Hansard -- Wednesday, March 24, 2004 p.m. -- Vol. 22, No. 7 (HTML)


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Introductions by Members		9621

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		9621
	Coquitlam community events
	H. Bloy
	Youth safety programs
	P. Sahota
	Harm reduction strategies in Victoria
	J. Bray

Oral Questions		9622
	Disciplinary matters involving Liberal MLAs
	J. Kwan
	J. MacPhail
	Hon. G. Collins
	Electric power generation in B.C.
	B. Bennett
	Hon. R. Neufeld
	Federal government aid for B.C. cattle industry
	P. Nettleton
	Hon. J. van Dongen
	Preservation of Burns Bog
	V. Roddick
	Hon. B. Barisoff
	Disciplinary matters involving Liberal MLAs
	J. MacPhail
	Funding for social housing
	R. Nijjar
	Hon. M. Coell

Second Reading of Bills		9626
	Supply Act (No. 1), 2004 (Bill 21)
	Hon. G. Collins
	Ministerial Accountability Bases, 2003-2004, Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 23)
	Hon. G. Collins
	Financial Administration Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 11)
	Hon. G. Collins
	J. Bray

Committee of Supply		9627
	Estimates: Ministry of Children and Family Development (continued)
	J. Kwan
	Hon. C. Clark

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		9671
	Estimates: Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection
	Hon. B. Barisoff
	G. Hogg
	B. Suffredine
	J. MacPhail
	W. Cobb
	B. Penner

D. MacKay: Today in the House I have two friends and guests down from the state of Alaska. In the gallery today are Sen. Robin Taylor and Terry Otness, who is a project manager. They're both from Juneau, and they're down here to discuss projects of mutual concern between the province of British Columbia and the state of Alaska. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

Hon. S. Bond: It gives me great pleasure today to introduce a friend who is in the House. That's Mr. Chris Dittmar. Chris has been working in Victoria for over two years, and he will be leaving the capital on Friday. The good news about that is that he's going to be leaving the capital to return to our shared home, which is in Prince George actually. Victoria's loss will be Prince George's gain. I hope the House will certainly help me make Chris feel very welcome today.

P. Wong: Today in the gallery we have 70 very brilliant and active grade 11 students visiting from Sir Charles Tupper Secondary School in my riding. They have come to Victoria for a tour of the Legislature, along with their teachers Mr. Rob Ferguson, Mr. Auton Lum, Mrs. Ann Young and Mr. Albert Mann. Would the House please help me to make them all very welcome.

B. Penner: In addition to the two elected people we have here today from Alaska, we're also joined by, again, Matt Morrison from the Pacific NorthWest Economic Region. He's here today to help us prepare for PNWER's next annual summit, which members may know will be held right here in Victoria in July. It promises to be an exciting and successful event. I hope all members will take the time to get to know what that event is about and perhaps participate by attending the conference, which will take place this July in Victoria.

V. Roddick: In the gallery today is a special young woman to my family, daughter of the late Diana Rankin Bates, originally from Victoria, and the late Richard Geoffrey Bates, originally from Gyrn Castle, Llanas, North Wales. Nicola Bates, currently attending Malaspina College, is off to the American InterContinental University in London, England, to complete an MBA in interior design. Will the House please join me in wishing her good luck, or iechyd da, as her father would have said.

J. Bray: Joining us today is a grade 5 class from one of the great schools in my riding, Margaret Jenkins. This class is also hosting students from Quebec, and both groups are here to tour the buildings and learn about parliamentary democracy as it's done in British Columbia. I'd ask the House to make both my constituents and our friends from Quebec very welcome.

H. Bloy: It's my honour to introduce a group of students up here from a college in the United States, in Washington State, that sang in the rotunda this afternoon. Their sound was just amazing, and I wanted to thank them for that very much.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, I would like to take this opportunity to introduce 25 public servants seated in the west gallery who are participating in a full-day parliamentary procedure workshop. This workshop offered by the Legislative Assembly provides a firsthand opportunity for the public service to gain a greater understanding of the relationship between the work of their ministries and how that work affects the Legislature. Would the House please make them welcome.

H. Bloy: I'm proud to inform my colleagues today of a new title I have received: Ambassador Bloy. That's right — ambassador. I was recently appointed by Mayor Jon Kingsbury and council to this prestigious position. My job will be easy. It'll be to promote the city of Coquitlam, which covers part of my riding of Burquitlam. I take this position with great honour to talk about Coquitlam wherever I go.

As ambassador, I have special passports for everyone in this province, and I'll be delivering a passport to every MLA in this House later today. This passport will inform and invite you to a variety of events in the city of Coquitlam: the Festival du Bois, the Teddy Bear Picnic, Faces of the World arts and cultural festival, and many more activities covering every month of the year. Attend these activities and get your passport stamped, and you could have an opportunity to win many great prizes. I would like to acknowledge Barb Stegemann, director of tourism, and all the sponsors for making this happen: Westwood Plateau, Westwood Plateau Golf Academy, Coquitlam Centre, citysoups.ca, Executive Plaza Hotel, Best Western Coquitlam Inn, Tall Cedars bed and breakfast, Anducci's restaurants and Milestones restaurants.

My colleagues from Coquitlam-Maillardville, Port Moody–Westwood, Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain and I would be pleased to tour any of our colleagues in the city of Coquitlam, and my colleagues and I look forward to seeing you in Coquitlam.

P. Sahota: This past weekend my colleague from Burquitlam and I had the honour of participating in the

launching of a new program with the Protect Our Children Society. This grass-roots organization wants to help and protect our children from the dangers of substance and sexual abuse. Their board of directors is composed of people from various walks of life, from Father Charles Walters, who is an Anglican minister, to an RCMP officer who has extensive background in the community policing, to a father whose daughter had fallen into the sex trade.

Parents alone are, at times, unable to deal effectively with children that may be involved in drugs and crime. Police forces alone can't do it. The government alone can't do it. This organization is trying to do more for our children, and I want to commend them for tackling some of the most troubling and complicated issues in our communities today.

As I said, all of us know that no one agency or group can do it alone. We must all work together to tackle the problems that are affecting our youth, and I know our government is doing its part. This past week the Premier made the announcement of provincial standards that will help young people, parents and educators work together to improve student safety and reduce bullying.

This announcement was made at Stride Avenue Elementary. This school is at the forefront of dealing innovatively with complex social issues like bullying, intimidation and harassment. With the leadership of their principal, Joan Lee, and their teachers, Stride has been able to bring 40 active parent volunteers on board. It helps the students understand their emotions and teaches them compassion in the Roots of Empathy program. It has a partnership with South Burnaby Neighbourhood House, and it has a peer mediation program.

The new provincial standards will now allow these types of innovative ideas to be shared with other schools across the province. The safety of our children is one of our most important priorities, whether it's at home, on the playground or in the classroom. I know these new guidelines will greatly benefit our education system across the province.

J. Bray: As this House knows, I have been an advocate for harm reduction strategies for those living with addictions in Victoria's downtown core. Specifically, I have spoken many times about the need for a "wet house" for those with chronic alcoholism who are either homeless or at risk of being homeless due to their active addiction. The goal of the wet house is not treatment per se, but a reduction in the harm suffered by the person with chronic alcoholism and the effect that homelessness has on other people's sense of safety in the downtown area. But I was on record as being opposed to a supervised injection site for Victoria.

Last week I attended a public forum on this subject where the Minister of State for Mental Health and Addiction Services, Mayor Alan Lowe and former Vancouver mayor Philip Owen all spoke. After this forum, I must say that on the issues of a Victoria supervised injection site, my views have been tempered significantly.

At the forum I saw a cross-section of the society in Victoria represented, who all appeared to support the goals of harm reduction. However, Vancouver's supervised injection site was dealing with specific issues of people shooting up on the street, in the alleys, etc. I have toured that site and talked to staff, and they expect only a small percentage of clients who are accessing that service to move to treatment. The goal of the Vancouver site is to reduce harm on the user and take the injection activity off the street.

I believe that for Victoria to consider a supervised injection site of its own, these questions should be examined. What are the harm reduction needs of users in Victoria? How many users need or desire this service? What are the harm reduction needs of the community as a whole? What are the objectives of the Victoria site that may be the same or different from the Vancouver model? Should this be one locale that centralizes the activity or several smaller sites that do not draw people to an area they otherwise might not go? If we can identify the needs and the solutions that will enhance our community in Victoria, I would be very supportive of that outcome.

J. Kwan: The continued secrecy surrounding the inner workings of the Liberal caucus would be laughable, except for the fact that the public has been kept in the dark about some very serious matters. Yesterday the Speaker ruled again that the questions about the Liberal caucus discipline are in order when they deal with financial implications to the government.

The opposition has been informed that the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville was disciplined for inappropriate behaviour involving a staff member at a 2002 Liberal convention. Can the Deputy Premier tell us if the caucus discipline of the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville included removal from a government-staffed government caucus committee and whether or not the government has disclosed that information to the legislative comptroller?

J. Kwan: …and the Deputy Premier should be getting up to answer these questions.

Covering up caucus discipline for being late to a meeting is one thing, but covering up disciplinary action for inappropriate behaviour involving a staff member is another all together. The public has the right to know if their MLAs are violating the public trust.

Hon. G. Collins: These questions continue to be out of order, Mr. Speaker. They were out of order last week. They were out of order yesterday. They are out of order today.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. It is up to the Chair to decide what is out of order and what is not out of order. The Chair ruled about two weeks ago that matters pertaining to the governance of caucus were out of order. Any impact it has on the treasury is not out of order.

J. Kwan: So these questions are in order. It was the government Whip, acting on the instructions of the Premier's office, who opened this can of worms in the first place.

In the case of the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville, we are talking about a serious infraction that we understand the entire government caucus, including the Premier, was well aware of. As we know, when a caucus member is disciplined, it carries financial implications for caucus funding.

I'll ask again of the Deputy Premier: did the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville's inappropriate behaviour result in disciplinary action, and did that disciplinary action affect the Liberal caucus budget?

I do not detect a financial implication in the member's question. Therefore, it is out of order.

J. Kwan: The financial implication in this question will be clear, Mr. Speaker. The fact of the matter is this: the cover-up continues with this government….

J. Kwan: The raid, the Finance minister's office…. The minister says it has nothing to do with us. Liberal MLAs suspended from caucus and government-staffed government caucus committees and disciplined — none of your business, none of your business…

J. Kwan: …the government says. Taxpayers, none of your business — with the exception that those government caucus committees are funded by taxpayers and funded by the Legislature's funding.

To the Deputy Premier: stop the games. Stop the cover-ups. Just tell the truth. What action did the government take to discipline the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville for his behaviour at the 2002 Liberal convention, and what were the financial implications to the taxpayer?

J. MacPhail: Well, Mr. Speaker, this one is definitely about financial improprieties. They won't answer any questions….

J. MacPhail: …the inappropriate conduct of the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville. Why don't we now talk about the member for Burnaby-Willingdon?

Two weeks ago the opposition asked about the suspension from caucus and the government caucus committees of the member for Burnaby-Willingdon for financial improprieties. This week the member's suspension was confirmed in the media.

Can the Deputy Premier tell the House why the member for Burnaby-Willingdon was suspended, what the financial implications were to the taxpayer and what the financial improprieties were for which he was suspended? While she's at it, maybe she can explain to the constituents of Burnaby-Willingdon why they don't have a right to know that their MLA has been suspended.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, Leader of the Opposition, two parts of your three-part question are out of order. The financial implication to the treasury is in order.

J. MacPhail: Isn't it interesting? When it suits this government to besmirch the reputation of one of their members, they run around and tell everyone who will listen about caucus suspensions.

J. MacPhail: As soon as it gets embarrassing for the government, they stand up and stonewall. The member for Burnaby-Willingdon was suspended for financial improprieties. If the Government House Leader says there were none, why doesn't he come clean about what financial improprieties the member for Burnaby-Willingdon was suspended for? What were the financial improprieties, and on what basis was he suspended if it has no implications for the taxpayers? Justify that statement, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please, on both sides of the House. Let us have order.

B. Bennett: I have a question I'd like to ask on behalf of my constituents, who are more interested in jobs than they are in political posturing and political rhetoric. The media reported today that roughly 10 percent of the electricity we use here in B.C. is imported from Alberta and the U.S. and that we as a province have become dependent on imported electricity.

My question is for the Minister of Energy and Mines. Under the dubious direction of the NDP government during the 1990s, B.C. Hydro was forced to turn to the import market. Instead of investing in new power generation here at home, they invested in failed energy projects in Pakistan. It's also true that the former NDP government and this current NDP opposition have made it very clear that they would prefer to see energy jobs go to the U.S. and to Alberta rather than have them here in B.C. to take advantage of the….

B. Bennett: Can the Minister of Energy and Mines please inform the House as to what our government is doing to meet the expanding needs for electricity here in British Columbia?

Hon. R. Neufeld: The member is correct. British Columbia has been a net importer of electricity for three out of the last 12 years. We are working very hard with our energy plan, which we released in November 2002 and which lays out a path forward that we can look to independent power producers to provide the electricity needed going forward.

It's going to come, most of it, from very clean sources — what we call B.C. clean energy — but there are opportunities for people in the energy plan to actually have coal-fired plants, to have natural gas–fired plants, to be able to have micro hydro, to be able to have biomass hydro. All those things are possible there. We're moving ahead with an energy plan that will take us well into the future to provide electricity for British Columbians.

P. Nettleton: The federal budget yesterday appears to provide good news for cash-strapped cattle producers here in British Columbia. I'm wondering if the Minister of Agriculture could provide us with some detail with respect to that announcement in the federal budget announced yesterday, specifically dealing with British Columbia producers and the impact it will likely have on them and, as well, if there's been any contact between himself and his federal counterpart.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I was in a conference call with the federal minister and other provincial ministers on Monday morning before the announcement was made. The estimated impact for British Columbia is $36 million for B.C. producers. That breaks down to about $23 million for beef producers, $10 million for other producers and $3 million for whole-farm insurance for 2002. The actual per-head payment amounts to $80 for all bovine animals, other than mature cows and bulls — on animals and inventory on December 31. It also includes some compensation for smaller breeds, such

as goats and sheep, that took significant impacts in the BSE crisis, and that payment will be $16 a head. We believe this is a welcome announcement for our producers.

V. Roddick: My question is to the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection. The conservation of Burns Bog, as opposed to the development, has been one of this government's new-era commitments. Its preservation is of great interest and concern to the constituents of Delta and to the people of this province. Every level of government — federal, provincial, GVRD and Delta — has been negotiating for over two years to achieve this goal. To the minister: what is the current status of this special ecosystem that has been referred to as the lungs of the lower mainland?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Does the Leader of the Opposition seek the floor?

Hon. B. Barisoff: Today, actually, is really a great day. The Premier made a commitment in 2001, in the New Era document, that we would protect Burns Bog. Today the preservation of Burns Bog has become a reality.

For five years the people of Delta and the lower mainland have actually worked on Burns Bog to get this. In some respects, I think maybe the fact that it took a little bit longer was probably a good thing because the members opposite were actually going to turn it into the PNE, into a theme park.

Today 5,000 acres — five times the size of Stanley Park — have been protected for the people of the lower mainland and Delta. I think the federal government…. The members opposite said that we don't have a good working relationship. Well, I think we do. The federal government, city council of Delta, the MLAs for Delta and the Premier have worked extremely hard in making this happen. This is a great day for the province.

J. MacPhail: The Attorney General has been present at these matters where there may have been criminal matters involving financial improprieties or inappropriate conduct by caucus members. Was the…

J. MacPhail: …Attorney General aware of these actions, and did he, in light of the financial improprieties and the conduct improprieties, ask for further investigation by the police?

Mr. Speaker: Hon. member, the question is out of order. The Attorney may answer if he wishes.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Vancouver-Kingsway has the floor.

R. Nijjar: My question is to the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services. Some of my constituents….

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Let us hear the question from the member for Vancouver-Kingsway.

R. Nijjar: …received a COPE e-mail which stated: "Due to cuts in social housing by the B.C. Liberals, approximately 1,200 people in the city are shelterless on any given night." Obviously, COPE-NDP continue to put their provincial political ambitions ahead of their responsibilities to the city of Vancouver. Given that the NDP is trying to fight the next provincial election from the city hall with their staff, can the minister please clarify…

…how the misinformation is being spread, and tell us how the money is actually being spent…?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order. Let's just wait for a moment until we have order in the House. Okay. Please.

Hon. M. Coell: Since 2001 the budget for social housing has increased by more than $40 million to the largest ever in British Columbia at $153 million. Since June of 2001 we have committed funding for the construction of 3,400 units. To date 2,800 of those are either complete or in the building phase. We've also introduced the independent living program that will provide another 3,500 beds for frail elderly and people with disabilities, and we'll continue to work to provide housing for British Columbians.

Hon. G. Collins: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we'll be discussing the estimates of the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. In this House I call second reading of Bill 21.

Hon. G. Collins: This supply bill is in the general form of previous supply bills. The first section of the bill requests 1/6 of the voted expenses as presented in the estimates to provide for the general programs of the government.

Fifty percent of the financing transaction requirements set out in schedules C, D and E of the estimates have been provided for in the interim supply bill. This will allow time later for more complete debate on these items.

The third section requests the disbursements related to revenue collected for and transferred to other entities, which appear in schedule F of the estimates, as there is no impact on the deficit, borrowing or debt from these particular financing transactions. One hundred percent of the year's requirements is being sought in this supply bill as in previous bills.

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

Bill 21, Supply Act (No. 1), 2004, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

As I said yesterday upon introduction of Bill 23, this bill provides for the exemption in the ministerial accountability act for the expenditures that were approved yesterday in a supplemental estimate for the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services to fund the Olympics. The debate was extensive yesterday. I think the House is well aware of the expenditures, their desire and the sources of revenue that are funding them. It's the government's commitment to fund these provisions, and this provides an exemption for the minister under the ministerial accountability act. I move second reading.

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

Bill 23, Ministerial Accountability Bases, 2003-2004, Amendment Act, 2004, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

The Financial Administration Amendment Act, 2004, amends the Financial Administration Act to support modern business processes and technology. The current financial administration act is not consistent with the way government and other jurisdictions now operate. Since the act was passed in 1981, the control framework and the way government conducts business have changed consistent with best practices.

In most situations pre-audit compliance checks prior to payment are no longer practical or required. Instead, statistical sampling is used to verify payments and to support payment approval. In addition, advances in technology have enabled decentralized decision-making and the flow of information regardless of location or time.

The amendment will improve accountability and financial control through an emphasis on expenditure initiation rather than payment requisition. This will en-

sure that accountability starts at the beginning of the process, not just when payment is due. It will also permit reliance on a blend of people and systems controls versus purely people controls as in the past, and it will streamline administration as well as document handling.

New legislation has improved the financial framework by introducing an obligation for public service employees to report to the comptroller general when an expenditure authorization or payment is considered to contravene financial policies. Information will be treated confidentially, and the reporting employee will not be subject to discipline or reprisal for reporting. This obligation is consistent with the standards of conduct for B.C. government employees to report situations which involve misuse of public funds, represent a danger to public safety or contravene the law. In addition, the reporting mechanism will supplement the financial framework by providing oversight and compliance information.

The amendment provides broader authority for the comptroller general to make decisions at the point of expenditure initiation prior to and at payment. This includes the ability to order that an expenditure may not be authorized or payment may not be made. There is no change in Treasury Board's authority to review the comptroller general's decisions.

The amendment requires the comptroller general to make an annual statement by August 31 to provide a summary of all known payments that are not compliant with legislation or where Treasury Board has overruled a comptroller general's decision. The change from September 30 to August 31 will permit timelier reporting as well as align more closely with the public accounts reporting time line. As well, we consulted with government interests in developing the amendment before it was finalized for introduction.

In summary, the amendments to the Financial Administration Act form the cornerstone of a modernized financial framework. Changes will streamline both expenditure and payment controls, address a higher degree of automation and risk management, and support new business processes and technology.

J. Bray: Thank you very much. I rise to support Bill 11. I just have a few comments.

Having come from 13 years in the civil service, actually operating under the previous structure was extremely cumbersome. It delayed everything from major procurement to buying a box of paper clips, without any real results out of that process. So I am very supportive of recognizing that we have professional civil servants who have the ability to make these types of decisions and operate in a modern, streamlined, businesslike way; and of providing a framework to ensure that taxpayers are protected but that, in fact, our civil servants can get on with their daily business.

In particular, we now have protection for civil servants who actually notice that something might be going awry. By having the obligation to report covered in Bill 11 and that their reporting to the comptroller general is held in confidence, it provides a measure of security for our professional civil servants to ensure that they can actually operate within their professional standards and also act as an additional safeguard for British Columbia taxpayers. I know that this will be welcomed in the public service. It should be welcomed by taxpayers.

I think you're going to see greater efficiency. I think ministries and offices throughout the province can now operate in a much more efficient manner in getting rid of some of the rather arcane paper methods but, most importantly, that public servants and their professionalism have an added level of protection today as a result of Bill 11. I am strongly supportive of that, and I congratulate the minister for bringing this forward. I will be supporting Bill 11.

Hon. G. Collins: I move the bill be placed on the orders of the day for consideration by Committee of the Whole at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 11, Financial Administration Amendment Act, 2004, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

J. Kwan: I'd like to begin by asking the minister whether or not the information that I requested from yesterday's estimates was sent to my office. I just went down to double-check, to see if anything arrived in the mail this afternoon, and nothing has arrived at my desk so far. I just want to see whether or not it's been sent.

Hon. C. Clark: The information has been prepared. It's ready. We're not sure if it has actually been sent. I

can provide it to her in the House today. I'll make sure that somebody will run out, go get it, and we can talk about it right now.

J. Kwan: As far as I know, we haven't received it yet in the office. I checked the mail this morning, and I checked it, as I said, just now to see what mail might have come in, in the afternoon delivery. Nothing has arrived.

Let's carry on, until that information arrives, with some other areas. Yesterday we were canvassing the budgeted dollars for the year 2002-03 and the actual spending. In the midst of that, I've calculated that there is $127.8 million of underspending in that budget year in the areas of community living, children and family development, provincial services and executive support services.

I'd like to go through each of those categories and find out from the minister specifically where those dollars have gone, since they were underspent in their budget line. Let's start with the community living area. The budget was $668.2 million. The actual, as the minister reported, was $632.8 million. That's a difference of $53.4 million. Where did the $53.4 million go?

The minister was asking me which year, and the year that I'm referring to is '02-03. Yesterday the minister reported that in the area of community living, the budgeted dollars for community living were $686.2 million and the actuals were $632.8 million. There's a discrepancy of $53.4 million, according to my calculations, and I would like to know where the $53.4 million went.

Hon. C. Clark: The difference in money went to the strategic investments we made at the end of the year that year, in one-time funding. Most of that or all of it went into the Victoria Foundation to support the community living restructuring fund, Success by 6 partnership, youth educational assistance fund, B.C. adoption and permanency trust fund, B.C. institutional legacy trust fund and the McCreary youth foundation fund.

Those are some of the examples of where we spent our money at the end of the year last year and examples of spending that was in communities, for communities, based on the priorities that government set for itself and in particular for priorities like little children — children under six about whom we know that if they don't get the best possible investment, the best possible start in life before they're six, they will be disadvantaged for the rest of their lives. We are making key strategic investments in those areas to make sure we can support our youngest citizens and make sure we're making that investment in the future that will benefit generations of British Columbians.

J. Kwan: I'd like to actually get the specific details about each of these allocations that the ministry had made. She named, for example, the Victoria Foundation that had most of it. How much exactly did the Victoria Foundation get? That's one example. What other organizations and what are the amounts attached to that? If I could get those details from the minister.

Hon. C. Clark: I'll be happy to provide that information to the member. In fact, I can give her a briefing on that specifically, if she'd like. We are here today, though, to discuss the '04-05 budget estimates, not the '02-03 budget estimates. You know, I'm quite willing to speak about those estimates inasmuch as it provides context for this, but if she wants real details about where that money was spent two years ago or a year and a half ago, probably a better place to have that discussion would be in a briefing. I'd be happy to provide that to her.

J. Kwan: These dollars definitely, as I understand, have ongoing ramifications in terms of the programs in the community and, of course, on the work that the ministry does on an ongoing basis. So there is absolute relevance with these questions to today's budget, to the budget that we are debating, in terms of the '04-05 budget.

By the way, Mr. Chair, again, it's not just the opposition who is interested in this information. Since yesterday's debate the opposition has actually received e-mails from members of the community wanting to know exactly where those dollars went and how they broke down. There is a series of other questions I have associated with this area as well.

I'd like to begin, first of all, with the breakdown of these dollars and where they went.

Hon. C. Clark: As I said, I'd be happy to provide that information to the member and to anyone else who has inquired of her. If she wants to ask on their behalf, we'd be happy to answer those questions for her, and she can provide that information to them. But the appropriate venue to do that would be in a briefing. We aren't talking about the '02-03 budget estimates here. My recollection is that there was an opportunity to debate that in '02-03 budget estimates, but I'm happy, of course, to provide that information to her if that's what she'd like to do.

If there is some relevance to this discussion that that spending in 2002-03 has on this budget for '04-05, perhaps she could try and make that case. It might give me some understanding of how I might be able to address those questions, if she'd at least put them in the context of the current debate and explain where she sees the connection between spending two years ago and the spending now in this specific case.

J. Kwan: There is a direct link to what is going on within the ministry today with respect to these funding areas. The programs the ministry delivers and provides

for have ongoing ramifications for children in our community, for the organizations that operate these services. Some of these organizations continue to receive funding from the government to do the work they do, so there is a direct link from year to year with respect to that. There are many linkages in terms of this pertinent information.

I would further submit that there are linkages with respect to how the contracts are arrived at, what criteria the government used for the allocation of the funds, etc. — the administration parts of it. All of those things are relevant because, presumably, those procedures that were established then may well be followed right now today in the ministry. These are questions to which I would like the minister to provide on record here…. It is completely legitimate within the estimates process for me to ask these questions.

I would like the minister to provide that information, first of all, on the associations that got the dollars and then on how much they got. By the way, these kinds of questions were asked of other ministers in other estimates debates. In fact, in this very chamber I engaged in a lengthy discussion with the Minister of Health regarding unspent dollars or allocations of federal dollars, etc. The Health minister was very cooperative in providing that information. In the other chamber I engaged in these kinds of discussions with the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services, and he, too, provided the information asked of him. So I think we're well within the boundaries of the estimates process to get this information.

Hon. C. Clark: The questions are certainly legitimate, and as I said, I would be happy to answer those. It is certainly true, though, that decisions that were made ten years ago when that member was in government are relevant today in what's going on in the ministry. That's also true. But we don't debate what was going on…. We don't debate the estimates from ten years ago, and we don't debate the estimates from two years ago when we are debating the estimates for today. We're here to debate the '04-05 budget estimates.

Again, I would be happy to provide the information that the member is seeking, but we will do it in another venue. I would be delighted to provide that information to her and to the people that are inquiring of her.

J. Kwan: I don't know why the minister is trying to not provide this information through this estimates process. It is completely within the realm of the estimates process to do this and for me to ask these questions in terms of how the money flowed, where the money flowed and so on. The minister well knows that oftentimes at year-end the questions that would be asked in terms of the savings — where did they go…? At the time of the estimates for that particular year those numbers would not have come in, and they would not have been finalized. Therefore, you would not be able to ask those questions. In any event, there is a direct link.

J. Kwan: The minister goes: "It's two years ago." Nonetheless, the spending of those dollars has ramifications in today's budget as they impact children. Because those organizations….

Mr. Chair, I'm just going to wait for the minister's attention before I continue on, because I want to make sure that she actually listens to what I'm saying and therefore will be able to answer the questions I put to her. If she is busy talking to her colleague, I certainly would be happy to pause for her so she can engage in those discussions with her colleague, to make sure she doesn't lose the questions that I put to her.

The questions that I put to the minister are completely legitimate. They have a direct relationship with the services that are provided to children today. They have a direct relationship with the organizations that provide the services to our communities today and in today's budget. I don't know why the minister is trying not to put this information on the record through a televised structure where not only the opposition would get this information. Members of the public are interested in getting this information and are, in fact, asking for this information through the opposition. I'm trying to do my job here to canvass these matters with the minister for her to provide the information for the public's knowledge.

The minister is just sitting there shaking her head, without getting up to answer questions. The minister cannot hide this information from the public. She did, after all, in the new-era campaign, campaign to be open and accountable to the public. The estimates process in which the opposition puts questions to the minister…. The minister is responsible for getting up to answer those questions. I will give the minister another chance. Where did the savings go? The savings of some $127.8 million that were underspent out of the '02-03 budget year — where did they go specifically? How much toward organizations for what program?

Hon. C. Clark: I've already answered that question in general, although it's not within the parameters of this debate here. But if she wants details, I'd be delighted, as I said, to provide that to her in a briefing and to provide that information to anyone who has inquired about it. These disbursements were made two years ago. It's not within the parameters of the debate today. We're in the estimates for '04-05, not '02-03. If she didn't want to ask those questions two years ago, she could have asked them a year ago. If she did ask them and got the answers, perhaps I could refer her back to the Hansard. She could look at the debate from that estimates process.

J. Kwan: Well, you know, it doesn't serve the minister well, nor does it serve British Columbians well, for her to not provide these answers to questions put to her in this chamber. Other ministers have no trouble whatsoever answering questions in this kind of man-

ner. In fact, they were happy to provide the information so that a clear picture is set. Other ministers understand completely that the linkages of previous dollars spent in previous programs and delivered by organizations have ramifications for the budget year of '04-05. They fully understand that. They fully understand the community impacts of those, and they were ready to provide the information.

If the minister claims she has the information, I don't know why she won't provide it. If she doesn't have the information before her, she could say: "I don't have the information before me, and maybe you can stand down these questions until I get the information." I'll be happy to do that and come back to them later on today or tomorrow when the minister has the information, like I did yesterday. She didn't have the information on the FTEs in terms of the regional breakdown of where the reductions came from and how many. I was happy to say okay, I will stand down those questions until the minister gets the information. The same logic could apply here.

The minister should have nothing to hide. The public has the right to know; the opposition has the right to know. Hence, I'm putting the question to the minister. I would advise her through you, Mr. Chair, to behave like other ministers have — the Minister of Health, to name one; the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services, to name another — and to actually answer these questions for the public's information.

The minister is refusing to answer these questions. Isn't that interesting? I'm sure the public will judge for themselves. Where is that level of accountability that this minister claims she is holding to? Where is the level of openness that this minister campaigned on during the election campaign? Obviously, they don't match her actions to date. She refuses to answer pertinent questions relating to her budget, in the estimates process, that have ramifications for children and families who depend on these programs — that have ramifications for the organizations who got these dollars. Some of those organizations are still providing programs to British Columbians in the area of children and family. It is shocking for this minister to refuse to answer the questions.

Okay. She won't put the information on record with respect to how much money was put where. Then let me put this question to her: what criteria were used for the allocating of the funds — the savings, the $127.8 million — that were unspent in the budget cycle of '02-03? What criteria were used for allocating the funds?

Hon. C. Clark: The member will have to find some way to link these questions to the current debate.

J. Kwan: I'll tell you exactly where that link is. I would be very interested in knowing what criteria were used for the allocation of these funds and whether or not the government has done any review with the allocation of those funds. As we know, we have a big scandal right in the middle of this minister's area. In fact, it is tied right into the contracts, to which there are a lot of questions. There are a lot of questions that I have with respect to contract allocations throughout.

What did the government do with respect to the policy and the criteria which they apply for the allocation of these funds? We know of the Doug Walls scandal. Some $400,000 has magically disappeared right under the former minister's nose, and they claim not to know anything about it. The minister claims she is going to be doing an audit. She will not make available the information from the audit except for the chosen parts of it, which would be the summary of the audit. The public is being kept in the dark, and the minister knows it.

What policies has the ministry been using with the allocation of funds? What criteria were used to determine who should get what funds? In the last minutes of the budget cycle, $127.8 million were allocated. Where did they go? How much went where? What criteria did the minister use for making those allocations?

Hon. C. Clark: I think I found a way to link the member's questions to our current debate, so I'll be able to answer the part of what she asked that's relevant to this debate. That's this. One of the things that I heard her ask is how we are monitoring how this money is being spent currently, which is a question quite relevant to this debate — although I know she had difficulty trying to make that connection. I'm happy to help her with that.

Part of the disbursement of that money in the first place was regular reporting. They are doing regular reporting currently back to government. That regular reporting is quarterly, so we have a sense of and can monitor where the money is being spent and how it's being spent. I know that the member, as a critic, will be familiar with the strategic shifts of the ministry. The primary criterion for spending that money is that it had to be consistent with strategic shifts that the ministry has set out.

We also want them to invest that money in a way that shows savings in future years — for example, invest the money in services that will mean they can support families better so that there are fewer children coming into government care. That's a good financial policy, but it's also the right thing to do. We know that kids have better outcomes when they're with their families than when they're not. We want to try and build healthy, functioning families. There's an example of where the foundations could be spending money that would demonstrate a savings in future years.

J. Kwan: Actually, it's not me who can't see the link with these questions in relation to the '04-05 budget. It's the minister who fails to see that. I'm glad that she at least saw part of the light in terms of that relationship, but her answer is insufficient with respect to my question.

The criteria for allocation of these dollars are critical to it. What led the government to allocate these funds to these organizations to begin with? What was in the contracts that were associated with it? What process did the minister go through? Associated with that would be the evaluation of the end product — that is to say, the measure of what is the benefit to the community.

We have to keep in mind that we're talking about over $100 million — $127.8 million — that was handed out to various organizations. This is in the middle of drastic cuts to the ministry in terms of core services — drastic cuts to ministry core services. The accountability question of how these moneys were spent, where they were spent, what processes were in place in terms of the allocation of these dollars and what specific evaluation criteria were in place — not just some vague notion from the minister's point of view that if it somehow helps the ministry reduce the number of children in care, that would be sufficient evaluation…. I would think that one would need more than that.

I would also hope that the evaluation of when children need to be apprehended is taken seriously. It's not to say that we should just take children into care with no consideration for the optimal outcomes for the child's future or that family's future. I'm not suggesting that at all. What I'm suggesting, though, is that we have to ensure that the interests of the child are best protected and that it's not driven by a bottom-line decision — by the government's need to save money — to decide what policies ought to be in place.

Instead, the policies should be based on what is in the best interest of the child. Yes, I'd be one of the first people to say that children, if they're not at risk, should be kept in the family — absolutely. I fully understand that. But if children are at risk — their safety and health are at risk — and where that risk becomes paramount, then action needs to be taken, unfortunately. In the meantime, certainly, government should be providing support programs to families, as well, so that we minimize the children that need to be taken into care — absolutely. At the end of the day, after it's all said and done, those decisions should not be driven by cost savings. That should not be what drives the government policy.

I would like to have information from the minister in full detail, once again, in terms of the criteria that were used for the allocation of these funds and the complete evaluation associated with the contracts, presumably, that were let with these organizations and the language of these contracts.

Hon. C. Clark: I've already answered those questions, but I'd like to just expand a little bit on some of the other points the member made. That's to say this: the cost savings to government that are achieved by investing in programs don't necessarily reflect a policy that government is managing the number and always trying to get to a bottom line.

For example, investing in good-quality parenting programs for young parents or for older parents who themselves perhaps never had a good parent in their lives and who need to learn a bit about parenting…. Investing in those programs saves government money, because investing in parenting programs and giving parents those skills can mean that perhaps kids who might otherwise not be safe and healthy in their homes are, because their parents have the range of skills there to support them.

It saves government money, but it's the right thing to do. It's the right thing to do to invest in those kinds of programs to make sure we can support families and build the supports around families that they need to keep children safe and healthy in their homes. That's been a central policy of this government.

I think it's important to note, too, that the policy of this government has shifted from the policy of the government she represented when she was in government. Throughout the 1990s, when that member was in government, we saw skyrocketing in the number of children who were taken into government care, taken away from their families.

Our government has deliberately shifted its focus to say that instead of trying to take kids out of their families, we want to try and support the families so that kids can stay safely there if that's possible. That should always be our first option. If we can, we want to intervene before things reach a crisis so that we can make sure those families are healthy. Of course, no child should stay in a home that's unsafe — absolutely not. That's why we take children into care. That's why we have a child protection ministry.

At the same time, social workers — those dedicated professionals we have out there on the front lines every day — are trained to have a broad range of skills to help families, to work with people and to give counselling and support. We need to give them the ability to use that broad range of skills to try and support families, build families, build on their strengths and build on their capacity so that kids can stay safe in their homes. That's been a deliberate change in policy that our government has made from her government, and I think it's something that's been broadly welcomed not just by people who work in the field but by the families that benefit from this.

J. Kwan: The minister claims they're investing dollars in parenting programs, as an example, for people who might not have had good parents in their lives to give them the kind of support to become good parents to their children. I'm not disputing the value of these programs. All I'm asking the minister is: how much money did the minister put into what programs out of the $127.8 million savings?

What criteria did she use to make these contracts? What evaluation criteria did she put in place with respect to each of these contracts? Were they even contracts? Let me just ask this question: were there contracts for each of the organizations that got funds from the government relating to the unspent $127.8 million in the '02-03 budget cycle?

Hon. C. Clark: No, they were not contracts; they were grants. I think just a quick perusal of the website would tell the member that, but I'm happy to provide that information to her too.

The evaluation is part of our audit plan — the regular evaluation that we do. We get regular financial and other reports from the fund holders. Each investment specified the criteria for which the funds could be used, so that would be individually done. As I said, they were grants; they were not contracts. Community representatives are on the trust advisory committees that provide ongoing evaluation of each disbursement request. That's an ongoing issue. That will be going on into '04-05. So as I said, in that respect, it's a perfectly legitimate issue to raise for the '04-05 budget estimates.

J. Kwan: Let's start with the Victoria Foundation. Does the minister know who in the Victoria Foundation administered these funds?

Hon. C. Clark: The executive director of each of the foundations that get the money signs off on the reports that our ministry currently receives.

J. Kwan: The minister said they're written reports that she receives with respect to how these funds are spent. Has the minister received any of these written reports to date?

Hon. C. Clark: The answer to that question is yes. Where disbursements have been made, we've received reports.

J. Kwan: And the funds that may yield future reports…. Are there future reports the minister is expecting from these funds?

Let's go back, then, to finding out exactly what these programs are. These programs that are still to report to the minister on how they're doing — I would like to know every one of them, what they are and how much they got.

Hon. C. Clark: I would be happy to provide that information in complete detail to the member as it relates to the '02-03 budget estimates. If she would like to ask some questions that relate to these budget estimates, I would also be happy to answer those in this venue here.

J. Kwan: The minister just admitted that there is a direct link, because she is expecting reports from these organizations that are tied to the '04-05 budget. They're ongoing. She has yet to receive the reports.

Reports are related to the work and the role — at least the administrative part — of the ministry in terms of staff who have to review these reports. That's tied into exactly the '04-05 budget, because her staff would have to do that work now to review those reports as they come in. So there is the direct link.

There is no need to hide the information. If the minister doesn't have this information before her right now, as I mentioned, I would be happy to ask these questions tomorrow. I'm sure that the debate for this ministry will continue on until tomorrow or some other time into the future. We can debate it when the minister provides that information. I would be happy to do that if that's her wish. But if she has the information, then she should provide it in this House now.

Hon. C. Clark: Mr. Chair, there is no budget line item for the issues that the member raises for '04-05, and that's what we're here to debate. As I said, I'd be delighted to provide that information to the member in quite some detail if that's what she would like.

J. Kwan: Well, Mr. Chair, the minister has been a minister for some years now. She should know that estimates questions flow from the various line items, and they don't have to be from a direct line that says "Provincial Services." Therefore, you can ask questions under "Provincial Services." If the minister has a staff that does work for her in the ministry and that work is related to previous contracts that have been let, then the ministry is paying the salary of those staff doing that work. That is exactly tied into the '04-05 budget — exactly. So all of the questions I put to the minister are relevant, and she should be putting this information on the public record. That's what I'm asking for — for the minister to provide this information for the public's evaluation and information. I really do fail to understand why the minister doesn't want to provide this information on the public record. She claims they are….

The Chair: Member, it is simply not appropriate to reflect on the actions of another member in the House. You should just proceed with your question or comments…

J. Kwan: Sorry, Mr. Chair. It's to prevent the minister from asking me what did I say or what question did I ask, which has happened. It is just in the spirit of efficiency here in terms of what we're doing and how we conduct ourselves in this House.

The minister says she will provide that information. All right. Then let's try another tack, because obviously

she is not going to provide that information in this House through my questions. Let me ask the minister to provide this in writing to the opposition by the end of today. Here's what I'm looking for. The savings that were unspent…. Sorry. The savings from the '02-03 budget year which, according to my calculations, amount to $127.8 million. They flow from the information I derived from estimates yesterday — in the area of community living services, a savings of $53.4 million where the budget dollars were $686.2 million and the actuals were $632.8 million; the child and family development area, savings of $52.2 million where the budget was $767.5 million and the actuals were $715.3 million; provincial services, $110.8 million budgeted, actuals $96.9 million, yielding a savings of $13.9 million; executive support services, the budgeted dollars were $23.1 million and actuals were $14.8 million, which yield a savings of $8.3 million for a total of $127.8 million worth of savings.

I would like to know from the minister in writing: where did these dollars go; how were they allocated; what organizations got funds flowing from these savings; with these grants that were given to these organizations, what criteria were used to determine the allocation of these funds; the evaluation process associated with the allocation of these grants that were put in place; the reports the minister has received to date regarding these grants; what future reports she is expecting and from what organizations regarding these grants.

I would like to get all of this information from the minister. She says she has it. I think it is reasonable to expect to receive this information by the end of today. We're sitting until nine today. When we come back tomorrow or whenever we come back to the estimates debate for the Children and Family Development ministry, I can pick up from that information once I've received it. I would ask for the minister's confirmation of her commitment to sending the opposition this information by the end of today.

Hon. C. Clark: I said a number of times we would be happy to provide that information to the member. It probably won't be by the end of the day, but we'll certainly make sure it is provided to her.

J. Kwan: I would need a specific time line in terms of when we could receive this information. Otherwise, the minister will accuse me of not asking the questions at the right time. Hence, it has always been the problem in terms of the materials we ask of the minister through the estimates process. We don't receive them in a timely manner, then estimates are closed, and there is no opportunity to ask the questions. Or the ministers will say: "Don't ask me. Go ask some other minister." Then the estimates process for that particular minister is finished, and there is no opportunity, as an example, to ask those questions.

I would like to receive a specific time line when I can expect this information. With the information the minister said she would send to my office by yesterday afternoon regarding the FTEs, as of today — this afternoon at about 3 o'clock — I just went down to my office to see if we received that information at the beginning of the debate, and we still have not received it.

So you will understand, Mr. Chair, that I'm rather skeptical in terms of the timeliness with these matters when the minister says she has committed in the House that she will forward this information. We consistently fail to receive it in a timely manner, so I would like to know a time frame specifically.

Mr. Chair, I'm not quite sure why the minister wouldn't even answer that question. It is not unreasonable for members to ask for information and for the minister to rise in this House to say: "Yes, you can expect that in a day, in two days." Other ministers have done exactly that. I have done a number of sets of estimates now….

J. Kwan: The Minister of Labour is heckling me. He has perhaps been made very uncomfortable about questions around accountability related to this government. They like to talk about accountability, but when actions need to flow from the talk, they don't like to follow up on those actions. They don't like to be held accountable.

Mr. Chair, I think it is completely legitimate for me to ask the minister this question: when will we receive this information? Once I receive it, I can continue to ask questions. The minister has refused to provide the answers to my questions in this House so that I can carry on debate. In order for the opposition to do their job, which is the role to hold this government to account and to get the information for the public, it is my responsibility to ask the questions, and it is the responsibility of the minister to provide the answers. So I expect some courtesy, and an answer from the minister would be appreciated.

Hon. C. Clark: As I said, I will provide that information to her as soon as we're able.

J. Kwan: You know, yesterday morning she said that she would provide the information regarding the FTEs by the afternoon. By the same day in the afternoon she said she would provide that information. You know, Mr. Chair, it has now been more than 24 hours since then, and the opposition has yet to receive the information. So you will understand why I want to nail it down specifically in this House when the minister says she will provide information, not some vague answer — at a later date, as soon as she can, at some point in time. Even when she puts a time frame to it, she does not abide by her own time frame she has put out, so you will understand why I would want to nail down the specific date.

J. Kwan: That minister heckles me and says I don't have further questions. Just so you know, Mr. Chair, I have a full binder of questions, and this is only one

J. Kwan: The Minister of Labour is very concerned about having to deal with questions — for this minister to have to deal with these questions. I actually, quite frankly, do understand that. After all, it is a minister and ministry fraught with scandals…

J. Kwan: …so I understand why they wouldn't want to answer the questions, but you know what? Questions are going to be put to them, Mr. Chair. They are going to be put to them.

The Chair: Member, please proceed with your questioning. This is getting very tedious — your line here. You have a number of questions to ask. Please proceed.

J. Kwan: I would be happy to move on to other questions if I could get an answer from the minister. Any reasonable person watching this debate, I'm sure, would say, "Okay, she's asking a question of when she will receive this material, with a specific time line" — not some vague notion that I will receive it at some point in time, at a later date, as soon as possible. Not some vague answer but something specific — within a day, within two days.

The minister has a responsibility to provide answers and be open and accountable, and I would expect her to do so in this House. I would remind the minister, Mr. Chair, that I'm speaking on behalf of many people in British Columbia who sent these questions to me, to the opposition. They, too, would like these answers, and they have the right to know. They are the taxpayers who paid for these programs. They have the right to know how this government and this minister spent them, how they were spent and what procedures were used to allocate these dollars. They have the right to know, Mr. Chair.

J. Kwan: My goodness. Stonewalling is obviously the best policy. The Premier had said once….

Member, I would just remind you that the purpose of this estimates debate is to ask questions regarding the minister. She is not compelled to answer. She has given you an answer. I just suggest that probably we should move on to a new line of questioning, if you're not satisfied with what you're getting. Let's proceed with this line of questioning.

J. Kwan: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. That was in fact very helpful. By the rules of the House, which I'm abiding by, I have 15 minutes to lay out the groundwork — the background, if you will — around the questions that I put and then put my questions. I'm absolutely following the rules of the House. I thank you for that advice.

The Premier once said that openness is better than hiddenness. Albeit it raises the question of the Premier's literacy level, set that aside for a moment.

I think we generally understand what he's trying to say. Openness is better than hiddenness. That would be advice that I would suggest the Deputy Premier should undertake from her leader — unless, of course, that is just code language from the Premier to his cabinet ministers and all the government MLAs, and in fact the code really is that hiddenness is better than openness. Maybe that is really the direction that the Premier was driving at, which the Deputy Premier is now following.

We have no confirmation from this minister on when we can expect this information that I'm seeking. I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts, Mr. Chair, that we will receive this information after estimates debate. I will bet you dollars to doughnuts that we would not see the information for a long time to come.

I hope that I'll be proven wrong. The minister's action, by not confirming when she will provide this information with a specific time line, only raises further suspicion not just in the minds of the opposition but also in the minds of the public who have these concerns. We will wait for this information. I hope it's before the estimates debate is over so that I could ask the minister questions arising from this.

Could the minister advise: are there rules, or what rules exist, within the ministry to address issues of potential conflicts of interest regarding administration of funds within the ministry to organizations?

Hon. C. Clark: We follow the government standards, and we expect all organizations that are affiliated with the government to do the same.

Hon. C. Clark: Someone will be sending those in for us so that she can have it word for word.

J. Kwan: Would that be within today's estimates that we would receive this information? I'm sorry. I have to ask these questions because, as I laid out earlier, information that was asked for in the morning yesterday that the minister said would be coming in the afternoon…. It hasn't arrived yet even as of this afternoon. Information that I asked of the minister about the administration of funding that was not spent and the evaluation procedures, and so on and so forth…. The minister wouldn't commit to when she

would provide that information. Probably in 2007, I suspect — that is, of course, if she is in her seat, but that is all questionable at the moment.

With respect to this information, when can we receive this information? It certainly does not facilitate debate when, with every question I put to the minister, her answer is: "We'll get you that information."

Hon. C. Clark: I hope I'm not shocking the member by telling her that I haven't brought every single policy of conduct of government with me today. I have brought all of the information that's relevant to the '04-05 budget that we could anticipate. That's why we have a lot of staff here, and we have a lot of information in front of us. Of course, I'm happy to answer all those questions as well as I can as quickly as I can. I haven't brought every policy manual, though, that she could possibly think about asking a question on — unless the member is looking to ask questions that will just take up a lot of time. I'm not exactly sure where she's going with this. We've already asked our staff to go see if they can find the information about the policy manual and those specific questions she asked with that, and I'm quite confident we will be able to have that by the end of the evening tonight.

J. Kwan: I advised the minister yesterday, when we started these estimates, that we are going to be dealing with general cuts, restructuring and governance. This, I would think, falls right into the notion of governance, in terms of the ministry's approach to governance. The minister may not have the guidelines with respect to how conflict issues are dealt with word for word, but surely the minister knows generally what those guidelines are and what they look like. If all she can say is, "It's consistent with government policy," well, that tells you nothing. I will be happy to wait for the specific guidelines when they come in by the end of today, but in the meantime perhaps the minister can advise: what are the general policies related to it?

Hon. C. Clark: We are getting the exact word for word. I know the member likes to have as much accuracy as possible, so we're making sure that we're going to get that word for word for her. I believe it's in the Core Policy Manual of government.

I am also advised by staff that those guidelines haven't changed much from when she was in government, so perhaps she might want to…. I know she has high expectations of my memory. Perhaps she could check her own records, her own memory. Perhaps hers is better than mine, and she may remember what they were when she was a cabinet minister for many, many years. Of course, those policies, as I am advised, haven't changed substantially since then.

J. Kwan: I'll tell you that when I was minister, we never actually hired a relative of a Premier who actually, well, somehow got a loan of some $400,000 that was written off. I would say the policies might well have changed quite substantively.

This government, of course, is saying it's changing everything and that the direction in which it's going is completely different from that of the previous administration, so I'm not making any assumptions about that. When the minister says there is not very much change…. We know, as an example, that the former Minister of Human Resources has said that welfare policies have not changed substantively, but as we see, they have actually changed quite substantively. I don't need to go into the details around all of that, but we do know they've changed substantively.

J. Kwan: You know, it's quite interesting. The Minister of Labour and the Minister of Children and Family Development are heckling me and saying: "Perhaps you can tell me what your government policies were." Well, guess what, Mr. Chair.

J. Kwan: Maybe the members don't know the rules of the House yet. They are in government. They provide the answers. The opposition asks the questions. It's their government's policies, not my government's policies. We're no longer in government. We're in opposition, so we're asking them questions.

The minister thinks it's cheeky for her to ask me what my government policies were on conflict. News flash for the minister: I'm not in government; I'm in opposition. It's her responsibility to provide taxpayers with the answers on conflict-of-interest guidelines. It's her responsibility to ensure that there is accountability and to demonstrate that accountability level, and it is my responsibility as the opposition member to ask these questions and to hold the government to account, lest she forget and get confused with the roles here.

The minister says she will get the information. It seems to me she doesn't even know broadly what the conflict-of-interest guidelines might be. Fair enough. That's her failing to do her job, so I'll wait until she gets it in front of her so she can read it and put it on record. I'll wait until later on tonight or until tomorrow, for that matter — until whenever we get it.

I must say that now I must actually flag this for my staff for all the unanswered questions which the minister says she will be coming to. Please flag it for me so that we have to come back and ask all these questions all over again. The list, I know, is growing longer and longer, unfortunately.

Let me then ask the minister this question. When the government was going through the restructuring of the Ministry of Children and Family Development, all the experts told the government it was not possible to restructure and make cuts at the same time. Yet this government attempted to cut this ministry by some 23

percent in its budget. When even the former minister finally admitted that those cuts were too deep, the decision was only then to cut 11 percent.

Let's just understand what we're talking about here. In this year's budget the cut is $70 million. In previous years the cut was $105 million. That's $175 million worth of cuts in services to children and families under this government. What evidence did the minister have and what evidence did the minister use to base its decision to make cuts at the same time as it was restructuring?

Hon. C. Clark: I can certainly speak to this year. The total reductions for this year were 4 percent. We are managing our way through that. Nobody likes to have to go through change, I suppose, or many people don't like to have to go through change, but change is happening nonetheless. That 4 percent reduction — we're on track, we're on target, and we will be meeting our budget.

J. Kwan: The minister didn't actually answer my question, and I will repeat it for her. I'll put it to her very slowly so that she gets what I'm asking her. What evidence did the minister have and what evidence did the minister use to base the decision to make cuts at the same time as the ministry was restructuring?

Hon. C. Clark: Again, I'm having a challenge linking this particular question to these current estimates. I'm sure the member can find some ways to make that link if she wants to put her thinking cap on to do that.

It is not the speed with which the member is asking the questions that makes it difficult to answer them. It is the rules of this House that require us to talk about the 2004-05 budget estimates, which is the information I have before me and the information I have come prepared to talk about.

J. Kwan: The arrogance of this minister is astounding. It's absolutely astounding.

In all her efforts to try to hide information from the public, the reality is for everyone to see. Everyone knows that the budget decisions of previous years, the restructuring that is still going on in this ministry and the impacts on her community are far and wide. They're impacting the community right now in this budget cycle. Make no mistake about that.

For the minister to pretend that somehow there is no relevance with this question on what basis the government made a decision to make deep cuts into the Ministry of Children and Family Development while it is going through this major restructuring, when everyone said it was the wrong thing to do…. For her to say it is not a relevant question for her is astounding. It is shameful, quite frankly. The minister needs to, I would argue….

Maybe this is the problem, Mr. Chair. Maybe Martyn Brown is not here to direct traffic, to tell the minister how she should answer these questions. Maybe Martyn Brown hadn't told her and rehearsed with her how to answer these questions. Well, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. Because guess what. These questions are not puffball questions from her colleagues; that's why. Martyn Brown is not here to rehearse, and she has never had rehearsals. That is just too bad. She would still have to answer these questions. She would still have to answer these questions, and they're absolutely pertinent to this budget cycle and the functioning of this ministry in this budget year. Make no mistake about that.

What evidence did the minister have to launch into this huge restructuring process and make deep cuts year over year? I will remind the minister where the relevance of the '04-05 budget comes in, because this year's budget cut is cumulative — on top of previous years' budget cuts. They don't happen in isolation, one year separate from the other.

It's also not the first year in which the cumulative impacts of these cuts on the community…. The minister can't just walk away without answering this question by saying that it's not in her budget cycle this year. They have ongoing ramifications. Cuts have ongoing ramifications year over year, and they impact this year, the '04-05 year, as well. I expect the minister to answer that question for the public's information.

Hon. C. Clark: Of course, the safety and well-being of children is our number one priority in this ministry — protecting children and making sure we protect the vulnerable adults that depend on the services we provide. That is our priority as a ministry, and I think the people on the front lines and the staff who work in our ministry can really be applauded for the excellent, incredible professionalism and the excellent effort that they put in.

We looked at best practices across North America, the U.K. and Australia. We looked at the leading-edge research that was out there, and we used that to make evidence-based decisions about what would be best for vulnerable children and adults in British Columbia. We're committed to making sure that we deliver those services, that we deliver them effectively, that the support is there that people need, and that we are maximizing the value of every dollar that we spend, making sure that the services we provide are the best possible services that we can deliver.

We are investing strategically in social programs that are evidence-based and that produce measurable results. We are working to empower children and their families to make more decisions about what goes on in their lives and to change their lives positively. In doing that too, we are finding savings in duplication that's out there and administrative costs that are out there which we can reinvest in the front line and make sure that we are getting maximum value for every dollar. We have a responsibility in this ministry, probably more than any other…. Because the people that depend on us are often very, very vulnerable people, we have an obligation to make sure that every penny is spent as

well as it possibly can be and that we squeeze value out of every dollar that we have available to us.

J. Kwan: It seems that Martyn Brown actually has a longer reach than I had expected. The minister is spinning rhetoric, and I'm not interested in rhetoric, Mr. Chair. I'm expecting specific information — specific information.

J. Kwan: The minister is proud. She goes: "You don't think I can do that on my own?" The minister is very proud of the fact that she can put out rhetoric. Well, be that as it may…. Good on you for putting out rhetoric, but I'm not interested in rhetoric. I'm interested in actual facts.

The minister says: "Programs that are evidence-based…." She says: "Reports that exist…." I am waiting for the minister to provide specific information on what programs were evidence-based, and I would like the minister to be able to cite these programs specifically. I would like the minister to listen to the question; it would be helpful. Therefore, maybe she'll be able to answer the question, which is…

J. Kwan: …to also put forward specific reports that she claims exist. What were the reports? Cite them specifically.

Hon. C. Clark: I've got the standards of conduct for public service employees, something that's available readily on the Web. I'm sure the member could, if she let her fingers do the walking on her computer, look this up. It's under the B.C. Public Service Agency, "Standards of Conduct for Public Service Employees," revised September 2003. I understand it's not a significant change, though, from previous governments. It also resides in the Core Policy Manual, section 6.3.2, if she wants to look that up.

J. Kwan: I would remind the minister that these questions are not just for the opposition. They're for the public, who actually e-mailed these questions to the opposition and wanted the answers from the minister. I don't think that they were looking for a reference to where they could look up the information but, rather, what the information is.

Hon. C. Clark: Well, if the member would like me to do the research for her, I will certainly oblige. What I can do is table these three pieces of paper that we just pulled off the Web, if she'll find that useful.

J. Kwan: The arrogance of this minister never ceases to amaze me, I must admit. As I said, it's not just the opposition who's interested in this information from the minister. It's the public. In fact, I have an e-mail right here from the public, who wanted me to ask these questions of the minister. These questions came out of yesterday's estimates debate. They flowed from that. Obviously, the minister is not comfortable in providing answers to the public. That's what this forum does as well. It provides answers to the public.

Not everyone is like the minister, who has a whole host of staff who could assist her to get this information. Most people in the community, I would submit, have no one. In addition to their regular jobs, taking care of their family, doing the things people do, when they take an interest in issues that concern their community, they take the time to listen to debate, to review Hansard. They have questions for the minister. It's completely legitimate for them to use the opposition to ask these questions, and it's a completely legitimate expectation for them to expect this minister to provide the answers and not to be flip about it and brush them off as though somehow they're not relevant or they're trivial. It's really quite shameful. I'll let the public decide that. They'll judge this minister's action and her lack of answers accordingly.

I'm still waiting for the answer, though, from the minister about specific programs and specific reports that she says are evidence-based and that the minister had used to decide that making deep cuts to the Ministry of Children and Family Development at the same time as it goes through a major restructuring was a good thing to do — that there was evidence to show from other jurisdictions that by doing exactly that, it would yield the results that they were hoping would be positive for the community. I'm still waiting for the specific information from the minister.

Hon. C. Clark: As I said, our ministry looked at best practices across North America, the U.K. and Australia so that we could make our decisions about practice and about service transformation based on what's working and what the leading-edge research says. There is a lot of research that we've brought together — a ton of it.

I can't physically enter every example of that into the Hansard of the House today, so I'm going to read out a few examples for the member. She can also then go and visit our website, if she'd like to do that, and that's www.mcf.gov.bc.ca. There's a link on there that will give her more research than I'm sure she's got time in her very busy life to read.

For example, family preservation, which is brief home-based interventions that prevent children being taken out of their homes…. The evidence, in a study done by Schwartz, AuClaire and Harris, indicated that of youth who were diverted into family systems–based programs, 43 percent were still in their homes after a year compared to only 8 percent in the comparison group. There's a good example.

How are we acting on that? We contract with a variety of service providers to provide various intensive

home-based interventions for vulnerable children, families and youth. That includes parent-training homemakers, family advancement workers, child care workers and other intensive home-based individual intervention. It's a hallmark of the family preservation approach. The hallmark of it is integrated case management. That's a wraparound service — services to families that are coordinated amongst family and service providers to really try and provide a seamless array of services for them.

In the area of home visits. We define that as outreach services for mothers and children by professionals and paraprofessionals. That, we think, helps prevent child abuse and neglect and promotes healthy pregnancies and effective parenting — two critically important things. There was a 15-year study done by Olds, who found that women who were provided with a nurse and a home visitor had 46 percent fewer reports of child abuse and neglect, 31 percent fewer subsequent births and 69 percent fewer arrests. Adolescent children of visited homes had 59 percent fewer arrests, 56 percent fewer days of alcohol consumption and 60 percent fewer instances of running away.

How are we acting on that? We are providing, as a government, nurse home visitors, social workers and contracted service providers who are parent-training homemakers and family advancement workers. Child care workers do home visits to provide support for parenting, to help parents with formal and informal positive support networks and child behaviour management support and that kind of thing.

Parent training and education. I think the definition of that is pretty obvious from its title. There was a U.S. study by Webster-Stratton that determined that increases in parental praise reduced criticism and negative commands. Increases in parent supervision, decreases in parent depression, increases in parental self-confidence and better child behaviour were all a result of more parent education. There's a whole long list of these things that she can go look for and that anyone viewing today or reading the Hansard can go look at and get a sense of the evidence we're using to base our decisions on.

J. Kwan: The minister actually didn't answer the question. What she did was put forward research that showed policies in terms of particular programs that would yield positive results. What I asked was this: what evidence did the minister have to go through a major restructuring process while making deep cuts? All the experts have been telling this government that you cannot do this. You cannot restructure the ministry substantively while making deep cuts. The government plowed ahead anyway and ignored these experts' advice. That's what the government has done.

What she has done is tried to cloud the question I put to her by putting information that does not answer the question. Her information speaks to programs, and I'm not disputing programs about parent training and education, home visits or family preservation approaches. I'm not disputing that research. What I'm disputing is — and I'm trying to seek information from this minister — what information she has that says while you go through this major restructuring of the ministry, you could also cut $175 million out of the ministry in terms of its core service delivery.

Hon. C. Clark: This year the 4 percent cuts that the ministry is going to implement will be mostly taken care of or mostly addressed through lower demand, as we discussed yesterday — significantly lower demand out there. This is partly as a result of the change in the population but also, I think, really largely due to the very hard work of the dedicated professionals out there that we have in social workers who are trying to build families, build support around families. At least half of the saving this year is also going to come out of compensation savings, so that's where the savings are going to be coming from this year for the $70 million that we are looking to save.

J. Kwan: Hon. Chair, I swear to you I think I'm in a time warp. I'm asking a question to the minister, and she completely ignores the question I put to her and just puts on whatever she wants to put on. It simply doesn't even make sense with what I'm asking her. I'm asking the minister this specific question, and I will pause so that the question that's put to her is fully understood.

Just for your information, Mr. Chair, I put a question to the minister earlier. It seems to me that she has completely missed my question, so I was just going to pause so that she would have a full opportunity to understand what I'm asking of her. Here's the question, because the last two answers the minister gave are not to the questions I asked. It appears that we're on a different planet or something, so here's the question.

Here's the question, Mr. Chair. My question to the minister is this: what evidence did the minister receive, what research did the minister have, to base the minister's decision to go through a major restructuring of the Ministry of Children and Family Development while the ministry is undergoing significant cuts to its core service delivery?

The ministry cumulatively, over the last few years, has cut $175 million out of core services for the Ministry of Children and Family Development. That's what the ministry has done. In the midst of that, they have embarked on a major restructuring program. I would like to know: what specific evidence did the minister have that shows doing restructuring and deep cuts to the ministry at the same time is effective?

Hon. C. Clark: For years this ministry, under the NDP, was making decisions without evidence, not based…. Oh, I see the member's information is coming. Perhaps the questions will start to come faster too.

For years there was very little evidence for the decisions this ministry made and the kinds of practices they chose to employ, and the result of that was a skyrocketing number of children that were coming into

government care and coming out of their families. That was a conscious decision of the previous government. They thought, I suppose, that would be the best way to spend the money, and I disagree. I think a better way to spend our money is to try and keep families intact and to support children in their families, if we can — try and make families safe, loving, whole, stable places for children. We know they do better when they're in their families than when they're not in their families, most of the time.

What we've done in British Columbia is that we've actually seen the rate at which children are coming into government care start to fall, and we're the only province in the country where that's true. Not only can we look at other provinces across the country to see how dramatically different things are in British Columbia, but we can look at previous years. We can look at the decade of the 1990s, when this ministry was managed by a policy at the top that really didn't focus on trying to support families and instead tended to take kids out of their homes instead of trying to find ways to make families loving, supporting, whole places where kids could grow and thrive.

Not that there wasn't effort put into that. So many of the incredibly professional, hard-working social workers we have, have worked for years to try and make these things a reality. The difference has been that the previous government left parts of the act unproclaimed that would have given social workers the ability to use that broad range of skills they need to be able to use in order to keep families whole and intact and try to support them.

Our government has proclaimed those sections of the act because we really believe in the evidence that tells us that children usually do better in their own homes if we can make those homes safe, healthy, caring, predictable places for children. We've acted on that, and that's a big difference between this government's approach and the previous government's approach.

In budgetary terms it's also a less expensive approach. Not only is it better to try and keep a child in their family for that child's good and that family's good, but it's also less expensive for government to try and do that as well. Providing parenting courses and supporting families and doing all that other range of things we can do to try and support families is almost always less expensive than taking a child out of their home and putting them into foster care or some other kind of arrangement.

Sometimes that's necessary. Some children just can't stay in their own homes, but our government has really worked hard to try and change this focus. I'm proud to say that the thousands of dedicated professional social workers we have out there working on our behalf, working for families day in and day out, have taken up this change with vigour. What they've told us is that they like these changes. They appreciate the opportunity to be able to use that broad range of skills they're trained to have, to be able to use the wisdom and the training they've gained over the years to try and make families work.

That's at the core of what this ministry is trying to do, and I am proud to be a part of a change in this ministry that is, for the first time in many years, making that change happen.

J. Kwan: The minister can skate around all she wants, and the reality is that she has not answered the question. It's not a difficult question to the minister. Based on her answer, one can only come to the conclusion that she actually has no evidence whatsoever to back up the government's action — that is, to cut $175 million out of the Ministry of Children and Family Development while making structural changes through its restructuring process.

There is no evidence, I would submit, that the minister has. That's why she's not been able to cite any of the studies. The information she's citing that says it's effective in terms of program changes has nothing to do with major cuts the government's going through at the same time — nothing. I may as well say and put on the record again for the minister that the experts have been saying to the minister and this government all along that restructuring and making deep cuts at the same time will not serve families and children in British Columbia. In fact, they will just create chaos, and that's exactly what's happened. There is chaos in our community. There is chaos in this ministry, which is plagued by scandal after scandal. People cannot see and stick their head above water to try and figure out what is going on.

The minister was commenting on the information that was sent into the House for my information, for these debates. It's interesting in terms of the minister's comment, but I'll also let the minister know that perhaps this will help her in her answers and the approach she decides to take in the estimates process here.

In this package arrived an e-mail from someone who is watching the live broadcast of these estimates. Here's what the individual had to say: "I'm watching the live broadcast regarding the Ministry of Children and Family Development. You're doing an incredible job, and I appreciate your efforts to hold this dictatorship government accountable. Thank you for your efforts." From this individual.

J. Kwan: The minister says: "Nothing like a self-congratulatory message." It's not about me. Let's be very clear. It isn't about me.

J. Kwan: The minister might think this is funny, but these have serious ramifications. What this goes to show is that it's the minister's behaviour which people are reacting to, on which the opposition consistently gets comments from people as they are watching the

I don't know who this individual is, and it doesn't matter to me who this individual is. What does matter…. As I say, it isn't about me. It's about the children and families in our community. It's about the services they need. It's about the very serious nature that this government has created the kind of chaos that is happening relating to the ministry and the services which children and families depend on. It's about the very serious question of how this government had even begun to embark on this exercise of restructuring the ministry in a substantive way while at the same time cutting the budget of this ministry — deep cuts, $175 million worth of cuts. Cumulative cuts, I might add — cuts that began a few years ago and that continue under this minister's leadership. I would say again: cumulative cuts, year over year over year.

When this minister was in opposition, she chastised the former government for cutting or for actually not providing enough money in the area of children and family development. She actually said that more money needs to be put into the Ministry of Children and Family Development. Lo and behold, she's now the minister, and what is happening? She's actually making cuts. She's continuing on with the government's agenda to cut funding for the Ministry of Children and Family Development, negatively impacting the children and families in our community. This is what's happening with this minister.

She did not answer my question, and I can only come to the conclusion that there was no evidence whatsoever, in terms that this minister used, to base this decision to make deep cuts and at the same time to restructure the ministry substantively. If there were such evidence, the minister would be tabling it. I'm sure she'd be quoting from it, and I'm sure she'd be saying: "See, that jurisdiction did exactly that, and look at the fine outcome they've received." I'm sure the minister would be doing that, except that such evidence doesn't exist, and the experts have been saying to her all along that that is the case.

Will she finally own up to the mistake her government has made? That is what people in the community have been saying to her: deep cuts and restructuring at the same time don't work. Will she commit to reinstating the dollars that are necessary, reinstating the cuts that this government has made to the Ministry of Children and Family Development?

Hon. C. Clark: The member can stand up and talk about the fact that restructuring and giving control back to communities isn't worth it, but I fundamentally disagree with her. When she stands up there and says that we shouldn't be returning these services to the community or giving these services to the community, that we shouldn't be engaging in what has been called the third wave of deinstitutionalization in British Columbia, I fundamentally disagree. I believe there is wisdom in allowing communities to have control over delivering community services in their local areas. I believe there is value in that. That's why this move has been so broadly supported. That's why 14,000 people provincewide participated and made their views known in the consultation this ministry did about devolving services to communities.

Is it the right thing to do? Absolutely it's the right thing to do. But if for one minute the member wanted to talk about outcomes, which I know she avoids like the plague, she might start to have trouble making some of the arguments and some of the suppositions she's put forward. For example, this is not a theory we're talking about. We're not just talking theoretically about what might happen if we bring some of these practice changes into use.

The number of children who have gone into government care, out of their families, has dropped. The number of adoptions has doubled under this government. Double the number of children are now finding permanent homes than under her government, where the area, I'm sure, didn't get very much political attention.

Kith-and-kin arrangements for the first time are allowed, because of the work that our government has done. That means placing kids with extended family and in their own communities so that if they have to be separated from their parents, particularly aboriginal children, they can stay in their home communities and keep some of those cultural connections.

Family group conferencing is another example of something the previous government passed in legislation and then never bothered to enact, because they didn't think it was important. Well, I think it is important. Family group conferencing is important. Putting all of those people around the table, who care about a child, and making them part of a decision about what should happen for that child's future is critically important.

Alternative dispute resolution is expanding across the province so that families can find ways to settle their differences without going to court. All of those changes are important. All of those changes are important not for us politically; they are important for children in communities across the province. They are positive changes that weren't happening under the previous government. They are positive changes that have happened over the last two and a half years as a result of the changes in practice that we've implemented out there in the field, and those practice changes have been based on best research.

If for one minute the member would stop to look at the actual results that we are getting in the work that we do out there in the field, she would find that there are so many indicators of success, that there are so many areas where we're doing better. She might find she has trouble throwing some of the suppositions out that she's thrown on the floor today.

Those kids who are not going into government care and are staying with their families, I'm sure, appreciate the fact that we're trying to keep their families together. Those kids who found permanent homes through

adoption appreciate the fact that our government has put some focus on that. Kids that have gone and stayed with extended family and friends in local communities appreciate the fact that they have been able to keep their cultural connections.

All of those are positive changes, and those positive changes are a direct result of the changes that our government has made in the practice, as opposed to just the theory of practising social work, out there in the field in British Columbia.

J. Kwan: It's very interesting in terms of the direction that the minister wants to take this debate. Let me just put some information here on the record. Just earlier the minister actually praised social workers and what a wonderful job they are doing. You know what? I absolutely agree. They are trying their very best in very trying circumstances with substantive reductions to their budgets and reductions in staffing, but charged with very important and serious work that they have to undertake on behalf of our community in many cases.

Let me just put this letter and their comments on the record with respect to their view of what they think of how well she's doing. This happens to be a statement issued by the B.C. Association of Social Workers as recently as March 17, 2004 — the very same social workers that this minister praised just moments ago. Here's what they have to say about this minister and this government's performance in the area of children and family development:

That's just in this year's budget book. As I mentioned, if you look at previous years, it amounts to $175 million in terms of cuts.

This is only part of a very, very well-informed letter, I would submit. After all, this statement comes directly from the B.C. Association of Social Workers, the very social workers that just minutes ago the minister praised.

When I said it came from the B.C. Association of Social Workers, the minister laughed and threw her head back and said: "Oh, the union." The very same people that are part of this association are the workers that are busting their hump trying to do a job in an untenable situation as a result of this government's direct actions.

J. Kwan: The minister goes: "Oh no, we don't." Well, I would advise the minister to open her eyes and open her ears and do what the B.C. Association of Social Workers is suggesting for her to do. That is to listen — listen to the people who provide her with good information, who tell her the truth about what's going on even though she might not like what they are telling her. They are the experts out in the field. They are the people delivering the programs and trying to deliver the programs in light of these huge cuts and the chaos that this minister and this government have created in the community.

J. Kwan: I absolutely have many questions for the minister. I would like the minister to begin first by answering the issues that have been raised by the Association of Social Workers and their concerns with re-

spect to cuts in the ministry and the impact on the families and the children in British Columbia.

Hon. C. Clark: I'm delighted to be able to actually answer a question, which I always like to do whenever the member sits down.

It is the professional staff on the front lines that have been monitoring and advising and designing some of the changes that have happened out there on the ground. I think what the member is specifically referring to is something that we internally call "service redesign," and that means trying to redesign the services we provide to people to meet the needs that we recognize they have.

Traditionally, what this ministry has done is provide services based on historically what was there before, as opposed to what the needs were — tweaking a contract here and there, adding to this, adding to that, as opposed to having a really good look at what the needs are. The demography changes, populations change, people move, and things change, so we need to make sure that our services keep up with those changes and that we're meeting the needs as well as we can.

I think the example that the letter the member copied from the newspaper is referencing is the service redesign in Vancouver. What we've done in Vancouver is said: "All right, what is the population in Vancouver that depends on the Ministry of Children and Family Development for service? And what is it they need?" Then the third question is: what services do we provide based on that need? They engaged in a really long and involved community consultation to talk to the community about the kinds of services that they thought and the way we could provide those services to meet the needs of the community…. It was a very productive process, and I think the product of that is certainly going to be services that better meet the needs of people in Vancouver.

Those consultations have wrapped up. The service redesign is now happening. That certainly means change. Some agencies that are seeing their contracts move or change aren't always necessarily happy about it. The bottom line is that there hasn't been any cut in the amount of money that's available to the Vancouver region as a result of that process.

Yes, some of the money has shifted, but it's shifted to services that better meet the current needs of the people in the communities, because of course, that's how we should be spending money. We shouldn't be spending our money based on what historically we always used to do, which was the NDP approach to this ministry. Our approach is to say, instead: "Let's approach this from the needs of the people that we're serving. Let's put the clients first, and let's design our services based on what they need." That's what we've done in Vancouver.

J. Kwan: According to the minister, the front-line workers, who actually see the families and their children that are in crisis, are wrong, and she's right. She's right. She's in her office with, you know, her spin that Martyn Brown tells her — "You have to say this, and everything is fine, and everything is working" — and therefore she's right. The people from the community, who are the front-line workers — moments ago she just praised the good work that they did — are all wrong, incidentally, when they actually raise issues and concerns with this minister.

They actually said it. I'm not making this up. This is their language. The assertion from the minister that services are being provided, their budgets are not being cut and they're not disappearing — and here's what they say about this minister's statement, which she's just repeated in paraphrase form, that the minister put in the newspaper — "represents a form of political dishonesty that does not present the province's chief parent in a good light." These are what the front-line workers are saying about this minister's statements.

The Chair: Order. I would suggest the member be very careful on some of the language that is coming through that letter, please.

The Chair: Member, you don't have to repeat it. I think you know full well what could be unparliamentary in the House, and therefore I will let you use your own discretion at this time. Please, I think we have parliamentary procedures to follow here, and I would expect that from the member.

J. Kwan: With all due respect, I fail to understand which part of the quote that I put on record is unparliamentary. Given that you're asking me to use my discretion, I will absolutely use my discretion to do exactly that. I don't think any of the quote that I put on record, quite frankly, is unparliamentary. If I'm mistaken in that, I would ask you, Mr. Chair, to direct me specifically.

Here's what they have to say about this minister. That's exactly what they're saying about this minister when she suggests that services are being provided, that their budgets are not being cut and that the services are not disappearing. Nothing could be further from the truth, and the good people that are working out in the community on the front lines are saying that this is a form of political dishonesty that does not represent the province's chief parent in a good light.

Here's what else they have to say. The process that this government has embarked on relating to the cuts impacting children "is not predicated on how best to serve children at risk and has been carried out with little or no regard for the effectiveness of the existing

programs. Budget efficiencies will rule the day, and children seeking help from trusted programs will attend at their own local agency only to find it closed or their program eliminated." These are the front-line workers who are dealing with families and children who are in crisis. That's what they are saying about this government's performance and this minister's statements.

For the minister to say that everything is fine…. Funny how it is that the front-line workers happen to say: "No, they are not." They only happen to be the people who deal with families and children who are in crisis in our community. They're asking this minister to be the advocate for children, to go to the cabinet table and say no to the cuts and to reinstate the cuts that have been made to this ministry.

Will the minister be that advocate and ask for the cuts to be rolled back and ask for the moneys that have been cut from this ministry to be reinstated?

Hon. C. Clark: My role since I was elected to this House in 1996 has always been to be an advocate for children. I was an advocate for children in my previous ministries, and I intend to continue being an advocate for children and their needs in this ministry as well — as the previous minister was in my experience as well.

We have worked very, very hard in this ministry over the last two and a half years with social workers, with the people on the front lines, to try to make sure that the services we are delivering result in better outcomes. I think I've demonstrated in some of the statistics I've cited that in fact we are getting many, many better outcomes for kids.

Is everything perfect? Absolutely not. Is there more we can do? Absolutely, we can, and we need to always be striving to do better and better every day. But I meet social workers who tell me all the time that there are lots of things we could do better that don't even require more money. In fact, I often have social workers tell me that there are things we can do that would cost less money, and some of the practice changes that we've brought in are good examples of that. Supporting families and building supports around families to try to make them strong and healthy and predictable places for kids is a great example of how doing something can be the right thing to do and can also be a less expensive option to do.

In this coming year, where we will see a 4 percent reduction in the budget, more than half of it will be coming out of wages, not out of service. Most of the rest of it will be coming out of lower demand, because simply we are finding much, much less expensive ways and better ways to try to support families. The fact is that many of those ideas were the results of the work and the ideas and the thoughtful regard that social workers gave to this process. We owe them a great deal for their ideas, their efforts and the commitment that they bring every day to the families they serve in British Columbia.

J. Kwan: If the minister says that she will be the advocate, then will she withdraw her statement that she made in the Vancouver Sun in the letter to the editor that said: "Services are being provided, their budgets are not being cut, and they're not disappearing"? Withdraw that statement, because they're not facts.

Hon. C. Clark: It is a fact that in Vancouver the service redesign, which is changing the services we provide to meet the needs of people, is not resulting in a budget cut. That was the reference that I made in my letter. That's absolutely true. If the member takes a minute to actually go and examine the budgets and see what they've done, she'll see that it hasn't resulted in a budget cut in Vancouver.

Yes, there is a different kind of service that's going to be provided in Vancouver. We're trying to make sure, for example, that safe houses…. There were 22 beds being provided this year in safe houses in addition to all of the safe beds that we provide for kids — beds that are actually in separate safe houses for kids. That will be reduced to 19 over the coming year, but remember, one of those safe houses had a 62 percent occupancy rate. Clearly, we weren't spending all our money in ways that really met the demands of the people out there. While we're spending money on a safe house that is 62 percent full, we could be spending that money elsewhere, where there are other very, very urgent and acute needs.

What we've done is gone and assessed the needs out there and tried to design services that will meet those needs better. That is something I think any responsible government would do, not something the previous government made any particular attempt to do but something certainly that we're doing because we care about making sure that every dollar, every penny is spent well.

J. Kwan: You know, the minister can put forward rhetoric all she wants, but the reality is this: the numbers don't lie. I will be getting into the full details of the budget cuts that are experienced region by region — in detail.

Just for the record, for the time being, the Vancouver Island community…. In terms of the four years, that region has experienced cuts — in terms of percentage, 18.2 percent; in terms of amount, $22.2 million; Vancouver coastal, $20.5 million and 14.2 percent; Fraser, $16.4 million and 18.4 percent; interior, $20 million and 16 percent; in the north, $8.3 million and 10.2 percent, for a total of $87.4 million. To suggest that there were no cuts is not even credible. So please, I will get into the details of the cuts at a later time, because I have a full set of questions to canvass about that.

I do want to go back to this question for the minister about the restructuring process and the budget cuts that were occurring at the same time. What risk assessment tools were used when the minister embarked on this exercise?

Hon. C. Clark: I just want to be clear about the reductions in regions. Those reductions have been as a

result of wage changes — wage reductions — and reductions in demand for the number of children in care. I want to give the member a really concrete example, because I think she's sort of….

In the NDP view of the world, if there's less money, then automatically it means there's less service. Well, that's not necessarily true. If you lower costs, you can often reduce the amount of money that you need to spend and get the same amount of service. That's not something the NDP, I don't think, really understood when they were in government, but it's certainly been at the heart of what we've been trying to do in this ministry.

I'll give a good, concrete example of this in this ministry by using the workload model, which the previous government brought into place. The workload model is intended to measure the amount of work that each social worker has to do in a given day, so that we can get a sense of whether or not they're getting busier and whether they're getting more overloaded or less overloaded. I think that's a very important statistic to have, because we need to know whether or not social workers have enough time to do their jobs out there in the field.

We have actually crunched those numbers based on the model that the NDP brought into place. If the required number of social workers had declined to reflect the amount of decline in demand — that they actually declined at the same rate — there would have been 15.46 fewer social workers in British Columbia. The number of social workers hasn't declined at anywhere near the same rate as the demand has declined amongst the children-in-care population that we serve, and that's declined by 9.8 percent.

What that means is that under the workload model the NDP created, social workers actually have a little bit more time and a little more flexibility to try and do their jobs, which is exactly what we want to try and achieve. We know those front-line workers are really just critically essential to making this ministry work for people. They're the face of government and the services that government provides for thousands of people across the province. I think we have something to be proud of in recognizing that while the demand has dropped, the actual number of social workers who are serving that population hasn't dropped nearly as quickly.

J. Kwan: This is interesting, in terms of what the minister said. I'll remind the minister that when she was in opposition, she criticized the previous government by saying they didn't put enough dollars and enough supports in for children and families who are in need. Both the Premier and this minister made those statements all throughout the opposition years, and they campaigned on it. They prioritized the most vulnerable families and children first.

Lo and behold, after the election, who knew what that priority means for this government? It means cutting deeply into their programs. It means reducing social workers in terms of the work that they take on, on behalf of the government in dealing with children and families. They're reducing that FTE number by as much as 40 percent, Mr. Chair. This minister, this government over the years has cut the budget in the Ministry of Children and Family Development to the tune of $175 million. These are not just tinkering around the edge in terms of adjusting budgets. These are, I would venture to say, not just cuts into the flesh; they're cuts beyond — to the bones of the ministry in terms of core service delivery.

It's interesting, because here's information that's just come in from a mom who is watching the debate — her concerns that she's put.

J. Kwan: The minister goes: "New question." Actually, let alone the fact, Mr. Chair, that she didn't answer my question, which was what risk assessment tools were used when the government made a decision to go through major cuts at the same time it undergoes major restructuring…. She didn't answer that question at all. I will still wait for that answer to that question.

Let me put this information on the record from a mom who's watching this debate, and this is a direct quote:

I will turn to this, Mr. Chair, in terms of the funds and the cuts in the area of the Community LINK program. The information from this individual goes on to say:

This is from a mom who is watching this debate, and for this minister to claim there have been no cuts and everything is hunky-dory is a slap in the face to the people who are suffering from these cuts, Mr. Chair.

I would like the minister to respond to this information that I've put on record from this mom, who is very concerned about the minister's claims. I would also like the answer to my question, which I have now

asked twice: what risk assessment tools were used when the government embarked on this restructuring scheme and this major cut in the ministry?

Hon. C. Clark: We talked about this last time we were here and met for estimates, and that really was issues around the voluntary cuts that agencies planned for. The vast majority of agencies across the province put together plans, and in fact some of them told us that they preferred the idea that they would move from, in some cases, a very expensive staffed residential model to more family-like settings, with the consent and agreement of the people that would be going to those settings. For some people it's more appropriate. Many agencies came back with their plans to meet those voluntary targets, and we worked cooperatively, for the most part, to do that. I think the proof is in the pudding in that we've met our targets, and services are continuing to be provided for those very vulnerable people who depend on us to provide those services for them.

J. Kwan: The minister is saying she's right once again. The mom, who actually said, "No, minister. Just hold on a minute. I have direct experience with people who are suffering as a direct result of these government cuts to the programs that impact their children," is wrong. She's saying: "I'm doing a good job. Thank you very much." That's what the minister is saying. But the minister is not recognizing and is failing to listen to the people in the community who are experiencing the hurt this minister and this government have foisted on them.

The minister's claim that families and individuals are not experiencing cuts is offensive and, quite frankly, completely false. Keeping in mind that this minister, when she was in opposition…. Here's what she said on March 31, 1998. It's a direct quote from this minister, then critic for the Ministry of Children and Families. This Ministry of Children and Families "is a ministry that is in chaos. It is a ministry that doesn't have the resources to do its job, and we have seen successive ministers who don't have the clout or the guts or the backbone to go to cabinet and get the resources." That's what this minister said then. Let's measure her words against her action today as the minister as to whether or not she has the clout or the guts or the backbone to go and get the resources for this ministry and for the children and families that are in need.

Let's put a further quote on what this minister said then, when she was in opposition. This is from a letter from the minister to the Prince George supervisor in their office there: "I do not believe that the ministry provides adequate resources to front-line workers in British Columbia. That is why I continue to support Judge Gove's recommendation for a substantial increase in the number of front-line workers in the ministry." Interesting, isn't it? Now that she's the minister, she's presiding over a government that's cutting 40 percent of the FTEs in social work. The language she used — and she didn't mince words then — did not match up to the actions of this minister now. It was fraudulent — the language she used then — if you compare the actions.

The Chair: Member, I ask you to retract that, please. That is not parliamentary language.

J. Kwan: Okay, Mr. Chair. Let's not use that word "fraudulent." I'll retract it, and I'll use another word. It is at best, Mr. Chair, an outright mistruth of what the minister said then.

The Chair: Member, that is unparliamentary language. You know better than that. I would ask you to retract that, please.

J. Kwan: I will retract the comment then, Mr. Chair. Perhaps you can guide me as to what word would be appropriate to describe completely contradictory actions of what the minister, in opposition then, said she would do versus what she is now doing. When we compare those words to the actions, they completely contradict each other. There is no substance or truth to what she said she would do compared to the action today. Maybe, Mr. Chair, you'll guide me. What is the right word to use in this House?

The Chair: Member, it's not my responsibility to guide you in your language. You should be well aware of what is parliamentary and unparliamentary language. You've been here long enough.

J. Kwan: Well, let me just say that there is no truth to what the minister said then. Let's just put the quote, to be clear, so that we know what she said and what she is now doing: "I do not believe that the ministry provides adequate resources to front-line workers in British Columbia. That is why I continue to support Judge Gove's recommendation for a substantial increase in the number of front-line workers in the ministry." That was a direct quote. This is a direct quote from this minister, when she was in opposition, criticizing the former administration in the area of children and family development.

What is she doing now? She is now cutting 40 percent of the FTEs for social workers in the ministry. That is what she is saying now. I think the minister gets nervous as pieces of paper come in, because what they say…. They are letters from people who are watching this debate and what their comments are on the minister's and the government's performance to date. I might call these blow-by-blow report cards of the minister, and that's what they say. I just put one of them on the

record, and more are coming in as we speak. I'll be happy to put that on the record too.

I'd like to get the minister's response, because I do not want this question to get lost in the minister's rhetoric. That is, what assessment tools were used by this minister and by this government when they embarked on this restructuring exercise with deep cuts in the ministry to the tune of $175 million?

Hon. C. Clark: First of all, the member should be clear on her facts. I won't use unparliamentary language about this, Mr. Chair. The number of FTE reductions for social workers is not 40 percent. As I just said, it's 9.8 percent. That's a much smaller reduction than the reduction in demand, which has been over 15 percent.

I think it's certainly true to say that in the NDP days, when the number of children that were coming into care and when government's policies drove decisions at the front line, it meant children were taken out of their families first — sometimes as a much too early resort — instead of trying to build families and support them. That policy meant that demand was going up at an incredible rate. Of course, that means you need more social workers out there in the field to try and meet that demand.

What we've done as a government is said: "No, look. Hang on. Let's try and reduce the number of children that are being taken from their families and into government care, if we can." If we can make sure those homes are safe, predictable, loving places for those children, those children should try and be there. Our first job, as government and as social workers in the field, should be to try and find those solutions before we take children out of their homes.

J. Kwan: Let's be clear. The minister and this government are cutting 40 percent of the FTEs within the ministry. It's true that they may not all be social workers over the last three years, but nonetheless they're people who work in the area of protecting children and providing support to families and children in British Columbia.

The 40 percent actually came directly from the minister's own mouth yesterday in estimates debate, where she said: "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." That's what the minister said — 40 percent of FTEs. I didn't make up the number. The minister provided that in the House. The minister can try and get out of the areas she wants to and say that is not so.

Aside from the FTE question, let me put this quote on the record as well. Here's what the then opposition member, the now minister, said. A question was put to the minister. "My question is whether or not a Liberal government would break out of a 100-and-some-odd-year mould and take a look at some of these things on a ten-year basis, saying that we'll have to put up more money in 1998, and all we can promise you is that in 2008, that will produce equivalent or greater benefit. Will you and your government do that? Will Fred Gingell as Minister of Finance do that?" That was the late Fred Gingell.

Now, the minister's response: "The answer to that is yes. Our number one commitment — and we have said this again and again and again — is to children, and whether that's through the Ministry for Children and Families or Education, that is the number one Liberal priority. So, yes." That's what the now minister said when she was in opposition. Then on the Liberal platform on general children and family issues, here's what the minister said: "We will, as our number one commitment — and we have said this again and again and again — is to children, and whether that's through the Ministry for Children and Families or Education, that's the number one Liberal priority."

So the minister said it in several different forums, an exact quote almost, and what have we seen since that time? That number one priority for this government — and that would be the children — translates to cuts in services, directly impacting them. That's what is happening in the Ministry of Children and Family Development, and that's exactly what's happening in the Ministry of Education as well. The minister knows that very well, and that is the reality of what children are faced with today.

She further said in the Burnaby News Leader, October 23, 1997, that she was concerned about continued cost-cutting in the ministry — that is, the Ministry for Children and Families. She said that the ministry needed to have its spending increased. Well, since that time, she is now in office. What is she doing, exactly, to actually live up to the statement she made in the Burnaby News Leader?

Hon. C. Clark: As I said, demand is dropping for some of the very expensive types of service we used to provide as a result of the work that we're doing, and all of the changes in programs and policies that we've made have been carefully reviewed against best-practices approach around the world and in British Columbia. We know, from the statistics I've given her already, that the changes we're making are working. The demand is dropping. For example, a special needs child who is adopted is a lot less expensive to support than a child who is, especially, a child in foster care. Those kinds of alternatives, which are better alternatives for children, are also less expensive.

J. Kwan: The minister insists that she's making these cuts because there is no demand for the funds for the programs. You know what? The minister is dead wrong. You know what? The minister needs to exercise caution here, because I actually have a leaked document, which we'll get into, about the risks that this government is putting children and families in with their cuts in their budgets. It's blow by blow about these program cuts.

We'll get into those detailed cuts, as I said, later on in the estimates process. I will not hesitate to put all

this information on the record, and I'll be expecting the minister to answer these questions in full detail.

Let's set aside the budget cut issue for a moment. I want to get back to the assessment tool question.

J. Kwan: The minister has not answered that question around the assessment tools, and I would like an answer for it.

Hon. C. Clark: The changes we've made in practice have all been based on best practices and carefully reviewed, as I said. There has been a lot of investment of time and money and training in making sure that everybody is a part of that decision-making process. It's been a very, very productive process, and I think the results show that the work we've been doing has actually really been good for kids. It's been good for families, and we've really seen some great successes in the last two and a half years because of the work the social workers and the people in this ministry have been so dedicated to making sure happens.

J. Kwan: The words of the minister ring hollow, because the social workers are saying what this government and this minister are doing is not good for kids and, in fact, that they hurt kids. Families are saying that; people out in the community are saying that. It appears the only person who says everything is fine and is working happens to be the minister. I know that's the line that Martyn Brown has told her she has to say over and over again. But you know what? Nobody believes her.

The fact that she continues to avoid the question about what assessment tools she's used to determine that making cuts at the same time as a major restructuring is a good thing proves that she doesn't have — they don't have — the assessment tools in place to deal with those processes that this government had embarked on. The minister knows that very well, and the experts in the community know that very well, and the front-line workers know that very well.

So, the minister has embarked on an exercise that cut $175 million in services to children and families over the last few years and continues to make these cuts this year. That, obviously, flies in the face of the government's new-era promise to make children their number one priority. It flies in the face of the minister's commitment that she's concerned about continued cost-cutting in the ministry and that what she wants to see and what she said is needed is for the ministry to have its spending increased. When she was in opposition, that's what she said. She's now in government. She's going in exactly the opposite direction. She is cutting costs in the ministry, she's cutting the budgets in the ministry, and she's not increasing the budgets in the ministry. The net result: children, families, the most vulnerable children and families — they are the ones that are getting hurt.

I'd like to canvass with the minister this question. The minister says all is fine, when in fact we know all is not fine. The former minister was forced to resign from the ministry. There's a big scandal, more details to come, potentially criminal charges relating to the scandal — to the Doug Walls situation. What steps…?

The Chair: Member, I just want to caution you not to reference the former minister in this process. Proceed.

The Chair: Yeah. This minister is not responsible for the former minister's responsibilities, so I just wanted to caution you to keep your questioning to this minister and to this….

J. Kwan: Oh, I see. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wasn't going to ask the minister about the actions of the former minister, but rather I was going to…. I only referenced the fact that the former minister was forced to resign as a statement of fact with respect to what is going on in this ministry and this government. I wasn't asking the minister to answer for the former minister. I'm sure he is able to do that on his own.

But I would like to ask this question. The reality is this: the ministry is in chaos. There are potential criminal investigations that could still surface relating to the Doug Walls scandal. It's already forced a minister to resign.

J. Kwan: You know, Mr. Chair, members in this House may not like the facts that I'm putting on the record. All I can say is that's just too bad, because those are the facts, and they cannot be altered. Those are the facts, and they cannot be disputed.

J. Kwan: The minister might not like what I'm saying, and she might want to dispute these facts. Well, I'll challenge her to rise up and tell me where I'm wrong with these facts. Did the former minister not resign because of the Doug Walls scandal? The Doug Walls scandal — could criminal charges still be laid? Could that not still surface? Are these not facts? These are exactly the facts. So I challenge the minister, if these facts are incorrect, to rise up and point them out. Which part is incorrect?

In addition, I want to ask the minister this question: what steps has the minister taken to do things differently than the former minister? What is she doing differently in her new role as the minister?

Hon. C. Clark: We're working very hard in this ministry to make sure that the changes we implement

are done carefully and thoroughly. That's consistent with the work the previous minister did as well. This is a big ministry with very, very important responsibilities, and I'm determined to fulfil those.

J. Kwan: So says the minister — that she's doing things differently. She didn't provide anything specific about what she's doing differently. Well, I'll let the community judge her performance. I'll let the community judge just how things are doing.

Let me ask the minister this question: what extra monitoring is being done to assess the impact of cuts and restructuring on services to children and families?

Hon. C. Clark: As I already pointed out, the changes to programs and policies are being carefully reviewed against a best-practices approach. There have been training and orientation sessions across the province in all regions. Child welfare staff and supervisors have all been familiarized with the changes. We worked hard at that. As I said, the monitoring of the cases that we're doing demonstrates that we are seeing results from the work we've implemented. We have quality assurance staff in the regions from headquarters who will be ensuring that the quality assurance functions are being met, and they are working as closely with front-line staff as absolutely possible.

Hon. C. Clark: Changes like, for example, the policies I've talked about where the practice of social workers is expanded so that they can use the full range of their skills that are there and use some approaches to child protection that include more than just, you know, taking a child out of the home. Social workers are, I think, happy to be able to use that broad range of skills. It wasn't something the previous government particularly encouraged.

J. Kwan: Are there policy menus that were sent out to staff with respect to what guidelines they should be using and these changes the minister speaks of? Are there documentations that were sent out to staff — the training process the minister talked about?

J. Kwan: Are there also internal guidelines that are not on the website — internal to government — that are being used, or is everything out on the website?

Hon. C. Clark: All the information…. It's two volumes. It's a lot of information that's there. It's available on the website. It's available to social workers. Turning that theory into practice has meant some really positive outcomes for children across the province.

J. Kwan: The minister keeps on talking about how the budget cuts and the process she's embarked on have been positive for children and families — with the exception that children and families in the community are saying that they're not positive; with the exception that social workers themselves, who happen to be front-line workers who are delivering these services, are saying they're not so positive. So it's interesting that the minister knows best, and that's always the approach in which she engages.

We will get into these cuts, as I mentioned earlier, because the leaked document I talked about deals with some 65 strategies the ministry was contemplating to go ahead with that would impact children and families significantly in our community. We'll be going through the details of that, because the document actually shows the health and safety risks to vulnerable children and adults with this documentation. I'll get into the detailed cuts when we get through these sets of questions around these different areas first.

Putting aside the terrible irony of this government's new-era promise, the promise to stop the endless bureaucratic restructuring — that's a direct quote: stop the endless bureaucratic restructuring — of the Children and Family Development ministry, I'd like to ask the minister about the restructuring process, which is currently in chaos and disarray. Given that this government likes to talk — talk a lot, in fact — about outcome-based management, I'd like the minister to evaluate the restructuring experiment in light of what outcomes have been achieved and the millions spent on this restructuring.

Hon. C. Clark: The forecast to be spent in '03-04 is $7.19 million and in '04-05, $3.53 million.

J. Kwan: The numbers the minister gave me were forecasts — $7.19 million in '03-04 and $3.53 million in '04-05. How much money has been spent already, to date?

Hon. C. Clark: We're not quite at the end of the '03-04, but we expect it will be about $7.19 million. That's our forecast, and with just a few days left in the month, there is every reason to expect that will be the number.

J. Kwan: Were there no dollars spent in previous years in this restructuring exercise?

Hon. C. Clark: We're not here to discuss the budget debates for '02-03, as I think the member should probably be aware of by now. I'm surprised that she didn't have the opportunity or didn't take the opportunity to raise this last year when it came up in estimates, because of course that information would have been

available then. If she'd been curious about asking, she could have certainly asked it then.

The expenditure in '02-03, though, I will provide to her nonetheless. She can perhaps go back and check and see if she did ask the question last time. If she forgot to ask it, I can provide that for her today. It's $10.9 million.

J. Kwan: Maybe the minister thinks she's being very smart, Mr. Chair. The reality of what happened last year is this. I was actually giving birth in the middle of the estimates process. The minister should be able to recall that, because I got as far as partway in the Education estimates process, and then my child was three weeks early. It landed me in the hospital for a good two and a half, almost three weeks. Having said that, it was great news. I was delighted to receive my child early, because she's such a joy, but it did take me out of commission. It did take me out of commission in this House.

J. Kwan: Maybe that's funny for the minister, because then that only left one member in this House to hold the government to account. It only left my colleague the member for Vancouver-Hastings to hold this government to account with every single set of estimates and every single set of legislation that was brought forward by this government for debate.

You know what? If she hadn't asked all of the questions that should have been asked, I think that's understandable. I think it's completely understandable. Given the fact that the previous years' actions and budgets have ramifications for this year, the questions I'm putting forward to the minister are completely legitimate. They are completely legitimate.

If I wasn't here last year to ask these questions, I am sorry. I was giving birth in the hospital. But I am here now, and those questions have ramifications today. There's a clear relationship related to that, and I'm going to ask these questions during this set of estimates, Mr. Chair, if that's okay with the minister.

The minister put forward on the record that $10.9 million was spent in the '02-03 year, $7.19 million was forecast to be spent for the restructuring process, and $3.53 million is to be spent. Could the minister provide information on where these dollars were distributed specifically?

Hon. C. Clark: The amount for CLBC in '02-03 was $3.47 million. I can't give her a final number, though, for the forecast for '04-05. Sorry — I can give her the final number. It's $3.5 million for '03-04. CFD is $3.57 million for '02-03 and $2.28 million for '03-04. Aboriginal is $3.86 million for '02-03 and $1.41 million for '03-04.

Hon. C. Clark: For Community Living B.C. the government reconfirmed its commitment to governance and community-based service delivery for adults with developmental disabilities. They did make significant progress that we can build upon as we move toward our vision for healthy children in communities.

For example, they developed a project management plan for the work of the interim authority. They developed a service delivery model for the new authority. They designed infrastructure to support the service delivery model. They developed an individualized funding policy implementation plan, budget plan and approach. They developed a plan for the provision of independent community-based planning and support for individuals with developmental disabilities and their families. They developed a risk management plan; wait-list management options, outcomes and standard self-reporting mechanisms; a safeguarding framework; information management plan; outcome standards; and a children-with-special-needs policy framework.

In the community governance for CFD — Children and Family Development — and aboriginal children's services, the accomplishments include regional planning committees that were established in the summer of 2002 to consult with communities on the service delivery visions that they had. They did community consultation and planning for the new governance. That began in 2002. They consulted over 14,000 people on best service delivery approaches for children and families across British Columbia.

The chairs of the organizations formed a joint chairs caucus to share information with each other and with the Minister of Children and Family Development, and the CFD business plans were submitted by the regional planning committees in March 2003. They increased relations in partnership with the aboriginal groups and organizations, something I think was long overdue. They established working agreements with every band and tribal council in the province, something that's never happened in our history before. It certainly never happened under the previous government. The aboriginal chairs and working groups developed a road map to readiness, which is based on KPMG.

I know that's not an organization that the member cares for, although I know they did donate $5,000 to the member for Vancouver-Hastings's unsuccessful leadership campaign.

They outlined readiness steps for the aboriginal child and family development regional transition council. They did a lot of work. They did a lot of planning work. They went out and consulted on a vision and set that vision, which I think is a really outstanding vision. I know that moving these services to the community isn't something that's important to the member, but it's certainly important to this government, and we intend to make sure that happens.

J. Kwan: There appears to be some discrepancy with respect to the dollar figures. The figures that the minister put on record just now, when she says that in the '02-03 year, $10.9 million was spent on restructuring and that in the '03-04 year, $7.19 million was forecast, and in '04-05 it was $3.53 million in terms of the forecast….

The former minister had actually stated that about $25 million was spent on the restructuring in all. As well, there was a fact sheet that the ministry had put out which set the restructuring costs at about $100 million for the '02-03 year. There's a bunch of different numbers that have surfaced from the government's sources — former minister, ministry fact sheet and now this minister. Which set of numbers is correct?

Hon. C. Clark: The numbers I'm giving her today are, to the best of my understanding, correct. They are based on the actual spending as opposed to the budgeted spending. That is, I think, a good thing.

I know this is probably not in the realm of the member's experience from when she was in government, but we are working as an organization to try to spend less than we actually budget, particularly for things like administration and planning.

What we've done is actually reduce the expected costs that we've had for these planning processes, and so that's why there's a big gap. That's why it's actually a lot lower. For this coming year, we'll be reducing it again. We want to make sure that we accomplish a lot with as few resources as possible, because we want to make sure that we deliver as much service to the front lines as we possibly can.

I just want to close by offering an apology to KPMG. I stand corrected. I don't know that they donated to the member for Vancouver-Hastings's leadership campaign.

J. Kwan: The information that the minister provides is surfacing with discrepancies. The minister says that it may be that it's the budgeted dollars rather than the actual spending. Now, I would say that $100 million versus $10 million…. There's quite a discrepancy. Even if it's budgeted, that's quite a discrepancy. That's from the minister's own fact sheet on this, where it states: "The '02-03 spending includes more than $100 million in one-time transitional expenditures, most of which will create savings in subsequent years." That is the restructuring — $100 million, $10 million, $10.9 million. That is a substantive difference in terms of the actual dollars.

Maybe the minister would care to clarify the information from the fact sheet from the ministry versus the numbers that she put forward.

Hon. C. Clark: I just want to make sure that the member understands. I think, based on what she's said — although I haven't seen the document she has — that she's confusing some of the numbers. I think the $100 million that she's referring to is referring to the strategic investments that we made, and that included investments in early childhood development and actual service programs that we're providing out there. The $25 million that I think she's referring to is the amount of money that we had budgeted for planning, and I think that's a reference that the minister made last year in estimates.

I just want to make sure that she's clear about that and, again, tell her that the budget for this coming year for those specific set of services, for the planning function, is $3.53 million. Just to sort of further add to that, the $25 million that she's referring to was not over one year either. It was over two years, but we are still far below that.

J. Kwan: The fact sheet from the ministry — and I quoted from it directly — states that the '02-03 spending includes more than $100 million in one-time transitional expenditures, most of which will create savings in subsequent years. One could only assume, because of the language that it's put in —" transitional expenditures" — that it is about restructuring for the transition phase. It doesn't say "strategic investments." It doesn't say that at all. It's the minister's own language. I'm not making it up, Mr. Chair. That's what the fact sheet says in terms of that $100 million.

The $25 million that the former minister stated — that's what he said. I'm not making that up either. That's what he said, in all, has been spent — about $25 million. The minister now claims that only $10.9 million has been spent to date in the '02-03 year; $7.19 million has been forecast to be spent in the '03-04 year and then $3.53 million in the '04-05 year. That gives you a total of $21.62 million in terms of the restructuring costs altogether over the years to date.

The minister says she got a lot of value for money, and she read off a list of things in terms of the value she got from this restructuring.

J. Kwan: Oh, Mr. Chair, the minister said: "Not a lot." So she didn't say it was a lot of value. She just said here are the things she has achieved with this restructuring.

J. Kwan: Maybe it's not a lot. That's my own assumption. I assumed the minister thought it was a lot. It's not a lot, so I'll just withdraw that.

The work that has been done, the money that has been spent in the restructuring process…. We now know there's yet another change in direction with the restructuring process. In fact, there was an e-mail from the deputy minister on this, which I'll quote: "We'll focus on moving forward with community living governance, which is well underway, as well as moving forward on aboriginal capacity-building to deliver services and governance. We remain committed to establishing child and family development authorities at the

same time as aboriginal authorities." The information indicates that the devolution is still on for community living but much delayed, while all bets are off for aboriginal services, and regional MCFD authorities will actually be up and running. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Clark: Yes. I'm sorry the member found the language confusing in the document she has, but we call them transition planning councils. So when she sees that reference, she'll know that's what we're talking about — committees. When she sees those references in the budget, she'll know that's what we're talking about. There are other things that are called transformation and transition in the ministry but don't necessarily refer to the planning councils and aren't necessarily part of that budget. I just want to make sure she's clear about that language.

We intend to continue with transferring the governance of aboriginal services to aboriginal communities. That, I think, is an urgent public policy priority, because 45 percent of the children that are in the care of the government are aboriginal. That just vastly overrepresents the number of those children in the population, and so we need to find better ways to serve those kids and to serve those communities. The only way I think we'll do that is to look at different ways of running the system and letting aboriginal communities themselves have more say in what happens for their kids. Often for aboriginal kids it means staying in their home community and keeping up those cultural ties, even if they can't stay in their own home. We call those kith-and-kin arrangements.

We're looking at all those options. We intend to pursue that as vigorously as we can. I've met with the aboriginal leaders a number of times. I try to speak with them as frequently as I can over the phone in conference calls, and we're regularizing that contact so we can make sure this happens. We need to make sure there is the capacity in the aboriginal community to take on the delivery of these services. We don't want to hand over delivery of services if the communities aren't ready to take them on, because they want to know that children aren't going to slip through the cracks as a result of any changes. We're making sure that the fundamentals are in place. We're going to make sure that we do this right. We're going to do our homework. We're going to do it carefully, we're going to do it responsibly, but we do intend to do it.

J. Kwan: Part of the fundamentals that need to be in place are actually resources for community capacity-building. That's what the community leaders have told me, and that's in fact what they've told the former minister all along and I presume this minister as well.

In fact, when the interim authority legislation was brought forward for debate, the issue that I raised as an opposition member and certainly from community leaders who have spoken with me was not so much about setting up the authorities and the regionalization of the authorities but rather the lack of resources to provide the support for the communities to do that work. What is the minister doing about that concern in terms of resources for community capacity-building?

I might add that this is, of course, in the midst of major cuts in the ministry. In light of the major cuts in the ministry, it further hampers, I would submit, capacity-building for communities.

Hon. C. Clark: Vancouver is a good example of a community where we've been reinvesting resources in services for aboriginal children. We've been doing that based on discussions we've been having with the aboriginal community to find out what would work best, what they think the needs are and how those services need to be delivered in a way that best meets the needs of those kids in those communities.

More than half of the reinvestment that is coming out of redesigning service, which we've already talked about, which is…. Service redesign is a process where we look at the needs and then try and make sure that we're delivering services in a way that meets those needs. About half of the savings and reinvestment coming out of that is going into aboriginal services. We are reinvesting that money into new aboriginal services, in some cases, for aboriginal kids.

In Vancouver it's a great example, where $400,000 more is going in to support aboriginal kids. We recognize we need to make sure that those services are there if we are going to actually change these appalling statistics in this ministry that tell us that 45 percent of children in the care of the government are of aboriginal ancestry, when there is nowhere near that kind of representation of the aboriginal population in the general population at large.

J. Kwan: Does the minister have a breakdown of where all the dollars have gone in the aboriginal community — first, for community capacity-building and, second, for the programs delivered to support aboriginal children and families throughout British Columbia? I'm not just talking about in Vancouver.

Hon. C. Clark: I can give the member a broad number: $7.33 million is the amount that's being reinvested; $5 million of that is going into aboriginal services. It varies region by region. I can get her the specifics about that. I know, though, in Vancouver it's $400,000.

J. Kwan: That's for the '04-05 budget cycle. What was it in the '03-04 budget cycle and the '02-03 budget cycle?

J. Kwan: Then I would like the details from the minister about the breakdown of where the dollars have gone within the $7.3 million in each of the different regions and the associations which were given these dollars to do their work around that.

Will community living still be the first authority up and running, according to plan?

J. Kwan: The original target date of 2004 is now not attainable. That is stated both by the internal review panel as well as the minister herself; they have indicated that. What is now the target date for the authority to be set up and running?

Hon. C. Clark: We've asked for an independent assessment of where we are operationally with the planning for the independent authority for community living services. We're actively working on that. We are awaiting the final report now.

When we get that report, we can engage in a community discussion about what's a realistic time line for the creation of the authority. I expect that it will be the first up and running, as I said, but the determination of an exact date will flow from the results of the report that we get. It's an independent report that's looking at the operationalization of the vision that so many thousands of people worked so hard to try and create, to make sure that the details of collective agreements and those kinds of things, which are really complex problems or complex issues — not always problems but issues that need to be worked through — are worked through and we don't lose any of those details in the process of sort of rushing forward. We want to make sure that we do this very carefully, that we do it responsibly, that we do it in a phased approach and that we do it right, because there are a lot of vulnerable people who are depending on the services we provide.

It is the right thing to do to allow communities the right to be able to deliver services in their own local areas. That is the right thing to do. It's been called the third wave of deinstitutionalization by international groups that have looked at what we've done in British Columbia and applauded the vision we've put in place for providing these services. The vision is sound. The principles we're working from are solid. But we also need to make sure that the structure we set up and the operational work we do are on a firm foundation so that when that transfer happens, all of the people who depend on us for services can continue to know that the services they are provided are secure.

J. Kwan: The notion of regionalization is not being disputed. How the government and this minister are going about regionalization is being disputed. As I laid out earlier, experts in the community are saying to the government that you cannot go through a regionalization with deep cuts to the ministry. All of that advice fell on deaf ears of this government, of this minister and of the former minister. They plowed on ahead anyway.

Now regionalization and the process are being halted. The minister is saying they now have no specific date in terms of when they expect that process to be completed. That's what the minister said. Surely there must be some ballpark time line, target dates. In the e-mail from the deputy that addressed this issue — and there was also a website set up about the interim authority in terms of its taking over the responsibility for community living services in the spring of 2004 — it does say that the original target date is now not going to be met.

The 2004 budget, of course, suggests that the plan to turn the ministry over to regional authorities would be implemented "incrementally, based on readiness." The dates that are outlined in the deputy minister's letter — the indication of the state of readiness of the various authorities, etc., — uses a date of the 2006-07 fiscal year for capacity-building and governance planning for aboriginal communities, but it provides no information on when devolution would actually occur. What is the sense of the minister on when devolution would actually occur?

Hon. C. Clark: As I said, we're going to wait for the report to come out so that we can make our decisions based on that. It's only responsible to make sure we make these decisions based on all of the information. That's why we have gotten an independent person to look at where we're at and what needs to be done. I think that's responsible and prudent in order to be thoughtful about it.

We're staging the implementation of the creation of the three different authorities because we recognize that it takes institutional capacity to do these things right. We will learn lessons from the creation of the community living authority, undoubtedly, and those are lessons that we can apply to the creation of the two other authorities as well. We want to make sure we do this properly, carefully and right.

I hear, on the one hand, the member talking about how racing ahead isn't prudent, and we shouldn't be doing this so fast, and we should slow down. She's got that sort of line of argument going. On the other hand, she's criticizing us — criticizing me — for not being fast enough to meet the deadlines.

I think she needs to choose, as a matter of argument in the House, where she stands on this issue. Does she think government should be moving faster in order to make this happen and to meet the deadlines? Or does she think government should actually move slower? Does she have a position? Does she have any views on the idea that we should devolve community services to communities? All I ever hear her talk about is how that can't work. All I ever hear her talk about is how the process that involved 14,000 people was flawed and that we shouldn't move to delivering services in communities by communities.

I wonder if she has any principles that guide her in the discussion of these ideas. Does she have a view about community services and delivering these things in communities? And if she does have a view about that, is she prepared to at least offer some advice to the government about whether we should do it more slowly and stage our implementation or perhaps whether we should speed it up to try and meet the deadlines that have previously been set?

J. Kwan: Yes, and I am noting the time, so I'll be very brief with this last comment, and then we'll break for supper.

Let's be very clear. The opposition has been on record time and time again to say to the government: "Do not proceed with these cuts while you're going through this major restructuring exercise." We have called on the government to actually put the moneys back into the program cuts that the ministry and the minister have proceeded with in the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

We have called on the government to release the internal audit relating to the Doug Walls situation — the entire report — for the public's consumption. Then the public can decide on their own whether or not this minister and this government have learned from the mismanagement out of the Doug Walls scandal so that they can make a determination on how they should proceed. Then the government should work on dealing with the issues they are faced with in terms of the challenges in an effective way and with public trust.

J. Kwan: Prior to the dinner break I was asking the minister in terms of the time line for the devolution of the authorities, and she couldn't give me a time line. Are we looking at — even just ballpark — this year, next year, 2007 or beyond, in terms of what the anticipation could be with respect to the devolution process?

Hon. C. Clark: As I said, we haven't set a time line. We won't be setting it until the report from Bert Boyd comes out. That's an independent look at what we're doing and how it's working and how we can operationalize all the things we're doing. I don't want to speculate about it in the absence of all that information. I think we need to be responsible in the way we go about doing this, and it wouldn't be responsible to speculate about it in the absence of all the information that we can get.

Of course, I am always interested in the member's advice about whether she thinks we should be moving it forward and whether she supports the move to community devolution, the delivery of these services to communities at all. I certainly get mixed messages from her about whether she likes the process or doesn't like the process, whether she thinks it's a good vision or not a good vision. I'm of course open to her advice about whether or not she thinks we should be moving forward and making sure these services for communities are delivered in communities.

J. Kwan: The minister can actually look in Hansard debate, and she'll find my comments on record with respect to regionalization. This would be debate when the interim authority act was before us, both in second reading and in committee stage debate. The issues I raised were around the cuts in the funding and the impacts and the ramifications thereof. The opposition supported regionalization in terms of the process. That's clear, and it is completely on the record. It has been on the record for some time now. What we're opposed to in the government's process is that they're proceeding with regionalization with deep budget cuts, knowing that it was going to be problematic. That's the advice from the community, all across, telling the opposition caucus with respect to their concerns but also voicing their concerns to this minister about that.

I stand on record that the government should reinstate the cuts they've made to the Ministry of Children and Family Development and support the communities and the work they're doing in order to proceed in a successful way and to maximize the success for regionalization.

The process of regionalization is in the situation that it is in now completely because of the government's mishandling and mismanagement of this process. There are issues, as you know, Mr. Chair, around the scandal that arose from this with Doug Walls in terms of the interim authority that have impacted regionalization in the community living sector. Quite frankly, if the minister did what she said she would do when she was in opposition, and that is to increase funding for Ministry of Children and Family Development, I suspect that the chaos she is now faced with may perhaps be significantly minimized and would have more success with respect to regionalization. The instability that has taken place in the community is caused by this government. Let's be clear.

The minister says there will be a report, and the report will be completed, at which point they will decide how they will move forward. When does the minister expect the report to be completed, and will that report be made public?

Hon. C. Clark: The answer to that question is: soon. We want to get it out as soon as we can, but they're still finishing it, and we want to make sure it's done right. As soon as we can get it out there, we'll get it out. And, of course, that will be public.

J. Kwan: Certainly, there's a huge aversion from this minister in terms of committing to time frames. They talk about management and the need to manage well. They talk about targets. But when the opposition asks them any questions around these targets, in particular in terms of time lines when these reports will be done — in this instance, the report about the regionalization process that's taken place in the ministry and when this report will be completed — the minister says "soon."

She is not prepared to provide definitive information or even ballpark information for the public's un-

derstanding. They're just left out in the cold to wonder on their own with the chaos this government has caused and that this minister is part of. We'll wait for the report. The report will be a public one. We will watch with anticipation when the report comes out to see what it says and what the government does.

The ministry and the minister have eliminated the regional transition committees. The minister says they're no longer necessary. Why is that?

Hon. C. Clark: We are trying to better sequence what we're doing in terms of regionalization and making sure that these services we deliver and the organizations that are delivering these services are on a firm foundation. That's why we're sequencing it a little bit. The aboriginal communities have told us they need a little bit more time to make sure the capacity is there in the communities they are going to be serving, to make sure they are on a firm foundation. We want to make sure that we do this right and do this well.

The decision to disband the committees is in no way a reflection of the contribution of the committees. They worked very hard, very diligently, and they did some very good work. We are going to continue to build on their vision for redesigning service delivery with more community input. That's one of the things we want to do. We remain committed to making sure governance happens at the community level for aboriginal services and for children and family services.

J. Kwan: Well, I would suggest that the regional transition committees' work perhaps should not be discontinued, given that the government is continuing with regionalization. The minister says it is delayed, but they're continuing with it. One would assume that they would continue to be able to carry on with the good work they're doing by providing advice to the minister in terms of this process. Yet the minister has decided that the regional transition committees should no longer be in place. Now, is this a permanent move, or is it a temporary move?

Hon. C. Clark: I'm delighted to finally hear the member say that she thinks the committees have done good work, because for the last year and a half all she's done is tell government that she doesn't think they've done good work and that she thinks they don't serve enough of a purpose. I'm glad to see she's changed her position on that. I think they have done some good work. I think they certainly deserve a vote of thanks for the work they've done.

J. Kwan: The opposition has never said that the transitional committee members have not done good work. What the opposition has consistently said is that this minister and this government have not done good work and have actually forced a process that was destined to fail, quite frankly, with these major cuts. In the midst of major restructuring, time and time and time again people have warned this government not to do it this way. She refused. This government refused to listen.

As a matter of fact, in October of last year the Sage report, which is also known as the Doug Allen report, was made public. This was the report of consultants that had to be called in to investigate the restructuring chaos in the ministry. The Sage report indicated that the plans to implement the ten regional authorities for child welfare needed to be on hold. The report made it very clear that the government would not be ready to implement its planned regionalization until well after the next election. The report warned: "Given the state of readiness as we now understand it, it will be September of 2005 before new permanent authorities for children and family development are likely to be ready."

As the new year began, the time frame for the implementing of the restructuring plan seemed to be getting longer and longer. In fact, according to the minister's own information from the ministry in February, the process no longer had an end date despite the Liberal government's promise to stop the endless restructuring of the ministry.

The ministry and the government had warning upon warning from people telling them the chaos this government has caused as a result of the major budget cuts in the ministry was going to be problematic for restructuring. The experts out in the community said it, the front-line workers out in the community said it, and the families out in the community said it. The opposition has said it, and the government's own consultant has said it. All of that went by the wayside; it fell on deaf ears anyway. The government plowed ahead. They plowed ahead with these deep cuts, and they actually did not stop to think for a moment of the ramifications of their actions and how it was going to negatively impact the community. Now we're going to have another report on the regionalization process.

The minister never actually answered the question, which is whether or not the move to cancel the regional transition committees is permanent or temporary.

I want to be clear with the member. She references the Sage report that was done by Doug Allen. In that report he talks first about the fact that we need to make sure that we have budget stability; second, that we then need to move to service transformation, changing the services we provide in the community to make sure we meet the needs of the community, which I have talked a little bit about already; and then third, move to governance and make sure that…. The last thing on that list of three things is moving to change the way those services are governed in the community.

So we are very much following up on those recommendations with the decisions we've made in the last couple of months. I'm sure she can't be unaware of the announcements we've made with respect to making sure that we have those things in place, making sure that we make those changes, do them in the right

order and sequence the change so that it makes sense and that it is done responsibly and carefully. We're certainly doing that.

This is a big change, I know, from the way the previous government ran this ministry. We are very, very much focused on…. We've had a vision for this ministry, and we've stuck with it. We are going to be pursuing the regionalization of these services for all three areas. It is a question of timing in some cases, because we want to make sure we do it carefully and slowly and thoughtfully, but we are going to do it.

That is certainly a different experience for service providers, social workers and families out there, who for ten years under the NDP saw a government that, when there was a problem, would just — poof — change the plan, abandon it, say the old one wasn't working and start a new one and then change the minister. That was the NDP's approach to it. What did we get? As a result of that, we got one of the most expensive bureaucratic systems of child protection delivery in the country. We got skyrocketing numbers of kids coming into government care out of their families. We got budgets that were really out of control and governments that always had to go to special warrants to try and pay for the spending they hadn't accounted for. None of that was stability. This is the first time in a long time that this ministry has had a real vision and that we've stuck with it over the long term.

J. Kwan: Let's be clear. The budget instability caused in the Ministry of Children and Family Development is a direct result of this government's policy and the ongoing work, I would say, of this new minister. They're continuing to make cuts in the Ministry of Children and Family Development. The Doug Allen report refers to the budget stability that is needed. The budget stability was there prior to this government making the cuts they began once they took office. Let's be clear about that — $175 million worth of cuts. That's what this government put into the system that caused the instability as a result. Let's be clear in terms of what the action of this government is and the responsibilities of this government.

The minister likes to talk about the previous administration, to say that the Ministry of Children and Family Development had no stability because it changed direction. Let me be clear on the record as well, Mr. Chair, that the direction was changed for the Ministry of Children and Family Development because of the Gove report, the Gove inquiry. Many will recall the Gove inquiry. Justice Gove had actually made a series of recommendations which the former government had then adopted. In fact, it formed a new ministry called Ministry for Children and Families to implement Gove.

The changes — talk about changes in ministers. It is this government who actually faced a resignation from a minister — forced a resignation of the former minister of this ministry as a result of the scandal under this government, the Doug Walls scandal. Let's set the record straight.

By the way, the Gove recommendations that were put forth from this inquiry were accepted by all members of the House at the time — both the government side and the Liberal opposition side. Let's be clear. That was the direction that Justice Gove had recommended and that was implemented under the previous administration.

The budget instability was caused by the Liberal government. It was caused by the budget cuts. People said these budget cuts were going to be problematic and you can't make these changes. It has now been verified by the Sage report and, I think, by the minister's own admission. That is what has happened — that you've got to have budget stability.

To have budget stability and to have support for the system to do the work that they do, I would continue to call on this minister to reinstate the cuts that they've made to the Ministry of Children and Family Development so that the staff within the ministry and the community who need these resources would have the resources to do the work that they need to do — and so that for a change, the minister herself can live up to her own statements in previous years about not cutting the Ministry of Children and Family Development budget and to instead increase its budget so that she could actually live up to her own statement that she made from previous years.

The government is not doing that. They're saying that we'll have budget stability once we have made all of the deep cuts. Then the community will know that's the bottom line. Instead of driving the policies from a community needs basis, it's being driven by the bottom line. That's what the government is doing. Let's be honest about it. Let's be honest about it and own up to that responsibility in terms of what the government is doing around this area.

The Doug Walls situation, we know, has been very problematic and caused untold chaos in the ministry. What safeguards are being put in place to ensure the process, as the government continues to do its work in the ministry, will be free from influence of political insiders to avoid another Doug Walls scandal?

Hon. C. Clark: The member raised a number of points that I would like to take a minute to respond to.

The Gove report also recommended community governance. It also recommended changing the governance model. That was something the previous government just let sit on the shelf and never did anything with until our government came in. We set out a vision to follow up on that recommendation from Justice Gove. That's something she neglects quite deliberately, I think, to mention in the House. For the purpose of debate, I suppose that's the way these things work.

The other point I would like to make, too, is that one of the reasons we've been able to find money to support things like kith-and-kin arrangements — where we keep children in their communities with their families or extended families if they can't stay with their families — family group conferencing and those kinds of very innovative things, which have been

really, really good news for the families that participate in them, is because for the first time in a long time we have responded to change. That means in Vancouver, for example, we've gone out and are actually changing the mix of services that we provide to meet the needs, because this ministry is no longer, I guess, a hostage of history where we don't make change just because of historical reasons.

We are now saying no, we have a responsibility and an obligation that's greater than that. We need to make sure we're responding to the needs of the people in the communities. When we transform the kinds of services and the mix of services we provide in communities, we've been able to reinvest some of that money in things like kith-and-kin arrangements and things like family conferencing, which were parts of the act that the previous government passed but never proclaimed because they could never find the money to do those kinds of things, even though they were always in budget overruns and always looking for special warrants. It was just absolutely the worst kind, the most irresponsible kind of management that I think any government could have ever brought to this really, really important ministry — one that serves so many very vulnerable people that depend on us to help get them through the day.

J. Kwan: Well, not true, in terms of the Gove recommendations, in terms of moving forward with delegated authority or devolution, if you will. In fact, the former Minister for Children and Families, Ed John, began that process in the aboriginal community and in fact piloted that program with the aboriginal community, and that was the beginning of it. Then, of course, the election was held and changes actually took place.

The former Minister of Children and Family Development, before his resignation, took that work and went further with it. That is the history with respect to that aspect of things. I just wanted to be clear about that in terms of what is historical in background, for the public's consumption.

The minister says the government is doing a great job and they're finding savings. What they call savings is what the community calls cuts to programs. Prior to the dinner break, I had put on record a mother who experienced cuts in services that her children needed — group homes that were required for people with developmental disabilities that had been shut down as a result of budget cuts, as one example.

The minister would like to call those moneys savings that flowed from closure of services. The communities are calling it something else. They're calling it what it is: cuts in programs. That's what they are. The minister can continue to try and spin her way into flowery language that says they're doing a great job. The reality is that they're not. The people who are verifying that are the people in the community who need the services.

This minister used to say — her tune has now changed — that there needs to be more money in the Ministry of Children and Family Development. Now, she's toeing the line to say: "No, cuts are great, and never mind that services are being shut down. Never mind that, because we're doing a great job."

The minister, of course, didn't answer the question about what safeguards would be in place to ensure that the process would be free from political influences, political insiders, to avoid the Doug Walls situation. The minister didn't answer that question at all, and I'm waiting for her answer.

Hon. C. Clark: I think it is important. The member is, I think, deliberately misconstruing the mixing up…. I guess, more accurately, I could say that she says reductions in costs always equal cuts to service. That's just not true. I've given her some examples tonight and the last time we had this debate about the fact that for example, out of the $70 million — the 4 percent cut this year — almost half of it is going to be coming out of wages. That's not cuts to service. That's cuts to costs.

I can understand why the member is confused about that, based on her history in government, because a strong financial understanding wasn't part of what characterized her experience in government. I understand that. But it is important, I think, for anyone who is following the debate to know that, so I'll make that point.

Now, in the interim authority…. She's asked about how we are holding the interim authority accountable, so I can give her this list. It is subject to the Financial Administration Act and the Financial Information Act. The minister can specify the financial information to be submitted by the interim authority. Receipts. We will be getting audited financial statements as well. Interim authorities are part of government's reporting entity, and so they will submit quarterly information for inclusion in the government's quarterly financial reports.

The interim authority. Their role is limited by the act to planning and development, not to service delivery, and the minister can give directions and specifications to the interim authority in carrying out its functions and duties. In addition to that, the Minister of Finance can direct a review of the financial accounting operations of the interim authority by the OCG, and that is indeed what's happened.

J. Kwan: The minister says cuts to wages is not cutting programs. You know, it so happens that those good social workers who do the good work in the community, and the people who deliver these programs within the ministry, happen to be paid with a salary. When you eliminate those positions, when you eliminate their salaries, it so happens that the delivery of programs is further reduced. When you close group homes, it is a closure of a program. It is a program cut; make no mistake about that. For the minister to suggest: "Oh well, cutting wages is not cutting programs…." Well, they're only cutting the people who deliver their service; that is all. There's no connection, according to this minister, in terms of how these programs are delivered. Isn't that interesting?

The minister says regionalization is put off until the report is out. Does the government plan to introduce legislation to accomplish this regionalization process, to fully complete the regionalization process?

Hon. C. Clark: Yes, indeed, we do. I do want to go back, as well, to some of the other points the member made. She characterizes any savings that would be found — savings that are coming out of wages — as necessarily reductions in the number of full-time-equivalents, and that's just not correct. I should inform her that savings can also come out of collective agreements that are freely bargained between employers and employees without necessarily taking out any full-time-equivalents.

J. Kwan: We'll get into estimates debate about the FTE reductions. There's only 40 percent of the FTE reductions within the ministry under this government. So, no, those savings do not equate to reductions in terms of services. The information I will have as we canvass with the minister around that will show something different.

Of course, the minister also says those organizations that were asked to voluntarily come forward with cuts in their organizations were all voluntary. Earlier today I put on record a letter from someone connected with organizations in our community who actually said no, that is not true. They were forced to come up with these cuts. They had no choice. It wasn't voluntary at all. In fact, the individual used such strong language that it really, I think, just goes to illustrate the depth of the government's cuts and how it's impacted the community, and their denial of these cuts and how offensive that is. The person actually said these cuts weren't voluntary at all and that it was offensive to suggest that they were. The language the individual used actually equates to that of a rape victim asking for it. This is not my language, Mr. Chair. I'm just quoting from information that's been sent to the opposition caucus.

The minister can live in denial all she wants, but the community knows the difference, and they're saying that it's different. It would be wise, I would submit, for the minister to actually listen to the community for a change, listen to what they have to say and take their criticisms as constructive criticisms, take her head out of the sand and stop living in denial about the realities of these cuts to the children and families across British Columbia.

The minister says she will be introducing legislation. When does she expect to do that?

Hon. C. Clark: I expect to be able to do that soon. It's certainly true that we do make every effort to listen to the people who are out there receiving service and the people who are delivering service. That's one of the great values that the interim authority, for example, had. People like Lynn Rolko on the interim authority, someone who advocated for her child all of her child's life, did that work on the interim authority while her child was ill. It was a great personal cost to her to do some of the work that was involved in setting up this process of community governance.

I think it's important that in the political rhetoric the member uses and sort of throws around in this Legislature, we don't lose sight of the contribution that people like Lynn Rolko have made at sometimes huge personal costs and at great personal sacrifice because they want to make this process work, because they really believe in the wisdom of the vision that we've set out.

J. Kwan: Let's be clear in terms of what my criticisms are. The criticisms are not about the people who are trying to do the best they can under the circumstances they're faced with — the circumstances that have been forced onto them by this government with their budget cuts that this minister continues to sidestep and pretend don't exist.

I have here a chronology of the cuts that have taken place within this ministry. Let me just put this information on the record. January 17, 2001: the Liberal government announces cuts of $5.2 million in funding for inner-city school kids at the end of June. January 7, 2001: the Liberal government eliminates the independent offices of the child, youth and family advocate and the children's commissioner, and replaces them with a children's officer that is not independent but must answer to the Attorney General. The Attorney General calls it good news, a good-news day for the protection of children at risk. No more independent officers in this area, and this government says that's good news for children's protection.

February 2001 budget: the Liberal government makes it public that it plans to cut the Ministry of Children and Family Development by 23 percent. They cut dozens of programs for high-risk youth. The Children and Family Development minister, the former minister, states that the cuts to this ministry mean that all such programs are under review. Then after gutting a number of the school-based programs in January, in April 2001 the Liberal government, under pressure, comes up with $44.6 million….

J. Kwan: The government took over after the election, and they tabled a budget. Shortly after that they

began to make cuts on what people call Black Thursday. Those were the cuts that this government came up with exactly around the ministry. Let me put on the record all the cuts that this minister has consistently denied, because the former government never cut inner-city school programs. It was this government that made those cuts. It's this government that is continuing to make those cuts, which we'll engage in debate on with respect to the Community LINK program — what was formerly called the inner-city school program.

The city of Vancouver will be faced with a $3 million cut. This minister says: "Oh, but we care about children a lot. We really do, and we want to make sure that they get fed. We want to make sure that there are supports for them in their school system." Except she's making this cut that directly impacts children, so that their meal programs would be compromised; so that their counselling supports would be compromised; so that the supports to help kids stay in school, kids who are at risk, would be compromised; so that the counselling support for families that this minister likes to claim that she cares a lot about — the parents and getting involved in the schools. She's directly cutting dollars that impact families, and particularly families for at-risk children and ESL students involved in the school system. That's what this minister is doing.

The minister says…. Pardon me, hon. Chair; I said 2001. I actually meant 2002. My apologies.

J. Kwan: It's true; I made an error. It's 2002, under this government's administration, that they made these cuts. Let's be clear. Under this government they cut dozens of programs for high-risk youth. They cut these programs, and the former Minister of Children and Family Development states that the cuts to his ministry mean all such programs are now under review. After gutting a number of the school-based programs in January and then in April of 2002, the Liberal government, under pressure, then came up with $44.6 million in a one-time grant for schools. According to the Surrey school board chair, a Liberal booster at that…. She stated — and I quote Mary Polak: "It will help, but it is not going to make an enormous difference."

In October 2002 the former Minister of Children and Family Development launches restructuring processes despite warnings from experts that restructuring at a time of making deep cuts would put children at risk. Then in April the former minister announces he's transferring control of many of the services to regional authorities.

In April 2003 the children's commissioner's office shuts its door, another victim of the government cuts. The commissioner, Paul Pallan, formally reviewed all deaths of B.C.'s children and gave fatality reports to the Legislature. The B.C. Liberals children and youth officer, a lawyer named Jane Morley, will investigate deaths only when asked to do so by the Attorney General. Pallan angered B.C. Liberals when he warned that the Liberal government's radical restructuring of the children's ministry while imposing a 23 percent cut to the ministry's budget would inevitably hurt B.C.'s children.

Then there was a Treasury Board leak that outlined some 65 proposed strategies for achieving a desired $360 million spending cut, and about one-third are described as posing health and safety risks to vulnerable children and families. The cuts include eliminating dual-diagnoses programs for drug-addicted youth who have had serious mental handicaps like schizophrenia; moving adults with the most severe mental handicaps out of their group homes; chopping the budget for troubled youth in half, even though that could increase the juvenile crime rate; workload reduction strategies that suggest the government stop investigating cases of moderate sexual and physical abuse of children to save money; closing the Maple adolescent treatment centre for mentally handicapped youth, with no place for the kids to go; and scrapping the province's fetal alcohol syndrome — and support for troubled families would be cut, with the result that more children would end up in government care.

Of course, the government bowed to pressure from the community — a credit to them. They backed down on the 23 percent cut and made an 11 percent cut, which is about $100 million. The Liberal government, of course, in 2003 called that putting $122 million back into the system. They called that an increase, and they have consistently done that kind of thing, with that kind of language, in other ministries as well. It's not an increase; it's a reduced cut. That is for sure, but it certainly is not an increase in the ministry.

Of course, we now have a 4 percent cut, which is about $70 million, under this budget. The overall budget went from $1.38 billion to what it is now. It's significant in terms of their cuts, so let's be clear. There are further cuts to come, as we know, which we anticipate. Over 500 positions would be cut, and they're line workers — social workers included — across the regions in British Columbia.

We know that the deputy minister has sent a letter warning agencies that if they don't come up with this so-called voluntary cut of $35 million, the ministry will find lower-cost service providers. So they would threaten them: "If you don't come up with these cuts, we're going to replace you with someone else." That's how these supposedly volunteer cuts came about, this $35 million. Agencies were intimidated into signing a letter saying that they supported the cuts. They had no choice. To suggest and to say that they signed these letters under duress is probably minimizing the reality of the situation.

There is some of the background with respect to the cuts for this ministry and for this minister. She can't continue to deny that there were cuts. They are there, black and white. Given that is the case, would the minister admit now that the instability, in terms of the budget processes in the Sage report that was identified by Doug Allen, was caused by this government? They caused it with these cuts.

Hon. C. Clark: First, a couple of corrections to some of the things the member said, just so that she's working from accurate information. The children's commissioner has always reported to the Attorney General, not to the Legislature. The coroner reviews all child deaths. The juvenile crime rate has actually gone down. And, of course, many of the cuts that she named and suggested happened never happened.

I can tell her this: the savings that we have achieved to date have been a result of the following. First, we've increased the number of adoptions. We have reduced the number of staff, predominantly at headquarters. That's been a 40 percent cut at headquarters, but it was a large cut at headquarters because we wanted to protect field staff. So that was a much, much smaller cut, and particularly for social workers. The number of social workers has declined much slower than the demand has declined for the work that social workers are required to do, which is really good news.

We have reduced the number of children in care by providing more effective support for families, which I have talked at length about tonight, with other kinds of arrangements as well. The closure of four youth custody centres largely is a result of the fact that youth contact with the criminal justice system is on the decline, contrary to what the member suggested. And we have been eliminating non-essential contracts for advocacy organizations and provincial associations. We really believe that we need to be delivering as much money to the front line as we possibly can.

J. Kwan: The minister shouts at me and says: "More fan mail?" Well, no. These are e-mails from parents who are watching the debate, raising questions that they want the opposition to ask of the minister because they take issue with the minister's statements in this House. That's what they are, and they keep pouring in. There are, I think, five that just came in, in the last little while. I will be putting these questions to the minister in the appropriate order.

The minister should actually pay attention to what she puts on record here, because the public are holding her to account. They are holding her to account. Yes, the opposition will be a vehicle to assist the public to do exactly that, Mr. Chair.

The minister insists that there were no cuts. She insists that the programs were not eliminated — some of these programs. She insists that everything is fine. Parents are saying not so, not so. She won't admit that the government's budget cuts caused the instability within the Ministry of Children and Family Development, when in fact that's exactly what happened. Everybody knows that, save and except for this minister herself.

The ministry will be faced with a number of retirements, and in fact amongst the Ministry of Children and Family Development, with the number of retirements pending, in many of the offices the staff with the longest experience would be five years, on average. If that's the case, what human resource strategies is the minister putting in place to deal with the situation of both retirements and regionalization — and, frankly, layoffs?

Hon. C. Clark: It's still in progress. We hope to have it completed soon, and I'll make sure the member has access to a copy when it's available.

J. Kwan: The infamous word "soon" is being used again. The minister says, "Oh yeah, we'll have that information soon; we're working on that; it will be available soon," just like everything else that we've asked of this minister to date — "It will be available soon" — and like the report on the regionalization process. "It will be available soon." Interesting, and we will be looking forward to this material that will materialize soon. It should be enough of a concern for the minister to actually pay special attention to this, because in October of last year the Minister of Children and Family Development had cut 525 positions, 70 percent of which were front-line workers.

Let me ask the minister this question: how, in the minister's opinion, does this cost-cutting, services-slashing approach ensure that vulnerable children and adults get the services they need? There are now 525 fewer positions in the ministry delivering services to vulnerable children and adults in the communities.

Hon. C. Clark: As I described for the member earlier, the demand on social workers has dropped at a far faster rate than the number of social workers has. That means that in terms of workload it's actually improving, in general, for social workers. That doesn't mean for some social workers the workload hasn't gone up, but on average it's certainly declined overall. That's really a piece of good news, and that speaks to the fact that we've changed our practice. The fact that we've changed our practice is due to the fact that social workers do such a tremendous job out there.

She should look back at the beginning of the debates we had on these estimates. I answered a lot of questions about succession planning and our plans for the public service from somebody who cares deeply about it, the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill, who has been a passionate advocate for the public service and making sure our public service is fully equipped to be able to deal with the challenges before it.

We have never been so successful as in the recruitment initiatives we now have ongoing, and I think that speaks to the fact that our ministry is, for the first time in a long time, a much more stable, predictable place to work. Is it perfect? No. Is there more to do? Yes.

Should we strive to do better? Of course we should. But things are improving, and I think that's reflected in the fact that recruitment is getting easier. In addition to that, our attrition rate is dropping.

I think people vote with their feet. The people in this ministry…. More are coming, fewer are leaving, and I think that speaks to the fact that we've had a great deal of success in making this a better place to work than it was even just three years ago, when the member was in government.

J. Kwan: The minister keeps on saying that the need for social workers has declined because the number of cases for social workers to evaluate, to investigate, to look into has also declined. Well, the front-line workers — here's what they have to say about that. This goes to not just this minister's claim but also the former minister's claim about the reduction in caseload.

This is directly from social workers, directly from people who are on the front lines.

In fact, I know of one situation at least where I spoke with a principal, one of the principals in my schools in Vancouver, and the individual had advised me that — let's just use an artificial name for a moment — Johnny had disappeared from the school system for about two months. The school had tried to find out what happened to Johnny — phoning, paying home visits — to no avail. As a last resort, they actually phoned the Ministry of Children and Family Development. They were very concerned about the well-being of Johnny. They phoned up the ministry, and the ministry said: "Yeah, okay, you can file a report if you want, but because of staff constraints, we may or may not get to it, because it is not priority." That's from direct information that I received, so to suggest that the need is not there…. Front-line workers are saying not so, and anecdotally people in the community are saying not so.

The cuts in positions. The minister was saying that because the social workers are not needed, that's why they're being cut. I would dispute that. I don't agree with that.

The delay in the regionalization process. The auditor general has actually put on hold his plan to investigate whether or not front-line workers have the capacity to do their jobs during a period of significant change. The auditor general had to delay that investigation. What is the minister doing to ensure that front-line workers do have that capacity and to avoid potentially a damning report from the auditor general?

Hon. C. Clark: We're talking to our staff all the time about the issues they confront, and we are hearing from many of them that the circumstances are improving out there. Because they have a broader range of tools to use, they have a sense that they're getting ahead a little bit.

Is it busy? Absolutely, it's busy. This is a very busy job. Is it challenging? You bet it is, and it's always been challenging. That's why we owe such a great debt of thanks to the hard-working social workers that are prepared to devote so much energy and time to making sure the system works as well as it does.

J. Kwan: The minister says she's talking to the workers all the time. Could she elaborate on that process of how she's talking to her staff? To what staff is she talking?

Hon. C. Clark: Our senior staff regularly stay in contact with social workers and travel the province. I also speak to social workers as often as I can. Our regional offices are, of course, very engaged in the work that social workers are doing. We're always open to that input. We can, I'm sure, find lots of innovative ways to make sure we continue to gather that input. It's an evolutionary process, and there are always new things we need to be doing, but I do think that our ministry has worked very, very hard to make sure we hear those voices.

J. Kwan: What has the minister learned? She says she's talked to social workers and to front-line workers. From her meetings with these workers, what has she learned?

Hon. C. Clark: Lots of social workers have told us they feel like social workers again, not administrators, because they're using the range of skills that are available to them.

J. Kwan: Then the association of school social workers that have raised these concerns with the minister that I put on the record earlier today — are they out to lunch? What's the minister's response, then, to these individuals, who I would say are direct front-line

workers, who are saying to the minister what she's doing is hurting kids and families in the communities?

Hon. C. Clark: I already answered that question. Certainly, there will be people who will always criticize the government and its actions. That's quite legitimate; that's part of democracy. There are also social workers out there who will say things have improved. The fact that they're able to use the broad range of skills that they develop over the years and that they're trained for is a really nice change as opposed to the previous government, who really — by policy and by the incentives and disincentives they put in the system — discouraged that and didn't even proclaim parts of the legislation that would have expanded that. We've acted on that. We're making sure social workers have the ability to use that broad range of skills, and we're certainly seeing good results.

J. Kwan: Oh, I see. The positive comments from the social workers are registering with the minister, but the negative comments are put out to pasture. They're not taken into consideration, nor are they being taken seriously by this minister. It just so happens that it is actually an association — the B.C. Association of Social Workers, which consists of many social workers — in terms of the performance of this government with respect to their handling of the Ministry of Children and Family Development area…. That's interesting to know. That is interesting to note.

What is the minister doing to ensure that the disasters that were created in the devolving of the community living sector are not repeated in other sectors?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, first of all, that's why we're moving slowly and carefully. We want to make sure we have the fundamentals in place, as I talked about. Just so that everyone in the chamber is clear, the B.C. Association of Social Workers is a voluntary organization. Not all social workers are members of it, and not everyone who is a member of it worked for this ministry. It's a voluntary organization. It doesn't mean that the views they have aren't legitimate and shouldn't be heard. We certainly try and listen to everybody who's got a viewpoint. It's equally true, though, to say that there are social workers out there who would disagree with their own association, if they are members, but also people who are social workers who aren't a member of that association at all.

J. Kwan: So what? Many of them are. Some of them may not be, but so what? It doesn't make their comments any less valid. It's astounding. It's astounding, in terms of this minister's approach to things. She certainly has adopted the same approach to this ministry as she had from her previous role as the Minister of Education — to devalue some people's comments and value some others, to particularly value those that are positive about how this government is doing and to eliminate all the criticisms that others had come up with, with this minister.

The minister says that's why they are reviewing the matters and why there is a study with respect to the interim authority and the devolution process and so on. Let me ask the minister this question, because one of the e-mails that has just come in is from a source who actually knows what's going on within the ministry. That is, the report the minister was talking about in terms of waiting for this independent report…. Apparently, the report has been in the hands of the ministry since February. Is that so?

J. Kwan: The minister says no, she doesn't have it. That's interesting. We'll further pursue this individual who gave us the information that the ministry has actually had it since February. Perhaps the minister is trying to deny that it exists for the purposes of the estimates process. We'll follow it up with the individual who sent us this e-mail about that and get more details on it.

Okay. The minister says they're reviewing the processes in terms of the community living disaster that has now occurred. In the community living sector, of course, they're also being threatened that if cuts cannot be achieved voluntarily, the transformation to regional governance would be abandoned. Given the warnings of the Sage report, why — as late as December — was this government pressing ahead with massive cuts, including those to the area of community living, while attempting to go through with this radical restructuring process?

Hon. C. Clark: This year, as I've said, the cuts are 4 percent. The majority of them are coming out of compensation, which doesn't affect service, and out of a reduction in demand because of the success we've had in changing the practice by which we deliver services to kids. The ministry is now achieving budget stability, which is a piece of good news, I think, for everybody out there.

I do want to take a minute to just say to the people who have worked so hard on community living governance and on making sure that those services are delivered in the community…. It's a real slap in the face to hear the member stand up and talk about everything they've done and call it a disaster, because thousands — literally thousands — of hours of work went into creating the vision for the community living authority. Thousands and thousands of people…. Blood, sweat and tears went into making this vision happen, and we are absolutely focused on making sure their vision becomes a reality.

It's important, I think, at least from the government side of the House, that we take a minute to thank them for the work they did — all those people who participated, the 14,000 people who participated in the consultations and the discussions — and for the passion

that people brought to their vision for community governance. While the member across may want to diminish that and want to talk about what a terrible job they did, I don't accept that. I think a lot of people put a lot of effort in, and there was a lot of good work that has come out of it.

J. Kwan: Let's just be clear. It is this government that has created the chaos in the process. It is this government that has actually created the scandal and allowed for the scandal to fester in the ministry. It is from this government, as a result, that the former Minister of Children and Family Development had to resign. It is this government that allowed $400,000 to go missing in the ministry right under their noses without knowing what happened to the money.

It is this government's direct actions that caused the chaos in the ministry right under their noses without knowing what happened to the money. It is this government's direct actions that caused the chaos in the ministry and the process that is associated with it. Let's just be clear. The minister is trying to shift the issues that I'm raising. Let's just be clear and on the record here that it is the Liberal government I blame directly for the scandals and the waste of tax dollars as a result of their mismanagement. Make no mistake about that.

The Doug Allen situation was the direct result of this government's responsibility. The missing money is a direct result of this government's actions — nobody else. This minister, although she has fine-tuned her art of passing the buck and passing the blame and pushing responsibilities off her desk onto someone else's into a fine art….

J. Kwan: Absolutely, she has done that. But you know what? She can't get away with it, and the community is not going to let her get away with it either. So let's just be clear about where the problems come from. They come directly from this government and their mismanagement.

Doug Allen, of course, raised issues around budget stability and sufficient resources that would be required to effect sound restructuring. He found and stated clearly in his report: "Moving to new governance is not an exercise in downloading. To the extent possible, budget stability should be reached prior to a change in governance taking place, for the simple reason that budget stability will facilitate success in implementing new governance." Put in that language or put in different language from others, they've all said making deep cuts through restructuring will not work, and the Doug Allen report has confirmed that.

Despite those recommendations, the government is moving forward, in continued budget instability, with its cuts. The 4 percent cut that the minister says is happening this year, we have to remember, has a cumulative effect year over year. They didn't happen in isolation. It's not just the 4 percent cut through all of the years. No, it's an 11 percent cut. That's what is happening. You have to put it together and not work in isolation and say it's a 4 percent cut. To do that is just to put blinders on, which I know the minister is doing purposely — putting blinders on to say no, it is not an 11 percent cut in terms of impacts.

J. Kwan: Excuse me? Mr. Chair, the minister is heckling me that I'm trying to rag the puck. I'm trying to get to the bottom of what this government is doing.

J. Kwan: We are getting to them, and I'm also putting my points of view on record as I get to these questions, which is exactly within the rules. And by the by, Mr. Chair, when you do ask the minister a question, it's not like she actually answers them. Even though this is not question period, it's not like she actually answers the questions. Even though I'm sure that her staff is offering her good advice, she doesn't answer the questions at all.

I will put on record what this government is doing and what the community has been saying about what they're doing around this entire process. The budget instability that has been caused by this government has impacted the entire regionalization process and the restructuring process. What is the government doing now to ensure that there's stability in the ministry and, therefore, for the restructuring process?

Hon. C. Clark: We are staging our approach, as I discussed at length earlier.

J. Kwan: Right. Back to the good old report that will be available soon. The minister says she doesn't know when it will be available, but it will be available soon. Presumably, then, there's nothing going on within the ministry. Everything is stopped. Is that right?

J. Kwan: What work is she doing? She's saying: "We can't do anything with the restructuring process because we don't have the report." Presumably, if that's the case, then nothing's going on. I ask her what's going on, and she says: "We're not doing anything until the report comes out." Then she says she's doing work. What work is she doing, exactly, in relation to the restructuring process?

Hon. C. Clark: We're going to make a recommendation about timing. That was the only reference I made. I'm sorry the member wasn't clear about that. I thought I was pretty crystal-clear about that, but I'm happy to repeat it.

We're continuing to work in cooperation with the authority to make sure we work through some of those implementation issues. For example, there are some issues we've identified like collective agreement and the complexities involved with transferring collective agreement provisions, and things like that.

We are working on those issues. It hasn't stopped. We've identified what some of the issues are. We know that the report will identify more issues or will perhaps give us more insight into some of the issues we're working on, but that doesn't mean that everything stops and we just sit in stasis and wait. We need to make sure we get on with this. We need to make sure it happens. We need to make sure it happens right, but the community is anxious and excited about being able to deliver these services.

J. Kwan: The minister says she's doing something with respect to the collective agreement. I would like more details around this work that she's doing.

Hon. C. Clark: We're absolutely committed to complying with the collective agreement, of course, but we are continuing to work to identify what the issues might be in terms of the ultimate direction. That is yet to be determined. That'll be part of the discussion that we have in the coming months. At the moment there are still lots of operational things that we need to think about, and we're doing that.

J. Kwan: I'm sorry. The minister says they're trying to identify what the issues might be. The issues that they have identified to date — what are they?

Hon. C. Clark: Collective agreements are a complex thing, and we need to determine what provisions will apply when staff move to be employed by the independent authority. Those kinds of questions are the things we're considering very actively. I would think that if the member just takes a look at the collective agreement, it will be pretty obvious to her quite quickly the complexities of it and some of the things we need to consider.

J. Kwan: The minister says savings that were set aside in the '02-03 year went to the community living budget and that the interim authority…. There's $47 million that the interim authority had hoped to carry forward to the next fiscal year to finance restructuring costs. Could the minister advise where the $47 million came from?

Hon. C. Clark: It came from the strategic investment fund, which we've already discussed at length.

J. Kwan: Okay. I've now received information again from the public, who sent in this information about the breakdown of some of these funds, I should say: $20 million went to the Vancouver Foundation; $20 million went to the Victoria Foundation; $10 million went to United Way, with credit unions matching, I believe; $2.5 million to the University of Northern B.C.; $2.5 million to the University College of the Fraser Valley; $2 million was sold through the rotary clubs; and $5 million was sold through the Vancouver Foundation for a children's endowment. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Clark: I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, I don't mean to jump in without being recognized. As I said earlier, we'd be delighted to provide that list for her and a detailed technical briefing for her.

J. Kwan: Earlier I asked for the information. The minister won't give it to the House, and she says she will give me the material in writing, which I expect. But I've now received some information in terms of where these dollars have gone, and I'm asking for confirmation. I can't even get that from the minister. Am I right to understand that?

The minister sits in her chair and nods her head and says: "Correct." She's not even going to get up to confirm the information I have so that I can put questions to her, never mind that she won't provide the information. She won't even confirm information that I have with respect to that. Where is the accountability in that approach?

I have to say it is absolutely astounding the approach this minister has taken with her responsibilities as minister and, quite frankly, the complete disregard for accountability.

You know, it's true that the opposition wants to know these answers, but it is equally true that the public wants these answers. This information that came in to me in terms of this magical strategic investment fund came from members of the public watching this debate. They want these questions asked and answered. The minister can't even be bothered to confirm that information. I think it sets a new standard, a new low, in terms of the arrogance shown by this minister. It is unbelievable. I find it completely astounding.

J. Kwan: Oh yes, they're coming, Mr. Chair, absolutely. But I have to respond to the minister's conduct in relation to my question to her that she won't even confirm.

The Chair: Member, we'll deal with the conduct in the House, if you can continue with your questions, please.

J. Kwan: Yes, and I'm putting it on record, Mr. Chair. According to the rules of the House, I do have the right to lay out the background of the questions

that I want to put forward and respond to the minister, and that's what I'm doing.

How many FTEs were actually funded out of the MCFD '02-03 budget that were actually working in '03-04?

J. Kwan: How many FTEs that were funded out of the MCFD '02-03 budget that were actually working in '03-04, and that extends to '04-05?

Hon. C. Clark: As we've discussed, 4,421 is the number of FTEs for '03-04, and for '04-05 it's 3,983.

J. Kwan: Actually, no, this is the first time the minister provided this information. The minister had said that she will provide further information with respect to the FTE cuts by dinnertime, and we still haven't received it. She said she'd provide that information by the afternoon of yesterday, Mr. Chair. So, no, we didn't have this discussion at all.

How many programs were operating in the '03-04 fiscal year that were funded out of the '02-03 budget and that extend to the '04-05 budget cycle?

Hon. C. Clark: There's been no elimination of any program lines. I do want to just refer the member, too, for the full-time-equivalent number statistics. If she's curious about that and looking historically, she should look at page 14 of our service plan.

J. Kwan: I know the minister delights in saying: "Well, the information is there. It's all on our website. It's all in our service plan. It's all in our budget books." She delights in saying that. The reality is this, as I've said time and again: it's not just for the opposition to get this information. It's for the members of the public that she consistently says she values — the very busy parents who are out there doing a full-time job, who are out there taking care of their kids and their families, who want to have this information as well. They haven't got the time to go and decipher the many, many pages to try and find the information. The minister would be wise to give the information to the public so that they can hold this government to account as well. That's why I'm asking these questions in this House.

The moneys that were saved, budgeted dollars that were not spent from the ministry, are in the tens of millions of dollars actually. At a time when core services for vulnerable children and families are being cut, the government is underspending its budget dollars. Then towards the end of the year they parcel them out, without tendering. They give grants to community groups. Is this common practice?

Hon. C. Clark: We forecast to be on budget this year and next year, of course. That's a significant change from the previous government, which was never, ever on budget, I think.

The member makes an interesting point about the fact that very busy parents might be watching late-night legislative television to glean information about the ministry's number of full-time-equivalents that are employed. I would suspect it's probably more likely that those busy parents would find access to the Internet, where our service plan is located, at their own convenience — a more likely source of information. That's why we put our service plans on the website.

In fact, that's why we do service plans: to make sure that information is accessible to the public and to the opposition in advance of coming into estimates. That's also a big change from the previous government, which never had service plans — which never had plans and was always budgeting on the back of an envelope and making decisions based on crisis management. That's really not the right way to run any government ministry, but particularly not the right way to run this very, very important ministry that provides such crucial services for vulnerable people.

J. Kwan: How condescending. The questions that are coming in from the public are being e-mailed to me as we are talking about the estimates process, and the community has the right to know.

The minister is saying: "Well, gee, you know, instead of watching this estimates debate…." People watching the estimates debate, in addition to finding answers, are also watching the minister's performance on this in terms of how she's dealing with these questions and whether or not she's being open and accountable. She's being judged on that basis exactly. They will decide whether or not they're satisfied with this minister's performance and this government's performance — absolutely.

For the minister to suggest that the former administration was going from crisis to crisis in terms of how they dealt with the Ministry for Children and Families is actually not true. It is this government that has caused the crisis in the ministry with the deep budget cuts. Make no mistake about that. It is absolutely this government that's doing that.

J. Kwan: The Attorney General may not like to hear this message, but that is exactly what this government is doing. He may not like it and may not want to hear it, but too bad, because that is exactly what this government is doing.

The Chair: Members. The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has the floor.

That's the reality. The minister likes to say: "Well, let's move on." We could move on at a much quicker pace if the minister actually answers the questions. She failed to answer the question that I just put to her, and that is: is it common practice for this government to reserve tens of thousands of dollars — millions of dollars — from a ministry's operating budget when core services to vulnerable children and families are being cut and wait-lists are mounting only to parcel out those dollars through a grant process without tendering? Is this common practice?

Hon. C. Clark: I already answered that question, so this will be the last time I rise to speak to it. As I said, we expect to be on budget this year, and we expect to be on budget next year.

J. Kwan: Let's just take her answer to see how she's answered the question. She says: "I expect to be on budget this year and on budget next year." The question was: is it a common practice for the government to reserve millions of dollars from the ministry's operating budget when core services to vulnerable individuals are being cut and wait-lists are mounting only to parcel them out without tender? The minister didn't answer the question. She might want to put out answers to a question that doesn't exist and that has not been asked in this chamber, but it doesn't mean that she's answered the question.

Over $127 million of savings were had in the '02-03 budget. They were later parcelled out to what the minister calls strategic investments. Is this normal practice? She wouldn't answer that question. I think it goes to show, quite frankly, the government's chaos and mismanagement within the ministry. That's what it goes to show.

The minister won't answer that question. Let me try this one. What was the $30 million capital budget earmarked for information technology in the '02-03 and '03-04 ministry budget spent on?

Hon. C. Clark: We don't have all that historical budget information in front of us. As I've said to the member a couple of times tonight, we came prepared to debate the estimates that are before the House. If she has questions about those estimates, I'd be happy to answer them.

I can maybe anticipate her next question, which will be about capital asset management for '04-05, which is the debate that we're having tonight on the floor of the House. That's going to be accommodating government and ministry strategic shifts to support the sustainability of core services through increased efficiency. We are going to be pursuing opportunities to maximize the value and achieve savings and improve the effectiveness of our spending. There are going to be a number of strategic initiatives we're going to be pursuing for capital spending in this coming year. I'd be happy to tell her more about those details, if that's indeed what she's interested in.

J. Kwan: As we've established, previous budget spending impacts the ongoing work of this government and the ongoing situation with the Ministry of Children and Family Development. That's not different in terms of capital spending. The minister says she doesn't have the information, and I'll accept that — that she doesn't have the information. I would ask, then, for the minister to provide the information: the $30 million capital budget earmarked for information technology in the years '02-03 and '03-04 in terms of who got the contracts, what they have delivered and for how much. I would ask the minister to forward that information, in writing, to the opposition.

Hon. C. Clark: I'm sure we could get her that information in the context of the briefing we've already talked about.

J. Kwan: I want to be very clear that this is information for the minister to provide in writing. I want to make sure that she doesn't miss that.

What is the status of the multiple reviews into the ministry's contracting-out procedures?

Hon. C. Clark: We've completed the review of all of our professional services contracts in the ministry, so we are now going through the process of ensuring that all of them comply. I think it's important to note that this ministry has been called a model by the office of the comptroller general for the work we're doing on making sure that our contracts and our contracting processes comply with government policy. That's a tribute, I think, to the very, very hard work of the headquarters staff.

Hon. C. Clark: There were two systems contracts that we cancelled. That was largely out of a recognition that those positions could come in-house into the ministry and actually be less expensive for taxpayers. We've just had that discussion with the union, and now we're putting those positions up for competition internally in the ministry. That work is ongoing. There have been a number of contracts that will be expiring on March 31 that we'll be allowing to expire, so we expect the contracting for professional services in the ministry will be shrinking.

J. Kwan: The systems contracts that the minister talked about — what associations were responsible for these contracts that were cancelled? Who were they let to?

Hon. C. Clark: They were let to two private companies and individuals. I think that while that information has been reported in the press, I'm never comfortable discussing those kinds of details in the House. The member can, I'm sure, avail herself of that information if she likes, but they were private companies, private individuals.

J. Kwan: No, I'm not going to be going through press clippings to see what companies had their contracts cancelled with this ministry. I expect the minister to provide that information in this House.

Hon. C. Clark: I don't have those specific names with me, but I could certainly get them for her if she doesn't have the time to be able to go and find them. Although it's publicly available, I'd be happy to provide that to her directly, if that's what she likes.

J. Kwan: I'm asking the minister to actually provide that information to this House. As I said, I don't intend to actually look up newspaper clippings to do that.

J. Kwan: The minister goes: "Oh well, that would be homework." Well, yes, actually it would be. We have two opposition members. We have to divide up the areas of estimates into half of all the ministries before us, in addition to bills that are being debated. So we do have a lot of homework, as a matter of fact. That is true — absolutely, especially in light of situations where you ask questions of the minister and they don't provide answers. It creates further homework for myself and my colleagues, as well as my staff — my very capable staff — and the interns who are working very hard for the opposition with respect to this area.

It's true. We don't have a whole host of staff to assist us, and oftentimes the public provides information. That's why e-mails come in as we engage in debate and new questions show up for the minister.

It is the minister's responsibility, after all, to provide answers to questions put to her in the estimates process in the Legislature. So I would expect the minister to provide that information. I would also like associated with it the dollars attached to these contracts that were cancelled and their responsibilities under the contract. What were they supposed to deliver that was cancelled?

The internal review that's being done by the ministry's financial operations, by the ADM, somebody named James Gorman — could the minister advise what is the status of that?

Hon. C. Clark: The result of that review is a multi-year audit plan that's been developed, and an executive audit committee will be created that will include the comptroller general. The ministry is moving away from unconditional grants to organizations. We will move to a model of contracting in which clear service results are defined in contracts. As the member will discover, about 75 percent of the ministry's $1.38 billion budget is spent with contracted service providers, so that's an important element.

Grants to support transition planning for regional and community governments have been reviewed, and audits of grants to aboriginal planning committees are underway to focus on recommendations to improve future practice. The ministry has set up a specialized unit to ensure that all contracting procedures comply fully with government standards. An internal review of current ministry expenditures is making sure that all of them are fully compliant with government policy. The ministry has been working, as I'm sure many people are aware, with aging or obsolete information systems, so we're putting in place a plan to update the ministry's data and financial management computer systems.

J. Kwan: I was able to actually find the reference in which the minister introduced her staff. I wasn't in the House at the time when the minister introduced her staff because I was in the small House debating the estimates on Skills Development and Labour, so I missed the beginning part of it.

It turns out, actually, the ADM, James Gorman, is sitting right next to the minister. My apologies. I don't mean any disrespect, but I actually didn't know all the names of the minister's staff. I knew some of them but not all of them, but I found that on the record now.

Okay. The minister just gave me a little bit of an update on that. Is this the same review that was referred to in the February 6, 2004, news release from the government?

J. Kwan: The financial management review is described in this February 6 ministry news release as an extension of pre-existing reviews that began in September 2003. What did the review report as its findings between September and the end of 2003, and did the committee report out on its findings? Who got to see these findings?

Hon. C. Clark: The process is to go out and identify areas where we can do better, areas where we're doing well, and then act on those areas. Our ADM for financial services went out and did the review and didn't issue a report to himself, just implemented the changes that he felt needed to be made based on what he found in his review. Those changes are outlined in the press release that the member has referenced.

J. Kwan: Can the minister tell this House if a former MCFD area manager by the name of John Cargo is now contracted by the interim authority for the safeguard and accountability management initiative? I believe this is his contract for the interior and Kootenays regions.

Hon. C. Clark: The interim authority provides updated financial statements to us regularly. Those are

audited financial statements. We don't have every detail of every contract that the interim authority lets. We certainly don't have it here in the House today. I don't know where the member gets her information, but I'm not able to confirm that today in the House for her.

J. Kwan: Well, then I'll stand down my set of questions in this area until the minister can confirm this information, and then we can proceed in this area. Again to the minister: it's information about a former MCFD area manager, someone by the name of John Cargo. Is he now contracted by the interim authority for safeguard and accountability management initiatives?

The estimates will continue on, I'm sure, tomorrow if this set of estimates is being called back. If not, whenever it is, I would expect by then the minister would have the answer, and I could then carry on with these questions I have in this area.

I would like to actually ask the minister some questions regarding community living, specifically around the community living restructuring and the Doug Walls situation. What were Doug Walls's qualifications to lead a major government reorganization?

Hon. C. Clark: All of the issues with respect to Mr. Walls are being audited at the moment by an organization that I know the member doesn't believe is independent but is, I think, widely respected in the international community, not just in British Columbia or Canada. The audit will come back with its report — I hope very, very shortly — and will be covering all of the issues, I think, that the member has raised in the House not just today but on many other days. I am, like every other member of this chamber, very much looking forward to that report coming out so that we can ensure that all the questions that have been asked can be answered.

J. Kwan: Well, the audit deals with the $400,000 that's gone missing under the minister's nose, and that's not what I'm asking. It has nothing to do with the audit. I'm asking a simple question of Doug Walls's qualifications, the qualifications that led this government to believe that Mr. Walls was capable of a major government reorganization within the ministry. What were his qualifications?

Hon. C. Clark: First of all, he wasn't hired by the government. I would have thought the member would have known that, but I can confirm that for her. The board engages independent contractors, and they have the right to do that. Any of the questions, though, with respect to this issue will, I'm sure, be covered by the audit. Again, I'm looking forward to the results of that audit coming forward.

In the interests of ensuring particularly that the audit carries on without any kind of interference or anything that could harm the work of the people who are doing that…. We want to make sure that it's done right, and we want to make sure that the information they come back with is untainted. So I will be looking forward to seeing that report come in, just as I know everybody else will, and that will answer, I'm sure, some of the questions that the member hopes to raise about this issue.

J. Kwan: The interim authority is under this minister's responsibility. This minister is responsible for their actions, and she therefore must answer questions that flow from their actions. The interim authority, in their wisdom, decided to hire Doug Walls. The qualifications that Mr. Walls presented would show that he's capable of leading a major government reorganization process, presumably. I'm simply asking for that information. It doesn't compromise the internal audit.

I should say as well, Mr. Chair, that the audited information would not be made public. This government has said that it would not make public the audit information except for just the summary, so the public would have no opportunity whatsoever to look at this review. The minister talks as though everybody would have access to that. No, it's not true — unless she's prepared right now to stand up in this House and say: "No. We will actually make available the entire audit for the public, for their consumption and for their information." Unless she's prepared to make that statement, then the truth is that the inside workings of what comes out of that audit would not be known to the public except for the summary.

So I would ask the minister to answer these questions. These questions do not compromise the audit in any way, shape or form.

The minister is refusing to answer the question. I know she didn't hear what I said earlier because I know that she had to ask her staff: "What did she say?" Let me be very clear on the issues before us. The minister acts as though the audit would be made available for the public, when it is completed, for their review and consumption when in fact it isn't true. The government will not make public the findings of the audit. The full audit would not be made public for the public to review. They would have no access to this audit, except for the summary.

Let me ask the minister this question: will she commit today in this House to release the entire audit when it is completed? She can't talk as though the public would have access to this information when in fact they don't have access to this information.

Hon. C. Clark: Our government is committed to making sure that the conclusions of the audit are made public, and that, as I understand it from the office of the auditor general, is the first in a long time. There were hundreds of audits done under the previous government that were never, ever made public.

It is, I think, an important step that government has taken to make sure we have transparency in this process. I also think it is important to note that I am not, as minister, working to interfere in the audit. I'm not working

to inquire about the audit. I'm not working to follow the audit. I'm not working to audit the audit. I'm not working to investigate the audit. I want the audit, like every other British Columbian does, to be able to do its work in an independent, untainted way so we know that the results it comes back with are conclusions we can count on.

Again, I'm not able to answer questions specifically about things that will be in the audit, and again, I think that the people conducting the audit will be in a better position to give better answers when those conclusions are made public, in any case.

J. Kwan: The reality is that this government will not release the audit report. They will only select a portion of the report to be released, and that would be the summary of the report. That is not openness and accountability. That is a laugh. It's a laugh when the minister says that's openness and accountability.

They are only selecting the portion they want to release for release, Mr. Chair, and that is the conclusions. That's it. Do you know what? As we know, in the content of any audit you need to look at the full report to understand all of the issues within it — that there will be details within the report that would not be in the conclusion of the report, that the public would not have access to, that will speak to the mismanagement of this government on this file, that will shed light on this chaos that has been created under this government and the scandals that have been caused under this government.

To suggest for even a moment that somehow to release just the conclusions is open and accountable is laughable. It is absolutely laughable. This minister is just sitting there, acting as though she's done her job by saying: "We'll release the conclusions." Then on top of that, she won't answer questions around this situation in this House, even though the first question I put to her has nothing whatsoever to do with the audit.

All I was asking the minister for was the qualifications of Doug Walls. The information we've received is this. In September 2001, before the ministry's core review process had even been completed, the Premier's office…. Actually, I shouldn't assert it; I should just put it as a question. Did the Premier's office tell Doug Walls that the government would be interested in adopting his plan for individualized funding in the community living sector? Did that happen or not?

J. Kwan: If these questions I put to the minister are not answered in the conclusion of the audited report, will she then release the full report that she claims will answer all of these questions? I ask her for the commitment now to release the full report if these questions are not answered by the conclusion of the audit.

Hon. C. Clark: Our government acted very quickly when the issue came to the attention of government. We made sure we initiated an audit as quickly as we possibly could. Indeed, the audit is going to be entirely independent of government. It's going to be a fulsome, complete audit looking at all of the issues, and the conclusions will be released as well. That, I think, is going to be a first for the office of the auditor general. Under the previous government, hundreds of audits were done, and as far as anybody can determine today, none of them — except perhaps one — were ever made public.

J. Kwan: Under the previous government, no relative of the Premier had actually walked away with $400,000 right under the nose of the minister. That actually did not happen.

The minister claims that these questions I put to her will be answered from the audit. That's what she claims.

J. Kwan: The Attorney General and the minister are heckling me by saying: was there a special prosecutor that was appointed to investigate me? Yes, in fact, there was. There was. It was over an incident, and it's on the public record — that I painted a daisy on the Woodwards Building when there was a rally from the community. I admitted that fully. There was an investigation — absolutely. Then the report was out. Then it turns out the recommendation is that no charges should be laid.

In fact, everyone who participated in the rally committed the same thing. They painted on the hoarding as well as on the sidewalk with water-soluble paint, in terms of flowers and houses and what have you on the hoarding. Do you know what? I did it — absolutely. Everyone knows in my community that I am an activist MLA and that I'm there to support the community, and I absolutely support the saving of the Woodwards Building for the community. I don't deny that at all, and it's completely public.

The issue is this — and it's not a laughing matter that is before us now: no public funds went missing. No relative of mine got government money and walked away with it. There is no internal audit into this situation in which no information would be released to the public except for the conclusions.

The Chair: Members, the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has the floor.

J. Kwan: The matter before us is far more serious than what happened with the Woodwards Building —

absolutely. There were loads of other people who participated in this rally, and there have been many rallies around the Woodwards Building because this government, when they took office, tried to sell the Woodwards Building. That's what they tried to do, and that's what the rally was all about.

The issue is this. We have a serious situation before us. We have a government that's cutting core services to children and families in our community at an unprecedented rate. We have a government negatively impacting our communities because of these cuts. We have a government embarking on a restructuring process that has gone into chaos as a result of their mismanagement on the matters. We have a government who says it will have an audit into the matter and a government who would not release the audit in full; a government that says it will only release the conclusion; a minister through the estimates process, in which I'm asking questions of her, who would not answer questions relating to this because she says the audit will answer all of those questions.

My question to the minister is very simple, Mr. Chair. It is this: if the audit conclusion that is released by the government does not answer the questions I've put to her, will she commit today to release the full audit for the public's review?

Hon. C. Clark: Yeah, in addition to releasing the conclusions, our government is also making sure that on completion of the report, it immediately be subject to an expedited freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy review so that we can release as much of it as possible without harming the protection of privacy of individuals. We intend to do that before a request is even lodged so we can get that out as quickly as possible.

J. Kwan: The member for Vancouver-Burrard says, "Good for you," as though somehow that is openness and accountability — to say they could actually get FOI information.

J. Kwan: The member for Vancouver-Burrard says he knows of a report I have that I don't want to talk about. I don't know what he is talking about, quite frankly.

J. Kwan: The minister says: "Oh, it is the one on the Portland Hotel Society." I have no such report in my possession.

The Chair: Members, please keep the questions through the Chair. The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has the floor.

J. Kwan: I have no such report from the…. This member for Vancouver-Burrard wishes to be a cabinet minister. He can keep on wishing, because you know what? After the next election he ain't gonna be here.

Irrespective of that, here is the question to the minister. She says that the questions that I put to her will be answered by this audit. If they're not answered by the conclusion that the government is prepared to release, will she release the report for the public? She says that the public can FOI that information. We know how information is further delayed under the FOI process, because the ministry can hold the information for some time. That is the reality of it as well.

I would ask the minister once again — to give her a last opportunity here — to be open and accountable, as she says she is.

J. Kwan: It's not a threat. I will give her a last opportunity. Otherwise I will be accused of being repetitious in this very chamber, when the minister actually won't answer the questions. I'll give the minister a last opportunity to answer that question, to be open and accountable.

Hon. C. Clark: I'm sure it won't come as any surprise or secret to the member to discover that the government has obligations under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to make sure that we actually protect privacy as well. It's not possible for government to violate the statute. I would think the member would be familiar with that because it was her government that designed and passed this legislation that is governing the actions on this file in the first place. I would be curious to know, perhaps, from the member: does she believe that every report and audit into any kind of suggested impropriety should be made public at all times? Perhaps she could stand up and let us know if that's her position on that particular issue.

J. Kwan: The minister knows full well that releasing that report would not be in violation of the FOI act. It's just nonsense for the minister to suggest that. She's just trying to hide under the rock that the minister consistently likes to stick her head under, just like she does with all of the issues raised to her. "I see no evil; I hear no evil." She closes a blind eye when tough issues are put to her. So no openness according to this government and according to this minister. I will have further questions for the minister on this very issue.

J. Kwan: Okay, I will continue. Absolutely. Then let me ask the minister this question. I would like the answer from the minister on this. Under section 8 of this government's new consumer protection bill, it states that an undischarged bankruptcy is not qualified to be a director of the consumer protection authority. Others in this House might take note who has declared bankruptcy several times over. Why did this same government feel it was appropriate for an undischarged bankruptcy — even if he was an insider of the Liberal Party, even though he is a friend and relative of the Premier — to be the acting CEO of a provincial agency responsible for spending more than $500 million of taxpayer funds per year?

Hon. C. Clark: First of all, they weren't responsible for spending $500 million to $600 million a year. They were a planning group. Second, he wasn't employed by the government; he was employed by the authority. Third, those questions, as I said, will be answered in the audit. They will be, I'm sure, covered and discussed in the audit.

Again, I'm still waiting for an answer to my question to the member. Does she believe that the public has a right, an absolute right, to all reports that are made into any suggestion of malfeasance or misuse of public funds? If she does, where are the boundaries she would set with respect to privacy and making sure that the privacy of individuals is protected? Those provisions are set out in the act that she passed. If she has a different view of that or if her view is different for some reports and not for others, perhaps she could make sure the House is aware of those views.

J. Kwan: Mr. Walls was the acting CEO of a provincial agency responsible for spending over $500 million of taxpayers' funds per year. The minister failed to answer the question. She says she won't release the report. She says she won't provide the information. She says that if the public wants it, they have to go through an FOI process. The same government who set out in legislation the consumer protection bill…. It states that an undischarged bankruptcy is not qualified to be a director of the consumer protection authority. Is the minister aware of this section of the act?

Hon. C. Clark: I think the member should have recognized at this stage of the debate that the authority doesn't have $600 million of taxpayers' money to spend, because we haven't devolved services. I would have thought she would have recognized that, because just earlier she was arguing that in fact we shouldn't be devolving services to the independent authority.

J. Kwan: The minister didn't answer my question. I will repeat it for the minister. Under section 8 of this government's new consumer protection bill, it states that an undischarged bankruptcy is not qualified to be a director of the consumer protection authority. Is the minister aware of this section of the bill?

Hon. C. Clark: I've been pretty clear with the member, I think, on a number of questions that she's asked about this. I'm looking forward to the results of the audit, as is everybody else. I hope they come in very, very quickly. I think what the member is trying to get at with her questions is to try and find a way to get me to discuss some of the details of what might or might not be covered by the audit. I'm simply not going to do that. I want to make sure the results of the audit are absolutely without any kind of direction or interference from government, so I don't intend to discuss those things.

The audit has been initiated by government. The conclusions will be made public, which I understand is a rare occurrence for the auditor general's office. It's certainly something the NDP never did when they were in government as far as anybody knows — except perhaps once.

Again, we're looking forward to the results of the audit just as everybody else in British Columbia is.

J. Kwan: The minister didn't answer the question. I asked her whether or not she knows of the government's own bill under the section of the Consumer Protection Act, and she refused to answer the question. Let me just be clear here. The minister claims that all these questions will be answered by the audit, which she won't release when it's completed. She will only release the conclusion. For any further information, the public would have to FOI that information.

It would have been easy for the minister to actually get away with that line of answers if she said: "Yeah, okay, if these questions are not answered with the conclusion of the audit, I will provide full information around the audit." She could actually walk away with that answer, and I would have let it go. But no, she wouldn't. Let's just go through this in full detail in terms of what the minister knows and the minister's responsibility and accountability level.

Let's be clear. I first asked the question about qualifications. The minister says: "Oh, I can't say that. I can't say that. That's part of the audit." No, qualifications of Mr. Doug Walls are not part of the audit. The minister would say that providing that information would somehow compromise the audit. That's completely untrue.

The question about the minister's government's own consumer protection bill around undischarged bankruptcies and that disqualifying of a person to be a director of the consumer protection authority…. That's the government's own legislation that they brought in. Yet here we have a relative of the Premier who actually got appointed to a position, who violated the government's own standards on this issue and who had undischarged bankruptcies. Why was there a blind eye turned on this policy? The minister doesn't want to answer the question, even though these questions do not compromise the internal review of which only the conclusion would be released.

Let me try this question. I'm going to put all these questions on the record, even if the minister won't answer them, so that the public can judge for themselves

whether or not the conclusion of the audit actually answered these questions. I would venture to say that they would not have answered these questions. Then let the public decide whether or not this government is open or accountable.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say you are open and accountable without at the same time providing the information and answering questions. It is very easy for this minister to rise up and just answer these questions. That's right. Bankruptcies with a track record — not one but two bankruptcies — speak volumes…

L. Mayencourt: You know what? I'd rather be financially bankrupt than morally bankrupt.

You know what? The member for Vancouver-Burrard says: "I would rather be financially bankrupt than morally bankrupt." Well, for the member who has declared bankruptcy twice and who has actually learned the process of how to evade paying debts to the people whom they owe money to….

The Chair: Member, can we keep to the questions of the estimates before us, please. Continue on with the questions of the minister.

J. Kwan: It's an interesting fact about morality. I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I was responding to the heckling from the member for Vancouver-Burrard.

J. Kwan: Well, no. In the moment of challenge where the member raised the question about moral standards.

The Chair: Member, we can move on now. The minister is across the floor here if you'd like to ask her a question.

J. Kwan: So much for morality. Taking advantage of the Bankruptcy Act so that you don't have to pay debts. Uh-huh.

The Chair: Members, let's let the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant put her question to the minister.

Hon. C. Clark: Mr. Chair, a point of order. I think the member is really straying far, far from the issues at debate here. I think the personal attacks she is engaging in really do a disservice to the dignity of this chamber. I'd ask that she withdraw her comments.

J. Kwan: As I said, I was responding to heckling from the member for Vancouver-Burrard. Let me ask the minister this question.

Hon. C. Clark: Mr. Chair, on a point of order. I really would ask that you direct the member to withdraw her comments. I don't think it's good enough for her to just stand up and say: "Well, I was provoked. That's why I did it." We don't accept that excuse from our children, and I don't think we should accept that excuse in the House.

The Chair: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, if you've said anything unparliamentary, we wish you now to withdraw it.

I'd like to ask the minister a question. Why will the government not live up to its promise for openness and accountability and agree to release all the findings of the audit into the Liberal insider's misuse of taxpayers' dollars?

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

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

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

Hon. B. Barisoff: It's my pleasure to introduce the 2004-05 budget estimates for the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. Joining me this afternoon — I don't know where Gord is — are Eric Partridge, acting assistant deputy minister of environmental protection; Nancy Wilkin, assistant deputy minister of environmental stewardship; Al Martin.

A balanced budget. Hon. colleagues, I'm proud to support a budget which this vote is part of. Our Premier said we would balance the budget in three years, and we have. Our economy is recovering from a decade of decline, and I am proud that my ministry has a vital role to play in bringing out the best in British Columbia. We are bringing out the best in our economy, modernizing regulatory requirements and legislation in environmental management.

The people of our ministry share a passion for protecting the province's water, land and air with all British Columbians. The balance my staff has achieved, like the balance it achieved in government finances, means British Columbia is better off today and better off tomorrow for our children and grandchildren.

British Columbia is world renowned for its natural beauty as well as its tremendously rich resource and land base. According to the government's strategic plan, sustained economic competitiveness depends upon British Columbians maximizing the benefits from our natural resources, maintaining the quality of our environment and enhancing the health of our communities. It's a goal of this government to balance sustainable economic development with the protection of our environment. All the while, we must always remember that it is precisely this sustainable economic development that provides government with the financial resources to maintain, protect and promote our environment.

Across my ministry our actions are formed by science. We ensure that our standards for clean air, water and healthy, sustainable communities continue to protect the quality of our environment.

Hon. members, we are bringing our best in everything we do, and this service plan shows that we have made real progress in protecting our water, land and air. Specifically, of the nine new-era commitments involving my ministry, we are actively working on all and have completed each of them.

Let me highlight for you two recently completed commitments. I announced it in the House today — it was a great question, Mr. Speaker: Burns Bog. Hon. colleagues, we have committed in our new-era platform to acquire and preserve Burns Bog, and the government has worked hard for over two years to achieve that goal. That happened today. I know people across the lower mainland celebrated when the Premier recently announced that the province, together with the government of Canada, the GVRD and the corporation of Delta, had reached an interim agreement to protect and preserve Burns Bog. The agreement has now been finalized, and just this morning it was announced that the province and our partners acquired 5,040 acres of Burns Bog.

This is great news for the residents of Delta, this is great news for the residents of the lower mainland, and it is great news for the residents of British Columbia. Others suggested building a theme park on the bog. We had the new-era commitment to preserve and protect the bog, and I'm really proud that we have done it.

I want to take a minute to thank my staff here with me today, the former minister, the MLAs for Delta North and Delta South, our partners and especially the Premier for making this commitment and following through with it for all British Columbians.

I need not remind this House that the old NDP government took the questions about Sumas 2 on notice, all the while negotiating behind the scenes to purchase power from the proposed plant. On this side of the House we made a new-era commitment to oppose the plant. We have said from the outset that SE2 is the wrong plant in the wrong place.

I want to pay particular tribute to the Premier, our colleagues and the people of the Fraser Valley, all of whom have fought this plant tooth and nail. We are very pleased that the National Energy Board has ruled in our favour. It's a victory for the people of Abbotsford, the Fraser Valley and British Columbia.

I want to highlight a number of ministry priorities that shape this service plan for the coming year and beyond. The 2010 Olympic Games. I think all of us in this House felt tremendous pride when British Columbia won the right to host the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. As the Premier said, our games will showcase to the world the best in our province, generating economic benefits right across British Columbia. A key part of the Vancouver 2010 Olympic committee plans is that our games will be the most sustainable and environmentally responsible ever held. In my ministry we will provide expertise, guidance and support, furthering the province's position as a leader in sustainability and creating golden opportunities for all British Columbians. We want to bring out the best in the Spirit of 2010, hosting the games for all the world to see.

For 20 years the Waste Management Act has been a principal piece of legislation governing pollution and pollution prevention in British Columbia. Pollution and its source have changed dramatically in that time, and modernization has long been overdue. Government enacted a new Environmental Management Act last fall and brought British Columbia's environmental management practice into the twenty-first century.

The new act adopts proactive, cutting-edge tools used with success in other jurisdictions. It allows the ministry staff to focus their time and resources on higher-risk activities and to spend more time monitor-

ing for compliance. Further changes that refine codes of practice in the Environmental Management Act and accelerate the redevelopment of contaminated sites, returning them to productive use and restoring them in communities that need them are now before the House. The long overdue modernization of environmental management in the province helps us all bring out the best in our economy.

Parks and protected areas. The Premier has talked about building a park system that is open to everyone. We have had incredible opportunities related to our physical environment. Our park system is world-class. Our back-country areas, with their wealth of fish and wildlife resources, offer recreational and commercial opportunities that bring visitors from around the globe. We need a range of use options beyond traditional camping that keep pace as our population ages. Our goal is to attract more people to our parks, because the more that people experience nature, the more they respect and appreciate it. We want B.C. parks to be an international tourism destination, providing more choice and more opportunities to experience Super, Natural B.C. up close.

None of us ever wants to repeat the terrible wildfires that ravaged the southern interior last summer. In my riding we felt the heat of Anarchist Mountain and the Vaseux Lake fires. Like all British Columbians we felt the horror of the Okanagan Mountain Park and McLure fires. We must change our practice and be better prepared next time to face the extreme conditions.

I want to thank Gary Filmon for the commonsense recommendations made in his review. Already, with my ministry, we're moving on many of these recommendations. We have established a fire management team to address some of the issues arising from the 2003 fire season. We have a tree-removal policy in place, and in January we approved a fuel-reduction program for Silver Star Provincial Park that reduces the wildfire risk to the public park facilities, nearby homes and the ski resort. We are assessing the fuel situation in Manning Provincial Park, and we have thinned out and performed prescribed burns in Kalamalka Lake Provincial Park, Vaseux protected area, Kekuli Bay and Fintry Provincial Park.

Before the fires, the province experienced serious drought. The province's objectives are to protect drinking water supplies; limit adverse economic impact, especially for agriculture; protect our fish and fisheries; and sensitize British Columbians to the ongoing need for water conservation. We must ensure that there is enough water for everyone.

In conclusion, by removing the unnecessary process and outdated regulation, we are focusing government resources on making decisions that provide certainty, clarity, opportunity and results — and doing so quickly. We will continue to work cooperatively with the communities, industry, our caucus and other levels of government to bring out the best in British Columbians. In this three-year service plan you can see that my ministry is committed to streamlining processes and regulation and measuring our actions and activities. I ask you to read them and comment on them and, most importantly, hold us to account for them.

I look forward to discussing my ministry's plans in detail as the estimates debate continues. We will be debating my ministry's budget for the fiscal year 2004-05, net operating expenditures of $148.141 million. Net capital expenditures will be $21.143 million. Our projected full-time equivalent utilization for the coming fiscal year will be 920 full-time staff. I now welcome questions from the members opposite.

G. Hogg: I have an issue of concern to a number of the constituents of Surrey–White Rock and, indeed, Surrey broadly. I'd like to read a couple of letters into the record so the minister can get a sense of the flavour of the issue as well as the content of it.

The first is a letter from Doris and Malcolm Wynn to the mayor and council and copied to myself. It says:

Another one talks about her golden retriever and the relationship she's had with that. It's from Tara Wertman. She said her poor little dog needs a place to swim, and if votes make any difference, it will have one. She will not have any more if she cannot support politicians who discriminate against animals.

So my first question arising out of that and giving a sense of some of the emotion to it is: how or why has Blackie Spit been differentiated from these other areas, as is being mentioned by these constituents? I should mention that this is just a small sampling. There are many, many more missives which have been received by me and other MLAs in Surrey.

Hon. B. Barisoff: The city of Surrey has actually signed a contract to study the impacts of dogs on Blackie Spit. If the studies determine that dogs' impacts can be mitigated and that no other location can be found, then the province will consider allowing dogs within the portion of the Wildlife Act.

G. Hogg: I understand that there is some sort of study taking place with respect to this and that Surrey is somehow involved with the province. Can you tell me what the terms of reference of that study are? Who is doing the study, and what are the expected outcomes in terms of that study?

Hon. B. Barisoff: We don't have that information with us, but we will actually get that to you.

G. Hogg: Are there broad international or national standards that are applied as the tests for the impact of dogs on the area or of any other things that would not be indigenous to the area? What are the tests that are applied? Are there benchmarks we look at?

Hon. B. Barisoff: The city of Surrey, entering that contract, would determine what would take place there.

G. Hogg: Are there international tests or is there a set of standards that are applied in terms of looking at the impact that might happen in an environmental area?

G. Hogg: Well, it seems to me there must be some criteria or values that are reflected in the decision-making process. If decisions are being made, they must be tested against a set of values, principles, criteria or standards with respect to it. Otherwise, it seems that we're making decisions that are not connected to any set of principles or protocols with respect to that. It's certainly difficult to defend a position that doesn't have a set of principles or values or protocols attached to it. Again, it seems to me that there must be some rationale that's being applied and that the rationale must be connected to a set of principles, or I don't know how we're making decisions with respect to this.

Hon. B. Barisoff: We'll actually have to judge that against the purpose of the…. If you look, it's also designated as the number one important bird area, so we'll indicate from what they're doing against that.

G. Hogg: If I could understand it, there's a study that's taking place that Surrey is engaged in. Is the province participating in funding any of this study?

G. Hogg: Is it the province's responsibility to make decisions with respect to the use of the water and the foreshore off Blackie Spit? Is this within our provincial jurisdiction or a municipal jurisdiction?

G. Hogg: The answer is yes. Therefore, we do have a responsibility for it. If we do have a responsibility, how do we carry out that responsibility, and how do we measure that responsibility against the usages which are taking place now?

Hon. B. Barisoff: The plan is to allow dogs off leash in the centre of Blackie Spit Park and to study impacts of dogs on the rest of Crescent Beach along with the shore. When we get the study back, then we'll see the impact it has on the wildlife area. If it doesn't have a negative impact on the wildlife area, then we'll deal with it.

G. Hogg: If I understand it, Surrey is doing a study that we're not participating in, that we're not funding. We don't have any say with respect to the terms of reference of that study, yet we will take the study when it's received and we will say whether or not we will allow dogs into the water area. I'm assuming the minister is saying that it is a provincial responsibility or decision with respect to whether or not dogs are allowed into the ocean. If that is true, then it seems to me we need to have some way of influencing the terms of reference so we can ensure that the provincial responsibilities are protected.

There must be, as the minister has said…. I think you made reference to it as the number one, or most important, bird area in Canada due to migratory waterfowl. I think I heard that being stated. If that's true, it seems that the responsibility of the province is to protect that. Then we need to have a way to do that, which I assume would be involved in….

There have to be some standards around how we do that. I mean, this can't be the first time we've had this challenge in this province or in other parts of Canada. There's obviously a group that makes decisions around the designation. We have a number one designation. There must be a protocol or principles around how we protect that and what we do to protect that. I would certainly be interested in finding out what those might be and how we as a province….

If we're asking the city of Surrey to go off and do something and come back and have to react to it, it

seems to me that we would be better off as a province to be engaged in this process so that we are protecting the responsibilities that fall to the province. At this stage, the city of Surrey is saying it's the province's responsibility, and we don't seem to have much sense of what that responsibility is or how that might be interpreted.

I appreciate that it's a fairly specific area. It may be that the local people have a better grasp on it than we do at a provincial perspective. It seems to me that if it is the number one most important bird area in Canada, we must be able to take a fairly proactive position with respect to the protection of that. At this point, we certainly haven't been in the forefront of making any statements with respect to the environment or the protection or the interrelationship that is to take place there.

Hon. B. Barisoff: We haven't put any dollars into it, to be clear. We have had input into the plan, but our jurisdiction is in the provincial wildlife management area.

G. Hogg: The issue that I've read into the record is the waterfront area. It is the use of the water. That's what a number of these owners are referring to: being able to utilize the waterfront. I am not yet understanding that if it is our responsibility to protect the waterfront in this number one area and if the owners are trying to go in…. We're saying it's Surrey. It can't be both. I understand it's our responsibility, not Surrey's responsibility, yet Surrey is doing the study to make a determination.

Have we declared that dogs will not be allowed on the foreshore there? Is that a provincial position?

Hon. B. Barisoff: Our preference is that dogs off leash aren't allowed, but the provincial wildlife management area starts at the high-water mark and goes seaward. It runs from the Canada–U.S. border to the Peace Arch to the Canada–U.S. border at Point Roberts, encompassing around 11,000 hectares.

G. Hogg: I understand it's our preference, but have we dictated that to the city of Surrey at this stage? The issue is not about preference; this is a fairly hard line that's been drawn in the sand between Surrey and some dog owners. As I said earlier, I understand there's a whole other side to this argument, but I think we need to have greater clarity — at least I need to in my riding — to be able to deal with and manage and talk about this issue in a meaningful way. So while that's our preference, have we made a statement that said dogs will not be allowed on the foreshore of Blackie Spit?

Hon. B. Barisoff: We realize that due to the pressures from the urban development in the lower mainland we would have an impossible task of enforcing any no-dog regulation on Blackie Spit, and we're supporting the recommendations made by the stakeholders' group that were accepted by the Surrey city council.

Hon. B. Barisoff: That was what we originally started with. The plan is to allow dogs off leash in the centre of Blackie Spit Park.

G. Hogg: Let me use some licence. Is it correct for me to say: the province is saying dogs are not allowed onto the foreshore, not allowed into the water area because of the sensitivity of the birds? Is that the position we are taking as a provincial government?

Hon. B. Barisoff: First of all, we're waiting for the city to get to what they do when they sign their contract and study the impacts. What we don't want is dogs on the most sensitive areas of the wildlife management area. We are prepared to let dogs within a portion of the wildlife management area, but we don't want them on the most sensitive areas.

G. Hogg: If I take that one more step in terms of the causal relationship you're presenting for me…. If the study comes back from Surrey — and we don't have any control over the terms of reference…. If that study comes back and says, "Yes, we think dogs should be allowed in a portion of Blackie Spit, in the water," then we will say: "Okay, we concur with the study, and we're supporting the position of the study"?

Hon. B. Barisoff: Until such time as we get the results from the study…. Once we see the study, then we'll make comment on it.

G. Hogg: I guess my frustration is not understanding, or hearing that we have a responsibility on the foreshore yet not knowing how we're carrying out that responsibility. Again, you've told me it's the number one most important bird area in Canada. Yet we don't have a position. There aren't national standards. There aren't provincial standards. There isn't a protocol or a set of values that are reflected with that.

It becomes most difficult for me to be able to respond to my constituents and people across Surrey who are dealing with this issue — including the Surrey city council, around their role with this. They're saying it's our responsibility at the waterfront. I hear us saying that it's our responsibility in terms of the foreshore, and yet we're letting them do the study. We're not applying any provincial standards or values to it. We're going to wait and react to a study that they put forward — and their study doesn't have any say over the waterfront. That's our responsibility, yet we're letting them do a study.

I don't know how I'm going to be able to respond to people who are asking me these questions unless I get a sense of …. What I think I hear being said is: "We're

responsible for everything from the tidemark into the water, and we haven't decided whether we're going to allow dogs into that area or not." Could the minister tell me if I'm correct on those two issues?

Hon. B. Barisoff: Okay. First of all, initially I said we don't want the dogs in the most sensitive areas. Once we see the study that Surrey is doing, we'll look and see if there are other areas that dogs can be allowed into. But until we look at the study, we're not going to prejudge what's coming up in the study. We certainly don't want them in the most sensitive areas of the wildlife management areas. When we get that, we'll certainly make sure that you're the first one to have a copy of it.

G. Hogg: If we don't know the terms of reference, we don't know if they're going to say anything about the waterfront in their study at all. They not make any reference to that at all, and that's the issue we're concerned about. As I understand it, that's our legislative responsibility to deal with that, and we don't have any say in the terms of reference. We don't know what their study is going to say. I'm concerned that there may be some gaps in this.

Could I ask that on behalf of the provincial government there be at least some contact between your ministry and the city of Surrey with respect to the terms of reference, the study and the responsibility the province has with respect to this matter and that we have some liaison directly from the minister's office or from the ministry in terms of this? It's so that we can ensure we're engaged in a process that does protect the responsibility the state has in this matter as well as the rights and responsibilities the city has; so that we ensure there is coordination in that, around some terms of reference; and so that we ensure, whatever the legislative framework or statement around the number one important bird area in Canada, that there must be some issues around that, some values that are reflected, to come to that conclusion.

They must have assessed all bird areas against a set of values or principles. We need to look at those and be able to be sure that we're putting forward and protecting the position of the province and in terms of the process. I'd like to see us be involved in the terms of reference so that we ensure we're doing this properly, that we're engaged in ways that are meaningful with the city of Surrey and with the people who are expressing concern and the people on the other side of this issue.

At this point in time it doesn't seem to me as though we have a sense of that process, albeit a local process. At least I can't get a sense of it in my riding in talking to people that there is a process, that there is a time frame, that there are a set of principles that are being reflected in this in a way that is going to be useful and meaningful in terms of coming to an outcome. My fear is that Surrey is going to do a study that won't make any reference to the waterfront — which I'm not sure it should, because it's our responsibility. Then we're no further ahead than we are today. I think we need to engage them.

My question specifically is…. I ask that the minister through his office make contact with the city of Surrey, look at the terms of reference of this study and make sure that we are protecting the responsibilities of the province and protecting what we must do as well as ensuring there is a process which is responsive and reflective to the needs of so many dog owners and users of that sensitive area.

Hon. B. Barisoff: We'll have staff contact the city of Surrey and work with them to find out exactly where they're at with this whole thing.

G. Hogg: I gather we're going to find out where they're at with it. I also hope that we can be a little more proactive in terms of being able to say or talk about the responsibility of the province with respect to that, in terms of the city of Surrey. I hope that when the study comes back, we have a chance to review the study before any decisions are made. That's to make sure it's consistent with the terms of reference we have engaged in or that have been a part of this study and that there is a public process which reflects that so that we can be working in concert with the city of Surrey with their best interests as well.

It seems that, at least in the local area, there has been some contact and some public meetings, but there has apparently also been at least a lack of understanding in terms of what the outcome is. It doesn't sound as though we have been able to be as proactive as we might be in terms of protecting the responsibilities that the province has in this. As a result, I think there's been some blaming, where some people are blaming the province, some are blaming the city, and there hasn't been a clarification of whose responsibilities exist exactly where and the need to follow those through.

Hon. B. Barisoff: We'll certainly endeavour to make sure that there's a fair balance between what the city wants, what the dog owners want and what's best for the wildlife management area that's there.

G. Hogg: If I can in summary say that I understand, then, that the minister will be making contact with the city of Surrey and will be ensuring in a proactive way that we are able to talk about the terms of reference of that study and whether or not they'll allow us to do that when we're not participating. But that, in fact, will be part of the process.

In terms of decisions with respect to the utilization of the foreshore of this sensitive area, those ultimately will be made through the minister or through the ministry. If I'm correct on those three things and there's a process in place and we will be kept informed in terms of that process so we can steer any of our constituents to that process, then I think I would be satisfied.

B. Suffredine: I'm going to move to a little different topic than my friend was on. Last year in approximately April or May, I asked the former minister about efforts being made with respect to the management of landing floatplanes in parks. The issue is one that is near and dear to many pilots. I think even the Chair today has some interest in the issue.

I've been learning to fly. I'm not experienced as a floatplane pilot. I'm a student pilot. That's been quite a learning experience, teaching me the value of airports and even in our own community where our council is talking about removing the airport from Nelson. It's quite controversial and, I think, shortsighted.

Floatplane pilots are the eyes and ears for the parks branch, which they normally would have difficulty covering because of lack of staff. The way most people see it, landing a floatplane on the water does no measurable harm to the environment. It creates great back-country recreation opportunities and potentially niche market tourism opportunities. I'd probably break this down a little bit. Perhaps the minister could…. I'll take it easy on him to begin with. I know it's not as simple as it first appears. Perhaps you might give us some indication of the scope of the number of lakes involved and why this is complicated. It seems like a simple issue to most of us.

Hon. B. Barisoff: First of all — you'll appreciate this, Mr. Chair — floatplane operators, I think, are really stewards of the land and people that we have a lot of respect for. They are our eyes and ears out there to see lots that's happening. My understanding is that initially there were 40 lakes that were of concern with the Floatplane Association; 37 of them we've actually come to agreement on. We're working on the other three to see what agreement we can come to on them. Fifteen of them include areas not included in the restrictions and therefore could be accessed. So by and large, I think we've actually come a very long way with the Floatplane Association. As I said earlier, they are our eyes and ears, and we'll be working hand and hand with the Floatplane Association so that we can make sure that in future we don't get into this kind of backlog of rhetoric to find out what's happening. I think they do a good job for us, and we want to do a good job for them. We'll do everything we can to maintain that working relationship with the Floatplane Association.

B. Suffredine: The minister anticipated my next question in terms of the progress he's making. Thirty-seven out of 40 certainly sounds promising, but for the average floatplane operator that's been waiting since last year, I imagine they will want to know whether or not there's going to be some progress on the 37. If they're agreed, is a system going to be implemented and how soon? Can the minister potentially describe the nature of the problems that are holding up the other three? What are the issues that surround that?

Hon. B. Barisoff: It's just a matter of getting the regulation in place. My staff has indicated that they could certainly do this in the next three weeks. She said a month, but we'll cut that down to three weeks. It will list all the lakes on there. We should have that in place, in all fairness, by mid- to late April.

B. Suffredine: I just want to say thank you to the minister. If that indeed unfolds in that time frame, I'm sure the Floatplane Association for British Columbia is indeed grateful.

Hon. B. Barisoff: I want to assure the member and actually assure the Chair that this is going to take place. I want to thank the Floatplane Association for working with my staff, and I actually thank my staff for working with the Floatplane Association and for the great job they've done to get this in place.

J. MacPhail: We'll probably have a decent discussion here today with the new Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection. I welcome his staff to these discussions as well.

The government made a huge ballyhoo today, and rightly so, about Burns Bog. I didn't appreciate the cheap political shots at all; I didn't think that was necessary — and completely inaccurate. Nevertheless, that's the way this government operates on everything.

I want to ask a couple of details about this, because I have been supportive of the protection of Burns Bog since I came to office. Is the arrangement — the partnership amongst all of the three bodies — called the DFPP? I'm sorry; I'm trying to figure out the title. Is that what the arrangement, the partnership is — Delta Fraser partnership…?

J. MacPhail: The minister says no. All right. Then, I'll have to ask some detailed questions.

The announcement from the news release says it's more than 5,000 acres that's protected. Exactly how many acres are protected?

There's a piece of land that the minister, I'm sure, is well aware of, that I wish to question about. It's a little more than 400 acres that is located east of Highway 91 and north of 72nd Avenue that I believe is not included in the protected area. Is that correct?

Hon. B. Barisoff: As the member is probably aware, that land was privately owned, and that portion of land wasn't made available for sale.

J. MacPhail: What is the future of that? As I understand it, the 400 acres is exactly contiguous to the land that's being preserved. Is that correct?

J. MacPhail: Who has control over that land in terms of zoning? What, if any, arrangements at any level of government are made about zoning that?

The reason why I ask this is because the government of this day likes to make a big deal about the PNE going to the Burns Bog, and they have every right to do that. That was a silly proposal, and it was stopped. But it's not much different than the place the PNE was going to go, which was contiguous to the 5,000 or so acres that was going to be protected and now is. The PNE was going to go on an area contiguous to that to be developed. What's different about this proposal?

Hon. B. Barisoff: First of all, I don't know about any secret deal. It would be the city of Delta that would be looking after the zoning of that.

J. MacPhail: I'm sorry, I never used the word "secret," so I'm not sure what the minister is referring to.

Let me read this into the record then, because the government likes to mock the previous proposal, which was ditched by the previous government — appropriately so — after our caucus, in an open and accountable fashion, looked at that proposed deal and said no. I am looking to see how this particular arrangement is not fraught with the same sort of difficulties, and that is a substantial parcel of land right…. In fact, it is part of the bog. It's part of the Burns Bog. It's a privately held piece of land, but it is part of the bog.

I'll read this letter into the record. It's dated February 11, 2004. It's from Simon Truelove, who is the vice-president of the Burns Bog Conservation Society. All I want is his questions answered by this. Then we can all proceed to celebrate if, indeed, his questions are answered.

Hon. B. Barisoff: I want to convey to the member opposite that we are extremely proud that today we were actually able to preserve 5,000 acres of Burns Bog. The other portion of it wasn't for sale. We weren't able to purchase it. Today has been a great day in the fact that we were able to preserve — and that's five times the size of Stanley Park, not half the size of Stanley Park.

I'm trying to figure out what the claim is that the government is making about how they're better than previous administrations, and I'm happy for them to prove that.

This is a very important piece of land, but there is an issue of 500 acres. I'm just reading into the record the questions of the Burns Bog Conservation Society. Simon Truelove, the vice-president of Burns Bog Conservation Society, is talking about the 500 acres that is privately owned. Nothing has changed on that. That was the same situation previous governments faced as well.

He's asking that you had a budget of $78 million to pay; the government spent $73 million. He's suggesting that the plans to develop this huge area…. The minister acknowledges that it's the city of Delta, but I assume the fact that because this is a partnership agreement, these matters would have been discussed, if the minister is so proud of protecting the ecosystem of the bog. The question Mr. Truelove raises is that because these 500 acres can be developed, it will destroy a large, priceless ecosystem that is home to numerous rare plants and animals.

Hon. B. Barisoff: I guess I've got to go back to the fact that all of the land was privately owned. We were only able to purchase 5,000 acres. We weren't able to purchase the other 400 to 500 acres. We're really excited today, because we were able to preserve 5,000 of the 5,500 acres that were there. From our perspective it's a willing buyer, willing seller. We were the willing buyer for the 5,000 acres, and we had a willing seller. For the other 500 acres, we didn't have a willing seller, so we couldn't purchase that.

J. MacPhail: Then, the ministry must know the consequences of that, if they tried to purchase it and couldn't.

Maybe I can short-circuit this and the minister can tell me: have all of the Burns Bog Conservation Soci-

ety's questions been answered? I note that they're not part of the news release. That may not be important. These are the questions of the Burns Bog Conservation Society.

Hon. B. Barisoff: A couple of things. One I want to go back to is that the city of Delta still has the ability to decide what kind of zoning would take place there.

I don't want to go back to throwing things back across the floor, but when we look back at what was going to happen in 1999, your government at that time was only looking at trying to purchase 3,000 acres of it. I think that when we look at purchasing 5,000 acres, we have accomplished something. Maybe at the time you didn't have a willing seller also, and you were in the same kind of predicament. I can't judge what happened at that point in time. According to the news release, there were only 3,000 acres that you were going to purchase.

We were able to purchase, along with the federal government, the GVRD and the municipality of Delta, 5,000 acres of the 5,500-acre bog. All I can say is that I think we've done a fantastic thing today, and it's great for the people of Delta and the people of the lower mainland. As the member for Delta South said, it is the lungs of the lower mainland, and we've certainly made a great contribution there today to head off in that direction.

J. MacPhail: It's probably not wise for the minister to keep trying to make himself look better than the previous government, because the previous government admitted to its mistakes and moved on and attempted to purchase the whole area. As I say, I like to always inform ministers of that. If their standard is, "We're no worse than the previous government," then they've got a lot to answer for — a lot to answer for. I think the public is onto them about that right now. I'd say that's a pretty good indication that the public is onto them about how they've been misled about what was promised to them generally by this government.

I'm asking questions about this deal that the Burns Bog Conservation Society has raised in public, and all I'm asking for is answers. Was Burns Bog Conservation Society part of the announcement and therefore this is moot — my questioning?

Hon. B. Barisoff: I don't know how many times I can tell you that out of 5,500 acres we purchased 5,000 acres today. I think it's truly an exciting day. I can keep repeating it and repeating it. We had a willing seller, and we were the willing buyer, along with the city, along with the federal government and the GVRD. If someone doesn't want to sell a portion and it's private land, there's nothing we can do to force him to sell that.

This has been going on, as the member opposite knows, for a number of years. Different governments in the past and ourselves and everybody has tried to work through this process of trying to purchase this land to the benefit of the people of the lower mainland and the people of British Columbia as a whole. By and large, what happened today was that we actually got 5,000 acres of it.

I don't know if we can go down this line any farther, because we're just going back over the same kind of thing.

J. MacPhail: That is true of the minister, because the minister is not answering my questions. The minister is going over things over and over again.

Were Burns Bog Conservation Society an endorser of the announcement today? If they were, then their questions have been answered.

Hon. B. Barisoff: No. They weren't part of the announcement today. Only the partners that actually contributed financially were part of the announcement today.

J. MacPhail: Just for the record, Mr. Chair, those partners are the GVRD — the greater Vancouver regional district; the city of Delta; the provincial government; and the federal government. The minister has said that it's the city of Delta that has control over zoning. Was the issue discussed — zoning of the 500 acres — with one of the four partners, the city of Delta, and were any commitments made by the city of Delta about zoning?

Hon. B. Barisoff: It was done by Partnerships B.C. We're not aware of any deals that were made. The zoning still lies with the city of Delta.

J. MacPhail: I'm surprised that the minister doesn't know. He was more than happy to stand up in question period today with a big soft lob from one of his government caucus backbenchers and claim credit for this wonderful announcement. This seems pretty key to answering these questions, and yet he doesn't have the answer to the questions.

Well, I'll continue reading into the record then, Mr. Chair, the questions from the Burns Bog Conservation Society that are on the public record. They're not working with us; they're just on the public record. This is from Simon Truelove, dated February 11, 2004, from the Delta Optimist. He carries on. He started off by saying:

Who is it that the Burns Bog Conservation Society would go to, to have those questions answered? I actually looked to see where public affairs bureau had replied to this letter, and they hadn't. I'm just wondering. Perhaps the minister could respond to the issues that the Burns Bog Conservation Society raised.

Hon. B. Barisoff: First of all, we preserved as much of the Bog as possible, as much as we could get our hands on. I think that those people should contact the city of Delta and express their concerns. That would certainly fall into the zoning criteria that the city of Delta could deal with.

J. MacPhail: What was the differential in cost between the seller and the buyer for those 500 acres? What was the differential in cost between what the buyer wanted and what the seller was willing to pay? I'm not asking for the absolute figures — the difference.

Hon. B. Barisoff: If we're able to, we'll certainly provide that information to the member opposite. I'm not certain whether, through legal terms, that's possible, but if it is possible, we'll certainly provide you with that information.

Hon. B. Barisoff: The GVRD will create the management plan in cooperation with the other partners that were signatory to it.

J. MacPhail: What role does the province play in that management plan — financially and environmentally?

Hon. B. Barisoff: We'll bring forward our interests to the management plan. We actually have signed an MOU, along with the federal government and the city of Delta — to deal with that MOU.

J. MacPhail: What are the financial commitments? Is there a mortgage held? Is the province assisting in raising funds?

Hon. B. Barisoff: We own a piece of it, and the GVRD and the city of Delta own a piece of it. Covenants are put onto that land to cover off the interests of all parties.

J. MacPhail: Can the minister tell me whether this statement is true or not? The new mortgage will be for a five-year term and will bear interest at a rate to be fixed at the closing equal to the rate set on the most recent issuance of debt in the province's domestic debt issuance program.

J. MacPhail: Has the province made any commitments outside of the purchase of this land but related to the purchase of the land? For instance, the construction of a cloverleaf-style overpass at 72nd Avenue and Highway 91.

Hon. B. Barisoff: Partnerships B.C. did the negotiations. We're not aware of anything, but we'll certainly check into it. If there is anything, we'll pass it on to you.

J. MacPhail: The memorandum of understanding — I assume that was what was signed today. That's what the Premier said on February 7, that it's not done until it's done. Let me just quote him exactly.

Oh, I am quoting him exactly: "Officially, the parties have signed a non-binding memorandum of understanding which Campbell said means 'This is not done until it is done.'" So what has changed? That was February 7, 2004. I assume, then, that the final agreement has been signed and that's what the announcement was about today.

Hon. B. Barisoff: The MOU was part of the original — well, how the deal would be made. In the last three days, the property purchase was actually made. The deal has actually gone through and gone through to land titles.

J. MacPhail: Okay. So the memorandum of understanding is signed, and that's the legal document that led to the land titles. Is that a public document — the memorandum of understanding?

J. MacPhail: Okay. That's good. I'm requesting a copy of the memorandum of understanding, please. Oh, Madam Chair, that also includes any corollary agreements or commitments made outside of the actual purchase of the land.

For instance, I'm curious about…. There was a rumour floating around that the province would commit to this cloverleaf overpass. I'll read what I was told into the record. I'm just looking for fresh information that would discount this: "The province will agree to construct a full cloverleaf-style overpass at 72nd Avenue and Highway 91 and will also be responsible for providing access to the 400-acre parcel from the South Fraser perimeter highway."

That's, of course, the parcel of land I've been talking about. This document calls it 400 acres; I'm saying it's around 500 acres, but it's the same parcel of land. Any commitments of that nature I would appreciate, Madam Chair.

I'm going to get into some general questions about the ministry, but I have a particularly important issue of concern that involves little kiddies going to camp. I'm just going to read it into the record to see whether there's time that this can be changed. It's about park fees raised by this government.

There's a camp called Camp Fircom — F-i-r-c-o-m. It's run by a non-profit society. It's located on Gambier Island in Howe Sound, and it has its roots in the downtown east side of Vancouver. The camp began as an outreach program for the First Presbyterian Church, now the First United Church, between the church and community services, which is a forerunner of Social Services that then became the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

Eighty years later, Camp Fircom continues its unique ministry through its full summer program of camps for youth, children and families. They've maintained their long-term link to the United Church, but Camp Fircom has really grown its ministry by offering opportunities for this camp to a broad community of people.

Today there are people from diverse backgrounds that participate at the camp: campers, leaders, staff, board and committee members as well as financial supporters. Money raised is mainly through camp fees and donations, and that provides the funding required to run the camp as well as financial support to those requiring it. Those camperships allow those who would not otherwise be able to go to camp a chance to be at Fircom without anyone, not even the program staff, knowing that they are subsidized. As a result, the camp welcomes many children from all over the lower mainland who have never had a chance to go to camp or explore the wilderness.

Until recently, the camp had a very good relationship with the Ministry of Children and Family Development and the Ministry of Human Resources, which would provide summer camp fees for poor children. That has, of course, been hugely cut back by this government.

Here's the nub of the matter. Each week, the campers at Fircom would go on out-trips. Out-trips are where they go for overnights away from the camp. That was a key attraction. Those out-trips offer an opportunity to hike or canoe to a prearranged destination. The trips range from one-night sleepovers, nearby, to longer and more challenging island expeditions. On each out-trip, a group of campers, leaders and staff take a couple of tarps, some rope, a Coleman stove and a bin full of food to set up camp and enjoy the wilderness.

Throughout the camp's history, there have been a series of destinations the campers have visited over the 80 years. However, recent logging activities have reduced the number of sites the camp can use. Now the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection has made the restriction on available sites even worse. The problem grows. In May 2003 this government revamped the fee structure for B.C. Parks. Their revamping of fee structures, for the very first time, put a camping fee on Halkett Bay, which is a small park near Camp Fircom — the first time ever. Halkett Bay is just a 45-minute hike from Camp Fircom. It was the perfect destination, and it was free for 80 years. The camp was perfect because it's a camp that uses all of its resources to get underprivileged kids to go to camp. Now Camp Fircom must pay $5 per person, per night to camp overnight at Halkett Bay.

Halkett Bay, as I understand it, is not a maintained camp area. There's an outhouse and a clearing and maybe a picnic table, but it's not maintained. If two groups of kids — they call the groups "cabins"…. If two cabins of kids, four leaders and two staff stay one overnight at Halkett Bay now, it costs $130. For a two-nights out-trip, the price tag is $260, which exceeds the amount of money this not-for-profit organization raises to send one child to camp for the whole period.

Over the whole summer, the cost to do out-trips to Halkett Bay has skyrocketed. As a result, Camp Fircom, with its 80-year history, has been forced to abandon one of its most treasured traditions. Halkett Bay and the surrounding area have been cut off from the kids. We got this information, and I checked to see if, indeed, there is a fee at Halkett Bay. Yes, there it is on the minister's own website: Halkett Bay, backcountry camping, $5 per person per night. Halkett Bay charges for mooring and dock facilities as well.

Can't the minister please see his way clear…? I mean, this is like taking money out of poor people's pockets.

Hon. B. Barisoff: First of all, we have some of the most beautiful parks in all of the world, particularly here in British Columbia, in North America. The recreation stewardship panel had recommended that we had to go to somewhat of a cost recovery in some of the parks so that we could maintain them. This is a back-

country park that was assessed a minimal fee so that we could maintain the facilities that are there.

The member is probably well aware that when we took office, we took it on the basis of some fiscal responsibility. We have balanced the budget, and we're certainly looking at being able to do more things in more areas. We have a number of parks throughout the province, and we certainly want to make sure we have a certain amount of revenue that's gained from them so that we can maintain those parks in the manner the people of British Columbia would like to see them.

J. MacPhail: When the minister took over as government, they claimed they had a big fiscal challenge, but poor kids weren't paying park fees. Poor kids weren't being denied to go to campgrounds that previously had been free, so I'm not exactly sure that's the kind of fiscal situation the government wants to "clean up." How many other parks that are back-country parks are not maintained? They're not maintained. How many other back-country parks were assigned camping fees, overnight park fees for the very first time in May 2003, or under the regime of this government?

Hon. B. Barisoff: We don't have that information, but we'll certainly get it for you. We'll get you the list of all the back-country parks that were assessed fees.

J. MacPhail: Okay. Well, I'm going to be spending a lot of time on parks, so is it that I'm out of order here or something? I mean, I'm surprised that information isn't available. I'll be spending a lot of time on parks. I'll wait. I'll do it later so that the minister can get this information.

Tell me: when the minister heard the story I just recounted, is that really his response? Would he not accept a challenge to look into this, to see about Camp Fircom, an 80-year-old camp allowing underprivileged kids to go to camp and that they now can't visit Halkett Bay? Will he look into it to see whether there's any resolution to this problem?

Hon. B. Barisoff: In fairness to the member opposite, I certainly will commit to looking into it, but I want her to understand that we have many requests like this from different groups that use the parks throughout British Columbia. We're trying to put the parks system on a sound financial footing. I'll certainly look at the impact it has had on the group that she indicated.

J. MacPhail: Yeah, when the minister started off by saying we have some of the best parks in the world, you bet we do. We were one of the first provinces in a country to commit to protecting the amount of land that the Brundtland report recommended. It was a huge plus around the world for our tourism industry.

I note that tourism industry returns under this government have plummeted, absolutely plummeted, in proportion to the rest of Canada — so we can't use the 9/11 scare. In proportion to the rest of Canada, tourism has plummeted, and it does seem to me a bit of an unusual concept — fiscally unusual, business-wise unusual — that a government would claim they have to balance their budgets on the backs of poor kids going to camp, impoverished kids going to camp, and at the expense of one our best economic assets, which is tourism.

Anyway, I do appreciate the minister looking into this. I would appreciate a written response.

My general questions will start with the service plan. I note that the mission of the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection is to "provide leadership and support to British Columbians to help them limit the adverse effects of their individual and collective activities on the environment, while fostering economic development and providing recreational opportunities." I was looking for that in the context of the minister's opening remarks and tried to pay attention, but maybe I missed it. How does the minister aim to fulfil this mission over the next year?

Hon. B. Barisoff: If I could refer the member to page 9, in the second paragraph, and I can read this into the record:

J. MacPhail: I guess I'll just proceed to ask detailed questions on that paragraph, because that doesn't in any way answer the question around the mission. The mission statement is about leadership and support to British Columbians, and it talks about limiting the adverse effects of their individual and collective activities on the environment while fostering economic development and providing recreational opportunities. I'll just go on the basis of individual questions, because that doesn't answer it.

I notice in the '04-05 estimates that there are 924 FTEs for the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. How much of a decrease is that from '01-02?

J. MacPhail: Does the minister want to give me those numbers? My '01-02 estimates had the number of employees, FTEs, at 1,298.

Hon. B. Barisoff: My apologies to the member opposite. I gave the figures from last year to this year. The number she was using was 1,298. As she can see, it's 924, so it's 374.

J. MacPhail: Okay. I calculated that as about a 29 percent cut from when this government took over. The service plan for '04-05 doesn't talk about where these FTEs are distributed. Could the minister please break down for me how these FTEs are distributed across the ministry?

Hon. B. Barisoff: Was the member asking for…? If she has asked for what's in '04-05, there are 334 people in environmental protection, 323 in environmental stewardship, 151 in park, fish and wildlife recreation….

Hon. B. Barisoff: Okay. Environmental protection, 334; environmental stewardship, 323; park, fish and wildlife recreation, 151; executive and support services, 116 — for a total of 924.

J. MacPhail: How has environmental…? I'm particularly interested…. I'm not going to go into detail about executive support, but what have been the changes in staffing in environmental protection, environmental stewardship and park, fish and wildlife from '03-04 to '04-05? I am asking just from the previous year to this year.

Hon. B. Barisoff: In '03-04 environmental protection stayed the same. It's at 334. Environmental stewardship was at 356; park, fish and wildlife was at 172; and executive and support services was at 141.

J. MacPhail: With these cuts in staff…. Of course, that's just from last year to this year. We do know that there is now an overall 29 percent cut. What is the ministry doing to meet and fulfil its mission in light of these reductions in staff?

Hon. B. Barisoff: We actually shifted to setting standards and monitoring outcomes. We actually empowered professionals, and we've entered into a number of partnerships.

J. MacPhail: Could the minister identify the partnerships that compensate for this reduction?

Hon. B. Barisoff: We entered into working relationships with the GVRD, independent forest companies, forest professionals, park managers, professionals — all kinds of different professional groups that are out there that can do a lot of the work on the ground.

J. MacPhail: Let's look at the environmental protection budget. I'm looking at "Environmental Protection," vote 38, ministry operations, page 159. That's of the Estimates, the supplementary estimates. The environmental protection budget is going from $23.326 million this fiscal year ending to $15.67 million for this upcoming fiscal year. I calculate that as a decrease of about one-third. What is the possible justification for this dramatic decrease in environmental protection?

Hon. B. Barisoff: On the environmental protection side there was a decrease of $3.3 million in a number of programs, including flood hazard, integrated pest management and Environmental Management Act policy and regulations.

J. MacPhail: I'm sorry. Does the minister have some information that I don't have? My number says it went from $23 million-plus to $15 million-plus. That's what the vote says.

Hon. B. Barisoff: A lot of the statutory amendments were done in the last two years, so that area didn't need as much money to continue on to do the things that had to be done.

J. MacPhail: Are those statutory amendments in effect yet? Have they been proclaimed and put in on the ground? Are they operational?

Hon. B. Barisoff: I don't know whether the member actually has this, but the environmental protection fund is actually…. She said it was $15.67 million, but the sustainable environment fund that actually puts money back into it is at $35.705 million. It is actually down only the $4 million that I indicated.

J. MacPhail: That's a special account. The sustainable environment fund special account is a special account. Perhaps the minister could tell me, then, if indeed he's claiming that the cuts aren't that bad because they put more money into the sustainable environment fund special account, what moneys were spent out of that special account in '03-04?

Hon. B. Barisoff: Expenses represent a transfer of the ministry's vote for administration; the development of policies, legislation and regulations standards; criteria for discharges and emissions monitoring; an understanding and receiving environment; education and encouragement of activities to prevent pollution; waste reduction; laboratory services; air and water quality cleanup of contaminated sites; special waste management; soil and water remediation projects transferred to local governments; other organizations and individuals to assist in waste management; cleanup of con-

taminated sites; and to support the various environmental protection initiatives.

J. MacPhail: This is estimates. I'm wondering whether I could have some specifics — I can actually read the binder as well — about what the actual expenditures were. You see, what I'm trying to figure out here, Madam Chair, is: who's in charge of environmental protection? Is it being managed out of the special fund account, or is it part of the core operations? Maybe some actual specifics would help.

Hon. B. Barisoff: I'll get a complete breakdown for you, but some of them are the tire program, the battery program, the product stewardship program and the air quality monitoring. We'll certainly get a complete breakdown for the member opposite of exactly where that's been.

J. MacPhail: Okay. You know, I've been on both sides of this, and I'm constantly amazed at how many ministers say to just the two of us here: "We'll get you that information." I mean, that is what this discussion is about.

The reason why I'm asking this question is because if the government transfers money into the special fund account and says, "Oh, don't worry. The money was transferred from base operations into special fund accounts, so it's not a cut," and they're not spending money out of that fund, then it makes no matter. It's a bookkeeping entry. That's all.

Let's just assume, then, that it's a $3 million-plus cut. What's the ministry doing? Is the ministry saying that the results-based regulations they're putting in, where there's no compliance or enforcement by the ministry until someone finks, save money?

Hon. B. Barisoff: First of all, I take exception to the fact that the member would think we'd wait until somebody finks on somebody.

Staff in this ministry work very hard, and they do a very good job. They look after the compliance side of it, and they do that monitoring on a continuous basis. For the member opposite to indicate that these things aren't being done, that we simply wait until somebody phones in and says, "This is what's happening," is totally uncalled for. It's a discredit to the staff that we have working in this ministry.

J. MacPhail: Then, the minister has the perfect opportunity to explain to me how it works with $3 million less.

Hon. B. Barisoff: Probably because the staff are working harder. They're doing a good job. They all understand the fiscal responsibilities that take place in this government, that we were focused on health care and education. The staff are working a heck of a lot harder than they probably have in years in the past, but they're doing a good job. They're doing the things that they have to do. I think that they've all bucked up to do the extra work that has to be done, and it's being done.

Could the minister explain to me how it works on the ground with $3 million less? That was my question.

Hon. B. Barisoff: We work together with industry. We allow them to put together plans at the front end. We work with them, and we monitor them on a regular basis. That's the way we're able to work with $3 million less.

J. MacPhail: Madam Chair, I'm not on a fishing expedition here. There's been a substantial change, at least in how the business community views this government. This is a presentation that was made by Jock Finlayson, a man for whom I have great respect. He's the executive vice-president of the Business Council of British Columbia and is often called upon to comment on the government. They have a very close working relationship — fair enough — with the government. He made a presentation February 3, 2004, to a Blake Cassels and Graydon seminar in Calgary, Alberta. It's called Update on B.C. Policy, Environment and Energy Sector.

Here's what it says about "Provincial Cabinet Update." I'd be happy to give the minister a copy of this whole presentation. It says: "Several ministers dropped; others shuffled — January 26. No change in most of the lead portfolios. Richard Neufeld remains Minister of Energy and Mines. New Ministers of Water, Land and Air Protection and Sustainable Resource Management likely to be more business-oriented."

I just wondered…. That's coming from a person who's being paid a lot of money to give advice on what's happening in British Columbia. It's said by a man, again, for whom I have great respect but who is close to this government. That's his assessment. It's on that basis that I'm trying to figure out an assessment that a minister is going to be more business oriented, which is hard to believe, yet he's responsible for environmental protection. He also has $3 million less to spend on environmental protection.

Let me ask for one example of a change in regulation from compliance and enforcement to results-based that leads to less cost — just one example.

Hon. B. Barisoff: In integrated pest management, where people used to have to do anywhere up to five, ten, 15 or 20 different plans, we now allow them to do one plan. It encompasses the whole thing, and it then makes it more cost-efficient for them and much more cost-efficient for staff to be able to monitor.

J. MacPhail: From the integrated pest management division the government is saving $3 million. Is that what the minister just said?

Hon. B. Barisoff: The collection to all of the way we do business adds up to an accumulated amount of $3 million.

J. MacPhail: Does the minister have any idea what the breakdown is in the savings of those cost reductions, or were they told by the Minister of Finance to do an across-the-board cut and they complied? It's no wonder Jock Finlayson is saying that the new minister is more business friendly.

Can he answer the questions, or did he just do what he was told without regard for the consequences?

Hon. B. Barisoff: We made our cuts where we thought they were most cost-effective and wouldn't affect the environmental centres of the province.

J. MacPhail: Let me have a chance to see whether the minister can give some positive detail. The appropriation for environmental stewardship has increased by 15 percent. Why?

Hon. B. Barisoff: It actually hasn't increased. There was a mistake in the blue book. The variance has actually gone down by $671,000.

J. MacPhail: Sorry, Mr. Chair. I was actually sincerely offering the minister an opportunity there. Could the minister then please cite me where the error is? I'm looking at page 159 of the supplementary estimates, vote 38. Could the minister please give me the exact figures for '03-04 and '04-05?

Hon. B. Barisoff: Sorry; it wasn't a mistake in the blue book. It's just the way it was laid out, the environmental stewardship — people work in both sides — and the recreation side. Environmental stewardship is $45.08 million, and recreation is $25.523 million. It's just the way they distribute it in the blue book.

The total in '03-04 was $71.274 million, and in '04-05 it's $70.603 million, so it actually went down $671,000.

J. MacPhail: You know, I've spent a lot of my life managing these books, and I'll tell you, this year it's extremely difficult.

I'm looking at page 159 of the supplementary estimates. There's no reference to $23 million anywhere, so could the minister please look at page 159 of the supplementary estimates. Under "Environmental Stewardship" it says: voted appropriation, $39.234 million in '03-04 and $45.08 million in '04-05. What are the real figures?

Hon. B. Barisoff: If the member's looking at environmental stewardship and park, fish and wildlife recreation, they're two separate areas, but they actually work under one. If you take the figures from both and add them together, that's where you get the $70.603 million for '04-05.

J. MacPhail: Okay, so there's been a cut between…. In fact, there's nothing in this minister's budget that has gone up except his minister's office. Is that correct?

J. MacPhail: Well, let's just start then. Why did the minister's budget go up when everything else was cut?

Hon. B. Barisoff: It's a small increase, but it just reflects the actual numbers that were in there, that were actually being spent. It's $17,000.

J. MacPhail: So when the minister goes over budget, there's no penalty for it. There's not even a penalty. He actually gets it recognized in his next budget. Isn't that interesting.

I'm wondering if the environmental protection branch…. Can they just spend according to what's needed, and will the minister acknowledge that in next year's budget too?

J. MacPhail: Well, I'm not sure. I'm going to have to report the minister to Jock Finlayson. While the minister may be business-friendly in his attitudes, he's certainly not business-smart in terms of managing his own office. He overexpends, and then he just budgets for it. He just puts it in the book. Well, that's great. That's a really great signal.

The environmental stewardship budget — which includes park, fish and wildlife recreation — also includes management of parks. What's the actual budget for management…? I'll read it here. It says: "Management of special areas, including provincial parks." What's the budget for that?

Hon. B. Barisoff: In headquarters in '03-04 it was $1.6 million. The overall subtotal was $39 million.

We're guesstimating, because we don't appropriate that way, but it's probably about one-third of that.

J. MacPhail: If the government is making the maintenance of parks "cost recovery," how can they do that without knowing what that cost is?

Hon. B. Barisoff: We're not doing cost recovery on individual parks. We're actually dealing with park, fish and wildlife recreation. As those costs come into being, we're delving them out in all the areas — whether it's park, fish and wildlife recreation.

J. MacPhail: I'm sorry. Cost recovery across all environmental stewardship is the goal of this government? Then tell me how one determines cost recovery?

Let me go back to the budget. The $70 million figure, then, that's environmental stewardship and park, fish and wildlife recreation — that will be cost-recovered?

J. MacPhail: Which includes parks. So what's the budget for '03-04 for management of recreational services? I assume that's what's being cost-recovered.

J. MacPhail: How much is the government right now collecting in cost recovery fees in recreational services?

J. MacPhail: What's the business plan to fully cost-recover? Will there be future increases in park fees, recreational site fees? What's the plan?

Hon. B. Barisoff: There are actually no plans to increase those fees, but we're certainly hoping for a better tourism year than we've had in the last couple.

J. MacPhail: Is the minister saying there is no plan to increase the fees in this fiscal year coming up, '04-05?

Hon. B. Barisoff: We're in the middle of implementing some, which are reflected in the total there of $21.881 million.

Hon. B. Barisoff: You asked for the figure for '03-04. The projected figure for this year is $21.881 million.

J. MacPhail: Good. Where is the $3 million increase going to come from? Is it an expansion of use, or are there new fees to be implemented in '04-05? Mr. Chair, if there are new fees that came in at the end of '03-04, could he tell me about those? Could he just come clean about where the $3 million extra revenue is coming from?

Hon. B. Barisoff: It'll be a combination of increased use and increased fees.

Hon. B. Barisoff: The only one that's been announced so far is the hunting. We're in consultation with other groups. They'll be announced in the next little while.

J. MacPhail: I have one general question for the minister before we leave this area. What practices does his ministry — minister's office, operations around the province — promote in terms of environmental stewardship? What office practices, operational practices?

Hon. B. Barisoff: We do recycling. We do bike riding. We do composting. We do the lights on a conservation basis. They do van pooling. That's what they do in my ministry.

Hon. B. Barisoff: We do recycling. We do the lights. I walk to work every day. That's part of it. We don't do van pooling, but I know my ministerial assistant walks. I guess we do those kinds of things.

J. MacPhail: Is there a specific program to promote green practices in the ministry operations?

Hon. B. Barisoff: If you had the opportunity to visit our offices, you would see that the culture that exists with ministry staff is certainly towards green environmental practices.

J. MacPhail: Well, I'm sorry. I don't. I'm too busy right now. Is there a protocol? Is there a policy? Are staff oriented toward some policy of green practices? Is there something in writing for people to follow?

Hon. B. Barisoff: We don't have a policy. It's something that hasn't been there. I guess there hasn't been a policy there for ten years, but my understanding is that for the last ten years they have practised green sustainable environmental ways of doing things.

J. MacPhail: Well, it would be interesting to see what the changes in practices have actually been in the

Hon. B. Barisoff: We use vehicles that are appropriate to what has to be done wherever it might be in the province. We certainly have gone to a lot smaller vehicles where it's applicable.

J. MacPhail: Is the minister saying he doesn't have a vehicle that he uses in his life? I think that's great if that's the case.

Hon. B. Barisoff: No, that's not true. I have a car that my wife uses, and I have a pickup truck that I use.

I'm going to ask some general questions on biodiversity now. What is the definition that this minister uses for biodiversity?

Hon. B. Barisoff: Biological diversity: species management and habitat management.

J. MacPhail: Sorry. That's the definition the minister uses? Now, I understand the minister is new to his portfolio, but he is responsible for biodiversity. I'm wondering: is that…?

Well, let me read into the record what it says describes biodiversity in British Columbia on this minister's own website. It says that biodiversity is "life in all its forms and the habitats and natural processes that support life." It then goes on to note:

Hon. B. Barisoff: I gave you the programs, and you just read out the definitions, so it saves me doing it.

J. MacPhail: The latest Forest Practices Board report, entitled Implementation of Biodiversity Measures under the Forest Practices Code — Implications for the Transition to the Forest and Range Practices Act, has been recently published. Of course, the reason why they're doing this is because the government is revamping the way forest management is conducted in this. They're moving from a compliance and enforcement model to a results-based code. The Forest and Range Practices Act is the new method by which this government will manage biodiversity.

The report found that the future of the government's biodiversity strategy is not clear. They referred specifically to the Forest and Range Practices Act, saying it was not clear. Madam Chair, so that the minister doesn't feel like he has to mention this, I claim full responsibility for my government. The report focuses on the period from 1995 to 2003, and it found that during that entire time, the government's biodiversity strategy under the Forest Practices Code was applied unevenly.

What my questions are based on…. Given the fact that they made that declaration and that the Forest Practices Board has also declared that the government's biodiversity strategy under the Forest and Range Practices Act is not clear, I'm wondering what the minister has to offer that will implement any of this report's recommendations and what his view is on the effect of the Forest and Range Practices Act on biodiversity.

Let me just go through one of the recommendations. One of the recommendations is that the Water, Land and Air Protection ministry coordinate "a review of the biodiversity strategy, including an evaluation of the science behind it, and revise the strategy where necessary."

Hon. B. Barisoff: The new Forest and Range Practices Act has just been brought into effect. We're working on our biodiversity plan over the next 18 to 24 months so that we can see what happens with the new Forest and Range Practices Act.

J. MacPhail: The minister is taking 18 to 24 months to put in place a biodiversity plan? Well, that's too late. That's ridiculous.

Let me ask the second part — the second recommendation. "The Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection should clarify how proposals for wildlife habitat areas will be considered and prioritized after the 1 percent policy cap has been reached."

Hon. B. Barisoff: We have a range of biodiversity things that we're doing in this ministry with parks and protected areas, land use plans, old-growth forests. We have a good working relationship with the Forest Practices Board. We'll be working with them. We'll be working with the new Forest and Range Practices Act. This is a process. We have a good base where we're coming from, and we hope to improve that over the months to come.

J. MacPhail: That's not what the Forest Practices Board says. It says that the application of biodiversity policies has been uneven over the past nine years. So they're not saying that.

I'm wondering; 18 to 24 months is a long time. The board recommends that the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection should coordinate a review of the biodiversity strategy, including an evaluation of the science behind it, and revise the strategy where necessary. Is that what the minister is going to take 18 to 24 months to do?

Hon. B. Barisoff: I think that's why the new Forest Range and Practices Act was brought into effect. Prior, the indication was that it was spotty, so with the new Forest Range and Practices Act, we hope to start to address these inequities.

J. MacPhail: Okay. Let me be very specific. What is the minister doing about setting up a review of the biodiversity strategy? The next 18 to 24 months — okay. What's the budget? How many staff? Who's heading it up?

Hon. B. Barisoff: We have a staff in the biodiversity branch of 50, and it's headed up by Bruce Morgan.

J. MacPhail: These are pretty straightforward questions. I'll tell you, I'm not being left with one iota of confidence that this minister is doing anything about the biodiversity strategy. What are his plans to conduct an evaluation of the science behind the biodiversity strategy? What has he got in the works?

Hon. B. Barisoff: We have research on risks to biodiversity, gap analysis and biodiversity protection, research projects on species and habitat.

J. MacPhail: The time line for completion of those projects — the three of them.

Hon. B. Barisoff: Those are examples, and they're ongoing. We expect that over the next year to two years we'll bring those to completion.

J. MacPhail: A fourth recommendation of the Forest Practices Board in relationship to the implementation of the new Forest and Range Practices Act is that the government should ensure there is a program in place to store biodiversity information digitally that is readily accessible for managers and auditors. This responsibility is with the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, but the biodiversity information is with the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. How is the coordination going on?

Hon. B. Barisoff: We have a service agreement with MSRM, and they deliver to us as needed.

J. MacPhail: I'm sorry. This was a recommendation that there be a new digitally kept information bank of biodiversity information. "The ministry should also ensure" — this the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management — "that there is a program in place to store biodiversity information digitally." I'm not quite sure how the minister's answer explained that. Maybe he could repeat it in a way that answers that recommendation.

Hon. B. Barisoff: MSRM are working on that. When their estimates come up, you should probably direct that question to them. As they develop it, we take advantage of it.

J. MacPhail: The minister is certainly aware that the northern spotted owl is the most endangered bird in Canada. Some are suggesting that there are about 25 pairs left. Since 1997 the government of B.C. has had a spotted owl management plan. I have got information from this ministry about that. Is it this management plan that is guiding the government's approach to the northern spotted owl conservation?

Hon. B. Barisoff: Actually, we're still waiting for the plan. We're expecting it by the end of March.

J. MacPhail: I got this from the ministry's website. It's called Northern Spotted Owls and their Management Plan. It's from the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. It's been on the website for almost a year. It talks about spotted owl management objectives of the plan. It has a primary goal of special resource management zones. What is this, then?

Hon. B. Barisoff: That was the original plan. That spotted owl recovery team is now working on the recovery strategies, so they're working on the next phase of that plan.

J. MacPhail: Perhaps the minister could tell me how the next phase is being discussed, put together and brought to fruition. What are the basic components of the next stage, as he describes it?

Hon. B. Barisoff: We are still waiting for the recovery team that's made up of scientists and people from our staff. We certainly wouldn't want to prejudge what was going to be brought forward from the recovery team. When we get that, then we'll be able to assess what that is and then work together with them to find

J. MacPhail: Perhaps the minister could just explain to me what the recovery team is. Could he tell me what that is?

Hon. B. Barisoff: It's a team of scientists from B.C., Canada, universities and the industry.

J. MacPhail: They're planning the next steps for the next part of the northern spotted owls and their management plan. The recovery team is doing the work that will carry on to the next phase. Is that what I understand? What's the budget for that team? How much is the B.C. provincial government contributing? What's the time line for completion?

Hon. B. Barisoff: We actually don't have the exact figures on the breakdown for what the budget is for the recovery team, but we certainly can get you those. We're expecting that the recovery team will have its program to us by sometime near the end of the month or the middle of next month.

J. MacPhail: I'm curious as to what the budget is, because in 2003 this government eliminated the funding for the monitoring of the spotted owl and provided the spotted owl recovery team, the body we're just talking about, with only 3 percent of the funds they requested. Is the government considering restoring the monitoring funding for the recovery team, given that it seems the recovery team is going to be the one doing the next steps of protection of the northern spotted owl's habitat?

Hon. B. Barisoff: We actually provide one chair and two team members, and the overall budget in my ministry is $2.35 million for the recovery teams.

J. MacPhail: Sorry, the recovery team's budget is $2.3 million that is funded by the ministry?

Hon. B. Barisoff: For all the recovery teams for all species in the province.

J. MacPhail: The minister has just said that he will get the figure for the spotted owl. We are talking about spotted owl right now. I will get to a couple of other species after this.

I was reading the government's own information on the northern spotted owls and the management plan. I assume that the fact that this is still on the website…. I mean, we're not in denial about it, I hope — that this is a government document, government information. According to this information from the government's own website, logging of old-growth habitat is the principal cause of the spotted owl's decline. What is the stance of the ministry regarding the protection of spotted owl habitat, and what influence do they have with regard to logging?

Hon. B. Barisoff: First of all, it's not clear that it's the logging that's causing the impact on the spotted owl. Washington State has curtailed logging in some areas, and the decline in the spotted owl still exists. Indications they have down there are that it's because the predator factor of the barred owl seems to be eliminating the spotted owl.

J. MacPhail: Is the minister saying that there is no work being done in British Columbia to determine logging practices in relationship to the habitat for the northern spotted owl? Is this government writing off that potential link?

Hon. B. Barisoff: No. We are trying to base our decisions on science. We're waiting for the spotted owl recovery team to give us their input on what they feel is the cause of this. We're trying to base it on science.

J. MacPhail: I'm a little bit taken aback by that. I thought that was actually a given — that logging old growth was the primary challenge to the spotted owls' habitat. I mean, companies like Interfor are accepting that. In fact, the forest companies aren't logging in spotted owl habitat areas. They've accepted that. The only logging that's going on in spotted owl habitat is the government. The government is the largest logger in the spotted owl habitat. Who in the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection is working with the Ministry of Forests about government logging operations intruding on the habitat for the northern spotted owl?

Hon. B. Barisoff: Bruce Morgan, the head of our biodiversity branch, is working with the Ministry of Forests on this issue.

J. MacPhail: Let me just give a couple of issues that perhaps the minister can address. Some report that there are ten areas of habitat designation for the spotted owl. It is a Sierra Club report. I know this government has trouble with those kinds of reports. They often use every opportunity they possibly can to denigrate those organizations. Fair enough. Then all the minister has to do is stand up and provide alternative facts, or the real facts.

Sierra says that three to six of those ten areas are approved for logging. I'll just ask about one specific area. This is the zone, the Manning-Skagit Park Complex, and it is now being logged. The government has approved the logging. That is a habitat area for the northern spotted owl. Is the minister aware of this, and are his officers okay with this?

Hon. B. Barisoff: We base our decisions on good science, and I think we've got to go back to the point that we are waiting for the spotted owl recovery team to give us their report.

J. MacPhail: Let me just ask, from the government's own information: do the special resource management zones still exist?

Hon. B. Barisoff: My understanding is that the zones are still there, and they are managed by the Minister of Forests.

J. MacPhail: Fair enough. I'll just read what this minister's own website says — the Water, Land and Air Protection minister:

The Manning-Skagit provincial park is in the heart of one of these special management resource zones. The area that is being logged is part of a five-by-ten-kilometre strip that was left out of the park because of mineral claims in the area, but it's still in the SRMZ. The reason it was left outside the park was because it was at the time the governments believed that the mining companies should be allowed to explore their claim for minerals. If they didn't do that, then the land would revert to parkland.

What this Liberal government has done is they've actually allowed that area to be logged, and they're doing the road locations for the clearcut. The timber sales program has approved and planned out the clearcuts, and then they've auctioned off this critical habitat to the highest bidder. Was the minister or his predecessor or his staff at all consulted on this before this clearcutting of this habitat occurred?

Hon. B. Barisoff: It's been brought to our attention that the area in question has been surveyed for the presence of spotted owls for over ten years. No owl detections have been found in the nearby area. The nearest recent owl detections were five to ten kilometres away.

J. MacPhail: Is the minister saying that he's fine with all this? Is that what he's saying?

Hon. B. Barisoff: As long as they're logging within the guidelines of the special resource management zone, yes, it's all right.

Hon. B. Barisoff: From our indication, they are. You should check with the Minister of Forests.

J. MacPhail: No. This minister is responsible for the owl habitat. Believe you me, if this is true — that he is more business-friendly — then we've got a huge problem with him being in charge. This minister is in charge of the spotted owl management plan.

Let me ask this question: did the recovery team in charge of the spotted owl approve this logging?

Hon. B. Barisoff: We have no evidence to the contrary that they're not conforming to the special resource management zone.

J. MacPhail: Actually, I think the minister is supposed to take a little more responsibility than that.

I got this from their website, and it's updated May 23, 2003. The reason I make that point is because it uses language left over from the previous government, but it's on their website. Let me read out what it says about special resource management zones. This minister's taking a hands-off approach is extremely disturbing.

J. MacPhail: Does the minister have evidence? He says there's no evidence to the contrary. Does he have specific evidence that they are in compliance — the logging that's going on here in this SRMZ?

J. MacPhail: If his ministry is doing the monitoring and compliance, wouldn't there be a supporting report? Isn't that what monitoring and compliance is? The minister just tore a strip off me for somehow saying that things aren't being done in that fashion, so I'm asking him for the evidence, the positive evidence of monitoring and compliance, that said from his officers that this clearcut logging was okay in the context of the

Hon. B. Barisoff: We have had no reports of non-compliance. We'll certainly look into it.

J. MacPhail: I want to move to the science-based wildlife decisions as they apply to the Vancouver Island marmot. Can the minister give me an update on the government's Vancouver Island marmot recovery plan?

Hon. B. Barisoff: The Vancouver Island recovery team is in place with a nationally approved recovery plan that includes identification of the possible need for active predator management. Provisions of active predator management are a key component of most national and international recovery programs, especially those involving introductions. This situation is certainly not unique to the Vancouver Island marmots. The Marmot Recovery Foundation is mandated to secure the necessary funds to implement a recovery plan.

J. MacPhail: That's the most recent information that the minister has? Maybe I'll just carry on to ask my question in more detail.

There was an interesting story…. Mr. Chair, I admit that I come to this as an urban MLA, and I've never met a marmot. [Laughter.]

There are people of greater expertise in this area than me, but I have learned, in my wide range of responsibilities now that I never had before, the importance of these issues. I read recently that during the winter of '02-03 — it was widely reported, I guess — six golden eagles, who are protected under federal and international law, were killed on Nanaimo's Green Mountain. I guess that's the last place where the marmots live in the wild. The government gave orders to kill the six golden eagles, and I assume it was to protect the marmot. It was alleged that this information was kept secret, that the Water, Land and Air Protection ministry attempted to keep it secret — the cull; it's called a cull — and it was only discovered by accident when a scientist from the University of Victoria revealed it.

Of course, this occurred before this minister's watch, but it's only been recently reported. Was the minister of the day informed of the eagle cull?

Hon. B. Barisoff: The deputy minister and assistant deputy minister weren't here at the time, so you'd actually have to ask the minister that was previously here whether she was actually informed. I don't know whether she was or not.

J. MacPhail: There is absolutely no corporate memory of this in the ministry? Is that how much change has occurred inside this government — that there's no corporate memory left?

Hon. B. Barisoff: We'll check with the regional staff and find out who was informed about it.

J. MacPhail: Well, we do know through media reports that the Vancouver Island Marmot Recovery Foundation was not informed of the eagle cull. They, of course, are the group that's given the assignment to save the marmots. How does the ministry make a decision to allow the cull of golden eagles pursuant to federal and international law?

Hon. B. Barisoff: The decision to try to reduce the eagle numbers in 2002 was prompted by a number of past predation events, including the direct observation of pups being carried off. While golden eagles are protected, they can be removed when their presence is creating other conservation issues, as in this case. Field crews have observed an increase in frequency of golden eagle activity hunting the colonies. The most recent confirmed kill was the loss of the last breeding female on Green Mountain in the fall of 2002. She was found shortly after death. Evidence at the site indicated eagle predation.

J. MacPhail: Under what aspect of law, either federal or international, is the decision to cull golden eagles made, given…? I have no idea whether those facts are true. I accept the minister's listing of the facts. How was the decision made to cull golden eagles?

Hon. B. Barisoff: The science was reviewed based on science by scientists. They looked at the alternatives that they reviewed, and they would make a recommendation. Then the decision would be made, and that would go up to a manager to make the final decision.

Hon. B. Barisoff: It's not a requirement, but there certainly wouldn't be any thought of trying to curtail the information from somebody that was interested in it. In future, we'd certainly try to make sure everybody that was affected would know about it.

J. MacPhail: Vancouver Island's Marmot Recovery Foundation didn't know about this. I'm just trying to figure out: when we have a species that preys upon

Hon. B. Barisoff: The golden eagle population numbers are very healthy across Canada, so I guess when they probably weighed that out against the impact it was having on the Vancouver Island marmot, the decision was made to protect the marmot. I guess your question really leads to the fact that Mother Nature dictates a lot of things that happen, and in some cases where there's an overabundance of one, then it certainly affects another species.

J. MacPhail: In addition, in the vicinity of Green Mountain, which is the habitat for the marmot, five cougars were shot and 11 wolves were trapped. According to the Liberal government, 300 to 400 cougars remain on the Island, a 50 percent drop from the mid-1990s, and 150 wolves remain on the Island, a 50 percent drop from 20 years ago. Independent biologists have contested those numbers, arguing that they are much more likely lower, given that there is nothing other than a crude method of enumeration. Of course, we've gone through this issue with the grizzlies, and much progress has been made in that area.

Tell me: how does Water, Land and Air Protection estimate wolf and cougar populations on the Island?

Hon. B. Barisoff: The biologists base it on the counts and on science, and they base it on what other hunters indicate are in the areas or on what other people indicate. I know that in my particular area in the South Okanagan they actually do sheep counts so they know how many sheep are in an area. I would suspect it was done based on science.

J. MacPhail: This is coming to a head now because it's about culls. People are trying to figure out what's the best scientific information available for predator culls. I understand that the Vancouver Island wildlife division and the chair of the province's marmot recovery team…. Is it still Doug Janz? Is that who it is?

Hon. B. Barisoff: Yes, it is, but Doug's apparently retiring at the end of March.

J. MacPhail: That's fine. But he's made some comments about…. He takes a strongly held view on predator culls. In fact, he's very pro. He's an advocate of predator culls for a variety of purposes, and he's the head of the marmot recovery team. I'm just wondering how the minister ensures that Water, Land and Air Protection decisions are based on the best scientific information available, in the face of one person protecting marmots being in favour of predator culls in such a very strong way.

Hon. B. Barisoff: Predator management is part of wildlife management. In all fairness to the member opposite, Doug Janz is a wildlife manager. He's a professional in his field, and he's extremely highly regarded across the province. From my perspective, I think that when you've got somebody that's as qualified as Doug Janz, you have to take the best advice from professionals that are in the field.

J. MacPhail: When one makes these decisions, does the ministry make a scientific evaluation and put that in print? Is there something to back up the decision — scientific evidence? I mean, I understand that the ministry is going to rely on a person like Doug Janz. I don't have any expertise to question his judgment, and wouldn't, but others may.

Hon. B. Barisoff: There are other people involved when a decision like this is made. They bring it back to a scientific team that looks at it, they evaluate the information that's brought forward, and they make the decision based on science.

J. MacPhail: I was reading about this. It's a fascinating topic, and it's a big concern to people on Vancouver Island — this whole issue.

It's been reported that biologists have noted other options, including the appointment of marmot shepherds. Apparently, marmot shepherds can camp near at-risk colonies, and the production of noise from the tops of nearby mountains can be made to scare off predators. Now that seems labour-intensive. I know that all of us can say these are silly proposals. I mean, I have no idea whether they're silly proposals or not, and I claim no expertise. There are people in this world who take these matters extremely seriously. I have been convinced that we need to do so.

On the one hand, while others may mock this kind of proposal, has it been investigated and written off as option, especially when there are others giving advice who are so strongly in support of predator culls?

Hon. B. Barisoff: For the record, nobody's mocking what takes place here. We had shepherds out there, and the predation actually took place after the shepherds left. The marmot foundation has asked this year for efforts to be focused on non-lethal methods. So far, we're just waiting for an official recommendation from them.

J. MacPhail: If the minister interpreted that I was accusing him of mocking — not at all.

Is that the minister's way of saying that the marmot shepherds did work — that the predatory behaviour took place after the shepherds left? Or is the minister saying that you can't have 24-7 marmot shepherds? I'm not clear on what his answer was to indicate.

Hon. B. Barisoff: They did have the shepherds there at what they thought was the critical time that predation would take place. The shepherds, in the

wisdom of the people that were there, left, and the predation took place after that time. From that we have learned something that maybe the shepherds have to stay longer, or you expect the marmots…. I guess there's a stage where they can look after themselves or hide, or do whatever. It's something that we all learned from them, that next time shepherds would have to stay there longer for that kind of predation.

J. MacPhail: Do I take it that the ministry is investigating alternatives to predator culls? If so, how, and who is involved?

Hon. B. Barisoff: Efforts will continue to deter predators by keeping shepherds near the colonies during the summer. The ministry is also focusing on current regulated hunting and trapping seasons for wolves and cougars toward the colony areas. We are looking at ways that we can address the problem.

J. MacPhail: I'm going to move to climate change. I've got the Report of the B.C. Climate Change Economic Impacts Panel. It was a report that was completed March 25, 2003, but it was not made public. Anyway, I'll be dealing with that report, if staff want to try to track it down. It was presented to the then minister.

I just want to note for the record that some of my questions will be trying to see what the government has done, given this report and knowing that this ministry — Water, Land and Air Protection — eliminated the green economy secretariat. Of course, the green economy secretariat was set up by the previous government to reduce emissions, to promote alternative energy industry, etc. We were very much on track to meet the requirements of the Kyoto protocol, and then this government eliminated that.

The panel does state in its letter to the then minister that "the panel has been asked to pause in its activities in order to provide the government with an opportunity to review the information and advice we have provided to date." Can the minister say when the previous minister and/or ministry received the report? The report is dated March 25, 2003.

Hon. B. Barisoff: We would have received it approximately at that time, but for the member opposite's information, this file is actually now in the Ministry of Small Business and Economic Development. Andrew Wilkinson, the deputy minister, is in charge of that ministry.

J. MacPhail: I'm sorry. Climate change is in Small Business and Economic Development?

Hon. B. Barisoff: Yes, it is in Small Business and Economic Development. The reason behind that is due to fuel cell development and green energy. That's why it was transferred into that ministry.

J. MacPhail: What was transferred — everything to do with climate change? Does this minister have any responsibility for climate change?

Hon. B. Barisoff: We would be responsible for any of the environmental parts of it.

J. MacPhail: Okay, that's fine. Then I'm going to continue to ask my questions, and the minister can tell me whether I should refer them to the Minister of Small Business. It's not a good start. Of course, some of the questions are around the Kyoto protocol and greenhouse gas emissions and the reduction thereof.

What, if any, action has the government taken on this Report of the B.C. Climate Change Economic Impacts Panel?

I just want to say that while I'm reading these recommendations into the record and asking for feedback, this is not exactly a Birkenstock-wearing, hippie-like group of people — not that there's anything wrong with that by any stretch of the imagination, given my riding. I do want to read into the record who this group is. It's Bruce Sampson — he was chair of the B.C. climate change economic impacts panel — B.C. Hydro; Mike Bradley, Canadian Forest Products; Peter Busby, Peter Busby and Associates, architects; Johnny Carline, greater Vancouver regional district; Denis Conner, QuestAir Technologies; Rick Hyndman, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers; Pat Jacobson, Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority; Anne Murray, Vancouver International Airport Authority; Hugh Porteous from Alcan Inc.; John Robinson, the University of British Columbia; and Wayne Soper, Duke Energy Gas Transmission Canada. If business were looking for their own to make recommendations, this group certainly was of that.

It is with that information that I go through these recommendations. I'll try to cull out the ones that are dealing with environmental aspects. I do also note that the panel, on March 25, submitted the report and then noted that the panel had been asked to pause in its activities "in order to provide the government an opportunity to review the information and advice we have provided to date." So the report is one year old. Clearly, the government promised this panel that they were going to consider the information and advice.

The first recommendation is: "The province should develop an aggregate long-term target for greenhouse gas emission reduction, recognizing the potential for extensive technological innovation over time."

Hon. B. Barisoff: In all fairness to the member opposite, I really believe that you should be addressing these questions to the Minister of Small Business and Economic Development. His deputy minister will have the ability to give you most of those answers.

J. MacPhail: What am I supposed to do, Mr. Chair, if the Minister of Small Business and Economic Development refers me back to the Minister of Water, Land

and Air Protection? Will this minister agree to recommit his estimates on that basis?

Hon. B. Barisoff: I don't think we could reconvene the estimates, but I'll certainly make sure that if you let us know the time you're asking these questions, one of my staff will be here if they think it's pertinent to something that might be directed to us. But by and large, those questions should be directed to the Minister of Small Business and Economic Development.

J. MacPhail: What I'm saying about recommitting estimates is that we get the ministerial shuffle here. I have to tell you, I'm quite taken aback that climate change is the responsibility of the Minister of Small Business and Economic Development. A lot of people will be very surprised and shocked to hear that. However, if that's what the minister is telling me, then so be it. If that minister refuses to answer every single one of my questions about climate change, I'm going to raise holy heck. I mean that seriously.

This is an extremely important issue: climate change. I can't believe that the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection has nothing to do with this. So I'm putting people on notice. I will be moving a motion to recommit this minister's estimates on the basis of lack of discussion on an extremely important matter.

I want to actually go, then, to this presentation that Jock Finlayson made. He's the executive vice-president, Business Council of British Columbia. It's Update on B.C. Policy Environment and Energy Sector, February 3, 2004. Again, I reiterate…. He's going to accuse me of suckholing, but I have a great deal of respect for Jock Finlayson. We have worked together for over a decade, almost 15 years. It is not in any context other than to present what he presented to others that I raise these matters.

He's a good spokesperson for the business community, but I already noted from his presentation to this group in Calgary that he said that new Ministers of Water, Land and Air Protection and Sustainable Resource Management are likely to be more business-oriented. I don't think Mr. Finlayson even knew at the time that the Minister of Small Business and Economic Development was in charge of climate change.

What he shows here, from his own chart…. It's entitled "Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions in British Columbia and its Particles of M.T. CO2 or Equivalents." It shows it going up from 1970 from just a little more than 30 particles of CO2 to over 60 particles of emissions in the year 2000. Then he goes on to say: "What if B.C. adopted Canada's Kyoto target?" Here's what it says: "The current emission trend is from 51 tonnes in 1990 annually up to 70.4 metric tonnes." I'm sorry. I guess "M.T." is metric tonnes. If I'm reading this wrong, I'll try and correct the record for Hansard.

He makes this presentation: "Applied to B.C., the national Kyoto target would entail reducing emissions of greenhouse gases to 47.9 metric tonnes by 2010 from the 70.4 metric tonnes that is now forecast using business-as-usual projections. That amounts to a 32 percent reduction, equivalent to almost 90 percent of total current B.C. emissions from transportation."

He then goes on to the next chart, entitled "B.C. Policy on Climate Change and Kyoto Protocol." He notes: "B.C. opposed the Canadian ratification of Kyoto…." Then he says: "Draft action plan reviewed by cabinet last fall…." That would have been October-November of 2003. Then he notes: "B.C. government has decided to await federal developments. Action plan not yet released…." Would the minister care to comment on this?

Hon. B. Barisoff: I think that when we talk about the report, we've got to understand that British Columbia is actually way ahead of most of the other areas of the country and well ahead of most of the areas in North America in the fact that we have so much power generated from hydroelectric power.

I want to refer the member opposite to the report that she thinks should all stay in this ministry. You have green buildings. You have urban transportation. You have fuel cell development. You have green energy, research and development, new technology, forest sinks, hydroelectric power. All of these are covered under part of that blanket of climate change. I think the member opposite should know that there are many, many ministries involved. Her concerns about the fact that it happens to land in the particular ministry that it does…. It is just one of those areas he's looking after. I'm sure he'll be able to answer a lot of the questions for you because he has a thorough knowledge of it.

J. MacPhail: We'll see. Why is climate change, then, on this minister's website? "Welcome to the climate change homepage. This site is part of the water, air and climate change branch." Is there such a branch in the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection?

Hon. B. Barisoff: Yes, we do have a branch of that. They have been seconded by the Deputy Minister of Small Business and Economic Development, and they work together with them.

J. MacPhail: Okay. Mr. Chair, is this minister who is responsible for the environment saying that climate change issues are in the Ministry of Small Business and Economic Development? Who the heck is protecting our environment in this government?

Hon. B. Barisoff: Your initial question was on who was looking after the plan, who was dealing with the plan. That's where it is. That's where the plan is. We certainly still look after the environmental aspects of it, as I told you earlier.

J. MacPhail: The minister doesn't have any resources. He seconded his water, air and climate change branch to the Minister of Small Business and Economic

Development. If there are any federal meetings on climate change, will this minister even be invited?

Hon. B. Barisoff: There were two of them. They have been working with Mr. Wilkinson, and they're back in our ministry now.

J. MacPhail: Will this minister be sent by his government to federal meetings on climate change?

Hon. B. Barisoff: They haven't had any meetings in the last little while, but the meetings that were in the past were convened with the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection and the Ministry of Energy. If it happens again, the two of us will still be going.

J. MacPhail: So we have a Minister of Small Business and Economic Development responsible for climate change, and this minister is going to be the one that goes to federal meetings? How does that work for efficiency? How does that work for actually achieving stuff?

Jock Finlayson reports that a draft action plan on climate change and the Kyoto protocol has been reviewed by cabinet last fall. This minister wasn't in the portfolio, but he was in cabinet. What's the status of the draft action plan, and what is his role within it now with his new responsibilities?

Hon. B. Barisoff: The member opposite knows full well that I couldn't talk about things that happen in cabinet.

J. MacPhail: How does Jock Finlayson know then? I mean, somebody talked to him. He goes on to say: "B.C. government has decided to await federal developments. Action plan not yet released." What's so special about Jock Finlayson that he can get that kind of information and I can't?

Hon. B. Barisoff: I guess what you're doing is taking an excerpt from somebody that's made a presentation somewhere else. It's not in cabinet, and you know full well that what happens in cabinet will stay in cabinet. You're just taking an excerpt out of something that he said.

J. MacPhail: Yes, that's exactly what I'm doing. Mr. Finlayson is a friend of this government. He's also extremely professional, and I think his presentation was actually to the oil sector in Calgary. He is a person who would not make things up. This doesn't break cabinet confidentiality, unless this government is taking it to new extremes. Is there a draft action plan on climate change and the Kyoto protocol? And if the minister doesn't want to admit that, what's the government doing about the Kyoto protocol?

Hon. B. Barisoff: Still, this is a question you should give to the Minister of Small Business and Economic Development.

J. MacPhail: Wow. I honestly can't believe this. We have a minister responsible for water, land and air protection, and I can't ask him any questions about climate change or the Kyoto protocol.

Well, I guess Jock Finlayson scored. He should be paid big bucks for his analysis when he says: "New Ministers of Water, Land and Air Protection and Sustainable Resource Management likely to be more business-oriented." The whole government is more business-oriented. We don't have anyone with responsibility for the environment able to say anything about the Kyoto protocol or climate change.

In 2002 the former Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection said this about the Kyoto protocol. She said that the Premier is not opposed to the Kyoto protocol. Is Jock Finlayson wrong when he says — let me just see; I want to quote it exactly: "B.C. policy on climate change and Kyoto protocol. B.C. opposed Canadian ratification of Kyoto"?

The previous minister said: "No, the Premier wasn't opposed to it." I understand. This is Jock Finlayson's presentation. He says the government is opposed to the Kyoto protocol. What is the minister's understanding? And let me ask this: does the minister have any input into the Kyoto protocol or climate change? If he doesn't, why the heck would he be going to any federal-provincial meetings on this matter?

Hon. B. Barisoff: As I indicated before, the climate change covers a lot of ministries. It is in the Ministry of Small Business and Economic Development. They do work with our ministry. If we were going to a meeting, which usually encompasses ministers of energy and ministers of environment across Canada, we certainly would be attending and representing the province with the information that we would get from Andrew Wilkinson.

Hon. B. Barisoff: That's a decision that's actually made by Canada, and they ratified the Kyoto protocol.

J. MacPhail: Yes, but the federal government must have a certain number of provinces on board for ratification, because it's shared jurisdiction. This government has to take a position on ratifying the Kyoto protocol. Does the government have a position?

Hon. B. Barisoff: Kyoto is an international agreement, and Canada has sole jurisdiction on that.

J. MacPhail: Okay. It's only the government that looks ridiculous on this matter, not me.

The federal government has said that in moving toward ratifying the Kyoto protocol, David Anderson would consult and work and get the provinces on board. He established a framework for doing that, so provinces have to take a position on the Kyoto protocol. The federal government is requiring that.

Is it this minister's understanding that this provincial government does not have to, and will not, take a position on ratifying the Kyoto protocol? Is this government leaving it up to Ottawa to ratify the Kyoto protocol?

Hon. B. Barisoff: Again, the plan has been ratified by Canada. Individual provinces are working on the parts of it that they'll be looking at from what inputs they have from each individual province.

Hon. B. Barisoff: There are no meetings of ministers planned to date, but ministry officials have been meeting.

J. MacPhail: Well, for those who are in charge of these estimates, my estimates are going to be considerably shorter given the fact that all Kyoto protocol and climate change questions have to be asked of the Minister of Small Business and Economic Development. Somebody take note. I'm really absorbing that. I'm still absorbing that. What's the climate change budget in this ministry?

J. MacPhail: I'm taking a big risk on this next topic, Mr. Chair. It's about air quality. I just assumed that with the minister being responsible for water, land and air protection…. I hope my questions are in front of the appropriate minister.

In May of last year the ministry, along with Environment Canada, produced a report entitled Particulate Matter in British Columbia. It's dated May 2003. It says Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, so I hope I'm in the right area.

The report states that in 2001 "the federal ministers of environment and health declared inhalable particulate matter PM10 a toxic substance because of its adverse effects on human health." Further, the report states:

The report then goes on to note that the highest particulate matter levels are found in the interior of this province and that there is considerable evidence that the main contributor to the poor air quality levels in places like Prince George, Burns Lake and Smithers, among others, is the existence of beehive burners. The wood residue burner and incinerator regulation was amended in 2002 to give burner operators until the end of this year to phase out a number of burners. We see from today's website that the air quality in Burns Lake, Golden, Houston, Prince George, Quesnel, Smithers and Williams Lake is listed as poor and that the main pollutant is inhalable particles.

I was putting this in the context of the minister and the government taking such great pride in having spent over a million dollars to fight the Sumas 2 power plant in Washington State. What's he doing about showing the same determination in B.C. in safeguarding air quality — all over B.C. but particularly in the interior?

Hon. B. Barisoff: The ministry is currently in the process of putting together an improvement plan for provincial airsheds that will also meet the B.C. commitments under the Canada-wide standard agreement for PM2.5 and ozone. It will address the ongoing issues related to the current air management system and will look to the future for creative approaches to air management based on the best available science.

Hon. B. Barisoff: At present airshed plans are at some stage of development or implementation in Prince George, Houston, Quesnel, Williams Lake, the lower Fraser Valley, Victoria, Kamloops, Fort St. John, Nanaimo, Kelowna, Golden, Powell River and Vernon.

J. MacPhail: Could the minister describe one of those plans? Let's take Prince George. They've got an air quality warning this morning.

Hon. B. Barisoff: We are working with the city of Prince George and local businesses. It's not only…. It has to do with wood stove burning. It's also to do with dust on the roads. What we're trying to do is address the…. We have air quality monitors up there so we can address the problems before they get to the point where they create a bigger problem.

J. MacPhail: Okay, but it's pretty serious now. There are air quality warnings out. The regulation for reducing the existence of beehive burners kicks in again very shortly. The extension period this government brought in to allow wood burner operators…. I guess it's until the end of this year that they have to phase out a number of burners. Is the ministry planning on extending the time available for them to phase out once again?

Hon. B. Barisoff: Of the original 80 tier 1 burners, 68 actually have been shut down. There are 11 remaining. We are working with the last 11 to see what we can do. Just for the record, there are 18 burners in total in Alberta, and they're actually not due to be shut down till 2008 for the tier 1 and 2017 for the tier 2.

J. MacPhail: Well, that's why we live in British Columbia and not Alberta. Is the minister saying that will affect the airshed over into areas like Prince George and Burns Lake? I shouldn't presuppose. Is the minister committed to not extending the phase-out period for beehive burners?

This is not a partisan issue either. Our government ran into the same difficulties and had to extend the period for which beehive burners could be phased out. I don't look on this as a partisan issue; I look at it as an environmental issue. I'm encouraging the minister to say, "Enough; it's time," because the air quality issues are getting worse, not better.

Hon. B. Barisoff: I've actually been in this ministry a little over two months, and it is an issue that's coming forward as an issue that I'll be looking at.

I want to switch to another topic now: Cathedral Grove. I've read the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection response called Setting the Record Straight on MacMillan Park. That's February 9. I'm sorry; this was in response to the Western Canada Wilderness Committee news releases of February 9, 2004, and December 1, 2003. I found them interesting.

The issue about Cathedral Grove, which is in MacMillan Park, is this. Many Vancouver Island residents recently have seen the parking lot development expand at Cathedral Grove. I understand that this issue has been percolating for the last 12 years. I don't in any way want to suggest that the protection of public safety along the highway should not be our top priority. I do believe that we should examine the issue in order to clarify whether, as the minister has previously argued, "the plan location best addresses safety issues with the least impact on the environment." That's what the minister wrote on March 4 to the Times Colonist.

As I understand it, the new design for the parking lot has been shifted in order to provide an 80-metre-long wildlife corridor. Is the role of the wildlife corridor to give the elk population access to their traditional migratory routes? Is there substantial scientific evidence to show that this 80-metre-long corridor will work?

Hon. B. Barisoff: This has been an issue that has been ongoing for, as this member opposite has indicated, at least 12 years. The members opposite — the members that were elected from her party — supported the fact that we should be building a parking lot on the parcel of land that was purchased outside Cathedral Grove. It's 20 hectares of land. Two hectares would be used for the parking lot.

Based on science, we've assessed all the impacts that it would have on the elk, on the environment, and from our perspective this is a public safety issue. It's something that has to be done and should be done. We expect upwards of a million visitors there, and that road is totally unsafe. The RCMP have recommended that we do something. We are in the process of trying to protect public safety based on science, based on all the information that we've been able to accumulate. This is the best location for the parking lot.

J. MacPhail: My question was about the 80-metre wildlife corridor, and I'll repeat my question. Is the role of this wildlife corridor to give elk population access to their traditional migratory routes?

Hon. B. Barisoff: Based on science and based on our best information, what we've looked at is this is the best possible spot to situate the parking lot. When we looked at it all, we looked at the migratory patterns of the elk. We looked at all the impacts it would have. This is the best possible site based on science.

J. MacPhail: Am I asking the question in the wrong…? Could the minister in one of his answers mention the word "elk" so I know we're on the same page here?

J. MacPhail: Okay, all right. Why did the minister develop an 80-metre wildlife corridor for elk? What was the purpose of that? What's the scientific evidence that led to that? How's that?

Hon. B. Barisoff: Our regional biologists and scientists have looked at it and felt it accommodated the elk. It accommodated everything that had to be done in an environmental fashion. Again, I reiterate that this is a public safety issue, and it's something we've got to get done.

J. MacPhail: Was the 80-metre corridor established on a scientific basis? Here's why I'm asking the question. People have told me that elk avoid all contact with human activity, so I'm curious. Is the 80-metre corridor enough to have the elk avoid human activity in a very active area? That's all. Is there a scientific basis for that? I have no idea what the right answer is.

Hon. B. Barisoff: I've got to go back to the professionals that gave us the information. They indicated that this was the best option possible.

J. MacPhail: This is a bit of a futile exercise, I must say, but I'm going to keep asking my questions.

According to the minister, in his own letter to the editor on March 4 in the Times Colonist: "An independent study of this parking design has found that the potential for increased windthrow is minimal." Can the minister define what is meant by minimal? I'm just quoting his own words, Mr. Chair.

Hon. B. Barisoff: I guess it's frustrating for you. It's frustrating for me. This is a public safety issue. We had professional people — biologists…. We had profes-

sional people look at where they thought would have the least amount of impact on the elk, the least amount of impact on the environment, and we had them look at it. I had to take advice from these professional people, and this was the area that we chose.

You talk about the minimal impact of the wind blowing through. These are the professionals that looked at it and felt that whatever choices we made, you're always going to get a certain amount of something happening. This is where they felt was the best possible site.

J. MacPhail: Yes, the minister is right. I am frustrated. I have no idea why he could write a letter to the editor and then not explain what he meant. I have no idea. The minister's own study indicates that a feathered parking lot tree line — and I can visualize what feathered means — would help minimize windthrow. Is that contemplated — to feather the tree line along the parking lot?

Hon. B. Barisoff: That is quite a technical question, but I'll certainly get staff to send you that information.

J. MacPhail: Okay. The parking lot is going to be built on an area where the trees currently serve as the buffer to Cathedral Grove, so how will the buffer role be fulfilled after the parking lot is built?

Hon. B. Barisoff: This is actually two hectares out of 21 hectares, so there will be a huge buffer around the parking lot. For the member's information, when this is all said and done, we'll actually be adding to the park. This is land that's outside Cathedral Grove park.

J. MacPhail: Others have pointed out, and I've read this in some reports, that there's a location that exists across the highway from the elk forest. Elk don't cross the highway, so this location would not decrease elk habitat. The area has already been logged, and it's located against the mountain. It's out of the wind tunnel. Was this considered? Was this alternate location across the highway considered by the minister's experts?

Hon. B. Barisoff: All sites were considered, and I think that in the best interests of public safety for the travelling public, which I mentioned earlier, they wouldn't be crossing the road. You're well aware that when couples with small children were stopping on the side of the road, or if they were stopping on the other side of the road…. That is a main thoroughfare of traffic, and public safety was taken into consideration. All areas were considered. We weighed out all the possibilities and decided that based on science, based on public safety for the travelling public, this was the best possible location.

J. MacPhail: Yes, the government would have had to build an overpass. There's no question about that. They would have had to invest in some of it. Some governments choose to invest to meet the test of public safety and protection of old growth as well. This government made a choice to go on the option that didn't require the investment of an overpass.

Last December there was a tragedy there at Cathedral Grove, when two people, I think it was, lost their lives when a tree fell over and smashed their car. The initial assessments that I read pointed to the exposure of old growth trees to the area's heavy winds as the ultimate problem. That's why wind tunnels and windthrow were so important. The initial assessments pointed to the fact that there was a lack of a strong buffer zone, and that's what was initially at fault for that terrible accident. It was a freak accident that led to great tragedy.

What's the update on the investigation into that casualty? I would assume that in determining the parking lot and windthrows — and the minister saying there is minimal effect on windthrow — that this terrible tragedy must have motivated his study in some fashion.

Hon. B. Barisoff: It was a terrible tragedy, but we did have an independent assessment done on the impacts that it would have on the windthrow or the wind tunnel that was going through there. Their recommendation was that this was a good location.

Hon. B. Barisoff: We made the decision that this is the best possible location for the parking lot, and when we're able to, we'll proceed.

There were groups who have been participating in the South Chilcotin regional land use planning and have been strong advocates of the South Chilcotin Mountains Park who revealed that they believe up 15 percent of the South Chilcotin Mountains Park will be deleted in order to create special zones for mining and for high-intensity tourism. One of my former colleagues, Dr. Tom Perry, released evidence of that. He is a passionate advocate for the South Chilcotin Mountains Park, along with many, many others.

The government's own socioeconomic impact study demonstrated that the South Chilcotin Mountains have far greater value preserved as parkland than they would if mining and logging were allowed. Can the minister give me an update on the status of the South Chilcotin Mountains Park?

Hon. B. Barisoff: There's nothing like this, because land use planning is actually with the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management.

J. MacPhail: I'm actually asking about the South Chilcotin Mountains Park. The minister is saying that

the only way I can discuss that is in the context of land use planning and that that has to go to the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management. Let me ask this question then: if the government was going to reduce South Chilcotin Mountains Park boundaries by 15 percent, would this minister be consulted?

Hon. B. Barisoff: Yes, I would be consulted, but it still lies in the hands of Minister Abbott at the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management.

J. MacPhail: What's the minister's view? What's his position on the South Chilcotin Mountains Park? What is he advocating for in terms of its boundaries?

Hon. B. Barisoff: Until I've seen all the information, I certainly wouldn't be taking a position on that. Until I've had the ability to look at all the information and then make a decision….

J. MacPhail: Let me read a letter this minister wrote to the editor of the Penticton Herald February 18, 2004. I quote from the letter from this minister: "It costs money to protect our incredible natural beauty and to provide parks services…. By having businesses succeed and employing British Columbians, government can collect the tax revenue necessary to ensure the protection of our natural beauty and promotion of our parks system. Without this tax revenue and a strong, healthy economy, we would not be able to pay for the costs to maintain our environment and promote our parks system."

I read that, and I have to tell you, it wasn't a ringing endorsement of the parks from a minister who's responsible for the environment. I actually interpreted it — and the reason why I'm telling the minister this is because he can tell me I'm wrong — that these comments indicate that he believes parks are a drain on the government purse. Is that how he feels?

Hon. B. Barisoff: I think what we have to look at is a balance between the economy and the economic sustainability of our environment. That's what I said in that letter. I think we all know that if we have a good economic environment, we are actually be able to put more money into parks, because people want to see the beauty of our parks here. In the letter I've indicated that we need that balance. Parks are for people, for animals, for everybody. I think part of this is that we have to make sure we create that balance. That's what I was saying in that letter. We have to create that economic balance between having it over here and having enough money to make sure our parks are enhanced and looked after.

J. MacPhail: How much money does the parks system contribute to British Columbia's gross domestic product?

I don't want to torture the minister over this. If he has his own studies, fine. It's not a trick question. I just wondered whether they'd done that in the context of the minister's saying that it has to be a balance. You have to have jobs and job creation, and somehow that's separate and apart from parks.

A recent economic analysis shows that in British Columbia alone $521 million of economic activity is contributed to our GDP by the very existence of our parks and also that each dollar invested in our protected-areas system adds another $10 in visitor expenditures. It is an economic generator. The parks existence in our province is a huge economic generator.

The minister's predecessor wrote this in an op-ed piece dated November 26, 2003: "We will maintain the ecological and conservation role and integrity of our parks. Any new development will have to complement the natural B.C. parks experience, not detract from it. Further, any new development will be subject to impact assessment and stakeholder consultation."

Hon. B. Barisoff: The former minister was referring to the lodge strategy, and yes, we do adhere to that.

J. MacPhail: Does this minister remain committed to maintaining the ecological and conservation role of our parks?

Last year the government passed Bill 84, the Parks and Protected Areas Statutes Amendment Act, 2003, which raised concern among some citizens of British Columbia. For example, Bill 84 weakens the Park Act by no longer requiring that a park undergo classification when it's established. Previously, parks would be classified according to the purposes of the park, to which any future development must be limited.

Can this minister assure those concerned citizens that under the Parks and Protected Areas Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 development in parks will — as the Water, Land and Air Protection ministry has committed — "complement the park's recreation values and be situated so that it respects the park's wilderness and conservation objectives"? I'm quoting directly from a November 18 Water, Land and Air Protection news release. I want to ensure that with the cabinet shuffle, that remains the position of this government.

Oil and gas in parks. There's also been a lot of concern regarding oil and gas development in parks. Bill 84 does make it clear that companies may not enter or occupy parkland in search of oil and gas. I acknowledge that, but Bill 84 does not say anything on such issues as the environmental impacts of drilling operations adjacent to parks. It doesn't demand appropriate buffer zones to protect the ecological integrity of parks and

protected areas. Drilling could go on right at the entrance of parks and still have an effect on the ecological reserve. What is the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection doing to ensure that the environmental impacts of drilling for oil and gas do not harm our parks — even outside the gates, so to speak?

Hon. B. Barisoff: They do have to be 100 metres from park boundaries, but we do allow directional drilling under the parks.

J. MacPhail: Is it the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection's responsibility to ensure that even when they're drilling beyond 100 metres of the park, they monitor for any impacts on the park?

Hon. B. Barisoff: It would be up to the Oil and Gas Commission to make sure the people that are drilling there adhere to the rules and regulations.

J. MacPhail: I'm glad the minister brought that up, because it's exactly the fact that the Oil and Gas Commission is responsible for that kind of monitoring that people are concerned about. It does seem to be a little bit like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse, I have to tell you. The Oil and Gas Commission was set up by the previous government to promote the oil and gas industry — with huge success, I might say. It was a brilliant idea that's working, and this government's reaping the rewards of that brilliant plan. The Oil and Gas Commission, under the previous government, wasn't responsible for environmental monitoring, enforcement and compliance. This government put environmental monitoring, enforcement and compliance under the Oil and Gas Commission.

Last November an audit conducted by the Oil and Gas Commission revealed that almost one-third of stream crossings violated regulations, and another one-third of remote exploration sites adopted improper sewage disposal and storage practices. Does the minister just wash his hands of this? I mean, is it completely and solely the responsibility of the Oil and Gas Commission to do this?

Hon. B. Barisoff: First of all, the Oil and Gas Commission does look after that. I think it shows that they're responsible in that they reported any violations that do take place. I think we have to give credit to the Oil and Gas Commission, because they are doing a good job. Self-monitoring is working very successfully.

J. MacPhail: It's only working successfully if there's some follow-up to the violation. It's my understanding that information regarding these types of violations would be turned over to the provincial conservation officers within the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, who would then decide if tickets or court charges are warranted. Can the minister tell me if any such disciplinary actions have been taken with regard to these reported violations?

Hon. B. Barisoff: They work with the conservations officers, and if charges are appropriate, we do prosecute. If there are any that are under investigation, we couldn't comment on them.

J. MacPhail: Directional drilling means that you can set up your rig 100 metres outside the park, but you can directionally drill so that the drilling goes under the park. Is the responsibility for monitoring, compliance and enforcement still the responsibility of the Oil and Gas Commission when the direction of drilling goes underneath a park and into the park?

Hon. B. Barisoff: There is no surface disturbance in the park, so the Oil and Gas Commission is still responsible for what happens.

J. MacPhail: There is not supposed to be any surface disturbance, and there isn't with the drilling, but there could be environmental consequences to the drilling. I guess the minister is saying that's the responsibility of the Oil and Gas Commission.

Does he have any statistics about fines or penalties arising out of these violations that were found by the Oil and Gas Commission?

Hon. B. Barisoff: These are only approved after environmental assessment and all the permits have gone through. The environmental assessment of directional drilling…. If it has an impact, the Oil and Gas Commission would have that, and then we would have that also.

J. MacPhail: I understand why the minister said that, because I incorporated two issues in my standing up. I apologize if the minister misunderstood me. The violations that the Oil and Gas Commission found in terms of widespread environmental infractions are what I'm talking about. Almost one-third of stream crossings investigated by the Oil and Gas Commission this year — this was in '03 — violated regulations. Another one-third of remote exploration sites adopted improper sewage disposal and storage practices.

The minister has said that those violations are then turned over to the provincial conservation officers within his ministry. Does he have any record of follow-up in terms of enforcing against the violations — tickets, court charges?

Hon. B. Barisoff: We would have records, and if the investigations are concluded, we would certainly share them with the member opposite.

J. MacPhail: I'm sorry. I heard the minister say he would share those with me if they're concluded.

J. MacPhail: Yes? Thank you. I would request that, when they are available, please. In fact, I'd like both. I gather they're done on a calendar year, so 2002 and 2003,

please. The changes to the Oil and Gas Commission, I think, were made in 2002, but it may be that there's just the one. Actually, I'll ask for '02, but I expect they have it only for '03, because the changes occurred very late in '02.

As my last items on these estimates, I have two letters received from citizens, and I am trying to find out answers for these from whatever minister is responsible. I'm going to put them to this minister, and if he can't answer them, then I'm hoping he can direct me. This was sent to him, actually, on February 6, 2004. Sorry, I'll tell you who it's from: Rick Lenoury, on behalf of concerned Ladner residents.

That's from Rick Lenoury, on behalf of concerned Ladner residents, sent to this minister.

I can understand the concerned citizens' confusion, because Bill 48 basically says local bylaws can't interfere with certain farming aspects. In fact, it was a bill that was not welcomed at all — disparaged, actually — by local governments, because it interfered with their right to set bylaws. Here we have an example of this, and the person is worried that it's going to directly impact habitat in his community. What does he do?

Hon. B. Barisoff: I will look at the letter, and if there are any violations pertaining to us, we'll certainly look at it.

J. MacPhail: Another letter sent to the minister February 26 — so it's very recent — is from the T. Buck Suzuki Environmental Association, David Lane.

Hon. B. Barisoff: If the member can give me a copy of the letter, I'm happy to respond to it.

J. MacPhail: I'd be happy to pass this over to the minister. I'm sure we've got another copy. Thank you. I would appreciate the minister replying, and I'll be following up to see what his reply is.

W. Cobb: To the minister. We are looking at commercial activities in our parks. I'm just wondering. Has the parks operators' agreement been completed yet? Is it in the process? Or whereabouts is it?

Hon. B. Barisoff: Yes, they are in place with the park facilitators. Actually, they are forming an association so that we can work with them also.

W. Cobb: Is the scope of the uses allowed for the public now? I haven't seen anything yet, so I just wondered if that was public. I know I have some people interested in looking at what might be allowed in parks. I just want to know if the guidelines are out there.

Hon. B. Barisoff: We do have a list of the things that can be done in parks. We'll provide you with that information.

W. Cobb: Okay. At the beetle symposium last fall, federal Parks indicated that they had a process of sanitizing their parks as far as beetle infestation and what not. Are we looking at adopting that kind of a plan? I know it was fairly high on the list of what we could do to work in some of our parks.

Hon. B. Barisoff: In 2003 the parks and protected areas branch reviewed the policy regarding tree removals in parks and protected areas to provide a clearer direction for undertaking management activities. Clearer policy was required to guide activities regarding forest management as it relates to health and safety objectives, including fuel management, protecting infrastructure in adjacent protected areas, ecological restoration and forest health initiative.

The policy clearly defined how to undertake tree removals that may be necessary to meet these objectives. The policy also differentiated between tree removals as a by-product of health, safety, restoration or forest health objectives and the prohibition of commercial logging in parks, which is maintained as a new-era commitment. The policy recognizes that in some cases it's necessary to remove trees to remove fuel loads, to prevent catastrophic fire, to maintain environments such as grassland and to protect park visitors and facilities.

The policy has been supported by environmental groups, as they recognize the necessity for these tree removals to meet good stewardship objectives. The policy also was supported by the Firestorm 2003 Provincial Review by Gary Filmon as a necessary component of the provincial approach to ensure lower risks of future catastrophic fire.

W. Cobb: I would like to ask a couple of questions on fish stocking and stocking lakes. I wonder what our policy is. Why I ask is that in my area in particular there were two different cases where there were no fish in the lakes or in the streams. Basically, they were landlocked. I don't know whether it was within our ministries or whether it was federal fisheries that actually stocked this one lake and this one creek. What actually happened is it stopped production of industrial activity. The Fish Lake project is one of them. I am told, and I don't have all the information, that the Fish Lake project, which could be one of the largest copper mines in British Columbia…. There was a mitigation process in place to take the fish that were in Fish Lake, move them to another lake which had the same properties and what not, maintain those fish for the length of the mine and then place them back.

While that process was going on — the negotiations with the federal government and ourselves — somebody went in…. I understood that it was our government — the B.C. government, anyway — that actually went and stocked that lake that had no fish in it, which precluded the moving of the fish and then basically stopped the mine.

That's the reasoning for my question. I want to know what our policy is on stocking lakes that have never had fish in them before and why we would do it.

Hon. B. Barisoff: We do the assessment of the lakes through this ministry. We don't know of the particular incident, but we will find out about it. The assumption would have to be made that the assessment would have been made, and then we contract out with the freshwater fisheries who actually take the fish and put

them up into the lakes. We'll certainly investigate. "Investigate" is the wrong word. We'll certainly look into the issue and find out exactly why it happened in that particular lake. The assumption we have to make is that the assessment would have been done by this ministry, so we'll look into it.

W. Cobb: So that policy is in place, then, that we do go out and assess lakes or streams or whatever and that we would in fact stock them, even if they never had had fish before?

Hon. B. Barisoff: Only if the assessment showed that that's what we've got. Yeah.

W. Cobb: I'd like to ask a question about endangered species, I guess, and the continued stories I hear and we hear about red-listed or blue-listed species — and actually science-based. I wondered what kind of criteria, what kind of process…. I had some problems in my area with grizzly bears. When they were assessing grizzly bear habitat and rated it, basically, they took an area where there have never been grizzly bears — it's practically desert as far out as Ashcroft — and they took that whole area and counted it as part of grizzly bear habitat. Of course, the only bears that are in it are along the creeks or the rivers, but because of the huge amount of volume of land that was there, they said, "There aren't enough grizzly bears and what not," and so consequently they suggested that we needed to look at increasing the habitat or making sure that we didn't have a grizzly bear hunt or whatever.

I guess I need some assurance that there is actually some science to this, and in fact that we're not including areas that never had grizzly bears or would never hold grizzly bears anyway when they're talking about the land base that they need for their habitat.

Hon. B. Barisoff: The decisions are strictly based on science. We had the scientific panel that was actually looking at that. Decisions are supposedly based on science. I think we look at these groups as the criteria that we look at, but whenever there are incidents that different people have from different areas of the province, we like them to bring them forward. Then we can look into them and see what happened.

W. Cobb: There is a process, then, if there is a dispute like that where somebody believes that they've taken in a whole lot of area that shouldn't have been taken in? They can actually go somewhere and have it corrected?

Hon. B. Barisoff: Yes, there is a consultation process where people actually have the ability to express their views. If they miss that window, they can always express them directly to the ministry.

W. Cobb: Lastly, here is one thing that we heard time and time again as we travelled around on the land use planning. I know land use planning isn't in this ministry, but it's about management in our parks and protected areas.

I guess what we heard is that ecosystem change…. I mean, we set aside the parks and protected areas, and a lot of the reasoning for some of these protected areas in particular is to protect ecosystems. Yet it appears that there is no management regime in place. As time evolves, ecosystems change. Everything changes. Therefore, we lose these ecosystems.

One of the things we heard from those people we met with is that if we don't start managing these areas, we're going to lose them. Then we're going to have to start looking for them somewhere else. The fear there, of course, is that now that we've got this area set aside for parks and protected areas, we're looking at an ecosystem. All of a sudden, everything changes for whatever reason — maybe droughts like we had this summer. That ecosystem changes. That swamp area dries up. Whatever. Now we're looking for that ecosystem somewhere else, if we want to actually find the 12 percent that we're supposed to have in the province. But there's no way of removing the old. We start with new, and we end up with more and more protected areas.

I guess the biggest concern is to look at managing those ecosystems so that they will, in fact, be there in perpetuity.

Hon. B. Barisoff: Those are actually excellent points. It's something you should take up with the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management. That would come under his purview. If you bring it up with him, we'll certainly take it under advisement, also, and look at the directions we can take.

W. Cobb: So park management would actually come under Sustainable Resource Management, or would that not be classified as park management?

Hon. B. Barisoff: It's actually a combination of park management and land use management, so it's something that we would certainly be working together on.

B. Penner: I bring greetings to the minister from the Guide Outfitters Association of B.C., who send their regards. They're having a function tonight in Victoria. I know the minister would have liked to have been there, and that was acknowledged at the meeting there tonight.

I have one question for the minister. It pertains to the floodplain regulation and some of, I think, the unintended consequences of some legislative changes that were implemented last year. I've met with the minister and his staff about this already and spoken to him on a number of other occasions.

I'm wondering if the minister is able to provide an update for people in the Fraser Valley, in particular,

who are having difficulty as a result of some of the floodplain regulations that are currently in effect, and whether he can indicate what the ministry is planning to do to address those concerns.

Hon. B. Barisoff: The member opposite has expressed his concerns to me, and I've indicated to staff to work with him and to work with the people in the Fraser Valley to see if we can remedy the situation.

Vote 46: Environmental Appeal Board and Forest Appeals Commission, $1,895,000 — approved.

Hon. B. Barisoff: I move the committee rise, report resolutions 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