Hansard -- Tuesday, April 20, 2004 p.m. -- Vol. 23, No. 9 (HTML)


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Tributes		10227
	Ivy Granstrom
	Hon. L. Reid

Introductions by Members		10227

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		10227
	Education Services Collective Agreement Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 19)
	Hon. G. Bruce

Tabling Documents		10228
	Teachers' Collective Agreement Deletions

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		10228
	Society Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 32)
	Hon. G. Collins
	Nanaimo and South West Water Supply Act (Bill 31)
	Hon. M. Coell

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		10229
	Hydrogen highway proposal for 2010 Olympic Winter Games
	R. Sultan
	B.C. Youth Parliament
	V. Anderson
	Volunteerism in Burnaby
	P. Sahota

Oral Questions		10230
	Terms of B.C. Rail agreement with CN Rail
	J. Kwan
	Hon. K. Falcon
	J. MacPhail
	Audit involving Doug Walls
	E. Brenzinger
	Hon. G. Collins
	Hydrogen highway proposal for 2010 Olympic Winter Games
	J. Bray
	Hon. R. Neufeld
	Terms of B.C. Rail agreement with CN Rail
	J. MacPhail
	Hon. K. Falcon
	Eligibility for farm status
	K. Stewart
	Hon. G. Abbott

Reports from Committees		10232
	Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills
	B. Lekstrom

Tabling Documents		10233
	Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, annual report, 2003

Committee of the Whole House		10233
	Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 12)

Report and Third Reading of Bills		10233
	Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 12)

Second Reading of Bills		10233
	Land Survey Statutes Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 17)
	Hon. G. Abbott
	Wildfire Act (Bill 25)
	Hon. M. de Jong
	J. MacPhail
	K. Krueger

Committee of Supply		10238
	Estimates: Ministry of Forests (continued)
	J. MacPhail
	Hon. M. de Jong

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		10251
	Estimates: Ministry of Small Business and Economic Development (continued)
	J. Kwan
	Hon. J. Les
	D. Hayer
	P. Wong

Hon. L. Reid: I rise today to pay tribute to one of the province's great female pioneers. Ivy Granstrom, known as the queen of the polar bears, peacefully passed away on April 14, 2004, at the age of 92 years.

Many of you remember Ivy as the leader of the polar bear swim each January. Having participated in 75 swims since 1928, this woman has made her mark. She was a disabled athlete. She has done many, many wondrous things, left some glorious tributes and leaves behind 12 unchallenged world records. She was named British Columbia's Disabled Athlete of the Year for 1982, was made a Member of the Order of Canada in 1989 and received a lifetime achievement award from B.C. Athletics in 1997. I would ask that we pay tribute on her behalf. I know she will be missed.

G. Cheema: On behalf of my colleague from Surrey–White Rock, I am pleased to introduce 24 grade 5 students, five parents and one teacher from White Rock Christian Academy. Will the House please join me in welcoming them to the Legislature.

R. Sultan: In the House with us this afternoon is Deborah Spicer, a director of the Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver, a president of the North Shore real estate board — including the Sunshine Coast, I should say — and a former award-winning television journalist. Would the House please make her welcome.

R. Hawes: In the gallery today is Rayster Lanjit, who is a film and documentary maker from Philippines TV, along with his cameraman Julius Amar. They're here making a documentary about the differences between political life in British Columbia and political life in the Philippines and also to investigate the tourism opportunities for Philippine people in British Columbia. With them in the gallery is Joanna Bernardo, who is a Philippines student attending UBC on a scholarship, along with David Soberpiña, who is a resident of Abbotsford and has sponsored their visit here, and one of my constituents, Dan Haughian, who is chauffeuring them around our beautiful city. Could the House please make them welcome.

P. Wong: In the gallery today there are 38 young and hard-working students from Sir Alexander Mackenzie Elementary School in Vancouver-Kensington. They are led by three of their teachers: Ms. Lorraine Baker, Ms. Tracy Janze and Ms. Jean Redpath. There are also parents who are volunteering their time in assisting the students: Fred Howie, Helen Pan, Julian Luk and Julie Hicks. Would the House please make them most welcome.

K. Krueger: The government caucus received an e-mail today from the Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations, the member for Kelowna-Mission, advising that the medical tests indicate that her bone marrow transplant has been a success, and I wanted to share that great news with the House.

Hon. K. Falcon: Today in the House we are joined by Len and Laura Koski. Len and Laura Koski are the proud parents of two young daughters, Lisa and Jennifer, who used to work for me back in my private sector days. They were wonderful employees, and they've got wonderful parents. They're also joined by Laura's parents, Charlie and Jean Clayton. I had the pleasure of having lunch with them today in the legislative dining room, and I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

G. Trumper: Yesterday Mrs. Muriel McLean celebrated her 104th birthday in Port Alberni. She is known as the grande dame of the Alberni Valley. Her son was a mayor of Port Alberni before my time, as a matter of fact. Their family owned the McLean Sawmill for many, many years, and the McLean Mill is now a federal heritage site for forestry industry in British Columbia. She is a great lady. She still plays the piano, and up until the age of 97 or 98, she was still driving her younger friends around the community. I would ask the House to please recognize this great lady on her 104th birthday yesterday.

Hon. G. Bruce: I am happy to introduce a whole busload of friends from the Cowichan Valley — 45, actually. They're members of the Probus Club in the community. As an organization, it's been around for about ten years or so. They're retired professional business people, as you would know, but they're actually very busy and far from being retired. On behalf of my colleague from Malahat–Juan de Fuca, I would ask that you make them all feel very, very welcome.

Hon. G. Bruce presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Education Services Collective Agreement Amendment Act, 2004.

Hon. G. Bruce: Bill 19, the Education Services Collective Agreement Amendment Act, 2004, implements specific changes to teachers' collective agreements identified by the arbitrator, Mr. Eric Rice. In doing so, it brings consistency to the 60 local contracts and the master agreement.

Mr. Rice, you would be aware, Mr. Speaker, now is a B.C. Supreme Court judge who was appointed under the Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act in July of 2002 to determine which provisions in teachers' collective agreements needed to be changed under the Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act. Unfortunately, soon after Mr. Rice began hearings, the British Columbia Teachers Federation withdrew from the process and refused to participate further. However, finalizing the terms of the 2001 collective agreements between the teachers and the B.C. Public School Employers Association will allow the parties to begin bargaining for a new contract should they choose to do so.

I will shortly be tabling a document in the House listing the specific sections of collective agreements to be removed. I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 19 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Bruce: I seek leave to table a document entitled Teachers' Collective Agreement Deletions, which is referred to in Bill 19.

Hon. G. Collins presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Society Amendment Act, 2004.

Hon. G. Collins: I am pleased to introduce the Society Amendment Act, 2004, which amends the Society Act to simplify and streamline registry requirements for societies and update a number of provisions in the act. The amendments will simplify and streamline the forms that societies are required to file with the corporate registry. In addition, the number of filings required by societies will also be reduced.

The amendments also update a number of provisions in the act. For example, they eliminate the prohibition on the awarding of degrees and diplomas by societies, which is now governed by the degree-granting authority act. These amendments will reduce red tape for societies, streamline processes at the corporate registry and update a number of provisions of the Society Act, allowing societies to spend more of their time and resources focused on the purposes of the society and less on completing and filing forms with the government.

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

Bill 32 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Coell presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Nanaimo and South West Water Supply Act.

Hon. M. Coell: I am pleased to present the Nanaimo and South West Water Supply Act. This act reflects our commitment to and the recognition of local government autonomy. At the request of the city of Nanaimo, we are introducing legislation to convert the greater Nanaimo water district to the city of Nanaimo water supply service.

Originally formed in the 1950s, the greater Nanaimo water district served the city of Nanaimo and a number of rural communities. The water district is a vehicle for establishing a shared service. Over the last 50 years there have been many changes in the area, and membership on the greater Nanaimo water district decreased to just two members as many rural areas became part of the city of Nanaimo. In fact, today the city of Nanaimo already effectively controls the water system through its representation on the water district board and consumes the majority of supplied water.

The legislation introduced today will see a formal transfer of operations, assets and liabilities to the city and will not affect the bulk water supply in the area. This act is a response to a local government request and recognizes the autonomy and authority of that local government in this matter.

I move that the Nanaimo and South West Water Supply Act be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 31 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

R. Sultan: The Premier has announced that hydrogen power will be a hallmark of the 2010 Olympic Games. British Columbia's cluster of hydrogen technology businesses has attracted worldwide attention, and for good reason. Burn hydrogen in a bus, and water vapour comes out the tailpipe — not smelly, lung-damaging fumes. Companies such as Ballard are developing fuel cells which burn hydrogen to generate electricity which will power the electric motors which drive the wheels of those Ford Focus cars you will soon see on the streets of Vancouver.

However, before you throw away your gasoline credit card, three roadblocks must be overcome. One, where will the hydrogen come from? Methanol, natural gas, electrolysis or whatever — take your pick. Large quantities of hydrocarbons or energy are involved. It would be nice if B.C. Hydro had lots of surplus electricity for this purpose, but right now it doesn't.

Two, how will we deliver hydrogen to the customers on selected routes? The U.S. and Canadian federal governments will help finance the hydrogen highway, a string of refuelling stations from San Diego to Whistler.

Three, what about costs? Fuel cells have a ways to go on the learning curve. Meanwhile, due to the scope of B.C.'s technology, other combinations merit consideration. Westport, started by a UBC engineer, converts diesel engines to run on natural gas. They can also run on hydrogen. Presto — a hydrogen automobile engine. One of my constituents is linking up with Profile Composites in Sidney to build what they believe will be cost-competitive, composite-based, hybrid-powered "people movers" for the Olympic Games. They will have hydrogen internal combustion engines drive right into B.C. Place — no fumes.

On the question of producing hydrogen fuel using electricity, another distinguished UBC engineer, Dr. John MacDonald, founder of MacDonald Dettwiler, has made a persuasive case for large-scale electricity production from solar energy. Since Dr. MacDonald built a large global enterprise in satellite technology, I would not dismiss his judgments lightly.

One way or another, it seems clear that B.C. engineering, coupled with B.C. entrepreneurs and B.C.'s business-friendly government, will accelerate the arrival of the non-polluting car of the future — yet another spinoff of our marvellous 2010 Olympic venture.

V. Anderson: It is my honour to commend the British Columbia Youth Parliament for their contribution to the youths of British Columbia.

The B.C. Youth Parliament meets each year during the Christmas break here in this Legislature session, taking the seats of the regular legislative members for three days. They divide themselves into government and opposition. They pass legislation which is important to youth and plan projects to further fulfil their motto of "Serving youth serving youth."

Each season around 100 youths aged 16 to 21 elected by local schools and youth organizations come from across the province. This continues a tradition of over 75 years. It is part of this tradition across Canada that I myself participated in some 55 years ago in Saskatchewan Youth Parliament.

The youth also meet in regional assemblies. Recently I was privileged to serve as the Lieutenant-Governor for the lower mainland session of the Youth Parliament at the University of British Columbia. Fifty-four youth, plus alumni who support the program, met to implement provincial legislation from their last session and to respond to regional issues.

These young people undertake their own fundraising at the silent auction, which they will hold again in June of this coming year in Vancouver. They fund their own programs and particularly the Camp Phoenix summer camp. This annual camp provides opportunities for children to have a week at the lake who otherwise would not have this opportunity. The youth organize the camp, plan the programs, contact the children and provide the camp leadership.

This is not all. They also continue to commit themselves to be volunteers in community service. I commend them for the work they do in Youth Parliament.

P. Sahota: On April 24, Brentwood Town Centre in Burnaby will showcase dozens of the city's non-profit agencies and the volunteers who make valuable contributions to our society. Volunteers work tirelessly behind the scenes. They coach our children's sports teams, care for our seniors and deliver a multitude of valuable family services, all because they're dedicated to making our communities better.

It's for this reason that my Burnaby colleagues and I are pleased to be hosting Burnaby's first Festival of Volunteers. This year's theme is "Light up your life." We chose this message because it reflects both the positive changes non-profit agencies create in our lives and the opportunities that await those who choose to volunteer with them.

Many people volunteer because it allows them a chance to give something back to their neighbourhood or to their community. Organizations like the Byrne Creek Streamkeepers are a prime example of volunteers who have shown dedication and determination in the face of adversity and have won the support of the community with their Stream of Dreams.

The Burnaby Festival of Volunteers will bring a wide range of organizations and community causes together under one roof. The residents can learn about the important services that are available to them and find out about volunteering opportunities. This year's festival is jointly organized by Volunteer Burnaby, the

city of Burnaby's citizen support services, Burnaby Board of Trade, Burnaby Optimist Club, Norburn Interagency council, Stoney Creek community school, Burnaby Hospital, the Brentwood Town Centre and the four Burnaby MLAs.

I particularly want to thank my colleague from Burnaby North who is co-chairing this festival along with Bryony Hollick of Volunteer Burnaby. Both have shown exceptional leadership in making sure that we have a successful volunteer festival this coming Saturday.

On behalf of my colleagues, I would like to invite all Burnaby constituents to come out and learn how volunteers can make a difference in our community.

J. Kwan: I have some specific questions on the B.C. Rail deal. All I'm seeking from the Minister of Transportation are honest, straightforward answers. We now know the taxpayers are on the hook for a portion of the 7 percent rate reduction for shippers — this from a government and a minister that claim to have banned business subsidies. Can the minister tell us specifically how many taxpayer dollars will be spent on this subsidy to CN?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, the member opposite should be happy to know that because of hard bargaining, actually, CN offered a 5 percent tariff reduction for interline shippers. We were able to get a 7 percent reduction. That was part of the overall negotiation process we went through. I'm proud to say that we got a 7 percent reduction for interline shippers, and that's good for British Columbians right across the province.

J. Kwan: These are not difficult questions for the minister. The minister's already admitted that taxpayers are on the hook. All we want to know is how much. We need answers to these questions now and not after the competition bureau looks at the deal, because it will be too late for meaningful debate.

According to the contract leaked to the media, the government "hereby assigns to the tenant all of the landlord's right, title and interests in and under all of the assigned agreements." This sounds like a sale to me. Can the Minister of Transportation tell the public: if it walks like a sale, talks like a sale and quacks like a sale, how is it not a sale?

Hon. K. Falcon: I'll again remind the members opposite of the distinction between the term of a lease and renewal options. What happens — to the members opposite, because I know they're clearly not familiar with negotiating business deals — is that at the end of a 90-year term, the government of the day has the option. It's our option as the government of the day, or whatever the future government of the day is, to determine whether they want to continue with the current CN and B.C. Rail investment partnership, or they can bring in another railway operator if they choose, or…. I'm just thinking: would that party possibly have been in power by 90 years? I don't think so, so the government is unlikely to probably want to get back into a government-run railway again.

Let me remind the member of this, though. The benefits that she keeps ignoring, like the $135 million northern development initiative, like the $8 million that we're going to be spending on….

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a further supplementary.

J. Kwan: Clearly, the minister is still playing a game of hide-and-seek with the public. Let me tell….

J. Kwan: Actually, you know what? That's a good pointer for the Minister of Transportation. Get outside of your message box and tell the truth to British Columbians. The minister likes to make it sound like after 90 years, the government can choose to cancel the lease at no cost and just walk away. Well, not true, according to the leaked contract. It states specifically that if the government wants to end the lease after 90 years, it must purchase B.C. Rail back from CN. Can the minister tell British Columbians how much it will cost taxpayers to buy back B.C. Rail if the government wants to terminate the lease after 90 years?

Hon. K. Falcon: Flash to the members of the opposition: when you have a company investing a billion dollars to operate the rolling stock, at the end of the term, if you want to bring in a new operator, it's not at all unreasonable to suggest that they acquire the rolling stock at fair market value.

It's staggering — it's actually staggering — that they can ask these kinds of questions and have such a fundamental misunderstanding of how basic business transactions work. I guess that's why we now understand much more clearly how we got into half a billion dollars being flushed down the fast ferries, how we saw $400 million go down a failed pulp mill and how they promised smelters that never appeared. It's now becoming very evident.

J. MacPhail: Here's Liberal math. Yesterday the minister says that CN is going to invest $3.5 billion in maintenance. Well, B.C. Rail in 2002 invested $62 million in maintenance. That works out to $5.6 billion over 90 years, so CN is only investing two-thirds of what B.C. Rail would have invested, and…

J. MacPhail: …B.C. Rail's turning a profit of $60 million per year. That's how bad this government is. But yesterday the Minister of Transportation insisted that anyone who disagreed with him didn't understand basic business principles. So yesterday a Dr. Paul Kedrosky got on air — a highly educated B.C. business professor, years of experience in his field, someone who is consulted widely for his advice. Here's what he called the Transportation minister's explanation. "Magnificently bizarre" is how he…

He said the whole deal was just a sale in disguise. He said it was semantics to say otherwise. Can the minister tell Dr. Paul Kedrosky, a respected business professor, why he — Dr. Kedrosky — doesn't understand business principles? And can he point to any contract in the western world…? Can he google to see whether there's any contract in the western world that lasts for 990 years?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. It is question period, not time to make speeches. The Leader of the Opposition has gone double the time allowed for questions.

Hon. K. Falcon: I would encourage the gentleman that you're quoting to actually have a look at what the deal says. As I pointed out, it's got a 90-year term. We have the option in determining whether or not to renew the arrangement. You know, I fail to understand the challenge that member has with that.

And as far as the member's google comment, I would actually encourage the member to do a Google search, because if the member undertook a Google search, she would find that, actually, in rail transactions where there are massive capital investments, there are many other examples very similar to this.

E. Brenzinger: For several months now, a secret audit into the disappearance of hundreds of thousands of taxpayers' dollars at the hands of the Premier's friend and relative Doug Walls has been in progress. That audit has now been delivered to the government. Will the Premier release the full contents of the report today, before the Premier's spin doctors have an opportunity to do to the audit what they have tried to do to the B.C. Rail deal?

Hon. G. Collins: The audit has been delivered to the comptroller general from PricewaterhouseCoopers. They're doing a fact check, which is a normal process. No ministers have been briefed on the matter, and the comptroller general is handling the audit.

J. Bray: Actually, I am pleased that so far today we've been talking about the hydrogen highway. My question is to the Minister of Energy and Mines. A couple of weeks ago, the David Suzuki Foundation….

J. Bray: The member for West Vancouver–Capilano actually gave an excellent speech on the hydrogen highway, so if the members want to listen, they would have heard that.

But a couple weeks ago, friends of the opposition, the Suzuki Foundation, came out and actually were opposed to the hydrogen highway. Certainly, my research into the topic has suggested that large-scale production of hydrogen fuel cells can reduce greenhouse emissions, and, in fact…

J. Bray: …fuel-cell powered cars have zero emissions. I'm wondering: given both the economic benefits — because we have high-tech industry here — as well as environmental benefits to large-scale hydrogen fuel

plants, can the Minister of Energy and Mines tell me why anybody, including the Suzuki Foundation, would be against the hydrogen highway project?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Our Premier has a vision for the province, and part of that vision is developing and moving forward with our hydrogen in British Columbia. B.C. is world-renowned for hydrogen. Around the world, we're world leaders in hydrogen with the Ballard and those kinds of hydrogen developments in the province.

We want to actually see that developed in a hydrogen highway by 2010, so people can start to see the benefits of hydrogen in the province. We're actually looking forward to the future of a time in British Columbia where we put less into the atmosphere but can still power this great province, and hydrogen will be a great part of it. It does, though, baffle me why the Suzuki Foundation would be against something that they've talked about for many years.

We are moving forward on that. We will continue to move forward, through the Premier's office and through my ministry, on hydrogen as it develops in British Columbia and worldwide.

J. MacPhail: Well, apparently the new-era, 990-year leases are the new standard, according to the minister. It doesn't matter that anyone with any expertise would say otherwise, although I do remember the last time a professor challenged a minister on his expertise with a conflict. We got a tax cut that hasn't been paid for yet, even though the professor said exactly that. Perhaps it will have to be by 2994 that we actually get that tax cut.

The minister refuses to come clean on the terms of the contract. Today he says, "Read the deal," claiming that it must remain a secret until the last minute, and yet he says to everybody: "Read the contract." Will the Premier deliver what his Minister of Transportation just told us all to do — to read the deal? Will the Premier actually stand up now, take charge, release the deal and then allow for a full debate on the entire contents of the deal, just as the Minister of Transportation directed us to do?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, we have been very clear. There is a process involved where the federal competition bureau is analyzing this deal. We've been very clear that all the information we can release that doesn't have commercial sensitivities will be fully disclosed. At that time, and even now, I look forward to debating it with this member. What this member and Carole James and the NDP refuse to talk about are the $17 million investment in the Prince Rupert port containerization, the $4 million to expand the airport in Prince George, the $135 million northern development initiative fund and the $5 billion being invested in rail to ensure that British Columbians and communities right up and down that corridor see the benefit of private sector investment at no risk to the taxpayers of British Columbia.

K. Stewart: My question is to the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management. As many of you in this House know, farming has come upon hard times in many areas of British Columbia due to the crises of BSE, avian flu and forest fires which have damaged many forage areas. As a result of this, many farmers in my community and in British Columbia are unable to make the economic quotas necessary for them to gain their farm tax status. Can the minister explain to us today some of the consequences that may occur to these members as a result of this economic loss and the fact that they may not be able to meet their quotas for farm status?

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for raising this important question. There are always a lot of challenges for farmers, notably weather frequently. But recently they have been subject to two very new problems: BSE, or mad cow disease, and of course, most recently, the avian flu, something which no one could ever have reasonably contemplated here. I have discussed the issue which the member raises — farm status — with the Assessment Authority, and I'm working with my colleague the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries to ensure that we come through for the farmers of British Columbia in a very difficult time.

In summary, no farmer will lose their farm status as a consequence of failing to meet the income threshold or revenue threshold for a single production year. As well, I'm glad to add that payments received under a compensation plan will qualify as farm income for the purposes of protecting farm status. We're well aware of the devastation that has been brought upon the farming industry, first by BSE and now by the avian flu, and all ministries will want to work with producers to ensure they get through a very difficult time in their lives.

B. Lekstrom: I have the honour to present a report from the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Bills Pr401, Pr402 and Pr403 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. R. Coleman: I have the honour to present the annual report for 2003 for the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia.

Hon. G. Collins: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we'll be debating the estimates for the Ministry of Small Business and Economic Development. In this House I call Committee of the Whole for consideration of Bill 12.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 12; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

Hon. T. Christensen: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 12, Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2004, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

The Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management proposes amendments to a number of statutes related to the practice of land surveying in B.C., including the Land Surveyors Act and the Land Survey Act. This bill is consistent with the government's commitment to eliminate unnecessary regulations and to operate more efficiently and effectively. The purpose of the proposed amendments is to transfer the authority and responsibility for setting and enforcing land survey standards from the province to the Corporation of Land Surveyors of the Province of British Columbia. These authorities are currently with the surveyor general.

Standards for the practice of land surveying are now set out in the general survey instruction regulation. This regulation will be repealed as a consequence of transferring this authority. The corporation will thereafter be responsible for making changes to those standards. These amendments allow government resources to be redirected toward other priorities and put responsibility for survey standards in the hands of the professional body with the most expertise in this area.

In order to ensure that adequate standards are in place at all times, the surveyor general will be able to review and approve any new standards adopted by the corporation. Additional amendments to the Land Surveyors Act modernize the governance system for the corporation by updating its disciplinary powers, allowing land surveyors from out of province to become members, and revising examination and admission authorities.

Other amendments relate to corporation membership, meetings, voting and structure of annual general meetings. It also repeals a requirement for the secretary of the corporation to provide a performance bond. These amendments also allow the corporation to change its name to the Association of B.C. Land Surveyors. These changes will come into effect to coincide with the corporation's 100th anniversary on June 21, 2005.

As a consequence of the amendments to the Land Surveyors Act, a number of other acts will be affected. One of these is the Land Survey Act, which is amended to reflect the transfer of authority for the land survey standards from the province to the corporation. Various other amendments to this act relate to definitions,

There are eight other acts amended as a consequence of the amendments to the Land Surveyors Act. These are the Coal Act, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the Land Act, the Land Title Act, the Mineral Tenure Act, the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, the Pipeline Act and the Strata Property Act. The amendments to these acts delete references to the surveyor general, who currently makes regulations for land surveys under those acts. These references are replaced with "the corporation," which will now be responsible for making rules under the Land Surveyors Act.

The proposed amendments to each of these acts will also require that land surveys be prepared by a land surveyor who is a member in good standing with the corporation. I am pleased to note that this bill has the full support of the Corporation of Land Surveyors of B.C. and other affected professional associations. This bill also follows through on the government's commitment to reduce regulation and improve efficiency by seeking out appropriate alternative service delivery mechanisms.

Bill 17, Land Survey Statutes 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.

This bill, the Wildfire Act, provides government with a comprehensive range of measures to address this serious threat, and we all know how serious a threat forest fires pose in our province. This act brings together the relevant existing provisions from the old Forest Practices Code and incorporates them and compliance and enforcement and general administrative provisions of the Forest and Range Practices Act as it relates specifically to the issue and threat posed by wildfire in B.C.

The key objectives of the act are to ensure that all users of our forests — not just forestry licensees but all users of our forests — are aware of and understand their responsibilities with respect to fire use, prevention, control and rehabilitation. I'll repeat that: not just those licensees that are engaged in forestry activity but recreational users, hikers, campers, hunters — anyone on the land base and frequenting our beautiful forests. The act also seeks to guarantee the safety of British Columbians and that that consideration remains paramount. Thirdly, the objective is to aid in the establishment of policies and priorities to ensure the most efficient use of firefighting resources. Additionally, the act clarifies the prescribed circumstances under which open fires may be permitted.

The act also takes into account the recommendations of the Filmon report. I might just take a moment to remind members of the House that the bill was initially tabled in the last session, the fall session, and the decision was made to have it remain on the order paper through the fall during the time that Mr. Filmon was conducting his review of Firestorm 2003, for the purpose of providing us with the option of incorporating any changes that might be necessitated by the recommendations that flowed from that report. The old bill died on the order paper. This bill, Bill 25, is reintroduced, taking into account the recommendations of the Filmon report, including enhancing the government's ability to manage and respond to the threat of wildfire.

The act maintains government's right to carry out fire control operations to protect public safety and to act in the public interest, including the continued support and assistance to local governments and residents. Under the provisions of Bill 25 the government will retain the right to enter onto any land, public or private, to carry out fire control operations. If government determines that it is necessary to enter onto lands to control a fire, this act ensures and enables government to recover costs associated with that intervention.

Fire preparedness, fire hazard assessment and abatement issues are also addressed in the act, and we will, I'm sure, address some of those in the committee stage of this debate.

Under the terms of Bill 25, the Wildfire Act, government retains the authority to restrict or prohibit open fires, declare areas as restricted and limit activities within them. When we discuss that in more detail, I will refer to how I believe these sections of the act as it relates to the declaration of areas as restricted are an improvement over the old provisions administratively, functionally and operationally, particularly when it relates to emergency situations.

The act provides the jurisdiction to government to order people to leave specified areas, to hire temporary employees for fire control operations and to requisition facilities, equipment and personnel.

The only other remarks I want to make — and they are ancillary to the bill — speak to the issue of overall fire preparedness or preparedness for the coming fire season and relate to some of the additional action that government has taken in the aftermath of fire season '03 and the Filmon report. I should ensure that members of the chamber are reminded of the fact that government — the forest protection branch, Forest Service — conducted its own internal review of the situation that occurred and Forest Service's response to that catastrophe last summer, and that was comprehensive. I attended a portion of that review in Penticton myself and can advise members of the House that those who participated — and there were a good number of them from the various teams — took the process very seri-

Likewise, when the Premier announced the appointment of Mr. Filmon, he was provided with an opportunity, which he took ample advantage of, not only to consult with British Columbians generally around the circumstances of last year but also to interact with the Forest Service protection branch and other divisions within the government in settling upon a series of recommendations — 42 recommendations in all — that form the basis of his report.

On the weekend, in Kamloops, the Premier and the government made clear our intention to act on all 42 of those recommendations. I won't speak to all of them, but I will tell you I am — as one who has responsibilities for one department within government — pleased, proud but not surprised, actually, that the government has devoted almost $14 million in additional resources to ensure we've got the people, the equipment and the planning work in place to make sure we're fully prepared or as prepared as one can be for something as unpredictable as fire.

Part of that involves providing upwards of $3 million to the Union of B.C. Municipalities. This is a novel exercise insofar as we're saying to the UBCM as that agency which represents local government in British Columbia…. Insofar as planning for fire, particularly in the urban-rural interface area and the fire interface areas, communities have the most to gain or lose and are best equipped to make decisions about where that work, as it relates to fuel management, should begin. There is a heck of a lot of work to be done, and we're not going to get it all done in one year, but the process can begin. It can begin in earnest, weather and climate permitting. Local communities will have access to those moneys via the funds that were provided to the UBCM.

In addition, the fact that unit crews will be restored to the levels they once were in the 1990s — five additional unit crews…. These are highly trained individuals — teams of 20. There will be five additional crews, and that will provide us with an enhanced ability around the province and an ability to move the crews around the province — that combined with the fact that we have two additional air tankers in our fleet now. That provides us with a level of comfort. We are not as reliant as we have been in the past on fleet or aircraft from other parts of the country, though the protocols which provide for the exchange of that information remain in place.

The dilemma we all potentially face is a situation in which there is a fire catastrophe in one part of the country at the same time that we are having one elsewhere in the country, and there just simply isn't enough equipment available on a casual basis to meet the needs. So that provides us with some additional assurances.

I would like to end, however, by saying this. The legislation we are debating today provides, I think, a framework within which we can effectively deal with preparation and issues around wildfire and the combatting of wildfire. Similarly, the additional personnel, equipment and planning tools that were announced assist.

It is impossible to predict with certainty what one is going to be met with in a fire season. We certainly learned that in spades last year. It's as dry at this time this year as it was last year, based on the reports I am getting. I have seen a variety of reports around the weather prognostications — everything from predictions about a drier summer than we had last year…. I think one of the almanacs predicted a wet summer or vice versa.

I'm not sure how much stock one can put in those kinds of prognostications, but I do know this for a fact: we've already had over a hundred fires in B.C. Sadly, notwithstanding what happened last year and the fact that I think public awareness of this issue is at an all-time high, 80 percent of those fires were human-caused in the last three weeks — not because anyone purposely set out to start a fire but just through carelessness. I hope people will take seriously the threat that is posed. All of us read the reports last year about how fires started or allegedly started. It was a matter of seconds, certainly minutes, that it took for a fire to burn out of control and consume literally millions of dollars in property and in timber resources.

We think this legislation provides a framework upon which to move forward. When we move through the committee stage debate, I'll be more specific about some of the provisions that I think particularly lend themselves to that. I have alluded to a couple of them already in the debate. In the meantime, each day that we move closer to the summer, I would urge all British Columbians to be mindful of the unpredictable threat posed by fires and the havoc they can wreak when they rage out of control.

J. MacPhail: Of course the opposition is going to support Bill 25, the Wildfire Act, and I want to make that clear at the beginning of this debate. I also want to say that governing is about choices. I do hope there will not be any discussion in this House that with the benefit of perfect hindsight, some will look to place blame for what happened last summer. That's not a healthy debate. There is no need to rehash the devastation of last year's fire season or to try and see into the future of the coming season — although as the minister has just noted, early indications are not good. But it is early, and much can change.

The B.C. Liberal government is with much fanfare acting on the Filmon recommendations and, with this legislation, is bringing greater clarity and certainty to the prevention and control of wildfires. Good. But make no mistake; there will be fires this year. There will be fires every year. We all hope we will never again witness a fire season like last year, but we will see fire.

If you go to the Ministry of Forests website, you will find a wealth of information about the number of fires, the size of fires, the amount of damage done by the fires, the number of people who fought the fires

and the cause of the fires. Much of this data will be ten-year rolling averages. They are rolling averages because there is no certainty. As much as we try as humans to predict the weather or the human behaviour of our fellow citizens, the fact remains that we are not very good at predicting either.

What looks so glaringly obvious in hindsight is often inconceivable in foresight and shrouded by distractions when we look at them in the immediate. When it comes to government, we need to acknowledge our limitations, because despite so-called balanced-budget legislation and service plans full of performance measures, what good government is really all about is allocating public resources for the public good. Governing is about choices. This bill provides a regulatory framework, but it does not address or determine government action. This bill does speak to the penalties and prescriptions, to liability and responsibility, but it does not speak to what government does.

Last year the budget for fire protection, I believe — I'm doing this from memory — was $55 million. The government spent $375 million. I believe — and I will confirm this later in estimates debate — the budget this year for fire protection is $63 million. The government may overspend that amount like it did last year, or the $63 million could be too generous. We don't know. We simply can't tell at this point. As legislators, we cannot possibly know at this point in time how much real money will be needed. The minister will have received advice on what the ten-year average is and, probably, what that average is with the extraordinary costs of last year factored out. In his budget will be a figure we all know is simply a best guess. That's all it can be. That's not partisan; that's all it can be.

Government, by definition, functions in a realm of scarcity. I have not yet, in my 52 years, experienced a government who has not said: "We must allocate resources properly because there is limited financial capability." There will never, ever be enough money to do everything that can or should be done, and fighting forest fires is no different.

Controlled burning is not something new that came out of our experience last summer. The use of this technique to reduce the fuel level in the forest is not revolutionary, nor is it simple. It most certainly will not end forest fires, and it will remain controversial. The most important resource in our province is our forests. We've just been debating that this morning and yesterday in the Ministry of Forests estimates. We quite rightly try to protect them from environmental damage and the ravage of fire. I don't think any member is about to stand in this House and say that the fires should just be allowed to burn. We will work to put them out, to protect the jobs and communities that depend on our forest industry. Everyone in this Legislature will commit to that.

Weather and the proximity to populated urban areas increasingly on the forest interface must be considered. We live in a province of steep valleys. Weather inversions trap smoke and other pollutants, and not just in the Fraser Valley, but in the Nechako, the Similkameen, the Columbia and the Okanagan. Much of the south-central interior of B.C. is semi-arid desert. Lightning fires in this climatic zone always present a danger, and neither of those previous two statements are about to change.

Government choices are made by politicians and must balance the interests of the citizenry, or at least that is the theory that we all work under in our public service. The practice is often much different and not always for straightforward partisan goals.

This bill, as I said in opening, is a good idea. It is a good idea to isolate and consolidate the powers, responsibilities and consequences that stem from our life with wildfire. But the real test of good government will come in the years ahead, when the memories of the forest fires of 2003 fade, and the temptation to move scarce government resources, tax dollars, away from the vigilance that the Filmon report called for — and that the auditor general has called for and that experts in the forest have called for over the years — to other equally or even more important government services will be the real question that's put before us.

Members opposite in the government will talk of how governments, particularly governments on the left, are egregiously risk-averse. I've heard that. I've heard that from the members of the government. Members on the government side with those who see government as an obstacle say that being risk-averse is a hindrance to economic development. But with this bill and the implementation of the recommendations of the Filmon report, the government is now siding with those who have been saying that the risk we take with wildfire is too great. I applaud that.

Members on the government side will be proposing more regulation of building codes and subdivisions in and around our forests and grasslands. They will be saying that municipalities and homeowners will have to take more responsibility, and that will mean that homeowners will be paying more. They have now become, as a government, risk-averse in this area.

Now, nobody likes to pay more. Developers will be unrelenting in their efforts to have accommodations made for their subdivisions, whether they be at the forest interface in the Okanagan or on the Cheakamus fan where floodwaters developed and resulted in two deaths last year. Politicians of all parties will have to respond to the competing pressures of their constituents and supporters and their duty as public servants to protect the public interest. That is our obligation. That obligation is not made any easier by this legislation, although it is good legislation. It is never an easy task, but it is one that has been brought to the forefront to all of us by the forest fires of last year.

K. Krueger: I want to thank the Leader of the Opposition for her remarks. It is rare that we have such unanimity in the House on an issue.

We certainly experienced a trial by fire last summer — a terrifically grim experience for my constituents. I

don't think the memory will really ever fade for us: the shock of realizing that a forest fire could move faster than a horse can run; the way those fires ran — the Strawberry Hill fire — 12 kilometres the first night, creating their own tremendous weather systems; huge winds that whipped the flames up and threw burning material kilometres ahead of the path of the fire, starting other fires.

I know that my constituents will never forget, either, the courage and the expertise of the firefighters and the way they attacked such an incredible foe, the way they demonstrated the skills that they trained so long and hard for.

I remember flying over the Strawberry Hill fire and seeing how small the people looked with their machines, and yet amazingly they had managed to build a border all the way around that fire — a huge area. They had done their back-burning and laid down the retardant, and they had the fire contained. The McLure fire, of course, took a lot longer. The fire in Kelowna was horrific. These are all experiences that we hope will never be repeated, but the way the weather is shaping up this spring, there certainly is the risk of that.

Like the Leader of the Opposition and I'm sure every member of the Legislature, I'm certainly supporting Bill 25 and congratulating the minister and the government for bringing this legislation to us.

We were very grateful in Kamloops–North Thompson at the time for the quick action of government with the declaration of a state of emergency and the way that brought resources to bear on the problem, the disaster, that was confronting us. It was heartening for my constituents to see 40 fire departments from around British Columbia fighting the fire and protecting the community of Barriere. It was very encouraging for them that the Premier came up to the area. The Minister of Forests did as well, and the Solicitor General. Everybody demonstrated with their presence and with the tangible things they did that the government was very much in a position of wanting to do everything possible to protect the communities.

Obviously, as the Leader of the Opposition said, the problem built up over many years. We're all aware of that. It's a very expensive problem to confront and to try and ensure that it never happens again. We certainly wouldn't wish that experience on anyone else. Yet Mother Nature is so tremendously powerful when she really cuts loose, as we experienced last summer.

The economic harm to communities is something that I and my constituents have been grappling with ever since. It's been very, very tough on the communities of Barriere and Louis Creek to have lost their major employer, which as everyone knows has decided not to rebuild at that location — 189 jobs that existed till the last day of July 2003 and now have just disappeared.

Again, we're very appreciative of the assistance the government is providing, the money that the Premier sent to set up a $2 million fund for people who suffered hardship as a result of last summer's wildfires — that money has largely been distributed now — and also money for economic redevelopment of the North Thompson Valley.

The minister and the Minister for Forestry Operations have entertained delegations from my constituency, have spent a lot of time with me and, I believe, are favourably disposed to an allocation of timber from the pine beetle uplift to the communities themselves so that we can use the money that will flow from that to continue to rebuild that economy. We're looking forward to good news there.

The economic development advisory commission, which I chair, has hired an economic development officer with the funds that the Premier gave us in trust to the Thompson-Nicola regional district, and we're working hard on rebuilding the economy that was shattered up there. Everyone is anxious to make sure that it doesn't happen again there, that it doesn't happen again anywhere.

We were grateful for the Premier's decision to appoint Mr. Filmon to do his inquiry, and Mr. Filmon distinguished himself. We had very positive comments from my constituents about the way he dealt with them, the way he listened to them, the way he responded to them, and everyone is very impressed with his report. We were delighted when the Premier came up last Saturday to Kamloops and announced the funding for all of Mr. Filmon's recommendations.

I am really proud of a government that responded so well to the emergency itself and has responded so thoughtfully to the issue of prevention of another catastrophe. This legislation, of course, brings all of that together.

My thanks to the minister and to the government and, obviously, my full support for this legislation.

Mr. Speaker: On second reading of Bill 25, the Minister of Forests closes debate.

Hon. M. de Jong: I've been around this place long enough to know that when something as rare as splendid consensus breaks out, one is wise to grab it and run. So I will thank the member for his comments and his reminder to us of the very human face of wildfire and the impact it has and thank the Leader of the Opposition for her thoughtful comments and support for the bill and also for reminding us that it is actually in partial response to recommendations that have emerged from various auditor general reports. But I also point out that the success of the regime we are developing by virtue of this legislation will be determined by the extent to which governments and ultimately the public are prepared to devote the resources necessary.

We can talk about preventative action. We can talk about planning. We can talk about fuel management. It takes (1) money and (2) a recognition of the impact that something like controlled burn has in terms of the environmental consequences and things like smoke and all of the ancillary effects of burning in the forest.

As difficult as it is to believe today, in the immediate aftermath of what took place last year, memories

will recede. Our job, or the job of those who sit in this chamber, will be to constantly remind people of the extent of the damage, dislocation and anxiety that the firestorm in 2003 caused.

The statute that I believe Bill 25 will give birth to — with, I think, unanimous support in this House — will be a tremendously helpful tool. But like all tools, its success will be determined by the manner in which it is used and the resources that are brought to bear to give it effect. With that, I will move second reading of Bill 25.

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

Bill 25, Wildfire Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

J. MacPhail: We left off discussion this morning about the requirement for site-level plans. The minister assured the House that forest licensees must produce a site-level plan. Must they produce it, or do they have to have it available if asked?

Hon. M. de Jong: It was my poor choice of terminology. They must prepare one. It is not submitted for approval by the Crown, but they must have it available if asked to produce it.

J. MacPhail: Where I was going on this discussion was that the site-level plan that used to be mandatory was what demonstrated the indicators of logging plans and how those logging plans would affect environmental, recreational and social values, I thought — at least environmental and recreational values. The reason I was making that clarification — that they must have them available and produce them if asked — is that if the compliance and enforcement staff don't ask for them, then there's no violation of the law.

What I want to know is: how will government staff continue to identify and insist on protection for important values such as wildlife habitat if they don't have any precise information provided on site-level plans?

Hon. M. de Jong: There might be disagreement on the wisdom of this, but I'm not sure there's disagreement on the process when I say that the distinction between the former regime and the one that is in place under the Forest and Range Practices Act relates not to the requirement to prepare the site plan — there is in both instances a requirement to prepare a site plan — but to the fact that in the former regime there was sign-off by the Forest Service or an approval mechanism. Under the provisions of the Forest and Range Practices Act, the site plan is neither approved nor signed off, though if requested it must be produced by the particular licensee.

As there were under the former forest development plans, now to be replaced by the forest stewardship plans, there are differing levels of requirements. Under the forest stewardship plan, all of the values that must be managed for must be reflected in that large-scale document that relates to the overall area.

The site plan focuses down on a much more localized area, and the site plan must be consistent with the overall objectives set out in the Forest and Range Practices Act but also with the specific provisions included within the forest stewardship plans. The site plan which needs to be produced must demonstrate and be consistent with both. That must be apparent in terms of on-the-ground activities, which must be consistent with all three — site plan, forest stewardship plan and the act itself — and it must be apparent on the face of the site plan.

J. MacPhail: I also understand from previous debate I've had with the minister that the site-level plans have to be available to the public on request. What does the public have to go through to request a site-level plan, and is there a fee associated with the request?

Hon. M. de Jong: First of all, the site-level plan must be available for the public to request and obtain. They would generally do so directly from the licensee. What we are checking to confirm is whether or not, within the regulatory package that was enacted several months ago, there was anything more specific than that about the requirements that bind the licensees in terms of where they must make the site plan available.

J. MacPhail: Is the minister saying there's no fee that would be associated with that?

Hon. M. de Jong: My understanding is that there is no fee. What I want to confirm, as well, for the member is whether the regulation spoke in any way, shape or form to the question of fees, either allowing them or disallowing them.

The other thing I would ask the minister, if he's had time to get it, is the percentage of GDP that's forest activity–related.

J. MacPhail: No. Sorry. What percentage of our GDP is as a result of forest activity? That's forest-related industry.

Hon. M. de Jong: We've made the request. I haven't yet received it. Hopefully, we will this afternoon.

J. MacPhail: I understand that under this new regime of approval of logging plans, the discretion that the district manager had under the previous regime to reject proposed plans — if the district manager was not satisfied that resource values will be adequately managed or conserved — is now gone. Now the plans must be approved unless the minister or his delegate determines that the industry's results and strategies are not consistent with the government's objectives in the act. Of course, we've already had a discussion about how the objectives are further defined by regulation, but they're not in the act.

How is the minister or his delegate going to get the information necessary to make an informed decision regarding whether a plan should be rejected? That's number one. Well, let me ask that question.

Hon. M. de Jong: I apologize for the delay. The language here is quite specific, and if I say it incorrectly, we'll head down a path that will be of no help to anyone.

If I correctly understood the essence of the member's question, it is, broadly speaking, an explanation of the difference in approval processes between the Forest Practices Code and the Forest and Range Practices Act. I will do this in reverse.

The last point I think the member made spoke to the issue of where the authority derived from. Under the Forest Practices Code it was statutorily enshrined in the hands of the district manager. Under the new Forest and Range Practices Act it is statutorily enshrined, as the member pointed out, in the hands of the minister or his or her delegate. For all practical purposes that won't affect much. The minister of the day isn't going to be involved in those decisions. What it does mean, however, is that the minister of the day can appoint individuals to be a delegate beyond simply the district manager, as was the case in the Forest Practices Code.

The other issue, and perhaps the more significant issue, relates to the test. In both instances there is discretionary authority to be exercised. The member, broadly speaking, summarized the tests that are applied. They are still subjective. In the case of the Forest and Range Practices Act it relates to measuring the forest stewardship plan against the objectives that have been set by government, by the act and the regulations.

What we have stopped short of…. Although I know the member has many things that she has to deal with, she may be aware that there were those within industry who sought to advocate that there should be a deemed approval process whereby once the content of a forest stewardship plan was confirmed — i.e., that it addressed all the required issues and there was sign-off from a registered professional forester — that should in and of itself lead to approval.

We have not accepted that approach. We have said there is still a role for the exercise of discretionary authority in a subjective way to ensure that the forest stewardship plan, as can best be determined, will in fact realize and be consistent with the values and objectives set out in the statute. It's a sufficiently important distinction that I'm going to ask for confirmation that I have articulated that in a reasonably accurate way.

But now can I know how many staff people in the ministry there are to determine this as the minister has suggested? Who are they? What's their classification? Where do they work, and how many FTEs are assigned to this?

Hon. M. de Jong: The decision, for all practical reasons operationally, will remain with the district manager. I'm advised that in a typical district office setting, the district manager, in coming to the decision to approve or disapprove of the proposed forest stewardship plan, would rely on advice from a staff complement dedicated to this job of between three and five individuals.

J. MacPhail: How many district managers are there? How many people in the province are doing this?

Hon. M. de Jong: Twenty-nine district offices in the province. As I say, the district manager in each office would be the designated individual for reaching the final decision. Depending on the size of the office, I'm advised there would be between three and five individuals assisting with the task of analyzing the forest stewardship plan.

J. MacPhail: Are those staff, including the district manager, being trained and given the resources required to ensure that these legally binding agreements — they're legally binding agreements with the forest companies — can be realistically enforced in the courts? That's where they have to be enforced.

Hon. M. de Jong: Short answer: yes. The training is taking place at a number of different levels. I think it's fair to say at this point that what we're trying to develop is a sense, both on the part of the licensees and the Forest Service personnel, of what a standardized forest stewardship plan would look like.

The member's question is actually a good one. Part of that training for both parties, but particularly from the perspective of the Forest Service, is to ensure that the language contained within the document is enforceable. I am reminded that within the act and/or the regulations, there is a requirement that the objectives set out in the forest stewardship plan are quantifiable and measurable. That training is taking place. There are some early examples of the work that is being done. I presume that as this evolves, there will be an attempt on the part of both the Forest Service personnel involved, the district managers and the licensees to standardize to the greatest extent possible both the format and the ingredients of the forest stewardship plan beyond what is in the regulations.

J. MacPhail: Now, I noted when I was looking at the Forest and Range Practices Act regulations around old-growth management…. There is basically a regulation that says the status quo for old-growth areas under the Forest Practices Code remains, but I note there is no provision for the establishment of new areas. Is the government not anticipating any new areas designated as old-growth forests? There are organizations there right now that the government funds for…. Their responsibility is to identify old-growth management areas. What's the future of this?

Hon. M. de Jong: There is — and the chief forester has direct involvement in this — a process by which old-growth areas are identified, designated. The legal mechanism for doing that remains. I think the provisions that the member was referring to are those which provide for the carrying forward of those designations, and I think she said that, in fairness.

What I have been doing is canvassing whether or not, given that the mechanism for creating old-growth designated areas remains, there are any impediments to doing so. I am not aware of any; I am not advised of any. The mechanism by which old-growth areas can be designated continues to exist. It is tied in part to the land use planning process, I believe. I'll stop there.

J. MacPhail: In the past, and I don't know whether this still exists, agencies were designated and funded by government to identify old-growth management areas. Does that still exist under this government?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm not aware, and some of the officials here today are not aware, of what the member might have been referring to and have no recollection of that kind of funding flowing through the Forest Service, though there is some speculation that there may have been funding made available to groups involved in the land use planning tables for that purpose.

I posed the question whether there might have been funding flowing through an agency like FRBC, and the response I'm getting is that that is not the case. If there were such funding, the only advice I have at the moment is that it did not flow through the Forest Service budget.

J. MacPhail: To summarize the minister's comments then, old-growth designation will continue to be available, and the designation will largely be done through land use planning tables.

Here is how the process by…. Well, I'll back up. I think the question I'm trying to provide an answer to is: how, if at all, is it possible to have an area set aside as an old-growth retention area in the future, moving forward? I've got the right question; hopefully, I can answer it in a comprehensible way.

Under the legislative regime that is the Forest and Range Practices Act, it is, as the member knows, the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management that has responsibility for setting objectives. Some of the examples would relate to old-growth retention, habitat preservation and some of these other values. That having been done, the licensee's objective is to prepare a forest stewardship plan that reflects those values and those objectives.

The member correctly identified the tie-in between the land use planning process and the establishment of those objectives and the forest stewardship plan which would lead to the designation of an area under the forest stewardship plan. Now, the member is astute enough, and she is going to, I suspect, quickly point out that there is land use planning process that hasn't been completed across the province, so there are some default standards in place. There are some default standards in place that can be relied upon. I am further advised that the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management is to introduce an objective shortly to establish old-growth forest retention targets to be met in all forest stewardship plans, so there will, in the interim, be a standardized objective pending the completion of that process.

J. MacPhail: I understand that the minister has now referred me to the Sustainable Resource Management minister, which is fine. I accept that. I want to have a location where a group of people, a company, an organization or a person can say to a minister, a branch or an agency: "You are responsible for old-growth management." If the plans are that they're going to set a policy for retention of old growth, then I will be looking there, to the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, to see what the plans are — how they're going to implement that retention rate of old growth on a more specific level.

Mr. Chair, the next report I'm going to deal with is by the Forest and Range Practices Act Practices Advisory Council, the PAC. They issued a report in January of this year. I'm sure it was January. The minister issued a reply or response in February to that Forest and Range Practices Advisory Council report. I am going to ask some questions based on those two, both the report and then the reply.

The PAC, the advisory council, noted that one of the goals of the Forest and Range Practices Act is increased reliance on professions, increased professional reliance. However, the advisory council also noted that the draft FRPA regulations do not require that forest operational and site plans be signed by a professional. So does this mean that any employee of a licensee can sign an operational or site plan?

K. Johnston: Joining us today in the precinct are 30 grade 11 social studies students from David Thompson Secondary School in Vancouver-Fraserview. They're here having a tour of the capital city and, of course, the legislative area. They are accompanied today by instructors Chris Ascher, Deider Bylsma and Joan McDermid. Would the House please make them very welcome.

Hon. M. de Jong: The member does identify an issue raised by the public advisory committee. If she'll permit me, I'll take advantage of this opportunity to put on the record my thanks for the work that has been done to date and the continued consultative work that the members of that committee — all of whom are extremely busy but also extremely dedicated individuals — has put into providing feedback on what was a pretty hefty document in terms of the regulatory package accompanying the Forest and Range Practices Act.

Their comment, and the one relayed here today by the member, is correct. The statute and the regulations require the forest stewardship plan to be signed off by a representative of the licensee. It does not require the plan to be signed off by a registered professional forester.

I'll say two things. First of all, that legislative provision reflects the fact that the relationship that is regulated here is between the Crown and the licensee, not between the Crown and any particular individual employed or contracted by the licensee. We wanted to be clear where the liability rested in that relationship, and it is with the licensee.

Beyond that — and the member may recall — a few moments ago I referred back to a submission we had received in the formative days of creating the statute, which suggested we should have a deemed approval process whereby by virtue of having obtained the signature of an RFP on the forest stewardship plan, the Crown should accept that, the Forest Service should accept that, and there would be deemed approval of the entire plan. We didn't go along with that either, so I suppose you could say that we ended up somewhere in the middle.

There is still a discretionary authority that rests with the minister and his or her designate, generally the district manager. At the same time, there is a requirement that the plan be signed off by a corporate representative — but not necessarily a registered professional forester — either employed or contracted by that licensee.

J. MacPhail: It's interesting that the minister says the new legislation regulates the relationship between the government and licensees, not the relationship between employers and professionals, and that's why there's no requirement for a professional to sign off on the plan. I guess what I'm looking for here is some confidence that can be instilled in the system where the public can say that even though this is a results-based system we're going to now, a default system where the government deems everything to be okay unless proven otherwise rather than the previous system that was monitoring and enforcement and compliance…. Isn't there a logical step to be taken here that says a company should have an expert sign off on this? I mean, what's to prevent the company from having their CFO sign off on it because the CFO likes the business aspect of it?

Hon. M. de Jong: There are two things that come to mind that would logically lead to the involvement of a registered professional forester. Though the member is correct that the act does not require a sign-off from an RPF, there are a couple of things that would suggest that will be the case in most, if not all, cases.

The first, I'm reminded, is that the nature of the work that goes into preparing one of these reports is that which is contained squarely within the Foresters Act as amended by this House. Because of the type of work involved, it would naturally engage a registered professional forester. That's the first thing.

In addition to that, in a world where a licensee must always be aware of the possibility that, were something to go wrong, the Crown will return and seek damages or compensation or take enforcement action, there is under the act the defence of due diligence available. A licensee who had not availed himself or herself of the services of a registered professional forester for the purpose of preparing what is a fundamentally important document now would risk, I think, abdicating or losing the ability to raise a defence of due diligence in any number of circumstances.

J. MacPhail: Yes, and I recall very well our debate under the Professional Foresters Act around this very issue, because of course the change from the old Forest Practices Code to the new Forest and Range Practices Act says — and this minister has admitted this, because it's true — that the government will be relying on professional foresters in the employ of the licensees, the forest companies, and that it will be incumbent upon the professional forester to do the right thing to protect

the public interest. We actually had a debate about the ranking of their obligations, I recall.

The minister's explanation is very interesting. How does one who is in the employ of a forest company — the forester — guard the public interest when that public interest may go against the private interests of his or her employer? How does that work?

Hon. M. de Jong: First of all, let us not discount the possibility that the registered professional forester involved here is not an employee but could be a contractor. In the case of major licensees, that is perhaps less likely, but in the case of many of the smaller licensees involved, that is a more common feature of the relationship. So there is that component. The member's question arising out of that response would be…. It's the same question. They are tied contractually to someone, and there is perhaps the same issue.

I suppose that in the same way, many other self-regulated professions must address that issue in the way that one could argue that in-house counsel or contracted counsel in the legal profession might, on occasion, be confronted by a client who seeks him or her to engage in an activity that is contrary to any one of the tenets by which they are bound as a self-regulated profession. That concern around conflicted professionals is not something that is unique to the relationship that exists here. It exists in other circumstances as well.

J. MacPhail: Yes, I accept that, except that this is the professional who will guarantee that the public interest is being acknowledged and addressed and who, at the same time, is in the employ of a private interest whose own profitability may be affected by the public interest. I'm not sure of another example such as that. How does the privately employed — whether through contract or direct employee relationship — professional forester guarantee public accountability? How does he or she demonstrate that under this act?

Hon. M. de Jong: Two responses come to mind, Mr. Chair. The first is that in this process, that professional forester is preparing a document either as an employee or as a contracting agent for a licensee. It is an important document that must still pass muster with the district manager generally, pass muster with that public official charged statutorily with the task of ensuring that the objectives set out in the act, which are designed for the very reason the member alluded to — to protect the public interest — are met.

In addition, I am reminded that where the registered professional forester does affix his or her signature and attach his or her seal, they incorporate into that, or are bound by, a series of professional ethical considerations that do tie into protection of the public interest as stipulated by that profession. It's the combination of the two.

The point I would emphasize is that it doesn't begin and end with the preparation and sign-off of the forest stewardship plan. There is still an approval mechanism that is driven by public servants.

J. MacPhail: Has the minister or his staff in the public service had a chance to discuss this matter directly with the Association of Professional Foresters?

Hon. M. de Jong: In fact, there have been, dating back now over a year and a half, pretty extensive discussions with what was the Association of Professional Foresters and is now renamed the Association of B.C. Forest Professionals. The reason for that is they have amalgamated with another group, forest technicians, so there is a larger organization.

There have certainly been those discussions, and they have touched on a number of issues. I will acknowledge to the member that some of those concerns relate to everything from, I think…. Well, I should be careful. I think there were some professional foresters who suggested there should be a mandatory requirement and others who thought differently. There were, as well, concerns expressed around what the new legislative provisions might mean for the cost of professional insurance, because in certain circumstances it is conceivable that in a worst-case scenario, where liability is assigned against one party, they may seek redress from a contracted professional forester. Each circumstance is different.

There have been extensive discussions around the various facets of what is proposed here and the greater role, as the member pointed out, and the greater reliance, though not exclusive reliance, that is being placed on the talents of the professional foresters and technicians that comprise their professional body.

J. MacPhail: Has the new act that applies to professional foresters been proclaimed?

J. MacPhail: The Forest and Range Practices Advisory Council also recommended: "…the minister ensure that the forest planning and practices regulation require sufficient content and details in forest stewardship plans to provide for meaningful evaluation, public review and comment as well as approval or rejection by a statutory decision-maker."

My question is: how is the minister going to ensure that the forest stewardship plans are supported with what the council says is sufficient information to ensure that the public review process is meaningful? I mean, I'm sure the minister will say you'll be monitoring it to see what kind of SFPs are prepared under the new act — we've heard that there aren't that many yet — and to make sure they're adequate, or not. If the minister is going to go in that direction, what is the process that he's put in place to ensure, as these plans increase, that they are adequate in terms of a public review process?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think there are two important periods for which the question has relevance. One is the period of time during which the forest stewardship plan is being developed. There are regulatory provisions in place that stipulate the involvement or the entitlement that the public has to make their views. Or I should actually say the reverse: the requirements and the obligations that accrue to the licensee developing the plan to involve the public and to notify the public. There are pretty specific regulations. That deals with the period leading up to the development, submission and approval or disapproval of the forest stewardship plan.

Following that, there is also the question of access for the public to the plan itself following approval having been granted. This touches on an area where, actually, the public advisory committee provided some recommendations and advice that gave rise to changes in the proposed regulation. That part of the regulation providing for public review and comment of a forest stewardship plan now more closely resembles the wording and, therefore, the opportunities that were available under the former forest development plan. That's an example of where the public advisory committee made some recommendations and offered some advice that led to a change in the regulation.

At the end of the day, though — and I apologize for the length of the answer…. I think the member's question was: how are you going to know whether it's working? I'm not sure I have a good answer for that. It is a case, I think, where you do have to track whether the Forest Service and the district offices are receiving complaints from those. The forest stewardship plan is on file with the district office. I think that's where they would logically be kept. That provides a point of entry for the public, so I can't imagine why, in the period of time after the approval of a plan, there would be difficulty obtaining access. My hope would be that with the technology available now, it would be simply a matter, eventually, of logging on to review the plan.

I probably have more concern…. If there is a concern, it would relate more to the developmental period of the plan and whether or not we begin to hear about complaints from the members of the public and interested parties about notice being provided in a meaningful way.

J. MacPhail: Along that theme, concerns about process around the implementation of this new act, I read a news article that in mid-March a group that represented the environmental interests on the PAC withdrew from the process. They were called the Forest Caucus of the B.C. Environmental Network. At least, what the media reported was that they alleged that the environmental concerns expressed by the PAC were not being meaningfully addressed by the government. Has the minister or his staff had an opportunity to meet with representatives of the Forest Caucus to see if that concern could be resolved?

Hon. M. de Jong: Yes, the member correctly identifies an issue that arose. My recollection is that the chief forester has had a meeting — actually, more than one meeting. I have not, and that is my responsibility.

I am hopeful that those that have chosen not to participate will change their minds. I can think, as we have gone through this exercise, of a number of examples where advice from various participants in the process — whether they are from industry, from first nations, from the community, from the range and the Cattlemen's Association and from what we often refer to as the ENGO community — has given effect to tangible changes in the product.

I'm not in a position to enlighten the member as to what, beyond the report she read, the specific concern was. The advisory committee is there to provide a forum through which people with diverse interests and diverse perspectives can provide their commentary.

I will say this: the report the member is referring to has some criticisms of the regulatory package as well. It was designed to provide a forum and an avenue by which those criticisms and those ideas could be presented and available to the public and to government. I'm hopeful that those who have said they don't wish to participate will have a change of heart, and I'm open to that.

J. MacPhail: In the meantime, how is the minister getting advice on proceeding to alleviate or allay concerns of those who are particularly charged with environmental interests?

Hon. M. de Jong: The committee, which is provided for in the legislation, continues to sit, continues to exist. It is without a member or two at the moment. Were those individuals unprepared to re-engage in the work of the committee — and it is their right to do so; I hope that will not be their position, but if they were unprepared to re-engage in the work of the committee — it would be my intention to seek out representatives from within the ENGO community to ascertain whether there are others who are prepared to have a go, recognizing that there is a debate that takes place on that committee and with government. That would be my answer to the member.

Hon. M. de Jong: We were, earlier today and yesterday, discussing gross domestic product and estimates around the significance of the forest sector to the economy as measured by GDP. I've got a couple of numbers.

The Vancouver Board of Trade estimates the B.C. forest industry accounts for, directly and indirectly, 25

percent, which is the number I referred to earlier. Within the Forest Service the direct and indirect numbers are somewhat lower than that — 7.2 percent direct and approximately 15 percent indirect. In both measures, there's obviously significance, but one is different. I can't account for the methodology that the board of trade has used to come up with its number.

I wanted to move to the biodiversity report of the Forest Practices Board. I have two areas to explore with Forest Practices Board decisions. One, they released a report entitled Implementation of Biodiversity Measures under the Forest Practices Code. That was released in March of this year. Then there is another report just recently released on the forest practices related to the Kemess mine power line. Let me make sure I'm right on that title: Special Report on the Kemess South Mine Power Line Right-of-Way.

First, on the biodiversity report…. Mr. Chair, this is definitely a non-partisan question, because the report itself went back and covered the biodiversity measures and the implementation of those from 1995 to 2003. That's six years under the previous government and two years under this government, and it found that during the entire time, the biodiversity strategy of the governments of the day under the Forest Practices Code was applied unevenly.

As we move forward on this, I'm curious as to whether the minister has any plans to work with the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection to do what the report calls for, which is to develop indicators to enable assessment of the effectiveness of the measures to conserve biodiversity.

Hon. M. de Jong: I, first of all, appreciate the spirit with which I believe the question has been brought. And she's quite right. The study and the report that arises from the study transcend governments in office, so we don't need to get into that kind of exercise.

The member anticipates in part what my answer was going to be, because the work in coordinating with the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection to ascertain how we can better realize the objectives as they relate to biodiversity has already begun. Part of the work involves refining the measurement tools we use and applying them to effectively evaluate what is taking place on the land base as it relates to biodiversity.

I will say this. It was with a view to capitalizing on the energies, the effectiveness and the expertise of the Forest Practices Board in the way that is reflected in this report that I thought and the government thought was important — to keep the Forest Practices Board in the regime, in the new Forest and Range Practices Act regime. As the member has pointed out by virtue of her question, these issues don't go away because one statute replaces another. The overall concern around management for these wildlife or environmental qualities remains, and the need to have an arm's-length agency — and the member can take some credit for being a member of the government that created that arm's-length agency to measure these factors — is, I think, apparent to all.

So, yes, the coordinating work has already begun. We take the report seriously. The non-technical language would be that we're trying to develop approaches and processes that will allow the Forest Practices Board to say government is doing better.

J. MacPhail: The other issue that the Forest Practices Code dealt with recently was the building of temporary bridges for the construction of the Kemess mine power line. The history on that is that the Forest Practices Board already addressed this issue in 1999. The company had built 169 temporary bridges to allow for the construction of the power line, but in 1999 those bridges had not been removed and had become an environmental threat.

They reissued a report — or they issued another report — on this matter in 2004 that said 53 of those 169 temporary bridges remain and continue to be a threat. They also said that nobody in the government has taken responsibility for this. They named the three ministries who had regulatory responsibility: Energy and Mines; Water, Land and Air Protection; and Forests. The Forest Practices Board recommended that those three ministries review the professional reports arising from the 2004 inspection and take appropriate actions to ensure Kemess mine addresses any concerns or environmental harm that is identified. Can the minister tell me what action has occurred since this report?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, at the risk of the reaction this may attract from the member — I've probably been at this long enough to concoct some kind of a flip answer, but I won't — I just heard about the report now from the member. If there is concern around action being taken, I'm not sure if it has. It hasn't come to my attention except today by virtue of the member's intervention here. I will endeavour to look into it. Maybe the fact that I don't know about it is, hopefully, not a reflection of the attention it has received either within the Forest Service or elsewhere in government, but I appreciate it being brought up here today.

J. MacPhail: Humble acknowledgment of ignorance is always welcome on this side of the House, so I thank the minister for that forthrightness. The report was just from earlier this month, so I'm fine with that. I will await a written reply to my question.

Mr. Chair, I'm moving to timber takeback now. We debated some of this at several points in the legislation, in several pieces of legislation dealing with the $275 million package surrounding the changes in forest practices and forest compensation in this province. Of a $275 million package that was part of the '02-03 provincial budget, there was a $75 million compensation fund covering transition to the Forest and Range Practices Act. So we have a $75 million pot of money for

J. MacPhail: Logging contractors? Okay, logging contractors. Fair enough. Then there is still about $200 million set aside for forest corporations. What discussions are taking place for the expenditure of the $25 million for logging contractors? Let's start there.

Hon. M. de Jong: A couple of things. First, I think I should acknowledge what the member has heard and other members have heard, and that is the submission from the contracting community — the TLA, the ILA, the Northwest Logging Association — that they don't think it's enough money. There is that disagreement or agreement to disagree on that front.

At this point I don't think I would suggest that discussions have, in any instance, gotten beyond a general procedural level, because we're not yet at a stage where…. We are just approaching the stage now where individual contractors are beginning to get a sense of how they might be impacted. In licences where there are multiple contractors, it's still unclear how an individual contractor might be impacted.

I will give an example of a contractor in the Terrace area whose entire licence, it appears, will be captured by the takeback and reallocation. In that case, it is now clear that there will be an impact on that contractor. That would be a triggering event, to my mind, whereby that contractor would now want to do a couple of things — first of all, contact the trustee who has now been put in place to administer the $75 million trust. Eric van Soren, who, as the member may recall, was involved in the Coast Sustainability Trust fund, has now been appointed. There will be representation on his board from the logging community, the IWA and the licensees. For that contractor, there is now something to talk about — something specific to talk about.

I will say this, however. Since we last discussed this matter in the House, another feature has been added to the issue of transitional assistance, and this is as a result of some pretty strong submissions that organizations like the TLA have made. That is, for some who are contemplating leaving the industry, a discussion around compensation and buyout of capital is one they are prepared to have. For others who are very much anxious to remain a part of the industry and take advantage of the new opportunities that might emerge with other licensees, what they want is work. What we are discussing with them is the possibility of transitional licence opportunities with volume that might exist through undercut volumes or a combination thereof.

I think we are at the leading edge now of contractor-specific discussions, via the trustee, around the expenditure of that money. I should say this, and it's probably apparent from the comments that I'm making. None of that money has yet been expended. There has been no recipient of either the $25 million, the $50 million or the $200 million, so it all remains with government at this stage.

J. MacPhail: I was going to ask about this musing — and I use that in a polite sense — that the minister did say about transitional access to timber. I assume that's what he means. He was referring to the undercut being available.

Two questions. Does Mr. van Soren have final say on how money is spent? Is there any appeal to his decisions? And is the undercut different than the AAC?

Hon. M. de Jong: The answer to the first question around ultimate authority for the expenditure of the trust funds is yes. That is for Mr. van Soren and his board to consider, and there's no mechanism by which government or ministers can intervene in that exercise beyond the fact that the terms of the trust were set by government back a year ago. That is in place.

The second question, as it relates to AAC and undercut, is something that took me a while to make sure I was getting straight, and I may yet reveal that I haven't got it straight. We have an annual allowable cut that is in the neighbourhood of 75 million cubic metres. It fluctuates, and right now there have been some sizable uplifts. If we have a licence that has an annual allowable cut of 100,000 cubic metres over the term of that licence — five years — that would allow for cutting 500,000 cubic metres of timber. If at the end of that five-year term only 300,000 cubic metres have been harvested, we have an undercut of 200,000 cubic metres. Under the new legislation, which has been in place for some time now, there is no provision for carrying that forward. Under the old legislation, licensees could make application to carry that volume forward. That's no longer available. That's new. Irrespective of that, there is a reservoir of undercut volume from past years that is presumably there in part because approval was not given to carry it forward.

It's a volume of one-time cutting rights that have accrued to the Crown for a variety of reasons but which the Crown now holds and can dispose of. The cautionary note, of course, is that it is not replaceable volume, so if people make plans around the notion that that volume will be there in perpetuity, they are destined to be disappointed potentially.

J. MacPhail: Is this undercut that the minister may offer to contract loggers theirs to sell? Does it become part of the B.C. timber sales, then, to determine open market? What happens after that?

Hon. M. de Jong: No, technically what they become is a licensee. They hold a non-replaceable licence. They're what they call in the industry a market logger. They would harvest the timber. They'd try to find a market for it obviously. They'd come to an arrangement with a processor, which in our province generally

tends to be other licensees. They'd harvest the wood, and they'd sell it. That's the status they enjoy.

To get to the member's point about sale, theoretically, I suppose they could sell.

Hon. M. de Jong: It is possible, but insofar as this would be a transitional licence for a specific purpose to bridge them to a point in time, I'm not sure what their interest would be in doing so. They certainly often employ subcontractors for a lot of the work associated with the harvesting activity — the harvest side or the roadbuilding side. In that sense, they are a licensee like any other — a market logger licensee.

Hon. M. de Jong: My Pavlovian instincts, Mr. Chair, remain completely intact.

The idea arose out of the logging contractor community, the TLA. It is not something we began this exercise thinking about. There are challenges associated with doing it. I should point out, because I have this opportunity, that there is not this vast reservoir of timber out there in most of the province that one can draw on. There are challenges associated with it. In areas where there are beetle uplifts and undercuts associated with that, there are perhaps more opportunities, but to be blunt, there's not a lot of shortage of work for the harvesting community in those areas. It's more of an issue on parts of Vancouver Island, the west coast, other parts of British Columbia.

The TLA diligently made it clear that they weren't satisfied with the envelope of money government had set aside and also pointed out that for many of their members, it wasn't money they were after. It was work. And while they saw some value and had some enthusiasm for what these changes would eventually lead us to, they, like many others, are concerned about the transitional period of time and want to know that their members and the hugely valuable capital assets they have are going to be working through that transition period. That is where the idea came from. It struck the government as a good idea, and now we're trying to give it effect.

J. MacPhail: As I was searching the latest developments on the timber takeback, I did note some concerns raised by municipal politicians about the lack of consultation on takeback affecting their communities. What is the status of consulting local politicians, regional politicians and labour stakeholders regarding the implications of timber takeback in their particular area?

I will note one example. The minister may be able to stand up and say it has been resolved, but the mayor of Hope, a Mr. Poole, said that there was a floating of the idea — and I guess it's not an idea; it's a reality now — that Interfor is planning to give up 100 percent of its tenure in the Fraser supply area. The mayor is quoted as saying: "It's out of the blue, with no consultation for the people being affected — like the community, like the employees. I got a call from Interfor on this. The government never contacted us. The least they could have done is contact us, let us have input." How do these things unfold?

Hon. M. de Jong: It's a good example, and the report is one that I recall reading. I should tell the member that Mr. Poole, the minister of state and I and, actually, much of the council of Hope met on the weekend. I'll relate to the member the strategies that we are trying to employ to make what is a situation of concern for the community leadership in Hope one that will work for them.

The dilemma, of course, going through this, relates to the fact that the relationship as per the licence is between the Crown and the licensee. As we work through all of the various considerations — and the member has again, I think, enumerated most of them — we talk about what we need from the Crown's point of view in terms of representative volumes and volumes for first nations and woodlots and communities.

That, in part, drives what the Crown goes looking for in the reallocation process when we say to a licensee: "Well, we would like to have this and this and this." I won't purport to identify anyone in particular, but a licensee, for their part, probably isn't thrilled about surrendering 20 percent of their volume but then says, "Well, if I've got some stuff I don't like or junk, let's see if I can roll that into this process and say to the Crown: 'Here are some areas that you should be looking at.'"

All of that discussion and negotiation, of course, also has implications for communities, contractors and, in the case of the coastal situation, company harvest crews, which generally are IWA crews. Finding a way to balance all of that out…. Of course, it's a 20 percent takeback and reallocation. Yet by virtue of how we've done it, where we've said, "It won't be each licence affected by 20 percent; some will be more, and some will be less," that creates a tension for those who say: "Well, what's going on here? You've got 50 percent from the licence in my community and 10 percent from another licence."

In the case of Hope, in fact — and the licensee there is Interfor — it was 100 percent of the licence. That, driven by the fact that the obligations we have vis-à-vis the first nations, the Stó:lo in that area, require obtaining a volume of timber…. The licensee doesn't want to

be left with an unmanageable volume of 3,000 or 4,000 or 5,000 cubic metres, so the licensee says: "Well, if that's what you need for those purposes, then we prefer to surrender it all."

Caught in the middle, in a sense, are the members of the IWA company crew. I have met with the representatives from the crew and members of the IWA national executive. What we are trying to do is arrange for a transition that makes sense.

The mayor of Hope, as recently as Friday night, re-emphasized to me his interest in achieving a community forest for his community. I am sympathetic and supportive. I have pointed out that in order to do that, there is going to need to be a takeback, and that's going to impact on these individuals. I have also said this — that timber needs to be harvested. You are not, as a community, going to just sit on it and hoard it and have it for breakfast. You're going to need people to harvest it. You've got a crew here that knows how to do that and has been doing it very well for some time. Similarly, the first nations that are now anxious to have access to that fibre in many cases are going to need some capacity development and are going to need to contract with people to harvest that timber.

The challenge that we are now working on with all of those parties is to try and effect a transition, which would see the members of that crew continue to work, continue to live in the community they want to live in and continue to harvest that timber.

The licence, until we have arrived at a final settlement of those issues, remains with the licensee, Interfor, so harvesting continues. There was, at the time of that article, which I believe was in February or thereabouts…. It relates, actually, to the week that letters went from the Ministry of Forests to the licensees. Of course, the information in those letters begins to leak out, and people are left with the impression that next week they're going to be out of work. That's not the case. The volume remains with the licensee until we have worked out these details.

I have to say to the member that at the end of the day, it is a pretty site-specific process that needs to be embarked upon. If there was a way to notify everyone simultaneously, maybe that would have been the better way to do it. I couldn't think of a way to do that. There are probably between a half dozen and a dozen areas in the province that qualify. It's not an elegant term, but a hot spot like Hope, where the potential impact was pretty obvious based on the data that was released back in February, is going to require site-specific transitional planning that involves first nations, that involves the community and that involves either the contractor or the company crew, as the case may be.

Hon. M. de Jong: So far I'm optimistic, based on the initial reaction that emerged out of the meeting. I will pay tribute and compliment to the local representatives from the company crew. In our meeting they left me with no doubt that they are prepared to engage immediately and actively with the community of Hope and the first nations to create a relationship that would see them assume harvesting responsibility for the volumes that would accrue to those entities. They, in effect, would be working for a different licensee.

I thought that might be met with some hesitancy or some reluctance. I got none of that. I got a pretty clear expression of interest and willingness to embark upon that. I also got a request for government, the Forest Service and my office, to try and facilitate some of those discussions. Happily, there was an expression of preparedness on the part of the IWA executive to also facilitate those discussions. So at this stage, good intentions and a willingness to follow through. The real test, of course, will be whether it matures into an actual situation in which those people who want to continue to reside in Hope are residing in Hope and are continuing to perform their profession, which is harvesting timber.

J. MacPhail: What's the process for determining compensation to the forest licensees — the $200 million fund that's for compensation for forest licensees?

Hon. M. de Jong: The actual jurisdictional authority and formula that drive the calculation from the Crown's perspective and for the licensees, obviously, is in the original legislation that was passed a year ago. The process that one would follow, of course, relates again to identification of the actual areas. The triggering mechanism at which point you would know with certainty which areas of which licences are impacted to what extent is the signing of a ministerial order.

The timing on that varies depending on where you are in the province. We're hoping to complete the northwest of B.C. within a matter of months and then move to the coastal industry and then the interior of the province, which will take us into 2005.

Until such time as there has been final determination of the actual areas, it won't be possible to finalize the settlements with individual licensees around the quantum that is owed to them in terms of compensation. My sense is that we will settle more quickly with some licensees than others and that negotiations will vary depending on the areas involved and the licensees involved and to what extent there are differences in valuing the timber and infrastructure that is captured by the reallocation process.

J. MacPhail: What's the time frame for full implementation and expenditure of the $200 million?

Hon. M. de Jong: If I'm wrong, I'll alert the member, but the bill that was passed one year ago providing for the $200 million requires that…. Well, the bill giv-

ing rise to the reallocation exercise stipulates that it must be complete by, I believe, March '06.

J. MacPhail: I'm going to switch to a section of the service plan that deals with the human resource plan, page 64, and talk about FTEs, particularly as they relate to the announcement that the minister and the Premier made over the weekend about implementing the Firestorm 2003 Filmon report.

J. MacPhail: I note that James Shavick has just arrived at the Legislature, which is interesting. He's my fiancé, so that's interesting. Would the House please make him welcome. Actually, I knew he was coming. Don't worry.

J. MacPhail: The announcement that the Premier made on the weekend about implementing the 42 Filmon recommendations is a welcome move forward from what was the commitment of the government at the time of the release of the report — when the Premier, I think, at the time said that some of the recommendations would be costly to implement. Others have said that he said that they were too costly to implement. I don't recall him actually saying that, but he was reluctant to make a full commitment to the Filmon report because of the costly nature of the recommendations.

I also note there has been a substantial reduction in the Ministry of Forests staff, staffing levels. I think it has been a 35 percent reduction of full-time-equivalents over the course of the last three years. Now the minister is rehiring 100 people. Or is it a rehire? Could the minister go through, in a fairly simple way, the commitment that was made on the weekend to hiring additional staff?

Hon. M. de Jong: I will try to collect, while I'm providing this initial response, more global numbers. The essence of the announcement from a staffing point of view that took place on Saturday relates to something called a unit crew. A unit crew within the protection branch is a crew of 20 individuals, men and women, who are highly trained and specialized in the role of fighting wildfire forest fires.

In British Columbia — we take this back to the early nineties — at one point the number of unit crews actually grew to 27. Then, over a period of time and for a number of reasons — some, I suppose, fiscal; others relating to efficiencies and the experiences…. The member pointed out earlier in this debate about risk management and how over the course of a number of years, if you have good years, that can give rise to a certain set of decisions being made. But through the 1990s the number of unit crews was reduced ultimately to…. I think it got down as low as 19, but someone should…. I think that is what's laid out in the Filmon report that I have here in front of me.

Over the last couple of years, I think, two crews were added, so we got back up into the twenties. Mr. Filmon had some specific things to say around what he believed to be a justifiable argument for restoring the number of unit crews to where they were in the 1990s. In fact, the announcement on Saturday in Kamloops would see the restoration of five unit crews of 20 individuals each, for a total of 100 individuals.

Mr. Filmon had a specific recommendation around involving first nations in the expansion of the unit crews, which is something that I believe he talked about — training a first nations crew. Actually, he didn't; he talked about involvement of first nations. It would seem to me to make some sense to train a specific first nations unit crew, and we're taking steps in that regard.

That, broadly speaking, is the recommendation that was made to replenish or restore the number of unit crews that had diminished through the 1990s, and that's what has happened. One of the questions I had in light of the recommendations that went beyond merely the cost was: are the people out there to do this quickly, or is this something that we're talking about taking two or three years to build up? I'm advised by the protection branch that the people are out there. In some cases there are former protection branch workers who are interested in returning, so that we believe we can have those unit crews up and running for the coming season.

J. MacPhail: Well, perhaps the minister can walk me through on the resource summary — page 10 of his service plan. What changes will take effect, according to the announcement that his Premier made on the weekend?

Hon. M. de Jong: I am on page 10. If the member goes to the second paragraph, if I can use that term, the line "forest protection," she will see the number of full-time-equivalents for '03-04 at 626. It shows in subsequent years — '04-05, '05-06, '06-07 — 626. That number, 626, based on the announcement that was made on Saturday, will increase not by 100 — because they are seasonal employees — but by 58. So in subsequent years, add 58 to the number 626.

J. MacPhail: Does that mean, then, that on the total full-time-equivalents in the ministry which is now at 3,000 — well, this year will be at 2,942 — we'll add 58 to that as well?

J. MacPhail: As of March, after this budget was announced, the ministry was in the process of down-

sizing by 139.5 positions for '04-05. At least that's what our staffing strategy from Tim Sheldon, the assistant deputy minister, says. So what happens? Is that a reversal now? What happens to those 139 positions that have been eliminated? This document from Mr. Sheldon also makes clear that the reality of humans being affected by this is much less than that. Nevertheless, the positions were to be eliminated after this budget was tabled. So what changes to the resource summary in the service plan are now being contemplated?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm trying to make sure I understand the point. The document or the page in the service plan, I believe, reflects the reduction, as articulated by the member, that she received from Mr. Sheldon. What I would also, however, express is my own suspicion that while the actual impact in terms of individuals was far, far reduced from that, what I don't think is going to happen…. We started this with discussion around the hirings precipitated by the weekend announcement. I wouldn't expect a lot of people from revenue branch or policy branch to find themselves as members of a forest fire unit crew, so I don't think you are necessarily going to see people transferring from that division to another. My understanding is that all of that work and that adjustment has now been completed, but I may not have understood entirely the member's question.

J. MacPhail: No, that's fine. The reduction in employees from last year's budget to this year is 58 plus 31. That's not 139 people, 139 FTEs. I'm not quite sure what Mr. Sheldon is referring to in his memo. It is the memo dated Thursday, March 18, and it's the follow-up to the release of the budget on March 17. That isn't necessarily what my question is.

My question is: given the recent announcements that the minister has made, how do those reflect on this page? Is it simply an addition of 58 FTEs to the forest protection line? All of the announcements in terms of staffing changes in his ministry since the release of this budget.

Hon. M. de Jong: I answer yes, because I can't think of another change that has occurred since the release of the document around the budget instruments. My answer, therefore, is yes. All of it is reflected in the document the member is referring to. Yes, she is correct about the addition of the 58 who are captured by the announcement of Saturday.

J. MacPhail: On the resource summary, what lines will change? What numbers will change as a result of the announcement that the Premier made in response to the Filmon report?

Hon. M. de Jong: Again referring to page 10, the lines aren't numbered, but I will try to identify them. Under the operating expenses, forest protection would change. It would increase. Maybe I'll come back to the amounts. It will give me a chance to think of what the amounts are. Under the next grouping, forest protection FTEs, that would change. Under the capital expenditure heading, again, the number for forest protection would change.

Maybe I can deal with them in reverse order. On the capital side for forest protection, the member will know that we added to the air fleet in the conventional way. It's a lease arrangement, but I believe that's captured on the contracts. I believe that's captured on the capital side, and that is to the tune of between $1.9 million and $2 million. We talked about the FTE numbers for protection.

Then, on the operating side under forest protection, one needs to account for the grant that was made to the UBCM for work which…. While I'm talking, perhaps we can confirm the figure. It's $3 million, but a portion of that…. No, I'm sorry. All $3 million is attributable to the Forest Service. Let's come back to that one. It's $4.5 million for the unit crews, which would be reflected in the operating expenses as well; $1 million for…. I should try to group these.

I'm now dealing with the very first line, forest protection: $4.5 million for unit crews, $1 million for fuel management, $1 million to UBCM. Then there is a collection of items: $700,000 for fuel management planning, $300,000 for emergency training, $700,000 for emergency planning resources and $1 million for public education. The fuel management planning will be largely a Forest Service initiative, but the other items…. I think the member knows from the Solicitor General that the Public Safety ministry is involved in those lesser amounts as well.

That leaves — I'll come back to the $3 million grant to UBCM — $1 million from the Forest Service budget, which will be reflected in that line, $1 million from the fire commissioner and $1 million from the provincial emergency program.

J. MacPhail: Okay, so I've got an increase. So $4.5 million for crew costs; $1 million for additional fuel costs, I would assume. Then the minister said something like a million bucks for fuels. Anyway, it's a breakdown between $700,000 and $300,000. I didn't quite understand it, but I wrote it down as $1 million. There's $1 million to UBCM and $1 million for public education. So the total to the increased line, the forest protection, for his budget is?

Hon. M. de Jong: What I'm trying to ensure is that the member has accurate information, because what we're really trying to focus on is: how does the forest protection budget change in light of the announcement that was made? The number — and I'm told now it will be captured within forest protection operating expenses, not capital, because of the nature of the contractual relationship — will be in the neighbourhood of an increase of $9.5 million. There was funding from the other two ministries that relates to the grant to UBCM and some of the emergency planning.

J. MacPhail: Okay, but the minister just made a $13 million announcement. So $9.5 million includes the leasing of the two air tankers, I assume. That's part of operating. What are the allocations to the other budgets — PEP and…? Where is the UBCM grant? How do we add up to $13 million here?

Hon. M. de Jong: Here are the additional moneys as they relate to the UBCM grant: $1 million from the fire commissioner's office, $1 million from the provincial emergency program and then the three items that I mentioned earlier — $300,000 for emergency training, $700,000 for emergency planning and $1 million for public education. My guess and hope is that that roughly accounts for the $13 million when added to the $9.5 million.

J. MacPhail: Yes, it's more than…. It's $13.5 million. If the public education money doesn't come out of this minister's budget, what budget does that come out of?

Hon. M. de Jong: Some training dollars are from the Public Safety and Solicitor General ministry. Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services contributes training dollars, also, for structural firefighting cross-training. I think that's what they refer to when they mean cross-training. Let's hope. FireSmart awareness is again from the CAWS ministry, and recovery planning funding is from the Solicitor General ministry.

J. MacPhail: I assume the minister is saying that the forest protection operational line on the resource summary will increase by $9.5 million. In other words, it's new money to his ministry. Is that true of the entire $13-plus million that the minister and the Premier announced on the weekend? I trust it's all new money and not just reallocation.

Hon. M. de Jong: Three sources for the funding: one a portion from '03-04 surplus; the largest portion from reference to contingencies for '04-05; and $2 million reallocated from FIA, the forest investment account.

J. MacPhail: That explains the full $13 million he is explaining in terms of the sources of funding. I guess what I wanted to make sure was that none of it is being reallocated inside ministry budgets.

Hon. M. de Jong: No, Mr. Chair, with the exception of the $2 million that I referred to, which is the FIA vote. I think technically you would need to describe that as a reallocation.

J. MacPhail: How does it work that the government is getting two new air tankers? The minister just said it was going to be a $2 million cost for leasing costs onto the budget. They have always been leased. That's why Conair is doing so well. It's a great local company that makes a lot of money from our governments. The past practice has been, as I recall, to lease rather than purchase, because as we talked earlier in the debate around the Wildfire Act, one cannot predict when and for how long fires are going to occur.

What exactly are the specifics behind the announcement of the government obtaining two new air tankers? I hope I'm using that term correctly.

Hon. M. de Jong: The contract is, to the best of my knowledge, a conventional lease contract of the sort that the government has had with this supplier for many, many years. We did, as I have just alluded to, for a portion of the expenditure, access surpluses from the previous fiscal year. I should say this to the member as well. There is no secret; there is a tight fiscal situation. We, as I understand it, explored with the supplier a range of different options to try and retain this additional air power and everything from potentially purchasing aircraft to something else. What we finally settled upon was a fairly conventional lease arrangement with them.

The challenge here, if the member doesn't mind — because she, again, said this accurately — is that you just don't know. We now have a fleet of 15 tankers with some additional bird-dog aircraft, and if it pours rain all summer, we'll wonder why we have so many aircraft. But if we find ourselves in a situation where we're under siege and, unlike last year, Ontario or Quebec is under siege, there won't be the number of casual aircraft around to draw on.

The only way we could remedy that fact is to tie the aircraft up contractually so that we have the first draw on them. I think the member knows, in the past, that if we find ourselves in the situation where we don't need the aircraft, we have the ability to subcontract out to other jurisdictions, and then we recoup part of our cost. That is the rationale, and that was the mechanism that was used to come to the contractual arrangement.

J. MacPhail: As I understand it, then, the arrangement with Conair, the supplier of air tankers, is the conventional lease arrangement that has existed for years. It is not a purchase arrangement; it is a lease arrangement. And then the announcement was an increase in the number of aircraft by two that would be leased to British Columbia. The minister is nodding yes.

Is that additional cost…? How did the minister come to the conclusion that that was a good expenditure, given that there are traditional sharing arrangements, in order of priority, amongst provinces and amongst border states from the United States as well? That's question No. 1.

Question No. 2 is: if forest fires of greater magnitude break out in the rest of Canada or in the United States, do we still maintain our hold on the lease of those two, even if we have forest fires breaking out here? I'm trying to see what the additional leasing of two aircraft brings to the table in terms of forest fire fighting.

Hon. M. de Jong: I will say to the member that the impetus for this, from my point of view as the Minister of Forests — and I don't get involved in the contractual

discussions — is when I received advice that said that in a perverse sort of way, we got lucky last year because of our ability to draw on aircraft pursuant to the protocols that are in place. Our ability to draw on other aircraft existed because it was not a hot, dry year elsewhere in the country. But if that were to occur, we wouldn't, going forward, have access to the equipment we need. I think part of my job when provided with that advice is to at least make recommendations to government that we seek out the equipment we need and secure it.

The answer to the second part of the member's question, which hopefully I will not state as clumsily as the last time, is an emphatic yes. We end up with these aircraft. We have the first call on them, the first draw. If we don't need them and Alberta is in a situation where they do, or the Prairies or Ontario or Quebec or the Maritimes or, I think, internationally, in fact…. We have protocols in place with the United States and through Alaska and others. Then, those aircraft will be rediverted, and we actually recoup as the licensee of those aircraft. We recoup revenue for having made them available to other jurisdictions, just as we paid for the privilege or the opportunity to bring in other aircraft from other jurisdictions last year.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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

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

J. Kwan: I know that the government's contributions to the Vancouver Convention and Exhibition Centre project are estimated at $67 million for 2003-04, $71.3 million for 2004-05, $88.5 million for 2005-06 and $61.1 million in '06-07. This represents a $20 million increase over the original amount that was pledged by the government. Why was this extra funding necessary?

Hon. J. Les: The member is correct. There is an additional $20 million…. The original contribution agreed to by each of the province and the federal government was $202.5 million. Together with Tourism Vancouver's contribution of $90 million, that brought the total project to $495 million.

The provincial and federal governments have also contributed an additional $20 million each to upgrade and link the existing Vancouver Convention and Exhibition Centre so that it all ties together. There's some upgrading and modernization involved there as well. I believe that's the answer that the member is looking for.

J. Kwan: When did this need for an upgrade, increase in costs for the trade and convention centre, or the convention and exhibition centre, come to the minister's attention?

Hon. J. Les: Those additional figures came to light during 2003. As the member can imagine, as the design process proceeded for the new convention and exhibition centre expansion project, there was also more clarity, as we went forward, around how the two facilities were to be tied together.

As the member will probably know, there is some considerable distance involved between the existing convention centre and the new convention centre. Tying the two together, however, was a very important consideration, because the two facilities — the old and the new — need to work together very successfully in order to be able to host conventions and other meetings that will be triple, in fact, the size of the current capacity.

Bringing the two together was a very important aspect. As I said earlier, once the design components of the new became known, we were then able to wrap our minds around how to tie the two together, and that's what a lot of the expenses relate to.

J. Kwan: The government announced the funding with the federal government, the original $495 million,

on December 4, 2002. The minister says that sometime in 2003 more clarity came about, and so, therefore, the increased costs were then accounted for — the extra $20 million.

Hon. J. Les: This was an ongoing process throughout 2003 and an ongoing negotiation, as well, with the federal government to arrive at a determination as to how much of this tying together and upgrading of the existing facility the federal government was prepared to involve itself in.

J. Kwan: That wasn't my question. My question was: when did it come to light in 2003 — for this government to realize that they have to put in an extra $20 million into the convention and exhibition centre?

Hon. J. Les: I'm not sure that there was one particular moment when suddenly there was this great epiphany. As I said to the member earlier, this was an ongoing process that was contingent in part on the development of the design of the new facility; contingent, as well, on the design of the connection between the two facilities; and contingent on the negotiation process between the provincial government and federal representatives.

J. Kwan: Then is it fair to say that the government had always expected the cost would increase?

Hon. J. Les: There has been no increase in cost. The extra money that's been allocated is to tie the two facilities together, as I've already indicated. That wasn't something that was clear to anyone in terms of its necessity until the design of the new convention centre came more clearly into focus.

J. Kwan: Well, it's mystifying, at best, to try and follow the logic here. The minister likes to claim on the one hand that the federal and provincial governments made an agreement with a contribution towards the Vancouver Convention and Exhibition Centre, which was announced on December 4, 2002, to the amount of $495 million, $202.5 million each, along with the tourism industry, whose contribution is $90 million.

Then, the minister said somewhere along the line in 2003, once the design of the project became clear, that they needed to link the existing trade and convention centre with the new one that is to be developed, so then there is an increase in cost of $20 million — $20 million in contributions, I should say, from the federal and provincial governments, so each level can forward another $20 million.

I would suggest that's an increase in costs, because if the government had no anticipation in the beginning, when the announcement was made, that these extra dollars would be required, then it would explain why the government, indeed, announced the $495 million commitment at $202.5 million each, not $222.5 million each. It was at a later date, sometime in 2003…. Although the minister says the flashpoint was never clear when the extra $20 million of contribution is required from the provincial government, that was contingent on the design information that was to come forward.

It doesn't ring true for the minister to say: "Well, we didn't know what the costs would be until we actually had all the information." If we didn't anticipate that there would be an increase in cost, one would have assumed that original announcement would have covered that aspect, but it didn't. Then that means there is an increase in cost.

Again, there's no trickery here — just trying to figure out the time line here in terms of where the government is going and when they knew how much more money they had to contribute. Sometime in 2003 the design plans came back to indicate that in order to link up the existing trade and convention centre with the new convention and exhibition centre, it would require an extra $20 million contribution from the provincial government. When did the government find that out in 2003? When did the design plans come in that gave some indication that an extra $20 million would be required for this project?

Hon. J. Les: …or a specific month, I can certainly query staff at some point in the near future and try to get back to her on that. Although, I'm not going to stand here and suggest that such a time line is actually available. I'll do my best. I'll make that commitment.

Actually, I think it's also important to point out that what we're talking about here is not simply just a connection between the two facilities. As the negotiation process unfolded, as the year went on last year, we were able to negotiate very successfully with the federal government for a fairly significant improvement to the existing trade and convention centre that very much enhances the connection between the two facilities and adds, I think, an important new component that will be very pleasing to convention delegates that will come to Vancouver in the future.

It's not just a walkway that was constructed. We wanted something that was very complementary to the existing facility and something that was very functional as well. Because we were very successful in getting the federal government to contribute 50 percent of the funding, we ended up with a connection between the two facilities that will be a credit to both the old and the new facility.

J. Kwan: The extra $20 million each for this connector to the current convention centre and the old…. The minister is suggesting that the connector is more than just a connector; it is somehow going to enhance the existing trade and convention centre.

Is he talking about renovations that would take place with the existing centre? What exactly does the minister mean by that?

Hon. J. Les: I don't, obviously, have the blueprints here for the member, but I can describe in general terms that it involves some upgrading of the existing trade and convention centre. If you're facing the facility, to the front left of that facility there will be some additional components added to the existing trade and convention centre — in addition to the connection — which, as I said earlier, will improve the functionality and, frankly, the attractiveness of the facility as far as not only convention-goers are concerned but also the people in the city of Vancouver.

J. Kwan: The upgrade costs are strictly as a result of this connector having to be in place between the existing centre and the new centre. Isn't that right? If it's such a case that the existing centre does not require this connector to the new one, then no upgrades will be taking place.

Hon. J. Les: I think the member needs to understand that when you link two facilities together, there are upgrading costs required in the existing facility. I wish I had the drawings here to show the member, because she would then understand and appreciate that the upgrades to the existing facility are fairly significant.

She needs to keep in mind, as well, that the existing facility is 22 years old. When you start constructing a link to another facility, that necessarily involves upgrades and remodellings of an existing facility that are invariably more extensive. As I said earlier, what is being done to that facility increases its utility, improves its aesthetics and will serve to ensure that the facility serves British Columbians for many, many years to come.

J. Kwan: Let me be clear. I'm not disputing whether or not there's a need for a convention centre expansion. What I'm trying to get at here are the contributions the government is contributing to it.

It seems to me that there's an increase in cost since this first announcement. The original announcement was a total of $495 million for the project. In fact, the document that came out from government actually says that the project financing is capped at $495 million — $202.5 million dollars federally, $202.5 million provincially and $90 million from the industries themselves. When you add all that up, it's $495 million. Now we have a situation where each level of government is contributing another $20 million.

It would seem to me that the cap at $495 million is no longer a cap. That expected amount of dollars to be built in for this has now been breached — has gone over budget, in other words — by about $40 million, if you account for the federal government's side of things as well.

Now, the minister says, "Well, you know, we didn't know what the design looked like," and so on and so forth. We do know, I think, prior to the commitment on this project, where the site is in terms of the location for a potential trade and convention centre. In fact, in the government's own fact sheet it states that in February 2003 the province had purchased the Coal Harbour site from Marathon Developments Inc. for $27.5 million, and the Vancouver Convention Centre Expansion Project Ltd. is therefore created to deliver the project.

You know, we knew where the site was. Certainly, the government knew where the site was — what we're looking at — so the anticipation of the costs…. One could take that into account.

If the intention was to link it up to begin with, and I believe that there were such intentions in the beginning…. Now we have a situation where the $495 million cap has now been exceeded by $40 million — $20 million each from the federal and provincial governments. That's what I'm trying to figure out in terms of how we're doing on the budget here.

Let me ask the minister, as well, then: how are we doing with respect to this project so far? Maybe the minister can give me an update on how things are going.

Hon. J. Les: The new convention centre is still on budget at $495 million. As I attempted to explain to the member, the extra funding is for additional items for improvement and upgrade to the existing trade and convention centre, largely, as well as the connection between the two. As far as how we're doing with the project generally, it is still very much scheduled to be delivered and opened on time in mid-2008. We have every intention to ensure that it comes in on budget as well.

J. Kwan: The minister can insist that they are not going over budget, but documentation — and actually what is available today in terms of the numbers that are now made public — seems to show a different story. That is, that the $495 million cap on financing the Vancouver Convention and Exhibition Centre has now gone above that amount by $20 million each from the federal and the provincial governments.

In fact, the federal government's release in April of 2004 shows that their contribution went up to $222.5 million — different from the original release that said $202.5 million. They don't say that the contribution for the convention and exhibition centre is $202.5 million, plus a new investment for another related project by another $20 million. No. They don't say that. They actually say: "The federal and provincial governments will each contribute…." This contribution has gone up to $222.5 million.

These are government documents, and they seem to use different language than that of the minister in terms of what he's saying now. We do know that the

cost for the trade and convention centre has actually gone up by $20 million to date.

Okay. The minister says that everything else — that is an aside — is on target, on time, on budget, and we'll see the trade and convention centre delivered in 2008 within that scope. We'll see, in terms of how things progress from here.

The recent legislation that the government has tabled has given Tourism Vancouver the authority to charge a new levy on certain services, including restaurants and taxicabs, etc. — money that is supposed to go towards international marketing of Vancouver as a tourist destination. Of course, I note that Tourism Vancouver will be contributing some $90 million to the new convention centre. The levy on the various services, which would yield a certain amount. Does the minister have any sense of what that amount might be in terms of extra revenues for the tourism industry?

Hon. J. Les: Madam Chair, I seek your guidance. What the member refers to is a matter that is the substance of a bill that is currently before the House about to go to second reading. I'm wondering whether this is appropriate for estimates debate.

The Chair: Member, I would ask if you could stay as much as possible on the actual estimates that are on the table now. Thank you.

J. Kwan: Yes, I am fully aware that the bill is before the House, and it is not my intention to ask questions about the bill. My intention here is to ask about what is relevant to the Ministry of Small Business and Economic Development. The relevance here is this. Relating to the trade and convention centre, Tourism Vancouver will be contributing some $90 million towards that construction. It so happens that the bill allows Tourism Vancouver the opportunity to charge extra levies as economic development. Presumably, that ties into the usage of the trade and convention centre in the future, as well, therefore making a difference in small business and economic development in British Columbia.

So there is a link. I'm not asking specific questions about the bill but rather how much does this minister anticipate — because of that bill, because of that levy change — that would actually bring in, in terms of revenue generation, both economically for British Columbia and more specifically for Tourism Vancouver?

Hon. J. Les: The question, and any answer I might provide, would be highly speculative. The bill is still before the House, and so the question, I presume, would have to assume that the bill is passed by the House.

I would again wish to remind everyone here that we're here to discuss the estimates of my ministry, not the estimates of Tourism Vancouver.

J. Kwan: You know, it baffles me — I must admit — why this minister would go to all sorts of lengths to not answer questions. I think we established this morning that if he doesn't know the answer, well then, own up and say: "I don't know the answer." As I've mentioned, with other ministers — although, I may have some thoughts about that — I'll accept that. But to make some strange assertion about how much money would be generated with this new levy that the government has brought in for Tourism Vancouver, who happens to be a partner here in the trade and convention centre expansion project, who happens to be a key component in terms of our economic activities — the tourism industry, that is to say…. One would think it's a logical question to ask: how much are we expecting this new levy to generate?

Another reflection of that is…. Never mind the contribution side of things to the new trade and convention centre. The other side of things is that it would be a reflection on the tourism industry and how that is doing in British Columbia. I thought that was the business of this minister. After all, his ministry is called Small Business and Economic Development. Tourism has been the key economic generator for this province.

Madam Chair, it seems logical to me for the minister to answer these questions. As I said, if he doesn't know the answer, well, say: "I don't know the answer." That's honest for the minister to do, and as I said, I'll accept that as an answer. But to suggest somehow that the question, and that for me to ask the question, is not relevant to the minister — as though somehow the tourism industry is not related to economic development for British Columbia, as though it's not a major economic generator — is baffling.

The other link in terms of how it's linked to this ministry is, as I mentioned, the government ties to the partner's contribution for the new trade and convention centre from Tourism Vancouver. I would be interested, as well, to see how the tourism sector levy is related to the ministry's budget in any way, shape or form, or if it is at all. To gain some background understanding on how much we expect to generate from this levy and whether or not there's a relationship here tied to the estimates debate in terms of the minister's budget is legitimate.

Then, moreover, looking to see Vancouver's tourism trade, particularly now because we're dealing with the Vancouver tourism industry, and to break it down a little bit — how many, as an example, of the Vancouver tourists come from overseas? How many of them are local, as an example? — we get a sense of who's paying into our economy, which I thought was all part of the minister's business.

That's where I'm going with these questions. I'm just trying to get a sense of who's there forming a part of our industry, who's paying what levy and how much as a component of the economic generator for businesses in British Columbia is under the tourism industry.

Hon. J. Les: Madam Chair, I'm having great difficulty trying to piece together the bits of logic of the member opposite.

I have said that the bill she relates to is in front of the House for consideration currently. The contribution of Tourism Vancouver towards the trade and convention centre is the substance of an agreement that was signed with the province last year — in October, I believe — so we have every right to assume that those contributions will be forthcoming.

If the member opposite wants to engage in a discussion about the tourism industry in British Columbia, I am more than happy to do that, contrary to her assertion a few minutes ago. The tourism industry in British Columbia is actually doing very well. We're looking at significant increases this year in terms of visitors to British Columbia. The gross value of tourism in British Columbia this year is expected to be up significantly as well.

If that's where the member wants to go, I'm happy to engage in that discussion, but I'm not here to engage in a debate on the internal affairs of Tourism Vancouver, nor am I going to start debate on a bill that's before the Legislature.

The Chair: Member, I would advise you to keep to the administration of this particular ministry debate, please.

J. Kwan: Well, obviously, I think it's the entire government's sickness or illness, if you will, that has really forced its way into the brains of many of the ministers whose role and tactics have been based on finding a way to not answer questions. The minister just claimed that somehow I am putting questions to him about the internal affairs of Tourism Vancouver, that somehow I want to find out their operations. No, I don't.

I'm asking some basic questions to which Tourism Vancouver is a key partner of this province under a project called the trade and exhibition centre — $90 million of their contributions that have been signed onto in an agreement with this province and the federal government.

I think that it is within the interests of British Columbians to get a sense that the $90 million that would be contributed would actually be met. The other question ties into the levy that has just been introduced by this government — how much of that levy the minister expects would be generated from that. It's not to talk about the legislation at all. There is no intent here to talk about the legislation other than to say this key partner of the province in terms of their economic outlook…. Then, more to the point, of course, is how the whole industry of tourism in Vancouver ties into the economic development of British Columbia.

As I mentioned, I'm interested in knowing how many of the folks who come to Vancouver are tourists from overseas, as an example, which ties into the question of how many people who will be paying into this levy would be from overseas, tourists from elsewhere. Or would they be locals from Vancouver or within British Columbia, even? It's to get a sense of that.

I would have thought that these were matters that would be pertinent to this minister's area of responsibility and would be of interest to this minister and that he would actually be glad to provide some factual information for the public so that they would get a sense of what the tourism industry looks like in British Columbia — particularly for Tourism Vancouver and how this partner is making their way with the provincial government, the $90 million and its contributions and so on. But no, that would have just been too much to ask — to ask for these facts. It would have been much better to actually adopt, I think, the Premier's approach to things — contrary to what he claims — that somehow openness is better than hiddenness. According to this government, on every issue, hiddenness is better than openness, even something as basic as facts — basic facts about this ministry.

We can't find out this information. I have to say I find it shocking. It seems very few ministers in this government, to date, were prepared to answer questions, with the exception, I actually must say, of the Minister of Education. I just finished estimates debate with the Minister of Education, and he was very forthcoming in providing answers related to the area of education. We moved through the estimates process with, I think, much cooperation and much information obtained for members of the public.

I must say — maybe because he's new, although this minister is new too — he certainly is an exception to the rule. But now we have a new minister who has adopted the flu-like mentality that attacks one's brain stem when one asks questions on a point that….

The Chair: Member. Member, I would ask you to please keep to the business at hand, which is the assessments, not personal comments. Thank you.

J. Kwan: Answers to questions are what's called for. Unfortunately, that's not what's forthcoming, Madam Chair — unfortunately. I'm making an analogy. There is no other explanation that I can figure out for why ministers will go to such great lengths to not answer questions. I can't understand that. Such is the parliamentary system that we have here that the opposition has no powers whatsoever in trying to make the minister answer questions — no authority to do that. It's entirely up to the ministers' own conscience to take their job and responsibilities seriously and be forthcoming with answers — answers that will be important to members of the public, I would assume.

As I mentioned, there is some sort of situation here amongst this government where ministers consistently, with a few exceptions, adopt this mentality of not providing information, even on basic factual questions. One only has to wonder why. One only has to wonder why there is such a plague, as such, in this government. One only has to wonder why. What exactly is the government trying to hide, and why are they trying to be so uncooperative, at every turn, with questions from the opposition? I can't help but wonder why. There's

no logic to it. With the exception that…. Well, maybe it's a plague. I don't know.

Let me turn to the 2010 Olympics issue. Maybe it's airborne — I don't know — because it goes beyond ministers at some point.

The 2010 Olympics. It has been less than a year since British Columbia celebrated winning the 2010 Olympics, and it seems that it has already been hit by cost overruns. The Olympics president, John Furlong, said the capital budget will be hit by escalation and inflation. Can the minister tell us just how much escalation and inflation we're talking about here? What does it mean for the government's bottom line?

Hon. J. Les: The effect on the government's bottom line will be nil. When the budget estimates were composed for the bid prior to the award on July 2, 2003, that was done with great care. For each of the venues there was an inflationary factor incorporated into those numbers, and then there was a further contingency of $139 million allocated as well. As I said, great care was taken to ensure that the figures presented to the IOC were realistic.

Those figures were validated by the auditor general, who also indicated that the projections made were reasonable and realistic. Therefore, we continue to have confidence in those numbers. For those who have not been listening very carefully, the budget numbers are what they are, and we intend, clearly, that they not be exceeded.

J. Kwan: You know what? Maybe the president of the Olympics is not listening very carefully. That would be John Furlong, who was actually on record as saying that he's expecting there will be escalation and inflation that would increase costs. He was on the public record to say exactly that. Lest the government forgets, this government signed an indemnity agreement that would indemnify everybody, actually — the city and others — in terms of increased costs and cost overruns. The provincial government would be on the hook for that.

The minister and the government might like to say: "Oh well. We're going to shut our eyes and say: 'You know what? There will be no cost overruns.'" Well, your president is already saying he's expecting there's escalation in costs, as well as inflation issues, that one must account for — with full awareness of the auditor general's report, full awareness of the budget the government had issued, full awareness of what the contingency fund is. Maybe it is the president who's not listening very carefully.

I have more questions to ask about the Olympic issue, but I understand that one of the members from the government bench would like to ask some questions of the minister — Surrey-Tynehead. So with that, at his request, I'll yield the floor to him so that he can ask his questions.

D. Hayer: To the minister: first of all, I'd like to thank you for doing a good job. Every time we have questions from Surrey Chamber of Commerce or small business organizations and we come to your office, you are always available to help us out. It's really appreciated. It's been helpful.

I have about three questions. The first one is…. In my riding there are a number of new small businesses starting up and making the best of the opportunities available today in B.C. Can the minister please tell my constituents what programs are in place to help these entrepreneurs succeed? Are there any initiatives that do help the startup of the new businesses?

Hon. J. Les: I want to thank the member for his questions. The creation of new business opportunities is something that is very important to this government. We've partnered with the federal government and created the Canada–B.C. small business society that provides guidance and leadership to emerging small businesses to help them through their initial growing pains. Many of these small businesses have found the assistance from this organization very, very successful and helpful.

In addition to that, of course, I'd like to remind the member and all members of this House that many of the economic measures that we have initiated since we were elected in 2001 are very important on an ongoing basis to businesses across British Columbia.

The personal tax cut, for example, of 2001 is one that continues to be appreciated by all employees and residents of British Columbia. The corporate capital tax elimination is something that has resulted in a new inflow of investment into British Columbia, where in the early nineties, when the previous government initiated the corporate capital tax, there was a massive outflow of investment away from British Columbia. That investment stayed away throughout the nineties. When we did away with the corporate capital tax, the business community again had some confidence that we were prepared to respect invested capital in British Columbia.

The deregulation initiative that we have undertaken is very helpful to small businesses at that point in time when they are in fact just starting out. We will never know the amount of businesses that we frustrated to the extent that they never got off the ground in British Columbia throughout the nineties because of the regulatory burden that was imposed on the small business sector.

Those are just a few examples of the initiatives that we've undertaken as government to be supportive of business, to create an environment where business is sustainable, where it knows that it is respected, where people know that if they work hard, if they invest, if they participate in the economic life of British Columbia, they have a government that's prepared to back them up and to support them in their endeavours.

D. Hayer: Before this government was formed, when I was involved with the B.C. Chamber of Com-

merce, the Surrey Chamber of Commerce and other business organizations, one of the most hated taxes was the corporate capital tax. That was the tax that was driving people away. It was like government was penalizing people for investing money in here. People used to always wonder if, when we came in, we were going to change it. I know that the government had made some changes right away, within the first 90 days. Those have made big initiative changes, and now the businesses are starting to come back again.

I was told by my colleagues that we have about ten minutes to ask the questions, so I'm going to take the time to ask a few more questions.

Another one is regarding research and development. Research and development is vital in stimulating the economy, leading to new innovation and to B.C. developing a comprehensive advantage in burgeoning fields. Can the minister tell me what is being done to promote research and development initiatives in British Columbia?

Hon. J. Les: We have been involved in any number of initiatives to bring research and development back into British Columbia, particularly in the high-tech and biotechnology aspects of our economy. We created the Small Business Venture Capital Act a few years ago, which provides for a 30 percent tax credit. With the allowances that we've made in our budget, that in fact means that there is $67 million available for investment in new technology and biotechnology initiatives. Those are the sectors where there's the greatest uptake of this financing.

The member will recall, as well, that we removed the provincial sales tax from machinery and equipment, almost at the very beginning of our mandate. Again, that was a very important initiative that has resulted in major upgrades of physical plants right across British Columbia, particularly in the forest industry, the mining industry and other industries where heavy investment is required in machinery and equipment.

We've also established Leading Edge British Columbia to assist us to more cohesively market the high-tech and biotechnology industries in British Columbia. They have been very much involved in trade missions to other jurisdictions in Europe and Asia, and I think they are going to be very instrumental in making British Columbia one of the leading destinations in the world for new high technology and biotechnology, in particular.

D. Hayer: What changes have occurred as a result of the move from the Ministry of Competition, Science and Enterprise to the Ministry of Small Business and Economic Development?

Hon. J. Les: The Ministry of Small Business and Economic Development, as I think the member alludes to, is a bit of a rationalization and compilation of several different interests in government under one umbrella. What was once the Ministry of Competition, Science and Enterprise was united with the Ministry of Deregulation, as well as with those aspects of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services that dealt with sports, culture and, importantly, the Olympics.

These are all areas of government that are very fundamental to the economy. The dovetailing of those areas of government ensures that we can do a better job of coordination, ensuring, for example, that we maximize the economic benefits of hosting the Olympics in 2010 and ensuring, as well, that the deregulation initiative that is very successfully unfolding so far is done in a way that is very supportive of our economic initiatives generally across government.

D. Hayer: What is the definition of small business, according to the minister, that you use in your ministry? Are there any initiatives that your ministry is involved in to try to open up new markets for our province, to find new places we can export our products to? Are there any specific countries that you've been targeting, different areas of the world?

Hon. J. Les: The definition of small business is one that I'm asked about from time to time. I'm not sure that there is a universally accepted definition of small business, but the one that I hear about most often is: those businesses that employ 50 people or less. By that standard, small business actually involves about 98 percent of British Columbia businesses. Clearly, small business is a big contributor to the economy. We ought not to denigrate any business simply because it only employs a handful of people. I would suggest that it is exactly those kinds of businesses that are the very fibre of our economy and our society.

In terms of marketing outside of our borders, the Premier and numerous other ministers have been involved in a number of activities throughout the past several years marketing British Columbia and its businesses in places like California and Texas as well as in trade missions to China and India. Taiwan, not too long ago, adopted a building code that makes Taiwan, in that case, more amenable to being able to accept B.C. building products for use in their construction industry.

That activity is ongoing. We are always looking for more markets, particularly in those parts of the world — China and India today would be the best examples — where there is rapid economic expansion and where some of the products that we have to offer from B.C. businesses are going to be in high demand.

D. Hayer: Are there any other initiatives or trips designed to promote British Columbia in other provinces or in the United States or other countries in the future?

Hon. J. Les: I'm not aware of any current initiatives, but undoubtedly there will be some in the not too distant future. I would point out to the member that we

only undertake these missions when there is a concrete and beneficial reason for doing so. It's often the case that these trips can be very, very non-productive. We want to absolutely ensure that if we undertake this kind of activity, there's an expected result we can deliver on with some reasonable assurance.

I know the member is keenly interested in opening up further trade opportunities in Asia, for example. I know that some of our staff are exploring those opportunities on a daily basis. When there is a good reason for myself or, perhaps, other ministers or the Premier, in fact, to be travelling to those other countries, with a reasonable expectation of being able to deliver something of value to the British Columbia economy, we will do that.

P. Wong: First of all, I should comment on the leadership of the Premier and the minister about the Winter Olympic Games. Through this, it will generate long-term benefits to all sectors of the economy. It is a catalyst to promote confidence of the people in British Columbia. For example, in Beijing, because of the 2008 Olympics, a lot of economic growth can be seen in China. I understand that people will be coming from the Olympics in Beijing to Vancouver next month. They would like to come and meet with the minister and your staff to see what kind of coordinated effort we can put together. I'm very pleased to see that.

Most important of all is that the confidence level is unprecedented in the last decade. The confidence level of consumers has grown to such a level that it will promote a lot of consumption, which means we generate more business and more employment opportunities for most people. One of the benefits is that because of the Winter Olympics, we can see a lot of housing starts, including a lot of condominiums, which can provide a lot of rental properties, accommodations for the needy. As well, many potential businessmen will come to British Columbia.

To start, I would like to ask the minister: with your estimates there, one thing I don't understand is about the reserves for doubtful accounts. On page 138 of your vote, the amount was $1.3 million in "Reserves for Doubtful Accounts" in "Executive and Support Services."

Hon. J. Les: In years past, probably five or ten years ago, it was the practice of government to make loans and other financial vehicles available to businesses and other agencies. Some of those carried with them a repayment provision, and some of those repayments, frankly, don't always happen.

Under the generally accepted accounting principles that we now employ, we have to account for those payments not coming back to government. That's all this is. It is currently not the practice of government to make any loans subject to repayment or anything else, but this simply reflects decisions of previous governments. We have to account for them under, as I said, generally accepted accounting principles.

P. Wong: I understand that marketing and promotion are the key components of the Small Business ministry. I see the number of staff in the estimates in the coming year is only 17, down from 47. That is on page 12 of the service plan. Would the minister comment on this?

Hon. J. Les: The member is correct. Currently, we have 17 people identified as directly involved in marketing. Frankly, the focus of our government has been to be rather lean in this area. These are 17 people, by the way, who are highly productive and deliver good value for money for British Columbians. The 47 that were previously there also included people who were part of the B.C. Trade Development Corporation, which no longer exists.

I also want to remind the member that Leading Edge B.C. is doing much of the work that was previously within the ministry. However, many people who are today involved in Leading Edge British Columbia are not reflected in the 17 people that appear in the service plan for the ministry.

P. Wong: I understand that B.C. Pavilion was subsidized with $5 million a year by the ministry. The capital assets of Pavco are about $200 million. Does this organization pay any property taxes at all?

Hon. J. Les: I'm having a bit of discussion here with the staff. The answer to that question is not clear, but I will undertake with the member that we will get that answer back to him.

J. Kwan: We were talking about the Olympics issue earlier, before I yielded the floor to a couple of members from the government side. The minister's response to my question about potential cost overruns is that he has said there would be none. Now, of course, he cites the auditor general and others who have looked into the books. He suggests that someone may not be paying attention to what the government has said. As I mentioned, the president of the Olympics, John Furlong, was the one who actually suggested that the capital budget will be hit by escalation and inflation.

Now, the auditor general had warned the government last year that the contingency fund set aside for the Olympics might be inadequate. The Olympics minister at the time dismissed the concerns and said the costs in the bid reflect the exact expenditure. If that's the case, let me ask this question: can the minister tell us how much is budgeted for the Olympic facilities?

Hon. J. Les: The budget for venues construction related to the Olympics will be $510 million. That, of course, will be split 50-50 between the provincial and federal governments.

J. Kwan: Now, the province has signed a full indemnification agreement, and that, of course, puts the taxpayers of British Columbia on the hook for any cost

overruns. In fact, the Premier admitted that. That's actually the contract language that is out there, so there's no denying it.

Given, though, that the Olympics are not subject to freedom of information, nor is it subject to the Auditor General Act…. That was a decision made by this government, contrary to their notion of openness and accountability. Through the FOI process, one could not get access to the information related to the Olympics, nor does the Auditor General Act apply.

The only person in the province, though, who has a public mandate to ensure that the costs don't spiral and who can guarantee full public accountability and transparency is the auditor general. There is a simple way here in which the government can address the issue, and that is, of course, to have the auditor general become the auditor for the Olympics — the official auditor for the Olympics.

Let me ask the minister this question, because I think that would actually lay to rest a lot of the concerns about the potential cost overruns. How budgets would be met is to have someone independent there who works for all members of the Legislature to do that work and, therefore, to ensure the level of independence is available. Has the minister considered bringing in B.C.'s independent auditor general to oversee all the Olympics expenditures?

Hon. J. Les: I think the member has her roles and responsibilities, as far as those applied to the auditor general or members of this government are concerned…. It is clearly the responsibility of government to ensure that we live within our budget mandates, and it is up to the auditor general to comment on how government has performed. It is not up to the auditor general to get involved in budget allocations and other things. It is not up to the auditor general to get involved in the actual management of the capital allocations vis-à-vis the Olympics or anything else.

We welcome the auditor general to comment on how government has done. I think the member attempts to convince whoever is listening today that, you know, we obviously will not live within our budget. We will and we must. There were predictions a couple of years ago that government would not balance its budget. We said we would, and we did. Similarly, we are going to live within our means as far as the allocations are concerned for the Olympics. I think there is every reason to expect that we're going to be able to do that.

J. Kwan: Well, I'll remind the minister who the people were that actually made the statement about escalation and inflation. It happens to be someone that I think, I believe, this government very much supported and handpicked to be in charge of winning the bid. That would be, of course, Mr. John Furlong. It's not my words. He actually said that the Olympic capital budget would be hit by "escalation and inflation" before 2010 — that is, knowing full well what the budget for the Olympic facilities would cost.

In addition to that — and I think a good friend of the Premier as well — the organizing committee chair Jack Poole has said that the group will be coming back to both levels of government with a supplementary budget at some time. This was reported out on April 2, 2004. It's recent.

It's not the opposition saying that there will necessarily be inflation and escalation, although when the auditor general did the review, the auditor general did flag — as did the opposition, highlighting what the auditor general flagged — that the contingency that has been identified is small, really, in comparison to a project as big as the Olympics project and, as well, that there were some concerns with respect to whether or not the budget would actually meet the costs that would be demanded for the 2010 Olympics.

Now, the question about the auditor general. No one is suggesting the auditor general become the manager for the project, but for the auditor general to become the official auditor of the Olympics expenditures, for that independent person to have a free rein in finding out how the moneys were spent and whether or not it meets various guidelines and standards and whether or not, truly, there are cost overruns and so on and so forth….

I am very much hoping that there wouldn't be cost overruns, and I'm very much on side here with the government. I'm sure there are a whole host of people who work like mad with the government to try and keep costs down so that it doesn't go over the budget. I know some of the staff around the table, and they're excellent managers in their own right, so I'm not questioning their ability either, but sometimes projects have a way of doing things, and sometimes things happen.

Now, the government's people, I would say, which I know the government supported — Mr. Furlong and Mr. Poole — are saying that they have concerns around the capital budget. That should actually ring some alarm bells, I think, for the minister and for this government with respect to that.

Let's just bring it back to this question. I'm not asking the minister to commit that the auditor general should manage the day-to-day expenditures and operations of the Olympics project. I'm not suggesting that at all. I'm simply suggesting that there should be an independent auditor who gets access to this information and who could actually look and review the matter and, therefore, be able to report out to British Columbians and to the Legislature. I'm asking for the auditor general to be appointed as the official auditor of the Olympics.

Hon. J. Les: It is entirely outside the purview of the provincial government to take unto itself the power to appoint an auditor for the Olympics. The Olympic organizing committee has its own auditors. What is available to the auditor general of British Columbia is

to freely examine all of the expenditures of the provincial government. If the auditor general wants to devote some of the resources available to him to a careful examination of provincial expenditures as they relate to the Olympics, the auditor general is free to do so.

J. Kwan: The difference is this. The auditor general is an independent person in this instance. If this person is appointed to be the official auditor for the Olympics, then that will lend credibility to the government's claim in statements if he verifies, in fact, that the project, as it moves along, is on budget and on target, that expenditures are spent wisely and appropriately, and that expenditures follow guidelines and rules of government — as an example. That would actually bring credibility to the government, credibility to the project, and I think it would be helpful for the project.

Yes, it's true that the Olympic folks have their own auditor, but they're not independent. That is the issue here, for which a government can appoint the auditor general to be the independent auditor for the Olympics project.

The government and the minister say that people can access this information. The auditor can access this information — well, with the exception of this. The government specifically undertook to exempt the Olympics from the FOI process so that the public could not access that information in relation to expenditures. The government explicitly undertook to do that. Then the government also undertook to ensure that the Auditor General Act does not apply to the Olympics.

Now, in and of itself, I suppose one could say, "Well, what's wrong with that? It doesn't matter, really," with the exception that the government already, at the very early stages of this major initiative, is laying down the tracks for hiddenness — to quote the Premier again. Somehow, this very important project, and I would say probably the biggest megaproject under this government's tenure…. Already, at its very early stages, the government has decided to take steps to prevent access of information from flowing to the public by exempting the project from the FOI provisions. Already it has done that. That does not serve the interests of British Columbians well. It does not serve the interests of this government well, I would venture to say, and it has not served the government's concept of openness and accountability and transparency. It goes contrary to all of that.

But it is not too late, is what I'm saying, for this government and this minister to rectify that by appointing the auditor general to be the official auditor of the Olympics so there is a fully independent person who would undertake to review the expenditures — not to make decisions about the expenditures, but to review the spending of this project, to review the budgeting and whether or not things are going as smoothly, as this minister and this government continuously like to claim, and how everything is just fine.

Hon. J. Les: Well, I'm not sure the member opposite was listening. It is simply not under the purview of our government or any government to be appointing an auditor for the Olympics. Frankly, I think if we purported to do so, we'd be laughed out of the room. They have their own auditor, and as much as the member opposite may want to cast aspersions on whoever that auditor is and with respect to the independence or otherwise of that auditor, I think she's speculating quite wildly as far as that is concerned. I'm comforted by the fact that there is an auditor in place that will have the responsibility to audit all of the expenditures of the Olympic organization generally.

With respect to the expenditures on behalf of the province, we have our own auditor general in place, as the member is aware. That individual can determine from time to time where he wishes to place his emphasis and where he wishes to employ some scrutiny. If that is around the province's Olympic expenditures, we welcome that scrutiny, and in fact, we have absolutely nothing to hide.

J. Kwan: You know, for this minister to say that this government has nothing to hide…. Well, then, you know, if that rings true, come clean with a whole bunch of issues. Just provide the information to the public — the B.C. Rail deal, for one, as an example. Provide that information to the public and let them decide whether or not the government is hiding anything — not after the fact but before the fact.

The same thing here on the Olympics issue. If the government says, "Everything is well on track and we welcome scrutiny," then why bring forward a provision that exempted the FOI application to the Olympics project? Why do that? Why not make FOI applicable just like any other initiative generally — except this government, by doing that, is signalling to the public, even if they're not trying to hide anything, that they have something to hide. That's the net effect of it. Why else would you say FOI does not apply to the Olympics project? For this minister to say that the auditor general can go in and look and review the expenditures and do all they want, and it's under close scrutiny, with the exception that the Auditor General Act does not apply, is only a minor oversight there. Oops — the Auditor General Act does not apply.

Having said that, in addition, this is a government that, through the budget process, is cutting the budgets of watchdogs, including the auditor general. For the minister to say, "Oh, well, you know. He can undertake and go in and do all this scrutiny all he wants…." Already, as it were, that auditor general's workload is overflowing with budget cuts to his office. The language and what the minister just said rings hollow, to say the very least — for him to say the auditor general has free rein to go in and review matters.

If the government is truly interested in openness and accountability, the ministry can and the government can…. Let me tell you, I chaired the Public Accounts Committee, and we had debate about this matter as well. You know what? At every turn, when we talked about scrutiny around the Olympics project, and

particularly around the issue of getting the auditor general for the Public Accounts Committee to endorse the auditor general to become the official auditor for the Olympics, the government bench has tried to fight that notion at every turn. The auditor general had to go and negotiate with all sorts of people about what role he could play.

Please don't tell me that the government cannot officially put the auditor general to be the auditor to review this matter on behalf of the Legislature. Of course the government can have that authority. Of course the government can decide to not prevent the FOI provisions from applying to the Olympics project. Of course the government can ensure that the Auditor General Act applies to the Olympics project, but this government chose the opposite. The government chose to take an avenue that spells out secrecy, that spells out anything but transparency.

I'm giving the minister a last chance to rectify that problem. Unfortunately, he's failing, failing at that very notion that this government and this minister had campaigned on in their New Era document. Openness and accountability in the new era is anything but openness, anything but transparent, anything but accountable.

The notion that somehow the minister would like to play it both ways — guess what? It ain't gonna wash. The public knows the difference. Do not play the public for fools, because they are not stupid. Do not play them for fools.

The government should, in my view, as we have been advocating…. The auditor general should become the official auditor. The auditor general could have his work supplemented by other auditors as well. That happens in the government system as well. There's nothing unusual. Let the auditor general be the lead, the auditor general, who carries the very important signage, if you will — the flag, if you will — of complete independence, whose mandate is to work for all legislators, whose mandate is to act in the best interests of British Columbians with respect to reviewing expenditures, how funds and projects are managed and whether or not it is within the guidelines and objectives that have been set out by government to begin with.

Hon. J. Les: I would point out to the member that it was our government that initiated generally accepted accounting principles in terms of financial accountability in the affairs of British Columbia. GAAP, as they are generally known, I think can rightly be referred to as the gold standard in financial accountability. We are the first jurisdiction in Canada that adopted those principles in financial accountability.

Frankly, I'm getting just a little bit tired of being lectured by the member opposite on financial accountability. I can only wonder, for example, how many auditors were available or were in fact asked by the previous government to audit the ongoing process of building the fast ferries, which burdened our children and grandchildren with a half a billion dollars of ongoing debt for many, many, many years to come. For that member to now cast aspersions as to the motivations of people who I think are conducting their jobs ably and well, to me it is just a little bit hard to take.

We have made a practice across government of being as open as it's possible to be. I would point out, as well, for the benefit of the member that the Olympics are a non-government agency, so they are not subject to FOI, for example. We've made that clear in the spirit of openness. The member is clearly engaging in a bit of a verbal adventure this afternoon that, frankly, is quite irrelevant.

J. Kwan: Nothing could be further from the truth. The minister just said that in the spirit of openness the government has exempted the FOI application to the Olympics project. You know what? This government did that consciously, made a decision that the Olympics should be closed to access to freedom of information.

If you want to say, Madam Chair, that somehow this minister and this government are open, let's match their actions to their words and see whether or not they ring true. The issue is that when you match the walk and the talk, they do not ring true. They are not consistent with what the minister is saying about openness and accountability and transparency. It is exactly the opposite. That is what's happening.

The minister says, oh, fast ferries. You know what? We always know in the opposition when the government is trying to hide and run from something, because what do they do? They bring up fast ferries. Well, British Columbians know. And you know what? The fast ferries project was audited by the auditor general. Not only that. The auditor general went in there and did a full review of the matter and….

J. Kwan: The minister says: "After the fact." And you know what? That was a lesson learned.

J. Kwan: Maybe it's even funny to the deputy…. Presumably, maybe he wanted to be Premier — but to the minister. Maybe that's funny, but you know what? That's what happens in politics. It's true. The previous administration made a mistake with fast ferries. It's true. British Columbians have been angry with the previous administration over this issue. That's true too. And you know what? The main issue that I have learned as a politician — not just as a politician, but as

a human being — is that you learn from your past mistakes. You learn from them, and you prevent them from happening again as best you can.

Here we have, arguably, perhaps one of the biggest megaprojects in the history of British Columbia. By the end of the Olympics project, it would be small in comparison to the fast ferries project, but still, that's not the issue. The real issue here is what lessons did we learn about…?

The Chair: Members, would you please keep to the discussion that is taking place, which is on the administration of Small Business and Economic Development.

The member for Vancouver-Kingsway's heckling to suggest that the previous administration conned British Columbians is unparliamentary. I would ask him to withdraw that heckle unconditionally, Madam Chair.

The Chair: I would point out that it is not a point of order, but I would ask the members in this room to please caution on the language that they choose in this room. Thank you.

J. Kwan: On a point of order, Madam Chair. The language that the member for Vancouver-Kingsway has just used is offensive to me. It is, in my view, unparliamentary language — the same thing as members tried to say that people lied. "Con" has the same meaning as such. In my view, the language that has been used by this member is unparliamentary.

I would ask you — Madam Chair, through you to the member — to withdraw that comment unconditionally.

I have already pointed out…. To the member and to all members in this room, I ruled just previously that this was not a point of order. I would also ask every member in this room that if they wish to speak, they should stand before they're recognized.

J. Kwan: I tell you, every day, the operations of the Legislature…. They never cease to amaze me in terms of how the place operates.

Let me, then, say this and close with these statements about the Olympics project. It is, as I mentioned, arguably one of the biggest megaprojects in the history of British Columbia. Everybody — I think it's fair enough to say — would like to see the project succeed, for it to come in on budget and for it to be delivered with such spectacular expressions of spirit, spectacular expressions of welcome and spectacular expressions of who we are as British Columbians to the rest of the world. There is no mistake about that.

What I'm concerned about…. Part of the role of the opposition is to ensure that there is close and independent scrutiny of the project; to make sure that the information provided is honest, reliable, transparent and accountable; and to make sure the public has access to information about how taxpayers' dollars are expended and that they have been expended wisely.

It is my view, and the opposition's view, that the best person to do that would be the auditor general, who is independent of all members, who is an independent officer of this House. That person…. If he — and it could be a she if there's a change at a later date — became that official auditor, then government could stand strong on its ground, confident in saying that the project is indeed open and accountable, that it is in fact transparent for the world to see how it is managed, how funds are spent. That would have met the interests of the public for the purposes of public good.

The government has every opportunity and ability to do exactly that, no matter how this minister claims he doesn't. The government has every opportunity and ability to do exactly that. It's up to this government to act to ensure openness, accountability and access to information for the public's purview.

I will be clear. Given that the government has not decided to put the auditor general forward as the official auditor for the Olympics, then the government is only casting a cloud, a black mark, on its own project by doing that, and when issues arise, the government only has themselves to blame.

I'd now like to turn to another issue, which my colleague and I find extremely surprising for the matter to be under this minister. The subject matter is climate change. To our great surprise, a few weeks ago my colleague…. Today, actually, I would never have thought I'd be asking these questions of the Minister of Small Business and Economic Development. During the estimates for the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, my colleague the member for Vancouver-Hastings was informed that she should be directing and redirecting climate change questions to this minister.

As I said, the member — my colleague — was quite taken aback to learn that climate change is the respon-

sibility of the Minister of Small Business and Economic Development. Certainly, I am surprised to learn that, having read Hansard to see what the debate was about and how it led to this ministry. Certainly, others were surprised as well. It was reported out by Les Leyne in the Times Colonist.

Now, I understand that certain elements of climate change policy, such as the green energy and fuel cell development, would necessitate the cooperation of the Ministry of Small Business and Economic Development. What is less clear to me is why, as the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection stated, the climate change branch has: "…been seconded by the Deputy Minister of Small Business and Economic Development, and they work together with them."

Given that's what the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection has said, can the minister explain to me who is responsible for protecting our environment from the negative impacts of climate change?

Hon. J. Les: The member expresses surprise that the matter of climate change should be housed within this ministry. However, I'm sure she would readily agree that the matter of climate change not only has very large implications environmentally but certainly has huge potential implications economically as well. With that in mind, it makes abundant good sense that this matter should be dealt with within this ministry.

In terms of who is responsible for managing this file, we have in place a deputy minister's committee, chaired by my deputy, that deals with this entire issue of climate change and the British Columbia response.

J. Kwan: As I said, it is not just me who was surprised; it wasn't just my colleague who was surprised. Let me just quote a little bit from the Les Leyne article dated April 1, 2004 — although, it wasn't an April Fool's joke. It reads — parts of the article:

This is just a little bit of the article from Les Leyne. In fact, as I mentioned, a lot of people were surprised and shocked to find that climate change actually doesn't fall under the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection but rather the Ministry of Small Business and Economic Development.

Okay. The minister says he's responsible, so let me ask some questions. I have here the report of the B.C. climate change economic impact panel, which is a report that was completed on March 25, 2003, but was never made public. The group included Bruce Sampson — he was the chair of the B.C. climate change economic impact panel — B.C. Hydro; Mike Bradley, Canadian Forest Products; Peter Busby, Peter Busby & Associates, Architects; John Carline, greater Vancouver regional district; Denis Connor, QuestAir Technologies; Rick Hyndman, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers; Pat Jacobsen, greater Vancouver transportation authority; Anne Murray, Vancouver International Airport Authority; Hugh Porteous from Alcan Inc.; John Robinson, University of British Columbia; and Wayne Soper, Duke Energy Gas Transmission, Canada.

The panel's letter to the then minister of Water, Land and Air Protection stated: "The panel has been asked to review the information and advice we have provided to date." When the question was put to the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection for an update of the implementation of the report's recommendations, he answered: "I really believe that you should be addressing these questions to the Minister of Small Business and Economic Development." Can the Minister of Small Business and Economic Development tell me what, if any, action the government has taken on this report of the B.C. climate change economic impact panel?

Hon. J. Les: The whole question of climate change and the Canadian response to climate change as envisioned in the Kyoto protocol is very unsettled business. The national government's position at this point, I would suggest, is very nebulous. It is difficult from day to day for the province to know exactly how to engage to ensure that the provincial position is protected.

Data released by Natural Resources Canada in October of 2002 suggested that B.C. would be required to carry a highly disproportionate share of the job loss and economic growth in the scenarios that were being contemplated by the federal government. We consider that to be unacceptable, particularly when in British Columbia we have a number of natural assets that can contribute to carbon sinks — for example, in the case of the natural forest endowment that we have here or, alternatively, the very significant hydroelectric generation that we have and utilize here in British Columbia, which contributes to a very, very clean source of energy. We want to make sure that our provincial interest is protected and that in spite of whatever decisions might be made by Ottawa with respect to climate change, our provincial economy will be able to grow and thrive and thus contribute to those measures that we require to improve our environment.

J. Kwan: The panel, on March 25, 2003, submitted the report and then noted 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." This panel, I should say, was put together by the government and given the mandate to do its work and then to make recommendations to the government. Partway through, it appears to me, they've been asked to pause. To quote it directly: "The panel has been asked to pause its activities in order to provide the government with an opportunity to review the information and advice we have provided to date."

Then, in this report, it comes with a series of recommendations around the report. Let me just go through some of the recommendations with the minister.

I'm assuming the minister read the report, Madam Chair. Maybe I should just stop there and ask if the minister has read the report.

J. Kwan: Good. Then he'll know what I'm talking about. He'll know about the report and its content. Let me just go through some of the recommendations, then.

The first recommendation is — let me just find the place here: "The province should develop an aggregate long-term target for greenhouse gas emission reduction, recognizing the potential for extensive technological innovation over time." What has been done to implement this recommendation?

Hon. J. Les: As I indicated just a few moments ago, the federal plan around the Kyoto protocol is very much a moving target. We have no firm plans federally with which we can engage provincially. It's simply necessary for the federal government to be clear as to exactly what targets it wishes to achieve. Those are unclear at this point. We do not know — and no one has told us federally — what exactly their plan is. Until those become more clear, we are not going to be able to firmly establish our targets either.

J. Kwan: If the minister claims that he read the report, then he would know that this report and this panel was put together for a made-in-B.C. solution. Let me just quote parts of the executive summary. It says:

The panel undertook this work with the full information that the federal government is considering the Kyoto protocol. The panel was actually put together by this government specifically to make recommendations for British Columbia — what this report calls a made-in-B.C. approach to climate change. Independent of what the federal government is doing, it was aimed to do exactly that — that is, to figure out what B.C. should be doing.

For the minister to say now, "Gee, we don't know what we're doing. We don't know. I don't know. Uh, don't ask me," because the federal government hasn't quite figured out what they're doing is completely nonsense. The government's own panel that the government put together is saying this is a made-in-B.C. approach. If the minister read the report, he would know that his panel's recommendations are saying: "Here's what we should do for British Columbia."

Is the minister now saying they have done nothing, zippo, with respect to climate change and that they're just waiting, well, either for the sky to fall or for the election to be called or whatever — I don't know — until they make any decisions around this?

In other words, yet another report commissioned by the government is going to sit and collect dust — sort of like another area we canvassed with the Minister of State for Women's Services around impacts for women, particularly on issues around wage equity. There was a report that was commissioned by this government under the Attorney General, and it has now been reported out with recommendations for actions for women in the area around wage equity. It's just sitting there collecting dust. Is this the fate of this report as well?

Hon. J. Les: I attempted to point out to the member earlier that we cannot invent provincial climate change policy in isolation. This is clearly an area where the federal government has a very large jurisdiction.

It is a result of an international agreement called the Kyoto protocol that the federal government has signed onto, and we have to act within the context of federal government decisions relating to the Kyoto agreement. It would be disastrous, perhaps, for the provincial government to launch forth and take actions under the rubric of the Kyoto protocol that may be totally at variance with where the federal government ultimately wants to go.

There is no clarity today as to what the federal government wishes to do around the Kyoto protocol. They

have jurisdiction over large emitters like cement, oil and gas, pulp and paper, which, as I think the member knows, are large components of our provincial economy. In a spirit of prudence, it is entirely appropriate that we pause and give the federal government a chance to catch up and sort out what its ultimate position is going to be with respect to implementation of the Kyoto protocol.

J. Kwan: The minister's argument might wash if the government and the minister did not create their own panel to bring forward the made-in-B.C. recommendations. The Premier has already waffled on supporting Kyoto. In fact, the former Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection has already been on record to not come forward to support the Kyoto protocol, so we know where this government stands irrespective of what the federal government does on the Kyoto protocol. We already know that. That's not relevant in terms of this government needing to set some targets.

The panel that was put together by this government — the B.C. climate change economic impact panel, which prepared this report for the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection and the Ministry of Energy and Mines — had already taken these matters into account. Then they were asked to stop their activities, to pause and then to send their report forward to the government for consideration before they embarked on the next steps.

All we're trying to figure out here is this: the recommendations that this panel had been asked to come forward with…. With all the information the minister claims, they now cannot decide what to do with anything. With that full knowledge, they would want to know, I presume, where the government is going with this. The opposition would like to know, because last year when the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection was asked about this, the former minister informed the House that the government was working on a climate change plan and that their target was to have this plan completed by the end of June 2003.

That's almost a full year ago, Madam Chair. It is now mid-April. It has almost been a year since. The plan was being developed then with the full understanding of what's going on federally and so on. It's now a year later. Has there been no progress, or did this report just simply get shelved?

Hon. J. Les: As I indicated earlier, this plan isn't necessarily shelved, but we are waiting for the context in which this plan is to be implemented. That context has to be developed by the federal government. To date we have not yet received clear direction from the federal government, which is going to perhaps — the federal government, that is — regulate the very significant components of the emissions spectrum in our province. We need to have that information, and it is not currently available.

In the meantime, I want the member to know we are taking action where it makes sense for us to do so. For example, when in the past year we called for a new energy supply, we mandated that 50 percent of that energy supply would be from green sources. It was quite heartening for many of us to see that there actually was a very, very good response to that. That tells us that there should be no difficulty at all in meeting the 50 percent target from green energy sources. B.C. Hydro is continuing to encourage new efficiency measures that ensure that a third of the extra supply of electrical requirement comes from these efficiency measures.

We're involved in any number of initiatives, such as updating the efficiency standards for appliances, for example. In many different ways, and I could name several others, we are taking the initiative, and we are ensuring that as we move forward, we are emitting less into the atmosphere and doing our bit environmentally to be responsible citizens, not only of this province and this country but of this planet.

J. Kwan: Let me go through these recommendations more specifically. The minister says that he has no targets because they don't know what the federal government is doing, notwithstanding that the provincial government — this Premier and the former Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection — has already led the way to, quite frankly, not support the Kyoto protocol. Whatever the federal government ends up doing, it doesn't matter. It seems to me that the province has already decided what its course of action is going to be, so therefore, the target has been set.

The plan that was talked about was to be completed by the end of June in 2003. Before I actually go further into these recommendations, let me ask this basic question: where is that plan now?

Hon. J. Les: I'll repeat again that it was the federal government, as the national government of this country, that signed the Kyoto protocol. It is the federal government today that is not yet clear on how it wants to implement the Kyoto protocol. Therefore, we are not in a position as a province to make a decision on whether or not we are going to sign on to Kyoto. The federal government has done that on our behalf. That's done.

It is, I think, incumbent upon us as a government of this province to ensure that when Kyoto implementation occurs, it is done in a way that does not unfairly compromise the interests of the province, particularly the economic interests. Clearly, there is evidence, if the member wishes to do some reading on the subject, that where economies are compromised, the environment is also compromised. We want to very clear with the federal government that if there is a price to pay for the implementation of the Kyoto agreement, it does not disproportionately fall on British Columbia.

We want full recognition of the natural attributes that we have available to us here in British Columbia, such as our abundant hydroelectrical supply and our huge forest resource, which, as I think the member knows, acts as a large carbon sink that sequesters great amounts of carbon dioxide.

J. Kwan: Yes, of course. Environmental concerns are, to a degree, linked to economic issues. There is no doubt about that. Decisions have to be made in terms of priorities, and of course, decisions have to be made about what will override. Is it environmental concerns from time to time, or would it be economic decisions from time to time? What compromise could be struck, and is there a way to address both of these sets of priorities, and so on and so forth?

With that fully in mind, the government went about and commissioned this report, Madam Chair. The minister knew that the Kyoto situation was in the hands of the federal government. The minister already knew then, actually, when the federal government was trying to make its decision on the Kyoto protocol, that this provincial government opposed the Kyoto protocol. That is already public information.

In fact, it was presented in Calgary by Jock Finlayson, the executive vice-president of the Business Council of British Columbia. He made a presentation, and here's what he had to say in Calgary to Blake, Cassels and Graydon in a seminar that was entitled: "Update on B.C. Policy Environment and Energy Sector."

He said: "New ministers of Water, Land and Air Protection and of Sustainable Resource Management are likely to be more business-oriented." In the slide that was presented entitled "B.C. Policy on Climate Change and Kyoto Protocol," Mr. Finlayson had actually presented this: "B.C. opposed Canadian ratification of Kyoto."

The executive vice-president of the Business Council of British Columbia made this statement in Calgary on February 3, 2004, so we know where this government stands. I trust that the source in this case, Jock Finlayson, the executive vice-president of the Business Council of British Columbia, has his facts right.

Let me ask the minister this question. Given that there's already a public statement about where British Columbia stands on the Kyoto protocol and given that this is already public information, then whatever the federal government ends up doing arguably would not impact British Columbia's policies. British Columbia's policies are already based on a decision that said British Columbia opposed the ratification of Kyoto. On that basis, one assumes that targets and plans and so on would be based on that.

One would assume that the 2003 document that was being worked on by the former Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection on climate change, which was to be completed by the end of June 2003, would have had such targets in mind, knowing that the government doesn't support the Kyoto protocol.

Hon. J. Les: I want to point out an item of extreme confusion on the part of the member. As far as I'm aware, and I stand to be corrected, I'm working under the assumption that Jock Finlayson does not speak for this government. Whatever statements he may have made are his alone and in no way reflect the policies of this government. I'm frankly somewhat taken aback that the member would purport to suggest that Jock Finlayson in any way speaks for this government. I think she knows better than that.

It's not a question of whether this government supports the Kyoto protocol or not. It has been signed onto by the federal government. Those are the facts. At the time it was ratified by the federal government, there were only two provinces, in fact, that supported that ratification. Those provinces were Manitoba and Quebec.

Since the federal government has ratified and signed on to the Kyoto protocol, we understand from that fact that at some point in the future there is going to be a well-set-out and iterated implementation plan on the part of the federal government. When that time arrives, we want to ensure that our provincial interest is protected. Our commitment to being a responsible partner in this endeavour is in no way a question. We have to do our part, regardless of which province it is that we live in. As I said earlier, we have to ensure that the provincial interests of British Columbia, in this case, are properly protected and recognized.

J. Kwan: We will certainly bring the information to Mr. Finlayson's attention, for he made a public presentation that said that B.C. opposed Canadian ratification of Kyoto. In fact, he further said: "Draft action plan reviewed by cabinet last fall." This is, of course, the action plan that I'm talking about on climate change. It appears that Mr. Finlayson…. I trust him as a source, in terms of him going to the public to make this kind of information at a seminar, to make his presentation. I trust that he's not misleading British Columbia's standpoint on these issues. I trust that he got that from reliable sources within government.

Now the minister is suggesting: "Oh no. Well, Mr. Finlayson, what he said is not a representation of what this government's position is." Is that to say, then, that B.C. is not opposed to the Canadian Kyoto protocol, to its ratification?

Hon. J. Les: At this point in time, that is not the question. The Kyoto protocol was adopted by the federal government, so now, to the extent that it's been adopted by the federal government, it is the law of the land. What we're waiting for is some clarity around the matter from the federal government so that we know as a province how we are to engage in this exercise that is before us.

J. Kwan: No. For the minister to say that is not the question…. That is the question. If the provincial government supported the Kyoto protocol, then the pro-

vincial government would be pushing for the full implementation of Kyoto and would actually provide input at the federal table and elsewhere in achieving these targets and so on, but no, that is not the case. I expect that Jock Finlayson is correct in the statement that B.C. opposed Canadian ratification of Kyoto.

In fact, questions were put to the former Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection and to the Premier. You know what? They would not step up to the plate to support Kyoto. We now have a statement from someone who I think is a reliable source — who got this information, I can only presume, from government — who says that government is opposed to the Canadian ratification of Kyoto.

Kyoto has now, as the minister says on record…. The government has gone so far as to appoint its own panel to try and figure out what the made-in-B.C. solutions are in addressing climate change. In fact, there was a draft plan that was almost completed and should have been completed by the end of June. I do believe that it is completed. Mr. Finlayson says the draft action plan was reviewed by cabinet last fall, so I think that plan is completed.

I asked the minister now where this plan is, and he's claiming: "Oh well, we have to sort of put it on hold because we don't know what's going to happen with Kyoto." I say that's more than a lame answer. We know what's happening with Kyoto. We know what the provincial government's position is.

We know that we have an interim report from the government's own panel to talk about how we should be setting some targets for British Columbia. We should actually be doing something as opposed to sitting on this whole issue, as opposed to sitting on our hands and doing nothing at all, given that what we have by way of information is that the draft action plan was reviewed by cabinet last fall. We know that.

Hon. J. Les: I would point out that as recently as December the new Prime Minister, Paul Martin, said clearly that there were going to be revisions to the national position and the national implementation of the Kyoto protocol. Again, I point out to the member that in the absence of a firm national direction on this matter, it would be sheer folly for British Columbia, in this case, to set out its position.

This is the kind of policy area where the economic implications can be very, very serious — or otherwise — but we have to know what we're doing. We have to know what the federal government's position that we're going to be engaging with is. Until that is done, as the member knows, we're taking a pause.

At the same time, we are moving forward in other areas to improve the environment in the province, particularly when it comes to air quality. Need I remind the member of the significant effort that this government put in to ensure that the Sumas Energy 2 plant would not be built in Sumas, Washington? That was an endeavour that her government refused to participate in. They frankly didn't care about the air quality in the Fraser Valley. We got involved, and so far, the results have been very, very good. Very recently the National Energy Board ruled in favour of the residents of British Columbia and the Fraser Valley, and that is entirely due to the intervention and the very active involvement of the provincial government.

Again, I point out that the previous government refused to get involved. Today there seems to be a huge profession of interest in matters relating to air quality and climate change. Madam Chair. Methinks the member doth protest too much.

J. Kwan: What the minister said about the Sumas 2 project is simply untrue. You know what? The previous administration stands on its record for British Columbians to judge in terms of how the previous administration has done on the environment.

Let's turn our focus here for a moment on this government in terms of how they've done on the issues around the environment. Let me see. The government is now allowing resorts to be built in parks. The government is now allowing mining under parks. The government has upped the fees for parks. The government has slashed regulations to protect parks. The government has reduced — slashed — staff and money and resources for the protection of the environment. This government — let me see — is complicit in turning habitat protection over to loggers.

Ah. There's a stellar environmental track record that this government has embarked on in the three years of its tenure. There's a record that he could stand proudly to say that he's protecting the environment. Uh-huh. Let British Columbians be the judge of that. I'd be ready to campaign on this government's record anytime, Madam Chair.

The environmental issues on climate change. Let me get back to the issue at hand here. Here's what to me sounds like is happening. The government appointed its own panel, put its panel together, gave it its mandate, told it to go and do some work and make recommendations to the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection and the Minister of Energy and Mines — specific to the ministers, not even to the ministry. On March 25, 2003, a report came forward from this panel that was put together by this government. They were asked to pause in their activities in order to provide the government with an opportunity to review the information, the advice that they have provided to date.

They did exactly that, and it sounds to me like the government has done nothing since that time. They've sat on this report, notwithstanding that the former Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection had said in the previous estimates process that the government would have a plan completed by the end of June 2003, notwithstanding that Jock Finlayson had made this information public at a seminar in Calgary — that British Columbia opposed the Canadian ratification of Kyoto — and notwithstanding that the draft action plan was reviewed by cabinet last fall. Notwithstand-

ing all of that, the minister now says: "We're not doing anything. We're haven't been able to act on this because we don't know what the federal government is doing on Kyoto."

Well, when you look at the report — and the minister claims that he's read the report — the report doesn't all tie into the Kyoto protocol, necessarily. In fact, the second recommendation deals with the government taking leadership. It says: "Set aggressive GHG reduction targets for provincial facilities and vehicle fleets supported by the LEED-BC silver standards for major building projects and employee trip reduction programs and other enabling policies."

The suggestion here is around the LEED-BC silver standards…. LEED, I should say, is Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design. Those are the standards that I am referring to — something that the Olympic committee will be demanding as well.

What steps has the minister taken to encourage the adoption of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design standards?

Hon. J. Les: I'm not sure how LEED certification ties into climate change as we have been discussing it so far this afternoon. There are any number of acronyms that apply to forest certification in British Columbia and around the world. The rationalization of those different designations is work that is currently being undertaken by the Ministry of Forests.

J. Kwan: The panel that the Ministers of Water, Land and Air Protection, and Energy and Mines put together, whose report was entitled Report of the B.C. Climate Change Economic Impacts Panel, put forward this recommendation.

They deemed that LEED-BC silver standards are relevant to climate change. The link here was made by this panel of experts, if you will, that the government put together. They made that link. I didn't make the link, although I would concur with the panel's recommendation that there is a link. I would certainly concur with that. The recommendation comes from the panel, and there's the link — established by the panel.

The question to which I'm seeking an answer from the minister is: what steps is the minister taking to encourage the adoption of LEED standards?

Hon. J. Les: As I said a few minutes ago, this is being worked on by the Ministry of Forests.

J. Kwan: Maybe this is like musical chairs or something. Maybe there's a game going on here, because these questions were asked first to the Minister of Energy and Mines, then to the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection, and now to the Minister of Small Business and Economic Development. Each of the respective ministers who were asked these questions said to go to someone else. We now have this minister saying: "Go ask the Minister of Forests the question." As it happens, Mr. Chair, estimates in the big House is on Forests. I hope they haven't finished yet. Boy. I would ask my colleague…. In fact, I will use my BlackBerry to e-mail my staff to make sure my colleague gets the information and asks exactly that question this minister is saying he should not be answering but rather the Minister of Forests should be answering.

I'll tell you that here's the problem. Every time a question is put to one minister, they say to go to another. Then they go to another, and then they go to another. That would be the third minister to which questions are being put to which this minister is now saying he cannot give the answers. The buck has got to stop somewhere, Mr. Chair. Someone has got to own up to their responsibilities and answer these questions.

The recommendation, of course, is in the report called Report of the B.C. Climate Change Economic Impacts Panel, and this minister says that climate change is his responsibility. Logically, I'm asking him the question. Although admittedly, the first report…. In fact, the report states that it was prepared for the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection, and the Minister of Energy and Mines. These questions were put to those two ministers, who had said: "Don't ask me. Go ask the Minister of Small Business and Economic Development."

I will make sure that my colleague gets this question simultaneously as we're doing this so that I can get a response back. If it's the case where the Minister of Forests says, "Well, I don't know. Why are you asking me this question? Go ask the Minister of Small Business and Economic Development," we'll be back. I hope that somewhere along the line the government ministers themselves will get it right and see who is supposed to be responsible to take these questions, Mr. Chair. They can't just keep passing the buck.

Maybe the tactic the government's trying to use is: "Well, you know, by the time they figure out who they're supposed to ask these questions to, because we keep telling them to run around to figure out who they're supposed to ask the questions to, maybe estimates will be over." Maybe that's what they're hoping for; so then they can actually escape the entire set of responsibilities of having to answer these questions. I will put the question to my colleague and make sure that she asks that question. I'll just put a marker on this particular question here.

All right. We don't know who is dealing with the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design standards so far. Is this ministry, the Ministry of Small Business and Economic Development, continuing on its work relating to the climate change plan relating to the recommendations that have been put forward by the panel?

Hon. J. Les: The deputy ministers' committee was very actively involved on this file throughout 2003. However, when, as I pointed out earlier, in December

of 2003, the Prime Minister signalled very clearly that changes were coming in the federal plan around the implementation of the Kyoto protocol, frankly, that put a stop to many of those activities that we had undertaken. As I said earlier, we clearly need to know what the federal plan is going forward before we know what it is that we have to engage in. At the same time, however, as I pointed out earlier, we continue with those actions that are environmentally responsible. When it comes to sourcing new supplies of electrical energy, for example, we are taking all kinds of measures to ensure that we become a more environmentally responsible province as we move forward.

J. Kwan: Yes, it's time for the minister to get out of the same message box he's been using — can't answer any questions because we don't know what the federal government is doing. It's time to get out of that message box, because that isn't the question that was asked. The question that was put was: is this minister continuing to take the lead on this in terms of developing the plan? It would be wise for the minister to actually pause and step out of his message box for one moment.

Interesting. Here we have the minister not taking responsibility, the government not taking responsibility, passing the buck, saying it's the federal government, it's the other minister and everybody else — but not me. There's accountability for you. I think that someone can actually write a jingle about the Liberal government. I'm sure that someone will. In fact, someone has. I think I heard it on CBC.

The Chair: Member, could you take the question with regard to estimates, please?

The minister says, "Got to figure out what the federal government is doing," even though, as Mr. Finlayson has reported publicly, the B.C. government is opposed to the Kyoto protocol.

Last year the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection explained that — this is the former Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection — her government was beginning bilateral discussions with Canada regarding the Kyoto protocol. Has this minister or his staff attended any of these bilateral discussions?

Hon. J. Les: There have been no meetings of the joint ministers since October of 2002.

J. Kwan: Has anybody been requesting a meeting with the federal government on this issue, from the provincial side?

Hon. J. Les: There have been some ongoing discussions at the staff level, but there has not been any request for a meeting by any of the provincial governments or the federal government since October of 2002.

J. Kwan: Isn't that curious. Why wouldn't the provincial government request a meeting? Given that the minister claims that environmental issues and climate change are a priority for this government, why wouldn't they request a meeting?

Hon. J. Les: As I've pointed out earlier, the federal government has signalled clearly that it is still trying to get its act together with respect to its position on Kyoto. Until such time as it has done that, it is, frankly, fruitless for us to request a meeting. We could be involved in other far more productive activities rather than trying to engage in what is, at this moment in time, unfinished business at the federal level.

J. Kwan: That's nonsense. Having been a minister before, I have gone to these bilateral meetings with federal counterparts and provincial counterparts, sometimes with the federal government onside in trying to do something, sometimes without the federal government onside. Part of that is, of course, to allow for the different colleagues across the provinces to come together, if the federal government is not onside, to lobby for the government to come onside.

I will name one example: the issue around homelessness. This is before the government…. The federal government has pulled out on all housing programs for Canada. You know what? Various ministers who are concerned about homelessness issues got together and requested a meeting with the federal government. The federal minister came and had to listen to what we had to say. We came out with a joint statement calling on the federal government to act on such and such and such.

The Premier continuously goes to these first ministers meetings, sometimes with the federal government not agreeing on what the first ministers might have to say at these meetings. That doesn't stop the advocacy work that the ministers or the Premiers try to do on behalf of their respective constituency bases.

It makes no sense for the minister to say: "Well, you know, the federal government hasn't decided on this, so it's fruitless to do any advocacy work." If the minister claims that this government actually cares about climate change and cares about the environment, they will be proactive on this file, as opposed to sitting on their hands, doing nothing on the file and waiting for the federal government to make some sort of decision, when we already know that the provincial government is already on record opposing the Kyoto protocol.

The pretence, the disingenuousness of this minister's answers, is alarming. It's absolutely alarming when he tries to claim both ways — when he tries to make all these claims, when in reality, quite frankly, the actions and policies and direction of this government don't ring true. It's a simple thing to do. If you want to advocate on this issue, call a meeting. Be one of the folks to go forward and say, "You know what? It's time to move on. Let's get on with it. Let's figure out what our targets are. Let's try and get there," as opposed to sit there and wait and wait and wait. This minister is now happy to just sit on his own advisory

panel's report — I suppose, following a pattern like many reports that this government has commissioned. One from their own back bench on mining has fallen to the wayside as well. I suppose that's the pattern and that's the approach that this government has taken.

Okay, so no discussions there, no requests for meetings — nothing. No plans with climate change and the recommendations from the panel.

The funding for climate change programs — whose ministry does that come out of?

Hon. J. Les: That funding is found in the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, air quality division.

The Chair: Excuse me, member. The Madam has left. Could you please refer to me as Mr. Chair?

The Chair: I don't want you referring to any earlier professions that I may have been involved in, thank you. [Laughter.]

J. Kwan: No, that's completely my mistake, Mr. Chair. I apologize. I didn't actually look up. It just is completely my mistake. My apologies, Mr. Chair.

Let me get this straight. The responsibility for climate change falls under this ministry, but the budget for programs for climate change falls under the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, so the staff that this minister is relying on to do the work around climate change is whose staff? Is it this ministry's staff, or is it the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection staff?

Hon. J. Les: The staff involved are my deputy and the staff in the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection.

J. Kwan: The staff, then, under WLAP are funded by WLAP with the exception of the deputy, Andrew Wilkinson, who is working for this minister. Therefore, the deputy is funded by this ministry, but all programs related to climate change are funded out of WLAP.

Hon. J. Les: There are a number of initiatives with respect to this in a variety of ministries — for example, in Forestry, in Transportation, in the Ministry of Energy and Mines as well as in the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection.

J. Kwan: Is there any part of this ministry's budget that covered any of the initiatives around climate change?

Hon. J. Les: Within the Ministry of Small Business and Economic Development we have developed small business guidelines that will be brought forward in the event that the federal government brings forward its Kyoto implementation plan. To date, as I said earlier, we have not seen that final implementation plan, so that work is on hold as well, given that we don't know exactly the policy position, ultimately, of the federal government.

J. Kwan: I think the record is broken. The question to the minister is about funding of programs. The minister mentioned a program that is funded out of this ministry — booklets in terms of information for the small business community. The minister also says that the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection staff is working on programs and pays for programs. Is the WLAP staff seconded to the Ministry of Small Business and Economic Development? Is that how that process is working? Or have they not been seconded, and from time to time this minister just goes and asks questions of WLAP and they provide information or advice?

Hon. J. Les: These WLAP staff members are not seconded. What this is an example of is good interministerial cooperation.

J. Kwan: I tell you; I know. I think there are all kinds of attempts to trip me up here. Okay. I will do my utmost not to confuse matters.

This minister just said that the staff from WLAP is not seconded to the Ministry of Small Business and Economic Development. He says that is an exemplary way, a good way of doing business across government. Funny how that is, because according to Hansard, from the estimates debate of March 24, 2004, with the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection, the question was put to the minister about exactly that — staffing. The Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection said: "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."

The Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection says that staff has been seconded to the Small Business ministry. The Minister of Small Business says no, they have not been seconded. I'm not sure if this is a good example for the minister to say how well they're working across

ministries. It seems to me that ministers don't even know where ministry staff are and whether or not they've been seconded. The statement made by this minister just directly contradicted another minister's statement when the question was put to them about where their staff are. Maybe the minister would care to clarify.

Hon. J. Les: There are currently no staff seconded from the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection in my ministry.

J. Kwan: Is it the case that it is the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection who's out to lunch? He just made this statement on March 24, 2004. Or has that changed since, because it is now April 20? It's been some time since those questions were put. Maybe things have changed, because we see the rapid way in which things change within government. Have things changed since that time?

Hon. J. Les: I said a few minutes ago that there are currently no seconded staff in my ministry, and that is correct. There were two Water, Land and Air Protection staff that were seconded to my ministry from March through September of last year. In September they went back to the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection.

J. Kwan: Things have changed, but not between March 24, 2004, and April 20, 2004. The secondment was made from March 2003 to September 2003, and in September 2003 the seconded staff from WLAP to the Ministry of Small Business and Economic Development went back. One wonders what possessed the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection to say, on March 24, 2004: "They have been seconded by the Deputy Minister of Small Business and Economic Development, and they work together with them." That doesn't make any sense, other than to say, maybe…. It was one or the other, I guess. The Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection doesn't know what he's talking about or, alternatively, knows what he's talking about and provided misinformation. I suppose it's one or the other.

J. Kwan: No, actually, the question is very clear. All throughout, if you read Hansard, it's very clear the minister is trying to refer all questions around climate change over to this minister. The minister was asserting it is no longer part of that ministry and that those areas of responsibility now fall under the Minister of Small Business and Economic Development.

Given that the minister says he works closely with the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection on the issues, does he know how much money is dedicated for climate change programs?

Hon. J. Les: Within the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, the budget allocation is $800,000.

J. Kwan: It's $800,000 — all for climate change programs. What are the programs?

Hon. J. Les: The programs are emissions reductions and adaptation to climate change.

J. Kwan: There are two programs, and they're split out at $400,000 each. Are there any federal dollars in these programs?

J. Kwan: Who carries out the responsibility for checking whether or not the goals of the programs have been met? Is it this ministry's responsibility, or is it WLAP's?

Hon. J. Les: As it's my deputy that takes the lead in coordinating the efforts of the deputy ministers council on this matter, obviously, the political responsibility ultimately resides with myself.

J. Kwan: I think that was the single most definitive answer of responsibility we have had all day from this minister, and I congratulate the minister for that. I really do. If we had that kind of answer all the way through, we would have been done on the estimates for this ministry, for sure, by 12 o'clock.

So this minister is ultimately responsible for the programs. The minister is responsible for developing the direction, but the funding for these programs comes out of WLAP. The staff that work under WLAP report to this minister's deputy, who this minister is ultimately responsible for. Isn't that interesting? If I were the minister of WLAP, I might have some issues with that, to be honest with you. Here you have no ability to really have a say on the performance of your staff. Your staff report to another minister, ultimately. That's the status here, but they have to pay the money.

How many employees are we talking about that report to this minister, ultimately?

Hon. J. Les: The employees we're referring to — in other words, the employees of the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection who are working on climate change issues — are five.

J. Kwan: That's a reduction of two from last year. Last year the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection reported there were seven staff in the climate

Hon. J. Les: The member is correct. There has been a reduction in FTEs for this area of activity. My staff tell me it's perhaps arguable whether there were six or seven last year, but in any event, today there are five. It's a reduction either way.

Officially, these five FTEs work for Water, Land and Air Protection, but they report to the deputy of this ministry, who ultimately reports to this minister. That's the structure we're dealing with. Who is the deputy minister responsible for climate change? Is it Mr. Wilkinson?

J. Kwan: Do the five FTEs do their work out of the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection? They're housed out of the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, then?

J. Kwan: Together with this ministry's programs for climate change…. The minister said there is a program. How much is the program for climate change issues under this ministry?

Hon. J. Les: Clearly, a portion of my deputy's time is involved in this activity. If and when the federal government comes forward with clear direction with respect to climate change, then my ministry will be involved in assisting small business to react and to engage in those changes when they happen.

J. Kwan: I have a few more questions in this area, then I have one more area to canvass with the minister in these estimates. Let me just ask this last question, and maybe I'll get a quick answer from the minister. Then, I suppose, we'll need to rise.

My question is in terms of the budget. The minister earlier said there was a program out of this ministry that provided small business with some booklets, information pamphlets and what have you, and there was a specific item that came out of this ministry for climate change. It's that program I'm referring to. How much is funded by this ministry?

Hon. J. Les: There are no booklets as such because, again, as I've tried to convey to the member numerous times this afternoon, there is no federal framework at this point. We are not going to engage in the production of expensive literature. We have a compilation of information available that we can put together in a reasonably short period of time, if and when required. That exercise so far is budgeted at an amount of $30,000.

J. Kwan: I have further questions for the minister on this issue and, as I mentioned earlier, on another area.

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

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY