the financial statement of the interim authority for community living B.C. and (3) a videotape of the debate proceedings.

On March 11 the member for Surrey–White Rock responded to the matter of privilege. In his submission he reiterated the Government House Leader's objections of March 3 that the Leader of the Opposition erred in not reserving her right to raise the matters at the earliest opportunity — namely, the morning of February 10.

With respect to the matter of privilege, the member for Surrey–White Rock argued that his statement with respect to the duties of Ms. Murray was in fact accurate. He noted that at the time Mr. Walls had the official title of senior consultant, planning and development, although he had taken on additional responsibilities as acting chief executive officer of the interim authority.

In his submission the member for Surrey–White Rock acknowledged: "…during the formational period of community living B.C., there was occasionally a lack of clarity concerning the position of interim CEO." Nevertheless, the member submitted that he acted with the best information available to him and that his statements were accurate and certainly not deliberately misleading. In support of his presentation the member also submitted documentation, including related correspondence, an interim authority transitional organization chart and minutes of the interim authority board meetings. I also note that in the event that his words were misinterpreted or led to confusion, the member for Surrey–White Rock offered an apology to all members of this House.

I have carefully reviewed the arguments of both hon. members, and I wish to thank them both for their detailed submissions, which were of considerable assistance to me. First, I will address the objection by the member for Surrey–White Rock that the Leader of the Opposition did not raise the matter at the earliest opportunity. As noted in my earlier decision on the first matter of privilege raised on February 10, the Leader of the Opposition was within the rules of the House when she reserved her right to raise the matters of privilege on the afternoon of February 10 due to the fact that both the morning and afternoon proceedings that day resulted from the exercise of the royal prerogative of the Crown to summon the House.

Secondly, I will address the matter of privilege put forward by the Leader of the Opposition. The role of the Chair is to determine, prima facie, not whether the House was misled in some way but whether or not it was deliberately misled by statements made in the House. Upon reviewing the presentations and submissions of both members, the Chair finds that the Leader of the Opposition's complaint is founded on an allegation of a misleading answer and, to some degree, a dispute as to allegations of facts between hon. members.

It has been well documented in the Journals of this House of June 8, 1982; May 5, 1988; and April 19, 1999; and in Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada at page 224 that an allegation of a misleading answer does not constitute a valid question of privilege unless there is clear evidence a member has deliberately done so.

Similarly, a dispute as to allegations of fact such as contradictory documentary evidence with respect to the role of Mr. Walls does not amount to a matter of privilege. Disputes as to allegations of facts are clearly described in Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, third edition, page 295.

In closing, the two submissions regarding the debate of March 24, 2003, cannot and do not lead to a conclusion that the member for Surrey–White Rock deliberately misled the House, and therefore I do not find a prima facie case of privilege.

Hon. members, last February 18, 2004, the Leader of the Opposition rose on a question of privilege stating that a newspaper report in the Powell River Peak of December 23, 2003, quoted the Solicitor General as making statements that contradicted earlier statements he made in the House that the government had no involvement in operational decisions on lottery facilities.

Specifically, the Leader of the Opposition stated that the Powell River Peak identified the Solicitor General as seeking out venues for the installation of slot machines. Through authorities that she quoted, the Leader of the Opposition indirectly alleged that the minister "knowingly misled parliament" and further alleged that the minister's statements in the House amounted to "a prima facie case of contempt."

Subsequently, the Solicitor General responded in the House to the matter raised by the Leader of the Opposition. The Chair has reviewed the material tendered by the Leader of the Opposition and the minister's statement. In his response, the Solicitor General said in the House that he "was not seeking specific venues for slot machines," but, in explaining the application process for slot machines to the local member, the minister inquired if the local community had expressed an interest in slot machines. He added: "At no time did I offer to direct the B.C. Lottery Corporation to place slot machines in a particular community."

Breaches of privilege involve the protection of members from impediments to their functioning as members of the House, whereas contempts of the House are, broadly speaking, offences against the dig-

nity and authority of the House itself. The strict definition of privilege or contempt cannot be expanded to include controversies as to facts, opinions, conclusions on the interpretation of newspaper articles or reports.

The point raised by the Leader of the Opposition is much more a matter of debate than it is one of privilege or contempt. Members will know that it has been a longstanding practice in this House that an hon. member's statement is accepted by the House in the absence of indisputable evidence to the contrary. This practice is well illustrated in the decision of Speaker Schroeder, April 13, 1982, which may be found in Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia at pages 296 and 297.

Indeed, there must be some prima facie evidence that the Solicitor General deliberately misled the House. This requirement of evidence that the House has been deliberately misled is articulated with Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, twenty-second edition, at page 111, and Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada at page 224. In this case, there is no such evidence in possession of the Chair.

The Leader of the Opposition has not established a sufficient foundation upon which to make a prima facie finding that the House was, in fact, deliberately misled. Accordingly, the matter raised by the Leader of the Opposition falls in the category of a case where there is a dispute of facts, and such dispute ought not to form the basis of a complaint of breach of privilege or contempt. The application, accordingly, fails.

Hon. G. Plant: In this House, I call third reading of Bill 2. I call Committee of Supply in Section A, and for the information of members, the debate there will concern the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.

Mr. Speaker: In Committee A, it's Committee of Supply, Mr. Chairman, and in this House, third reading of Bill 2, Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act.

Bill 2, Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, read a third time and passed.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 4; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move an amendment to section 33 by deleting the proposed section 33(3).

Hon. R. Coleman: This is the section that exempted the interim board from appointing an audit committee. In debates with Leader of the Opposition yesterday we concluded, as did she, that that should not be there, that there should be an audit committee and that that interim board shouldn't be exempted. That's why we're making the amendment.

J. Kwan: I rise to speak in support of the amendment. As the Solicitor General identified yesterday, my colleague, who was debating this bill with the minister, identified the flaw in section 33(3), which exempts the application of an audit committee to be applied to this interim authority. With the withdrawal of that exemption, the opposition is in support of this amendment.

Bill 4, Business Practices and Consumer Protection Authority Act, reported complete with amendments.

Bill 4, Business Practices and Consumer Protection Authority Act, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Plant: I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

J. Kwan: I'd like to canvass with the minister, first of all, some questions, generally, around cuts within the ministry, the restructuring process and the governance issue.

Budget 2004 calls for $70 million in cuts for the ministry. Would the minister please break down where these cuts are being made?

Hon. C. Clark: Some examples are voluntary agency reductions to community living services contracts, savings achieved through the recovery of excess payments made to agencies related to wage and benefits costs, savings achieved through collective bargaining, reductions of the number of children in care and reductions in community justice programming that are consistent with the caseload decline.

J. Kwan: Would the minister please provide the actual dollars in reduction associated with each of the areas so that I could see where the $70 million have actually gone?

Hon. C. Clark: These numbers are not exact to the dollar, because we're still getting to year-end and we'll still…. But this is where the savings will come. It's $15 million in voluntary savings. About $35 million will come out of the collective bargaining savings and out of the overpayments on Munroe. About $5 million we're saving because of the reduction of numbers of children in care. There is about $4 million to $4.5 million we'll be saving from the closure of Lakeview Youth Custody Centre, and we also expect to be annualizing savings in the neighbourhood of about $15 million in cutbacks on full-time-equivalents at headquarters.

J. Kwan: Could the minister repeat the number for children in care and also the last category?

Hon. C. Clark: About $5 million savings on the number of children in care, which has been reduced thanks to the hard work of thousands of social workers out there. About $15 million we'll be annualizing in savings from full-time-equivalent positions at headquarters that we'll be downsizing.

J. Kwan: First, around the voluntary savings, could the minister elaborate on that? That's $15 million worth of savings. What are voluntary savings?

Hon. C. Clark: Agencies were asked to submit plans for how they would find administrative savings. Those plans, it's important to point out, had to include the agreement of the families and individuals that they would be affecting. Those plans were submitted and were on target.

J. Kwan: If agencies were not able to meet the targets, what happens to them?

Hon. C. Clark: An entirely theoretical question. We are very close to achieving our target.

J. Kwan: Well, I think this is an important question, to this end. The minister says they were able to find $15 million worth of savings that she calls voluntary savings, in which agencies were asked to find administrative savings. The question I have for the minister is: for these agencies, do they have to comply? If it's voluntary, could agencies come back and say: "I'm sorry. I can't find the savings"? Is that an alternative for them?

Hon. C. Clark: It is voluntary, and they did come back and find the savings.

J. Kwan: What exactly did the minister tell these agencies that they have to do?

Hon. C. Clark: We met with the sector in the fall. They had an understanding of the targets that we'd hoped to achieve. They came back to us with their proposal, and that proposal included a $15 million saving, which they are very, very close to meeting.

J. Kwan: How did they come to this understanding? What language, exactly, did the minister use to arrive at this understanding with the agency? Were letters sent out? Was it in writing, or was it just verbal? I would like to know exactly the language that was used.

Hon. C. Clark: The member will appreciate that I wasn't at any of the meetings; I wasn't the minister at the time. I'm advised by staff that they sat down, agreed to come up with a cooperative approach, worked together to try and find these savings, and they did that.

J. Kwan: Does the minister have the list of agencies where savings were voluntarily found by them and how much applied to each of the agencies?

Hon. C. Clark: I can make that information available to the member. There are about 170 agencies that are affected, so we'll take some time to make sure we get it right and put it together for her.

Hon. C. Clark: Over the next couple of weeks we'll be able to put that together for her.

J. Kwan: All right. So that's what the minister calls voluntary savings — $15 million worth of it.

I would like to ask the minister questions around the Munroe savings. She advises that there were $35 million of savings from collective bargaining. Is that as a result of the ending of the Munroe agreement with the child care agencies? Is that where the $35 million savings came from?

Hon. C. Clark: Two things were contained in that explanation of $35 million. The first is collective bargaining. If the member has been following the news, she'll know that employers concluded a collective agreement with their employees in the community sector. We haven't got an exact number because we haven't quite completed the analysis of it, but we expect that will yield in the neighbourhood of $25 million. There were excess payments made under the Munroe agreement because of an error in calculation in the ministry, so those excess payments are coming back to the ministry. It is not related to the ending of the Munroe agreement, though.

Hon. C. Clark: Primarily in the area of benefits costs. It is important to note that the formula was put together by CSSEA, and they found the error, so we're addressing that.

J. Kwan: Errors in benefits costs. MSP premiums — what? What benefits? What errors? I would just like to get the facts from the minister.

Hon. C. Clark: It was an error in the calculation. It could be, for example, an overcalculation for the number of sick leave days — those kinds of thing.

J. Kwan: The number of FTE savings in terms of reduction in FTEs — $15 million worth of savings. How many FTEs is that?

Hon. C. Clark: I think I actually said it was $15 million; it is $10 million. I want to be clear about that. It is a 40 percent reduction in FTEs over the three-year period, and we're annualizing that for this coming year. If the member is looking for an exact number of FTEs, I can get that for her.

J. Kwan: Yes, I am looking for that exact information, but the minister advises that she doesn't have that exact number right now. I will wait for the exact number, but the ballpark number…. Perhaps she could give that to me now.

Hon. C. Clark: I will get that for her this afternoon. It is 40 percent of our total FTEs at headquarters. I suspect she wants an exact number. I want to make sure we get it right, so I can get it for her this afternoon.

J. Kwan: We will get that exact number, then, this afternoon. According to my information, my number is 458 FTEs, so I'm looking for confirmation — or the correct number, if that's not the right number with respect to that. That's 40 percent of the reduction of FTEs in the ministry.

Does the minister have the breakdown of what departments the loss in FTEs comes out of in the ministry? Which areas within the ministry, that is to say, resulted in the loss? If the minister doesn't have that information, I would appreciate that this afternoon as well.

Hon. C. Clark: That will be part of the information I get for her this afternoon.

J. Kwan: Once I get the information, I may have some further questions related to that, and we can come back to that this afternoon.

According to the budget book, the information I have is not broken down in the details that the minister provided, which is why I asked the questions. Just so I know what category falls in where in correspondence with the budget book, in the area of children and family development, according to the budget book, the budget is down by $62.3 million. Could the minister advise…? Out of the numbers, the areas that she has given me, what falls into that category of $62.3 million entitled children and family development?

Hon. C. Clark: A portion of the collective bargaining will fall in there. Obviously, a lot of these are contracted agencies, so they'll be affected by…. They'll find savings as a result of the collective agreement that's been concluded — or being concluded. A portion of the excess payments that were made as a result of the calculation error at CSSEA, the employers' organization…. Obviously, the fact that the number of children in care is falling will also impact — as a savings — the CFD sector and of course a portion of the FTE savings as well.

J. Kwan: Okay. What else falls into the provincial services category? Is $7.7 million in terms of cuts in the

provincial services? The closure of Lakeview is $4.5 million. Where is the rest?

Hon. C. Clark: I'm advised that it's the two youth custody centres that have been closed as a result of the fact that there are so many fewer children who are in custody in British Columbia. In addition to that, there will be some FTE savings as a result of the fact that some of the alternative measures and those justice-related activities…. The need for those is also dropping as the youth crime rate drops.

J. Kwan: I'm just recording this information down so I have it as I refer back to that. There are no other services that fall under the provincial services cuts? Is that it, or is there something else that the minister would like to add on to that list?

Hon. C. Clark: There are lots of services that fall under the provincial services category. I would refer the member to the budget book if she would like to have a complete list of what those provincial services are. They include, as I said, youth justice, child and youth mental health. British Columbia is the only province in the country to have a child and youth mental health plan — something we're very proud of. Community LINK comes under there, and youth custody centres. Those types of issues are all under the rubric of provincial services.

J. Kwan: The purpose of estimates is to actually get this information in an easily digestible form not just for the opposition but also for members of the public. In fact, I do have the budget books before me, but it does not provide for the breakdown in the detailed categories I would like to have. That's why I'm canvassing these questions with the minister, so I would like her to answer the question specifically in each of the categories — where the cuts have gone and how much.

Hon. C. Clark: Youth custody costs go down from $33.7 million to $29.1 million. Mental health, child and youth mental health, goes up from $11.3 million to $11.4 million. Youth forensics, which is treatment for young people, goes from $11.3 million up to $13.7 million. Community LINK goes down from $37.1 million to $35.1 million. The services for the deaf and hard of hearing go up from $2.4 million to $2.5 million. Provincial administration costs go down from $4.7 million to $2.2 million.

J. Kwan: I've got three areas where the dollars have actually gone down. Those are the youth custody area, the Community LINK program — which is the equivalent of what is known as the hot meals program — and then the provincial administration area. In terms of the reduction and then with the two closures…. Am I right to assume the two closures of the youth centres fall under what the minister calls youth custody and that together the two closures of those centres are in that category and all of that adds up to $7.7 million? Could I get a confirmation on that?

Hon. C. Clark: Perhaps the member could explain her reference to the $7.7 million.

J. Kwan: Looking at the budget book under provincial services, what we've been able to decipher is that I calculated that provincial services is a reduction of $7.7 million from the budget book.

J. Kwan: I will do the calculation in a minute. I'll subtract these numbers and see if I arrive at $7.7 million.

I want to go back then to child and family development in that area. The calculations I came up with are a $62.3 million reduction. Accordingly, the minister advises that collective bargaining and the error in the formula for benefits yielded $35 million worth of savings for the ministry, a reduction of $5 million for children in care and $10 million for FTEs. She had advised that a portion of the collective agreement dollars falls within the category under child and family development, and a portion of the FTE reductions falls into that category as well.

Even if I use the whole numbers of $35 million for collective bargaining and an error in benefits calculation and the entire $10 million for FTEs, I still cannot come up with $62.3 million. So if it is only a portion, then I'm short a number of programs that are being eliminated under the children and family development area. I would like a complete list from the minister and the dollars attached to them.

Hon. C. Clark: As I said, we haven't finished the complete analysis of how dollar for dollar the savings are exactly going to be, so I just want to preface my comments with that. We expect that about 30 to 40 percent of the savings from the collective agreement that was just concluded will come out of the CFD sector.

J. Kwan: I understand it is not exactly to the cent or dollar. Even if you look at the ballpark figure, I'm far short. The collective bargaining and the error in benefits calculation. The minister advised that for the entire ministry it is $35 million approximately, a portion of which goes into the child and family development area. I'm just even using the entire $35 million for the purposes of this set of calculations.

The children-in-care area yielded a $5 million savings or reduction, if you will, in the ministry. That's $40 million. Then in the FTE area, the entire ministry's reduction in FTEs — that 40 percent reduction — yielded

the ministry $10 million in savings. The total of that is only $55 million, even though the minister said that only a portion of the FTE savings would fall under the category of child and family development. I'm still short quite a number of million dollars in this calculation — $7.3 million, to be exact. The numbers are not adding up accordingly. I would like to have a full list and the numbers attached to them of where the cuts were made for child and family development.

Hon. C. Clark: First, I just want to point out for the member that the actual forecast, as opposed to the original budget, for children and family development in '03-04 was $689.8 million, and the budget for this year, '04-05, is $661.7 million. That's a difference of $27 million.

Probably, we're better to work from the same set of numbers here. If she works from the actual forecast for '03-04 — which, of course, better reflects the actual spending that was made — that number for '03-04 is $689.8 million, and the budget for '04-05, which is the gap between this year's spending and last year's spending, is $661.7 million. So if she can work from those numbers.

The other thing I'd just point out for her is that the 40 percent cut in FTEs, annualized, is at headquarters. Those FTE reductions in the field were a much, much smaller number than that.

J. Kwan: I'm still looking for the answer for program cuts that occurred in the Ministry of Children and Family Development and specifically in the area of child and family development. If the minister, then, can give me the exact breakdown of what programs had a reduction in funding and what the name is of the program area under that category of child and family development, that would be appreciated.

Hon. C. Clark: Two specific things. The first one is that we've achieved our children-in-care target. We've outperformed our expectations. We're ahead of schedule by $34 million for '04-05. That's just simply because there are fewer children being taken away from their families and coming into government care, because we are finding better ways to support those families and make families more loving, caring, stable places than perhaps they were before they came into contact with the ministry in those specific cases. That's a very good piece of news.

The remaining reduction is going to be achieved through the annualization of savings from '03-04 from the reduction of children in care, as I said, and the workforce adjustment savings that I talked about. That's where the savings are coming from in the children and family development side of the ministry.

J. Kwan: Children-in-care savings yield $5 million in savings. That's what the minister advised. Then the collective bargaining dollar savings and the error-in-MSP savings, for the entire ministry, yield $35 million. Then the savings in reduction in staffing, reduction in FTEs — which is about a 40 percent reduction in headquarters, as the minister calls it — yield $10 million in savings. Again, I add all that together. The numbers don't seem to match.

Maybe we can start with this. The minister can tell me, then, what the dollar reduction is in the child and family development area that she's working with. What is the amount of reduction there? Let's start with that.

Hon. C. Clark: It's $28.1 million — $5 million for the children-in-care budget, which is, I think, a piece of good news; $16.8 million in FTE reductions; bargaining and Munroe overpayments, as we defined a little bit earlier, approximately $10 million; and then about $500,000 in community justice contracts.

J. Kwan: It's $5 million in children in care. So far that's the only consistent number that we've had. The FTE number the minister just gave me is $16.8 million, yet earlier she said the entire ministry savings in FTEs is $10 million. We now have $16.8 million just in the child and family development area, so we're out $6.8 million approximately — just on that alone. Maybe the minister can clarify the FTE situation.

Hon. C. Clark: The $10 million savings was in the headquarters. FTEs had a 40 percent cut in the headquarters staff, so we can try and preserve the field staff as much as we possibly can. There is a $16.8 million savings, we estimate, in the child and family development sector.

J. Kwan: That's in addition to the headquarters reduction, so we're looking, really, at FTE reductions of $26.8 million — $10 million in headquarters and $16.8 million with respect to workers out in the field. Then the minister said there was $10 million in the collective bargaining savings. Then the last area was $5 million in savings in which area?

J. Kwan: Sorry. It's $500,000 in community justice programs. Okay. When I add that up, I have $36.8 million reduction in child and family development. The minister just said that the total reduction in that area is $20.1 million. I'm now out $16.7 million more reduction than the minister has said in her total. How did that come about?

Hon. C. Clark: The member included some things in that list that I didn't include. Just to be clear with her: children-in-care budgets, down by $5 million; FTEs, $16.8 million; bargaining in Monroe, approximately $10 million; and community justice contracts, about $500,000. That adds up to a little bit more than $28.1 million, which is the difference between what we spent last year and what we budget for next year. We

are trying to make sure we meet our targets, so there is a little bit of give there, as I said, because we haven't completed all of the analysis for some of the savings. But the two numbers are very close.

J. Kwan: I'm sorry. The minister just said $28.1 million. I actually don't have that number. What the minister said was $5 million in savings in children in care and $16.8 million in the FTE area. That gives us $21.8 million, then $10 million in collective bargaining. That gives us $31.8 million and then $500,000 in the community justice area. That gives us $32.3 million. She said $28.1 million was the total. I'm sorry. The numbers don't add up. Where did I go wrong? Or where did the minister go wrong?

Hon. C. Clark: I'll give another stab at explaining that to her again. The total of the savings that we've identified is $32.3 million. As I said, though, those numbers are not absolutely firm. I've said this a number of times, partly because we haven't completed the analysis of what the savings will be in the collective agreement. That's the savings we're looking at right now — $32.3 million.

The gap between what we actually spent last year and the budget we've set for this coming year is $28.1 million. There's a few-million-dollar gap in there, but that's because we want to be absolutely prudent and make sure we meet our targets. Because we haven't quite finished the analysis on how much savings will accrue as a result of the collective agreement, we've made sure there is a little bit of cushion in there if indeed our analysis turns out that we don't get the kinds of savings we'd expected from the collective agreement that's just been concluded.

J. Kwan: What I understand the minister is saying is that the cuts are now deeper than what the projections are, just in case, so that she has that cushion to ensure that, I guess, she gets her….

J. Kwan: It's to ensure she has that cushion so she will come in on or under budget and not over budget so she will earn her salary, because her salary is tied to the budget she brings in at the end of the year. So there is a cushion there? All right.

The minister says the numbers that are in the budget books come to $28.1 million worth of reductions. Where in the budget book does she have that information? What page is it on, and which budget book?

Hon. C. Clark: We're talking about our forecast. Of course, that's not included in the budget. That's what the estimates process is for.

I want to be clear, though, about some comments the member just made. The savings that would be achieved as a result of the collective agreement are a net reduction in costs. If that goes up or goes down, it won't have an impact on service delivery, because that's just a reduction in costs.

J. Kwan: Then just to be clear, the numbers we are working with are the numbers that the minister is using on what her projections are in terms of how much the ministry will come in on with these different programs, and that's for the year 2003-04 compared to the budget book. The budget book — all we have — is not the projections the minister is coming in on, but rather what the projected estimates for the budgets are for the ministry.

For the year 2003-04, according to the budget book, the child and family development area has a budget of $724.029 million; for the '04-05 year it is $661.722 million. That's a reduction of $62.3 million. That's where I came up with the numbers, because that is all I have to go with.

There is a huge discrepancy in these projected numbers from what the minister is saying. Is the minister then saying that the estimates for…? Which set of the numbers, then, are wrong? I presume it's the '03-04 numbers, because the actuals are not coming in as $724.029 million. The projected actual numbers coming in for '03-04 are what?

Hon. C. Clark: It's $689.8 million. Again, that is a result of the fact that we are so far ahead of the projections we had for the number of children in care and the FTE reductions that have been annualized. We're well ahead of our target that we had set for ourselves. I think the whole purpose of estimates is to discuss where we've spent our money and where we plan to spend it, so what I'm trying to do with the member is give her a sense of where the money was actually spent over this last year, and that number is $689.8 million.

Hon. C. Clark: We manage to our bottom line. We make sure that where we have savings, we reinvest that in areas such as community living where there have been big pressures on costs.

J. Kwan: According to my calculations, there is a projection of some $34 million — $34.229 million — worth of savings if these numbers actually come in as the minister is projecting. Could she break down where these savings would have gone to — the $34.229 million? Where are they going? She said community living. How much to community living, and where else?

Hon. C. Clark: About $30.1 million, which is almost all of it, has gone into the community living budget.

J. Kwan: The $4.1 million. According to my calculations, I calculated $34.229 million worth of savings. The minister says community living has absorbed $30.1 million, so that still leaves us about $4.1 million. I'm just wondering where the rest of the $4 million-plus went.

Hon. C. Clark: The rest of it will be used for contingencies to deal with pressures that come up, but I can assure her it will be spent.

J. Kwan: The minister says contingencies. Where are the other pressures coming from, then, that might require this contingency?

Hon. C. Clark: There is tremendous pressure in the community living sector, where there is a growing population — a growing aging population of people with developmental disabilities who require, in many cases, increasing support. It is also true that people who are entering the system for the first time requiring community support often have a higher acuity of needs, so those pressures are very, very large. Those are issues across government that we're facing not just in this ministry but in the health system and across ministries. So those are very, very big pressures, and we want to make sure we have the money there to make sure we can deal with them as they arise.

J. Kwan: Well, I will be very interested to know exactly where those dollars have gone.

It's no kidding, when the minister says there are pressures everywhere. The fact is that within this ministry, there are significant reductions in program dollars out in the community. It is no wonder there are huge pressures coming from everywhere. So I would be looking very closely to see where exactly the dollars have gone.

In a way, one could actually also say this. In the area of child and family development, if the number comes in at the projected number the minister has put on record — $689.8 million compared to $724.029 million — then what we're looking at is really a reduction twice over in the area of child and family development.

It is not only the budget numbers that have been reduced from year to year. The actuals have gone in under budget. Therefore, the cuts in child and family development are actually deeper than what meets the eye.

By the way, Mr. Chair, that was the same thing that happened in the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services when we debated the child care sector. In the budget for the child care area, the actuals came in under the budgeted number, so really the child care funding from that ministry got a reduction twice over. I think that is what we're seeing in terms of a repeat here.

I will be looking with interest to see where the rest of those dollars have gone. Once the numbers come in, it may be — it may not be; I don't know — that the estimates for the Ministry of Children and Family Development may be completed. If they are completed, would the minister commit, then, to providing the opposition in writing with where the rest of the dollars have gone — the actual numbers versus the budgeted numbers — and how they were reallocated within the ministry?

I want to clarify for the member, though, about the issue of service delivery in the Ministry of Children and Family Development on the children and family development side of the ministry. Those are services the ministry provides to support children who come into care because their families can no longer support them or because their families aren't safe places for them to be. The majority of those children end up going back into their homes. But families sometimes go through crises, and children need to be removed, and that's a necessary thing for government to do to protect kids and make sure they're safe.

It's also a necessary thing for government, though, to try and support families and see if we can intervene before crises arise — to build those supports around families, to try and make families safe, loving, caring places for children so that they don't have to be removed. That's been very much our focus. We have had a great deal of success in that largely because of the very hard work of social workers out there in the field, who have used the range of training they have to really try and build supports around families instead of taking a child out of the home and asking questions later. That's better for the children; it's better for the families; it's better for communities. It is also, though, a lower cost to government.

I want to make sure she has a fundamental understanding of how this budget works, and that's by pointing out that the reason the costs in this budget or the amount of money spent in this part of the budget for the Ministry of Children and Family Development has dropped is because demand for those services has dropped. In other words, fewer kids are coming into government care because social workers in particular are doing a really terrific job at supporting families and keeping children in their homes as much as they can, as long as they know that they're safe and loved and cared for.

It's very much the same dynamic we saw in the budget for youth custody. In the budget the amount of money we've spent on children in custody has gone down, because the number of kids who are going into custody has gone down and the crime rate has dropped amongst youth. Demand has dropped in youth custody, so our budget has dropped in youth custody. The same thing in this budget — demand for children to go into government care has dropped, so the amount of money we've spent on that has dropped.

On a per-child basis I want to make sure she understands that the number hasn't dropped. In fact, what we've seen is that social workers in some offices have their time freed up, because they are working with fewer children in their caseload who are actually in care, which is a very labour-intensive and time-intensive process. It means there are more social workers dealing with fewer children, and that's a very, very good-news story not just for this ministry and for the government, but it's a very, very good-news story for communities out there.

J. Kwan: I will be getting into the details of the cuts in each of the regions and the program cuts in the community. The reality is — and certainly the communications I have with the community groups indicate this — that the picture is not as rosy as the minister would like to paint it. I know she is putting out this spin that the government can yield all these savings because the number of children in care has reduced.

However, the reductions in programs to support families and children in the community…. The program funding has also significantly gone down and is creating extreme pressures in the community, particularly for those who are working with children and families at risk and children and families who are in stress.

I think that it's not I who would dispute the minister's point of view that the savings are there because there are fewer children and families in crisis. Rather, I think it comes from somewhere else, and we'll get into the details of where the reductions have come from and what programs later on today. These are just global figures that we're looking at right now, and I will get into further details around this kind of stuff later on in the debate.

Let me then focus on the area of FTE losses. The minister is going to provide me with the exact number later on today in terms of the FTE loss and where it came from in each of the different areas within the ministry. Does she also have the information on what region the FTE breakdown comes in from — the reduction in FTE, I should say?

Hon. C. Clark: I'll make sure she has that information when I provide it this afternoon.

Let's go beyond the '03-04, '04-05 budget numbers. Could the minister please advise: what are the total ministry cuts between 2001-02, which is the baseline, and the 2004-05 fiscal year? I would ask the minister to please provide the breakdown of cuts over the various ministry program areas, starting with '01-02 to the current year.

Hon. C. Clark: The budget for community living services in '01-02 was $655.5 million. In '04-05 it's $609.6 million. That's a total reduction of 7 percent from '01-02. Child and family development is $745.5 million in '01-02 and $661.7 million in '04-05. That is a total reduction of 11 percent. Provincial services is $112 million in '01-02 and $94 million in '04-05. That's 16 percent. In executive and support services it's $39.7 million in '01-02, down to $16.2 million in '04-05, and that's a 59 percent reduction. That's an 11 percent reduction overall from '01-02.

J. Kwan: I would also like to get the numbers for the years in between — so '01-02, '02-03, '03-04, '04-05 for each of the categories.

Hon. C. Clark: The actuals for '02-03 for community living were $632.8 million; same year — '02-03 — for child and family development, $715.3 million; for provincial services, $96.9 million; and executive support, $14.8 million. In '03-04 — again, this is the forecast — $637.3 million for community living, $689.9 million for child and family development, $95.9 million for provincial services, and $19.1 million for executive and support services.

J. Kwan: And the number for the year '02-03 — the budget number? The minister gave me the actuals. What was the budget number?

Hon. C. Clark: Community living, $686.2 million; family development, $767.5 million; provincial services, $110.8 million; and executive support services, $23.1 million.

J. Kwan: And the '01-02 number? Maybe the minister could give me the numbers for both the budget and the actuals. I wasn't clear if the first set were budgeted numbers or actuals.

J. Kwan: Could the minister give me the budget numbers and the actuals again for the '01-02 year?

J. Kwan: Well, I have the budget book for the year 2001 here, so I can look that up, which will take me a few minutes, Mr. Chair. So could I just take a few moments to do that? Then I'll resume questions with the minister when I get the information, seeing as the minister doesn't have it.

Hon. C. Clark: Perhaps she could look it up, and we can talk about that this afternoon. If she would like to move on to another subject before lunch, that would be great.

J. Kwan: There is a line of questions that I have for the minister around the budgets. If the minister could actually provide me with the information, then we can

move on. I would like to work out the differences year over year in terms of what the budget number was, what the actual numbers were and then ask my questions accordingly — flowing from that. I would actually like to be able to work out the numbers, seeing as the minister doesn't have the information.

In other estimates, for example, we just did part of the estimates with the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services. We went through the child care budget for the years previous to the current year — both the actual and the budgeted numbers. The minister was able to give me both sets of numbers and the differences as well, and that was most helpful and effective. Seeing as that's not the case here, I will look up the numbers, work it out and ask the minister questions accordingly. If I could take a few moments to do that, Mr. Chair, I would appreciate it.

The Chair: Member, I'd just maybe suggest that we could move on to another subject. This time in the House should not be set aside for research, but rather be set aside for asking questions. So unless we have another member asking some questions, I'd ask you to move on to another subject.

J. Kwan: Well, that's in the spirit of cooperation from the minister, I'm sure, in making sure that the opposition has the information so they can canvass the questions accordingly.

Seeing as we're not going to have that, as I can see the minister is eager to get the estimates process finished and on the way…. While I work out the numbers that she could not give and provide me, which she should be able to provide to the opposition, seeing as it is her ministry and she is the minister responsible…. Given that that's not the case, and we can't even pause for a moment so the opposition can get those numbers and ask the questions accordingly, fine. We'll come back to it this afternoon in fuller detail about every bit of these differences in terms of the budget numbers and the actuals and where the savings have gone.

In the meantime, as I work out the numbers, let me ask the minister the question. For the year '02-03, there is a difference — significant differences between the budgeted numbers and the actual spending. The difference for the year '02-03 for all the categories — where did the moneys go? The savings that were not spent in the budget numbers — where did the moneys go?

Hon. C. Clark: In the year the member is referring to, the ministry invested $60 million in 27 separate strategic investment funds. These are guided by community-based organizations that provide grants to community organizations and individuals. That's part of our commitment to build capacity in communities, and those are being disbursed based on community needs.

J. Kwan: Well, that's actually not very helpful in terms of the information that the minister has given, so I'm going to have to work out the details in terms of the difference in the actuals and the budget numbers for '02-03 and then get into each of the areas where the moneys have gone in detail.

In the meantime, I understand that the member for Vancouver-Kensington has some questions for the minister. I will yield the floor to the member for Vancouver-Kensington to ask questions of the minister while I work out the numbers which the minister would not give.

P. Wong: Regarding the vote, in the category of children and family development, would the minister tell me what the overall net operating expenses are for this year?

Hon. C. Clark: For the ministry overall the budget is $1.451 billion, and we expect to come in on budget. In the children and family development side of the ministry we are forecasting $689.8 million for '03-04.

P. Wong: I understand that the net is $661 million instead of $669 million. Is that correct?

P. Wong: Compared to last year, 2003-04, the amount was $724 million. I can work out a percentage that there was a reduction of about 8 percent. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Clark: From budget to budget as opposed to actual to actual, that's correct.

P. Wong: What's the total amount reduced in respect to the Community LINK program throughout British Columbia?

Hon. C. Clark: Some $37.1 million in '03-04 is our actual for Community LINK. It's what we actually spent, and $35.1 million is what we budget to spend for '04-05.

P. Wong: In respect to Vancouver school district 39, what's the actual amount reduced from the Community LINK program?

Hon. C. Clark: The difference for Vancouver school board between '03-04 and '04-05 in the Community LINK program is $1.68 million.

P. Wong: Can the minister calculate what the percentage in reduction is, please?

Hon. C. Clark: We don't have a calculator, so we are doing this in ballpark figures at the moment. I suspect that the member is an accountant and may have a closer figure than I do, but it's a little over 17 percent.

P. Wong: If you compare the percentage of reduction of the Community LINK program, is it fair to say that Vancouver has the higher percentage of reduction — obviously, comparing other areas in the total program?

Hon. C. Clark: Yes, and I'm advised that the math…. It might be closer to 20 percent. I want to make sure that I'm correct about that.

In Vancouver — yes, that's true. The reason for that is because the ministry made a decision the year before last to distribute the money based on need so that the Community LINK funding would be focused on where kids were the neediest as opposed to focused on districts.

What the ministry has done — and the ministry has been innovative in doing this, setting an example worldwide — is an analysis of where the neediest kids are, and the funding is flowing based on where the need is. That's meant a redistribution of funds across the district. In changing to Community LINK, that's meant that some districts have seen a decrease in funding, but it's also meant that other districts — many, many other districts — have seen an increase in funding because they've been historically underfunded. Although they had, in some cases, just as many needy kids, they were getting far less money to be able to support those kids. We've tried to build some equitability into the system based on the needs of the kids that are there.

P. Wong: Based on the guideline of the ministry, it refers to the neediest; that means the vulnerable students. I understand that the definition of vulnerable children is…. "The success of society depends on the outcome of our most vulnerable children." Would the minister be able to find out the definition of vulnerable students? Also, what are the risk factors in respect of the vulnerability of the students at risk?

Hon. C. Clark: For the purposes of this program, we've looked at the total population of kids in the zero-to-18 age group, really, that experience difficult socioeconomic circumstances. We have put together an index where the prevalence of socioeconomic deprivation in the province equals 100; that's the baseline we've used to measure it against. We've looked at the number of kids falling below the socioeconomic baseline that we've set and then looked at the total volume of each of those kids in a school.

The research, all of the evidence, tells us it's not just the fact that a child comes from a family that struggles with poverty that's an indicator of the fact that they're at risk. It's also the size of the community they go to school with, of other kids who also struggle with those same issues, that creates a greater risk. The larger the population is at a school of children who are struggling with poverty, the greater the risk for each of those individual children. The smaller the population of children who are struggling with poverty at home, the less likely they are to experience those kinds of risks.

We've combined those two measures as part of the index to determine where the neediest kids are. We've been applauded for this model worldwide. We've been really leading in making sure the money we spend on these programs is based on evidence of where the highest need is. As a result, that meant the redistribution of some funds across the province in recognition of the fact there were some very, very needy schools that weren't getting nearly the same kind of resources to support those kids as other schools that were perhaps still needy but not quite as high on the needs index.

P. Wong: According to the risk factor index, the minister talked about poverty, neighbourhood, family background and also the group of students. Among these four categories, which did the minister put more weight on than others?

Hon. C. Clark: It is my understanding that all of those were equally weighted. The staff member who actually helped put together that program with the former minister isn't here, but it is my understanding, based on the corporate knowledge that we have in the chamber today, that all of those were equally weighted in making a determination of need.

P. Wong: In respect to the meal program, I believe that poverty can carry more weight because you talk about family income. I understand that there is a reduction of the meal program in the current-year funding. Would the minister look at why we have to cut the meal program expenses?

Hon. C. Clark: It's up to school boards to decide how they want to use the money and find a way to use it that they think is most appropriate. The Community LINK program doesn't fund school meals exclusively. It's intended to support vulnerable children, and there are a whole variety of ways that school districts might use that money to support vulnerable children. Some school districts have chosen to focus less on meal programs, and some have chosen to focus more on meal programs. Vancouver school district and almost all of the urban districts of British Columbia have seen big increases in their budgets overall. It's up to school districts to make sure they are continuing to support the vulnerable students in their communities in the way that they recognize best meets the needs of their communities.

One of the things we've been very clear about as a government is recognizing that school districts are locally elected bodies who are elected to reflect the needs of their local communities. They're the people that should be determining what those needs are and allocating their resources accordingly. Vancouver is no different from Surrey or other districts, particularly in the lower mainland, in that respect. We continue to

P. Wong: I heard a number of constituents in my riding say that some students have difficulties in learning because they are hungry. I would also like to find out how much it costs per meal in the Vancouver district. Do you have any number available?

Hon. C. Clark: No. We don't provide the school meals program. School districts provide that. Different school districts have different costs for the program. Some school districts have a very, very cheap, low cost per meal that they provide, and some school districts have a more expensive program. That really depends on the priority that the school district puts on it and on how they see that they want to manage their funds as well as they can.

In Vancouver the school district staff is making a proposal. The finance committee is making a proposal to the school board — and I understand that the school board hasn't yet considered it — that they will maintain the school meals program at its current funding levels. They found ways within their budget, within their…. You know, it's about a half-billion dollars if you include capital for the Vancouver school district. It's a very large budget — a little smaller than that. They found ways to be able to make up that money to make sure that the school meals program continues and is intact for kids. They're going to change the way they do it a little bit to make sure that it's as efficient as possible and that it's serving as many kids as possible, but it looks as though staff have come up with a proposal to try and manage the funding shortfall in a way that doesn't affect the services for kids who rely on school meals to make sure they can learn during the day.

P. Wong: Does the vote include school supplies and textbooks for the students in school? Does your vote include textbooks and school supplies for students?

Hon. C. Clark: No. That money would be allocated under the Ministry of Education budget. I know, though, that this member has been a real tireless advocate on behalf of kids in his constituency, particularly vulnerable kids who need help and support through their public schools. I know he'll make sure that all of the points he wants to raise on the Ministry of Education side are also raised with the Minister of Education when he is up debating his estimates. I do want to really thank the member for his tireless advocacy on behalf of the kids that live in his community and that go to the schools in his local community, because I know he has been deeply, deeply involved in making sure that the public schools in his community have what they need to support the kids that are there.

J. Kwan: I can't let the comments pass — the minister's comments about the funding, the shortfall in the school Community LINK program or what used to be called inner-city programs or the social equity envelope funds. I just met with the school board last week when we had spring break. In fact, they are not going to be able to provide for the programs that the school board is responsible for under the Community LINK program with the funding cuts from the provincial government. They're faced with budget shortfalls already to the tune of some $11 million, in addition to the Community LINK cuts of $3 million. There will be hungry kids in the school system as a result of this budget cut; make no mistake about that.

It is not the only thing it funds in terms of the Community LINK funds. It cuts funding for counselling for children, to help children to stay in schools, and particularly those children who are at risk of dropping out. Those are funding cuts that are effective as a result of the government and this minister's cut to the Community LINK program.

The cuts also impact parents getting involved with their children's education and maximizing children's education success. Those cuts are particularly impacting ESL parents, and those are the facts as a result of these cuts. This is just some of the information. I don't have all of the documentations before me. I have it downstairs in my office, which we will canvass on the Community LINK programs under this ministry and the net effect of it.

If the member for Vancouver-Kensington wants to advocate for children who are faced with these cuts in his community, then he would be wise to say no to these cuts publicly and in this chamber and to this minister. Platitudes don't help, and the words the minister actually said, to say, "Education actually receives higher funding, so therefore school boards have nothing to complain about," are completely false. This government, under this minister — when she was the Minister of Education — increased the pressures in the classrooms exorbitantly in the area of salaries for the teachers and the supportive staff; in the areas of increased MSP premium costs; in the area of increased fuel costs as a result of this government's increase in the taxes for fuel and gas for every British Columbian, and that includes the education area; and inflation costs — just to name a few of the increased pressures.

It is a completely false statement to say that school boards have the tools they have to work with to meet these increasing pressures. In fact, the per-student funding has actually gone down when you include inflation costs and increased cost pressures. The Minister of Children and Family Development sits and scoffs at these comments. She would be wise to know — and she should know, as the former Minister of Education — what she has done to the school system in British Columbia, where those pressures are and how the children's needs are in fact not being met. And yes, Mr. Chair, I will be canvassing these issues with the Minister of Education — make no mistake about that — but I will certainly be canvassing specifically in the area of education that relates to this minister's responsibility. That would be the cuts in the Community LINK program for the Vancouver school board.

I have many questions for the minister, and I have worked out some of the numbers relating to the budget numbers that I was canvassing earlier. But noting the time, I'll move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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

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

Hon. J. van Dongen: I'd like to take a minute, Mr. Chairman, to introduce my deputy minister, Rory McAlpine; Bud Graham, assistant deputy minister for environmental sustainability and resource management; and behind me, Karen Wilk, our acting director of finance and administration.

M. Hunter: I've got a couple of areas of questioning that won't take me very long this morning. I wanted to ask the minister about some elements of federal-provincial fisheries cooperation, both in terms of the wild-capture fishery and in terms of aquaculture. Maybe I can start with that area of questioning.

Can the minister tell me what the current percentage of fish production is of total B.C. agriculture production?

Hon. J. van Dongen: If I understand the member's question correctly, he asked what the percentage is of total agricultural sales and what seafood represents as a percentage of that. Agriculture itself is $2.2 billion at the farm gate. If we look at the equivalent figure for seafood — this is landed value for both the commercial sector and aquaculture — it's $668 million. If we take the commercial and aquaculture sector and look at the wholesale value, that's about a billion dollars, and a big percentage of that will be export dollars. I hope that answers the member's question. If not, he can ask for more clarification.

M. Hunter: I don't want to get into a debate about landed and wholesale values, but it seems to me it's within the realm of reason that we can argue that the seafood industry of British Columbia is somewhere close to half of the total value of food produced in the province. That makes this ministry, in my opinion, particularly important at least to coastal British Columbia, if not the entire province.

The other question I would like to ask on the statistics is that in my years in the seafood industry, we used to argue with Nova Scotia about whether British Columbia or Nova Scotia was the leading seafood province in Canada. Can the minister tell me where we are in that league table today?

Hon. J. van Dongen: We can't be certain about the numbers, but certainly, on aquaculture itself, British Columbia is the largest producer in Canada. There is no doubt about those numbers. That's about $300 million in farm-gate production, if you will. We can check the numbers for the member in terms of total B.C. fisheries activity versus Nova Scotia's.

The other thing I would say, which I think is relevant here and relevant to the member's concern and motivation for asking these questions, is that the seafood sector is a major employment creator in coastal communities. I would also say that the potential for further growth and utilization in British Columbia is greater than any other province in Canada.

Our government has pursued a policy of good environmental management, good resource management, conservation of the resource and a sustainable approach to harvesting and processing. We have also pursued, as a part of that, a policy of economic utilization and maximizing value of a quality product. Certainly, it's my view and our government's view that we still have great potential to improve in all of those areas — to improve our impact in the marketplace by focusing on quality and differentiation and improve employment prospects. We have the most untapped potential of any province in Canada.

M. Hunter: I'd like to explore a couple of aspects of the remarks the minister just made — a couple of areas

that have proven, I guess, a bit problematic in terms of federal-provincial relationships and, in my opinion, the impact those relationships in the fisheries field have had on the maximization of the value of seafood in this province. One has been the old federal aboriginal fisheries strategy and its impact on salmon harvesting in B.C. I'd like to ask the minister about that.

The Provincial Court found, I think, late last year or in the summer of last year, that the aboriginal fisheries strategy was without a legal basis. I understand there have been some changes in federal management. As a result of that, is the prospect for the British Columbia wild salmon fishery picking up in terms of allocations that the federal government may now be able to contemplate, given that the AFS is no more?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I think the member has identified an issue that has been a longstanding concern in this province. We have always tried to follow an approach of trying to foster with the federal government a good-policy approach to the issue of the commercial fishery. We don't know at this point exactly how the federal government, in its management decisions and its policies, will deal with the court decisions the member refers to.

Certainly, the comments I made about having good utilization of the resource, subject to good conservation management, apply in this case. We continue to foster the notion of an effectively managed, integrated commercial fishery where, on the basis of a strictly commercial fishery, native and non-native alike would be treated fairly and equally.

We see some looming issues on the horizon in terms of things like the species at risk policy that are being pursued by the federal government and that are affecting management decisions. We are trying to approach that on a scientific basis. We are putting forward our assessments of those situations to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, but it's one that can, as the member knows, very significantly impact management decisions and the economic utilization of that resource for native and non-native fishermen alike.

You have a combination of the aboriginal fishing policy, the lack of an integrated management system in the commercial fishery and the looming issue of species at risk. It's a pretty critical mix of issues to be working with to maintain a viable commercial fishery. That's certainly our objective provincially.

M. Hunter: In that context, and in the context of other activities going on around treaty-making and fisheries — I know there is a treaty advisory committee that has been advising the minister — I want to pose my question on that in the context of the earlier discussion of the last item.

Given the minister's concern, certainly one that I share, that there are issues out there — whether they be the Species at Risk Act or the propensity of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to avoid risk rather than manage it, at least in my opinion — can the minister explain what mechanisms are in place for the province to influence and discuss management approaches and solutions with Ottawa? It was a one-way street in the late 1990s, with Ottawa imposing its will on British Columbia. I think we've certainly changed the atmosphere in the last few years.

Are there changes in the mechanics that would lead me to be able to tell my friends in the seafood industry that there is actually some hope there could be some changes in approach that would see a little more vitality, if you like, certainly in the commercial, in the wild fishery, and that British Columbia is going to have a voice in creating that kind of potential? I know the minister and I both share the view that the potential is there. What are we doing to make sure we actually extract that potential?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The area the member identifies is a big part of our ministry's work in the fisheries sector: to work with the federal government, which has the jurisdiction and authority on most of the decisions that impact the viability of the commercial sector. I should say as background, first of all, that our government, our Premier and myself as minister, have approached this from a basis of wanting to develop a respectful working relationship as opposed to one based on confrontation and disputes and argument about jurisdiction and authority.

We certainly have taken an approach where we want to defend provincial authority. We didn't want to give up any ground there, but we didn't see the solution, in terms of an approach, to being jurisdictional approaches. We do have a new Pacific Council of Fisheries Ministers, which we just signed prior to Christmas, that involves British Columbia, the Yukon and the federal minister. That's in addition to the National Council of Fisheries Ministers.

It allows us to work directly with the federal minister and his staff to foster policies and management decisions and approaches that are appropriate to the west coast and appropriate to British Columbia. Overlaid over that, we now have specific arrangements — for example, a monthly conference call between our deputy minister and assistant deputy minister and the federal deputy minister within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

I would say that there has been quite a significant change in approach. I think that the federal people — both the elected people and the staff — have responded positively to our approach provincially. Certainly, at the senior levels, we're working very proactively and constructively to break through some of the historical problems and difficulties and differences of opinion we've had. These monthly conference calls and more frequent visits to British Columbia than we've seen in the past by senior deputy ministers and the associate or assistant deputy ministers are helpful.

We have also worked with the industry — certainly, all players in the industry. We've always fostered an approach that we want to involve all players

in the industry, but particularly where we can have a group that represents as broadly as possible the biggest part of the industry — namely, the B.C. Seafood Alliance. It's an organization of a whole number of players in the industry that is open to all the industry.

We have worked with them and the federal government to work toward the vision for a B.C. industry that they have developed, one that is forward-looking, constructive, built on some of the characteristics I talked about earlier — about producing quality products, value-added and pursuing local consumer and export markets in a professional way. It's been a partnership effort, a joint effort. There are always things or situations or particular issues where we feel we can do better or where we may have some frustrations, but I think on the whole we have made progress, and we've actually been able to deal with some pretty difficult issues in a professional and constructive way on behalf of the industry. We still have some big hurdles to go, as the member knows, and we continue to work very actively on those.

M. Hunter: Thanks to the minister for drawing a picture of where federal-provincial relations, which are so important in this domain, are going. I think that's helpful. I also know there are some roadblocks. One of them — and I won't be specific — is with respect to aquaculture siting licences. My understanding is that there are some relocation applications for salmonid aquaculture facilities in B.C. that have been held up at federal level for over 18 months. Can the minister give me any indication of what's happening to those resiting applications? Again, is there a process we can look forward to that will make our industry a little more confident in where it can go and how it can go there?

Hon. J. van Dongen: Certainly the member is correct. That has been a major issue.

I should say as background, first of all, that we as a government have reviewed all of the policy issues around aquaculture, particularly environmental sustainability issues, waste management issues, fish escape issues and policies. We've improved compliance and enforcement. We have gone over all of the ground on siting applications and requirements that are appropriate for that, and we feel we have a solid foundation for an environmentally sustainable industry that includes third-party regulation by our provincial government.

That's important background. We have worked closely with the federal government, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. We have established a priority list in terms of the applications. CEAA is a new process — the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act process — with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. It is relatively new, and some of the frustration holdup has been in the development phase in developing the approaches and the policy.

I do know that more recently the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has put increased staff on the process. There is a real critical need for us to continue the drive and effort to harmonize what we're doing and what the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is doing not only in terms of the application process but also the day-to-day management after that. There is a certain amount of connection between both the initial application and the subsequent management and the overlay of duplication involving both federal and provincial regulations. We have worked actively in all of those things.

It is still an issue that, in my view, is a very, very significant issue. We have had a lot of very, very active dialogue and effort on both sides in the last six months, but it is one where we still have — and I'm certainly prepared to say this to DFO — work to do, and we're very, very actively pushing that. We need to see some significant improvement in how we handle those applications. It's not right to have them out there for 18 months or two years. When you look at the amount of investment in time and professional expertise and dollars that goes into a site application, then it's incumbent on governments to also process those in a reasonable fashion, a reasonable time frame.

M. Hunter: I would certainly agree with that last comment of the minister. Thank you.

I am sure there are others who want to pursue those issues. I want to just move to one last area of questioning that I have. It's on food safety and food quality. The estimates for this coming fiscal year suggest we're going to spend nearly $4 million on food safety. My question is one that I have asked before of this minister, and it's based on my past experience around the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

Back in 1986 the federal government, the provinces and the territories all agreed that they would move forward with harmonization of Canada's food inspection system. We're nearly 20 years later. Can the minister tell me how close we are to a harmonized system that will allow British Columbia to back out of some of the areas it now has to do?

My hypothesis, as the minister knows, is that there is duplication in food inspection. I know we're moving towards harmonization so that all governments can save some money on this very important activity. How close are we to having a single food inspection system in Canada?

Hon. J. van Dongen: Certainly, we will always struggle, first of all, with the split jurisdiction, where the province has authority within the province and the federal government has authority on interprovincial movement and export movement. I would say, in answer to the member's question…. This is again an area of discussion that has gone on for many years, as he knows, but some of the recent events we've had that we're working through in the food industry generally, such as BSE and avian flu, etc…. Some of those issues, I think, are providing some impetus and some motivation for a much more active dialogue, a review of the

meat inspection regulations. All of these things are, I think, going to help speed up the process. It's not really the way you'd like to see things happen, but it will have that effect.

B. Belsey: I have three areas that I would like to address today: aquaculture, ocean ranching and the wild fisheries. My colleague from Nanaimo has certainly canvassed some of the questions I have on aquaculture. As you know, my riding is made up almost entirely of coastal communities, and there's that constant tug and to and fro with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the provincial Fisheries and first nations communities. A lot of these questions — or most of them — are questions that I've been asked as I travel around the riding, and I would just hopefully get some clarification.

My first question is: where is the division between the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the provincial jurisdiction over not only salmon but the freshwater fish — trout, inland lakes? Does the Department of Fisheries and Oceans have some jurisdiction over lakes and rivers and streams, and do we have jurisdiction over salmon in some of those migratory species?

Hon. J. van Dongen: Any time you have mixed jurisdiction, you have issues as to where the line is. As a starting point, all of the authority for fisheries under the constitution rests with the federal government. The federal government chose many years ago to delegate to the provincial government certain authorities dealing with management, mainly of freshwater fisheries, so through the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, the freshwater management program for fisheries takes place. That's the basic delegation of authority that is essentially the federal government's.

B. Belsey: Has the province ever considered some kind of legal analysis of the authority of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans — I mean, even going back into the Charter — to understand very, very clearly what the federal government claims is their jurisdiction and what they're willing to share with the province in the way of their jurisdiction?

Hon. J. van Dongen: We have certainly not, in the time we have been in government, pursued that type of analysis, recognizing that under the constitution, it is fundamentally a federal authority. As I said to the previous member, we have preferred to focus our approach on partnership, on cooperative approaches and developing what we believe is good policy.

Even though virtually all the management of the wild fishery is within the federal government's authority, we have certainly taken an active role in that on behalf of commercial fishermen, representing their interests and the interests of the province in what we thought were appropriate approaches to the exercise of that authority.

We have not conducted a legal analysis. We don't believe it would necessarily be a productive enterprise, although if we have situations where we believe the federal government is making decisions that start to encroach on legitimate provincial authority in other areas, then we might consider that. We have not had any examples of that at this point.

B. Belsey: Most of my other questions on aquaculture are very similar to those of my colleague from Nanaimo, so I'd like to move on now to ocean ranching. Has the province taken up this issue with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans? Can you share, maybe, their concerns or their response with me?

Hon. J. van Dongen: We have not at this point engaged in any policy discussion with DFO with respect to ocean ranching. Our staff have looked at the arrangements in Alaska and how they conduct ocean ranching. My understanding is that those arrangements can be quite complex. There are some aspects of it in Alaska that make it possible there, but it is not a simple policy to develop and implement.

If the member and the industry feel there are some viable options here for the industry that should be considered, certainly I myself and my ministry would be prepared to consider opening up the discussion with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans on it, but it is a fairly complex policy matter to get into. As I said, I would be very open to industry submissions on the issue.

Ocean ranching is something that has been a topic with some groups, certainly first nations. Ocean ranching and terminal fisheries are a couple of areas that might be interesting to look into, especially with the development of aquaculture and some of the concerns with first nations. You and I may have an opportunity to sit down and discuss this a little more and maybe look at a pilot project and see where we can go with it.

The last area I have some interest in is the wild fisheries. I'm not sure whether you've been asked this question. I was out of the room for a little bit. If you have answered this already, then I don't mind at all you telling me to read Hansard, and we can get on with my next question. I'm just wondering: what support does the province provide for the wild fisheries in the way of marketing?

Hon. J. van Dongen: We as a province and as a ministry do not provide any direct marketing dollars. Under the Farming and Fishing Industries Development Act, we do provide the facility for an industry levy that is used to fund the B.C. Salmon Marketing Council, which is an industry effort to engage in the generic advertising and promotion of salmon.

There was a change not too long ago within the federal government that makes marketing dollars available through the Ministry of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada for seafood promotion and industry development, particularly tied, I think, to export market

development. We are working with industry groups. There are certain conditions that apply to access these funds, but I am very, very interested. I've been very clear with our staff and our industry that I want to see a relevant and fair portion of those dollars come to British Columbia, and we're working actively with the industry to try and access some of those marketing dollars.

B. Belsey: This is my last question to the minister. I'm wondering what kind of support there is out there for someone who is trying to look at a relatively new type of fishery. I have an example of a fellow in the North Coast — Hawkshaw. He and his wife have been looking at a new development or a way of taking a relatively low grade of fish…. The way they're handling and processing it, they've been able to sell that fish very successfully on markets.

I'm talking about pink salmon. Most of the time what you hear about pinks is that the cans they go in are worth more than the fish, then the money the fishermen are receiving for it. He's able to catch and process pinks and is getting upwards of a dollar a pound for his pinks. But it's a relatively expensive and time-consuming process to develop these new types of fisheries and these new types of markets. Is there some kind of support or some kind of direction that, through you, I could direct this fisherman to?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I have met Fred and Linda Hawkshaw and have some admiration for anyone in the industry that makes an effort to try new things and has an entrepreneurial approach and, particularly, is looking at value-added. Certainly, I do get Fred's correspondence. I have made specific representation to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans through my staff to support a pilot project of the kind, generally, that Fred and Linda Hawkshaw have promoted, and I have personally talked to other industry players both to foster support for their efforts and to get their sense of the merits of what they were trying to do.

I've had some positive responses, so it's something we will continue to work on, on their behalf. I think what they are trying to do is very good for the industry and is something we should have absolutely no hesitation in supporting. I want to be sure that you, as their MLA, and Fred and Linda know that we are in support of their efforts, and we have made specific representation to DFO on that.

D. MacKay: There are three areas I want to spend a few minutes on. The first one is in the estimates manual, where we look under "Capital Expenditures" on page 36. We're looking at $300,000 on food safety and quality for capital expenditures and $366,000 on risk management for capital expenditures. I wonder if you could explain what that money was spent on.

Hon. J. van Dongen: We have the capital expenditure budgets broken down into a number of categories, including computers, equipment, operating equipment, office furniture and equipment, tenant improvements and vehicles.

Food safety and quality. There's $159,000 of computers budgeted. There's $138,000 of equipment, and that could be any type of lab equipment, freezers or that type of thing. There is $24,000 under what's categorized as operating equipment, and there is $25,000 worth of office equipment. Those are the four categories for food safety.

Under our risk management branch or programs, there is office furniture and equipment of $21,000 and $85,000 of vehicles.

D. MacKay: Two other areas I would like to look at are about salmon farming. I'd like to ask a first question that has to do with the escapement from the pens. Looking at the escapement, when we first started fish farming back in 1989, we were looking at an almost 12 percent escape rate, and as we moved through 2000, we were getting down to less than 1 percent. I just wonder what has happened over the past three years. Has escapement from the pens remained low, or has it increased? What's happening with the escapement percentage?

Hon. J. van Dongen: In the last three years we have seen considerable improvement. There has certainly been improvement in management. There's been tightening up of regulations, and there's been improvement in the net pen structures, in the nets themselves. We've seen really quite low numbers of escapes, but one can never be resting on their laurels. Certainly, as an industry and as government, we need to be diligent on these matters on an ongoing basis, and we are.

Any escape, even if it's two salmon, needs to be reported. That's one of the regulations. It has to be reported immediately to Atlantic Salmon Watch. We've certainly encouraged all citizens, including recreational fishermen and commercial fishermen along with the fish-farming industry, to report any escapes they may encounter. We've seen a significant improvement over time, and it's one we need to continue to be vigilant about.

D. MacKay: Are we below the 1 percent escapement rate that we were at in the year 2000?

The last question on fish farming has to do with the Broughton Archipelago and the pink salmon returns. Looking at previous charts, they would suggest that the pink salmon return increased dramatically after the fish farms were introduced into that area. There was a great deal of furore in the media when the pink salmon returns dropped in the years 2001-02. I'm just wondering what's happening to the pink salmon return in that area now. Has it actually increased? In the year 2000,

after the fish farms were introduced back in the 1990s, we saw dramatic pink salmon returns of almost four million. I'm just wondering what's happening to that return as we move forward.

Hon. J. van Dongen: The first comment I would make to the member, because this cuts both ways, is that one needs to be very, very careful in drawing correlations or assuming conclusions from a series of events that may or may not be connected. We try very hard to review all the science, do the necessary research, continue to monitor and to seek improved science as required.

We hold it as a priority to protect the wild stock. The run of a few years ago, where we had a run of pinks of over three million — I think it was in the '01 year — was a very significant run, one that was eight times the long-term average. Then there was a significant decline in the run the following year, and that situation has been under active monitoring and active management by both our ministry and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

The run that we saw last year was a lot more consistent with the long-term average and long-term trends in the area, but we ourselves and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, as I said, have an active management program taking place there. We also have three significant research projects going on that we initially funded to learn more about the behaviour of sea lice in both the farmed and the wild stock.

D. MacKay: The last area I'd like to talk to the minister about has to do with food safety and farm-gate sales. I don't think anybody can fault governments with the food safety system we have in place today. I think that with the majority of food, probably 99 percent of the food we buy at stores, the water that we drink, we do a great job of protecting the public from unsafe food. There were recently some new changes made to the food safety and farm-gate sales at the slaughterhouses, and I'm just wondering if the minister can enlighten me on the farm-gate sales side of it.

The changes in the regulations had to do with the meat that was being prepared for public consumption. Is there a difference between meat and an animal on the hoof — a live animal and meat? I think that's where the farm-gate changes that came in with this new regulation have caused some concern in parts of the province where we don't have the safety inspections.

I'm more concerned about people who sell animals…. I can go to a farm and buy an animal from somebody, have it slaughtered and taken to a butcher shop. I'm paying somebody for the service. I'm willing to take the risk when I buy an animal from a farmer that I know. But there is some concern among the cattle ranchers in the area I live in that this new regulation is going to impose restrictions on them that will not allow them to continue to sell animals at the farm gate and that it's going to really hurt them financially.

I'm just wondering if the minister can enlighten me on what we're doing to make sure that the farm-gate sales can continue, providing the meat is not being made available for general public consumption. If it's being made available to me as an individual and my family, are we going to allow farm-gate sales to continue in this province without having to go through this inspection system?

Hon. J. van Dongen: As the member has said, the policies in that area are under review. The review was initiated by the Ministry of Health Services but is one that we as the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries are very actively engaged and involved in. There are large parts of British Columbia, including the member's area, where the regulation of meat is under the Health Act as opposed to being under the Meat Inspection Act, and there are, certainly, some different sets of standards there.

There have been no decisions made. There was a draft regulation proposed last October, and that proposed regulation was the subject of a number of public meetings. I think about eight meetings were done throughout the province. Certainly, we encouraged the Ministry of Health Services and worked with them to ensure that the public — both the producers, as the member has talked about, and the consumers — got access in terms of making their input on those issues. That information is being digested and assembled.

There was a specific meeting then called by the ministry about February 2 — again, with our ministry's involvement as well as the Ministry of Health Services and a number of stakeholders — to talk about all of those issues and how we balance the need for public safety and food safety with the need to have a set of rules that rural British Columbia could live with and one that did not jeopardize people's livelihoods.

We are still working through those issues. I know that the Minister of Health Services is fully aware of the member's concerns and the concerns of the constituents he represents. We expect in the near future to do further work on this issue, but I see our role and our ministry as not only defending the needs of public safety and consumer interest but also ensuring that all the potential impacts on the agricultural sector are factored into the discussion and that we try and find approaches that have some flexibility in terms of regional needs to meet both those objectives.

I'm hopeful we can make progress on that. I can assure the member and all the other members that we will have a full discussion on this issue before any final decisions are made.

D. MacKay: My final question to the minister is just a follow-up to the discussion we just had. Can he give

me a time line when this decision is going to be made? Is it going to be made this year, in 2004, or are we looking further down the road?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I anticipate the decision will be made this year, but I can't speak to a fixed time line. He would have to get confirmation of that from the Minister of Health Services.

D. MacKay: My final question, then, to the minister. Given the answer I just got, can ranchers continue to do as they've done— that is, selling animals at the farm — without this new regulation impeding or changing anything that has been done in the past?

Hon. J. van Dongen: There has been no change in the law at this point. Certainly, subject to them being in compliance with what the law is today, they can continue to do that. It would be our submission to the Minister of Health Services that any decisions of changes in future will include a reasonable transition period to allow a reasonable transition to any new regulations that might be developed.

J. MacPhail: Was the provincial government consulted on the announcement that the Prime Minister made yesterday on compensation for BSE?

Hon. J. van Dongen: We were aware that the federal government was considering some additional program dollars. We'd made submissions with respect to that, and we did get notice of the announcement before the decision was announced yesterday.

Hon. J. van Dongen: Our province, together with the other four western provinces, wrote a letter to the federal minister recommending that the federal government cover the cost of a specific amendment to the policy — that is, the issue of negative margins, which is the subject of a proposed amendment to the federal-provincial agreement. We felt that some of the dollars in this announcement could and should be used to fund the cost of that amendment.

J. MacPhail: Could I have a copy of the letter, please? Was that letter made public, and could I please have a copy of it? I didn't see it.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I don't know that we made the letter public, but I would certainly have no difficulty in giving the member a copy of that letter. It is signed by, as I said, four provinces, but I don't think the other ministers would have any difficulty with that.

J. MacPhail: Could the minister explain how yesterday's announcement can be used to cover negative margins?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The federal announcement of the federal decisions involves specific allocations and approaches to the allocation of those dollars, so there is no opportunity to redirect those funds to the funding of negative margins as we had proposed. But the likely impact of the federal announcement will be to significantly mitigate the potential of negative margins being triggered under the CAIS program, the Canadian agricultural income stabilization program in the 2004 year.

J. MacPhail: Sorry. I thought the minister said this announcement would be able to be used toward the request to mitigate negative margins. I'm reading the details of the program. I watched the minister's announcement yesterday and the Prime Minister's announcement, and I couldn't figure out how producers who are in a net loss position would gain from this. Could the minister please explain to me how that's possible — how producers who are facing the ill effects of negative margins and debt load will gain from the announcements made yesterday?

Hon. J. van Dongen: As I indicated in my previous answer, all the dollars are allocated. The essence of the program is that there is an $80 payment per head for every ruminant animal in inventory on December 31, 2003. There are various other per-animal amounts for animals such as sheep, goats, llamas, alpacas and some of the other smaller breeds. These dollars will go directly to producers.

I should say that there are two components to the announcement. The larger component of some $600 million–plus — I think approximately $680 million across the country — is specifically designated to the beef industry. Then, there is a general transition payment of some $250 million — something in that order — for other commodities.

The program is intended to pay out dollars quickly — we were told as early as April. It is based on a program of transition payments that is quite easy to calculate and follows a previous one-time transition payment for 2003, so the government will be able to deliver and execute on the payment of those dollars fairly quickly and efficiently. Getting those dollars will certainly improve the position of the farmers and ranchers vis-à-vis their lenders.

I should also add that we see a growing optimism — founded, I think, in fact — in the United States that there will be further relief in terms of border opening. We're also seeing, only very recently, in the last one to two weeks, general improvement in the market values of various categories of animals in our beef industry. We see a general improvement, and we think the payment, while it didn't necessarily follow the design criteria we would have liked to see, will be very helpful to our industry. I've asked my staff to review the anticipated impact on the industry, but the federal government estimates that I was given yesterday morning are that, of the announcement, approximately $36 million will come to B.C. producers.

J. MacPhail: In total? Because the media is reporting that $64 million would be available for British Columbia. That's question No. 1. If the provincial gov-

ernment's analysis is $36 million, then I would appreciate seeing that analysis. I would appreciate the letter quickly. The media is reporting that it will be $64 million, so there is a discrepancy there. What, if any, effect will this have on provincial payments to producers?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I'm not aware of the $64 million figure reported in the media, but certainly I will ask our staff to look at that. The figure of $36 million was a number given to us yesterday morning by the minister himself in a conference call with all ministers. This was a federal calculation; it was not our calculation. I have not been given a figure at this point by my staff. We're looking for that number, and we'll certainly look at the $64 million and see where that came from. I've asked staff to get the member a copy of the letter as soon as possible.

J. MacPhail: Well, it was a straight calculation by the media that if we have 6.5 percent of Canada's beef, then 6.5 percent of the announcement is $64 million, so it's probably inaccurate. It's a media announcement. I mean, it's the $36 million. If the federal minister is saying that to the provincial minister, then it's probably $36 million flowing.

My second question on that was about what, if any, impact that will have on provincial payments to producers.

Hon. J. van Dongen: We believe that it will provide some mitigation for potential provincial payments under the various programs, particularly the CAIS program that we're under. That would be the federal-provincial agreement we're in with the federal government.

The other comment I would make is that if the methodology the media used was to take 6.85 percent of the total package, because that reflects the scale of our beef industry, that would certainly be an oversimplification of the calculation.

J. MacPhail: Yes, I agree. If the provincial government saves money in terms of this new announcement with regard to their portion of the CAIS agreement, will the provincial government then redirect those savings back to the producers?

Hon. J. van Dongen: We will be analyzing the potential impact of this federal announcement, and certainly we will be considering options. We do have funding pressures in the out years of our five-year agreement, and we need to consider all of those aspects. We want to continue to support a policy framework that is fair both to taxpayers and producers. When I say "producers," I'm talking about all commodities of producers. There are a lot of considerations to be made, but certainly we will look at all of the options, including possible redirection of funds into amendments to the programs that we're in.

J. MacPhail: In answering questions from the member for Nanaimo, the minister was asked a question about resiting applications and the length of time it takes to approve resiting applications. The minister then went on to explain that he's trying to harmonize activity between the provincial government and the DFO.

One of the reasons why fines were returned and penalties forgiven to fish farms in the spring of last year was because the government said that there had been huge delays in approval of applications. The minister, of course, admitted in estimates last time that he didn't know anything about the return of those fines or the elimination of penalties, forgiveness of penalties. Yet in his answer to the member for Nanaimo, he said it was him who was working with DFO about trying to harmonize regulations around approval of resitings and, therefore, I assume, sitings. Why is it, I ask again, that this minister was not involved in making the decision to return fines and forgive penalties around siting applications and penalties flowing from that?

Hon. J. van Dongen: As I've said to the member many times, that issue is not within the responsibility of my ministry provincially, and we were not involved in the decision.

J. MacPhail: Yes, I know, but that's not what the minister said to the member for Nanaimo. He didn't say: "Oh, resiting applications have nothing to do with me." He stood up and answered the question. He said he's working with the DFO to try to harmonize regulations around these matters. He didn't answer the member's question about whether the approval time is 18 months or less. I guess he can't answer that question, because then he would have had to admit that, really, maybe the approval process and the time it took had nothing to do with returning the fines and reversing penalties. I'm just curious as to why the minister took a different approach with the member for Nanaimo than he has with me.

Hon. J. van Dongen: The issues are two unrelated issues. Our ministry has been working generally with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans on harmonization issues for a considerable period of time. We are working with them very specifically on the requirements in site application so that we eliminate unnecessary duplication both in terms of the submissions that the farms need to make and the professional evaluations that our staff and the staff of other ministries such as Water, Land and Air Protection and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans make.

The issue of any refund of fines or penalties is a specific decision made by another provincial ministry that we had no involvement in as a ministry. We were not aware of the consideration of that issue. I would say that the two issues the member has raised — harmonization and that refund — are two different issues.

J. MacPhail: Well, the minister misunderstands me, and I expect deliberately. The issue that the member for

Nanaimo raised was around asking the minister: has there been a shortening of the period between the time a siting or resiting application is made and the approval of that? He said it was 18 months and has the minister shortened that period of time. That was his question. The minister stood up and didn't answer whether the period of time for approval had been shortened at all under his government, but then that was his basis on which he answered the question: "We're working with DFO to harmonize regulations, to eliminate the red tape and to speed up the process."

Well, the reason why the fines were returned and the penalties forgiven was that the government said that there had been an unnecessary backlog of approval of applications and basically said that it was the previous government's fault for the backlog. Then the minister said to me that he — this minister — had nothing to do with that decision. I accept that.

I accept that those who wanted to forgive over a million dollars of penalties and fines went around his back. I do accept that, but they're exactly the same issues. The member for Nanaimo was asking about eliminating the delay in processing the application; this minister responded that he's working on that. It was the bureaucrats giving the reason for returning the penalties as unnecessary delay in approving applications — exactly the same issue.

I have a question from a concerned British Columbian. I'll just read it into the record, and the minister can reply. It came last week: "Is it true that the B.C. Liberals have spent $409,000 of our tax dollars to promote farmed fish?"

Hon. J. van Dongen: The study the member refers to relates to a research project that has been identified by an organization called AquaNet working together with the B.C. Research Council to look at the food safety aspects and the allegations of possible contaminants in farmed salmon that may be a concern for consumers. It is in direct response to allegations raised by a study which was funded by the Pew Foundation in the United States.

Certainly some of the base funding for this Research Council activity came from our ministry, and it reflects the commitment that our ministry and our government have to fund research projects that we believe are in the public interest. The actual control of those dollars involves people from the university sector and a range of people who have an interest in the aquaculture sector. The overriding concern is to fund projects relevant to the public interest that involve environmental sustainability and things like food safety.

J. MacPhail: Is it $409,000? Is the money going to AquaNet? What's the premise of the research? What are the actual project terms of reference?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I don't have that specific information with me, but certainly I'm prepared to get that for the member — both the overall terms of references of this particular project and the more overall terms of reference for the research fund. I'm prepared to get that for you as soon as possible.

Hon. J. van Dongen: That will be part of the material that we provide. I am aware of a media report that talked about $409,000, but I don't have verification of that at this point. We will get that.

J. MacPhail: In the last round of estimates and in question period last year, the minister refused to answer questions about the special prosecutor's report, even though subsequently the Attorney General said, on April 9, 2003: "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."

We tried to get the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture recommitted, and the government voted us down. We were left with the Attorney General saying that the minister could have answered the questions, but then he flat out refused. He referred all of our queries to the Attorney General or the special prosecutor's report, but the government, of course, didn't release the special prosecutor's report. I'm just going to do some follow-up on that, Mr. Chair.

J. MacPhail: The minister never read the special prosecutor's report. Well, I'm completely shocked by that, because on the lobbyists' registration, it shows that Gary Lee of Stolt Sea Farm Americas is registered as a lobbyist and lists the Minister of Fisheries by name as his target. The nature of the lobbying is stated as: "activities related to Stolt's interest in B.C." The dates provided are February 2003 to February 2004.

My questions were going to flow from how this person is lobbying the government and the minister — being paid a substantial amount of money to do this — and how that jibes with what the minister has learned from the special prosecutor's report. Today he admits that he didn't even read the special prosecutor's report.

Now, I just want to say that these lobbyists are paid big bucks to claim that they meet with ministers. Maybe they're lying. Maybe Gary Lee of Stolt Sea Farm of America registered and isn't doing anything. But given the fact that the minister hasn't even read the special prosecutor's report and that this company is still claiming to lobby the government, how can we have any confidence that any lessons were learned?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The results of the special prosecutor's investigation were reported, as I recall, in a press release issued by the Ministry of Attorney General on April 2, 2003. My initial information, as I reported before, came from a media call. The same information that the member has was provided to me in terms of that press release.

J. MacPhail: Well, here's what the news release said. It said that there was no indication of intentional criminal wrongdoing — end of story. It didn't give any details about what was contained in the special prosecutor's report.

The minister hasn't even read the special prosecutor's report, and he's still being lobbied by Stolt Sea Farm. I find it unbelievable how this minister didn't learn anything — nor did the government learn anything — from that special prosecutor.

Based on the minister's answer, I will have to explore this further, Mr. Chair. Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY