Hansard -- Tuesday, October 18, 2005 p.m. -- Vol. 2, No. 8 (HTML)

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page


Introductions by Members		865

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		865
	Small business
	M. Polak
	Legal status of women in Canada
	C. James
	Vancouver search and rescue assistance to victims of Hurricane Katrina
	L. Mayencourt
	Environmental sustainability of 2010 Olympic Winter Games construction projects
	G. Robertson
	Women in military service
	J. McIntyre
	Organ donation and transplantation
	K. Conroy

Oral Questions		867
	Government response to teachers labour dispute
	C. James
	Hon. M. de Jong
	J. Horgan
	D. Routley
	Class size and composition in education system
	G. Robertson
	Hon. M. de Jong
	Hon. S. Bond
	B. Ralston
	Government response to teachers labour dispute
	M. Sather
	Hon. M. de Jong
	Government assistance to victims of earthquake in South Asia
	H. Bains
	Hon. J. Les
	Monitoring of sex offender in Merritt Area
	H. Lali
	Hon. W. Oppal

Petitions		872
	B. Simpson
	G. Coons

Tabling Documents		872
	Public guardian and trustee of British Columbia, annual report, 2004-2005


Second Reading of Bills		872
	Southern Interior Development Initiative Trust Act (Bill 8) (continued)
	S. Hawkins
	N. Macdonald
	Hon. B. Bennett
	H. Lali
	Hon. C. Hansen
	Forests and Range Statutes Amendment Act, 2005 (Bill 10)
	Hon. R. Coleman
	B. Simpson
	Hon. R. Coleman

Committee of the Whole House		887
	Northern Development Initiative Trust Amendment Act, 2005 (Bill 6)
	B. Simpson
	Hon. C. Hansen
	G. Coons
	C. Wyse

Reporting of Bills		896
	Northern Development Initiative Trust Amendment Act, 2005 (Bill 6)

Third Reading of Bills		896
	Northern Development Initiative Trust Amendment Act, 2005 (Bill 6)

Personal Statement		896
	Monitoring of sex offender in Merritt area
	Hon. W. Oppal

	Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		897
	Estimates: Ministry of Community Services and Minister Responsible for Seniors' and Women's Issues (continued)
	B. Ralston
	Hon. I. Chong
	S. Simpson
	G. Gentner

Hon. C. Hansen: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to introduce a new resident of my constituency. That is because the residence of the consul general of the United States is in the constituency of Vancouver-Quilchena. Consul General Lewis Lukens is making his first official visit to Victoria as the U.S. representative in British Columbia, and I hope all of the House will join me in making him very welcome.

J. McIntyre: I'd like to introduce to the House today my brother-in-law, Prof. Geoff Scott from Sydney, Australia. He's the pro-vice chancellor at the University of Western Sydney. He's been working for the past month with all the universities of South Africa and four Canadian western universities on an international project aimed at improving learning and teaching in higher education I'd like everyone here in the House to make him feel welcome today.

Hon. B. Bennett: It's my pleasure today to introduce an old friend, and an old friend of this place, my old roommate from the last term. He was a fair-to-middling roommate, a great MLA, a dynamic speaker in this House for four years and the best MLA to ever come out of Prince Rupert — Bill Belsey.

K. Conroy: It gives me real pleasure today to introduce two former colleagues of mine. Lorne Reider from White Rock is the newly appointed CEO of Community Social Service Employers Association. Paul Sibley from Kamloops is the vice-chair of the board of CSSEA. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

A. Horning: I'm pleased to introduce to this House today some special guests from the B.C. Fruit Growers Association: president Joe Sardinha and general manager Glen Lucas. These gentlemen have brought some special 2010 Okanagan apples here today to share with all the members. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. M. Coell: I would like to introduce to the House a number of distinguished scientists from British Columbia: Dr. Robert Brunham, who's the medical director of the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control at the University of British Columbia; Dr. Harold Coward, emeritus fellow, the University of Victoria; Dr. Carl Douglas, professor and head of the department of botany at the University of British Columbia; Dr. Douglas Horsman, who's the director of the cancer genetics laboratory and director of the hereditary cancer program at the B.C. Cancer Agency; Steven Lund, assistant professor of genomics at the University of British Columbia; Don Riddle, chief scientific officer of Genome B.C; and Dr. Ben Koop, professor and director of the Centre for Biomedical Research at the University of Victoria.

Mr. Speaker: Before we get started with members' statements, members, I want to remind you that yesterday we touched on the political side a little bit too far — so just a friendly reminder before we get started.

M. Polak: Mr. Speaker, I will remember your comments, because today I'm pleased to rise and recognize that it is Small Business Week in British Columbia, and we have a lot to be very proud of in this province. I want to recognize the fact that small businesses throughout British Columbia are contributing so much to our communities. I want to first of all point out that B.C. small businesses contribute almost 30 percent of the province's gross domestic product, and that's the highest rate in Canada.

It would be wrong to think that businesses only contribute in a financial sort of way to our province. This past Saturday I had the privilege of attending the ninth annual Business Excellence Awards presented by the Greater Langley Chamber of Commerce. As one would expect, the evening was a showcase of successful Langley businesses. Langley is blessed with a strong business community, and there was no shortage of deserving nominees. The highlight of the evening was the announcement of the businessperson of the year award. The recipient, Ed Dubuc, owner of Langley Hyundai and Langley Suzuki, was recognized not only for his business success but also for his tremendous community involvement.

Along with establishing successful business ventures, Ed worked tirelessly to contribute to his community. With his family, Ed spent three years delivering meals to downtown east side Vancouver residents. He supported Langley Memorial Hospital, Kwantlen University College, Langley minor baseball, Boy Scouts, Girl Guides, the Cancer Society and many more worthy organizations.

Sadly, one week ago today Ed passed away very suddenly. His achievements in business and in life make him an exemplar of real success, and it was because of this he was presented the businessperson of the year award posthumously. Successful business people don't just add value to the bottom line. They add value to the communities in which they live and work, and I know that is something this House wants to recognize during this week where we celebrate all that small business contributes to British Columbia.

C. James: Mr. Speaker, today I rise as a person. On the face of it, this statement is so obvious, so mundane

that it feels absurd to stand here and say that. But had I said this statement in 1927, it would have been a subject of some considerable debate. Canadian courts would have rejected that, in fact, I as a woman was also a person.

Today marks a very special day in history for Canadian women and for all Canadians. It's a day to celebrate the efforts of five courageous women. On October 18, 1929, Emily Murphy, Nellie McClung, Irene Parlby, Louise McKinney and Henrietta Muir Edwards won a crucial victory for women in Canada by contesting the notion that legal definitions of "person" did not include women. It was a critical notion worth fighting because if women were not legally persons, they had no rights.

The Famous Five, as they were known, were journalists, magistrates and politicians. Their crusade of courage reached the highest level of appeals, the British Privy Court, which ultimately pronounced women persons. They asked the Supreme Court of Canada a simple question: does the word "person" in section 24 of the British North America Act include female persons? The Supreme Court of Canada said no.

Stunned by the decision, they resolved to fight on, and they took the Persons Case to Privy Council. The Privy Council decided to answer that question, whether women qualified as persons, with another question: why would the word "person" in the BNA Act not include women? It was a commonsense response to a very straightforward question, one with profound implications for all Canadian citizens.

Today I'd like to ask everyone in this House to join me in recognizing October 18 as Persons Day in Canada, the day we mark the historic court decision and the courage of five Canadian women who won a landmark victory for all of us.

L. Mayencourt: A few weeks ago we talked a little bit about the relief efforts that had been undertaken by Canadians during Hurricane Katrina. In the aftermath of the terrible events that happened there, Vancouver's heavy urban search and rescue team was asked by state officials to come down to Louisiana to help out in the recovery.

They knew they had a difficult job to do, and they knew that in many ways they were risking their own lives. But they've been preparing for this kind of eventuality for over ten years. They have over 45 highly trained professionals who are able to conduct rescue operations in a variety of challenging situations, including at collapsed-building sites and in fast-flowing water.

There were search and rescue specialists, doctors, paramedics, structural engineers, hazardous material technicians and, of course, a dog squad. We've all seen the images on our televisions — floodwaters 20 feet high in some places, families torn apart, people stranded and lost, and many had died. Knowing the gravity of the situation, the volunteer team members did not hesitate to climb on a plane when the call came through. This team was the first group of rescuers to reach the area and, in fact, remained one of the only international search and rescue teams asked to join in the Katrina efforts.

They were there to do one job, and that was to locate and rescue survivors. Working in 12-hour shifts, they had to duck gunfire and create an on-the-spot chain of command and an organizational infrastructure that would allow for an effective rescue operation.

I know their work was a success, and so do 119 other survivors of Katrina, because that's the team that found those people and brought them to safety. Those people, their families and their friends — the people of Louisiana — will be forever grateful to HUSAR.

G. Robertson: I rise to recognize the many people in my community of Vancouver-Fairview who are grappling with the impacts of construction and enduring massive changes in their neighbourhoods to accommodate the 2010 Olympics.

The RAV line construction will devastate Cambie village for years to come, affecting tens of thousands of local residents and dozens of small businesses. We may well lose many of those businesses due to the cut-and-cover construction method, which is a result of this project's private-public partnership imposed by this B.C. government, and this is unacceptable.

I want to recognize the struggles and sacrifices of the citizens and local businesses working to minimize the impacts of this construction. With construction of the Olympic facilities and parking lots at Riley and Hillcrest parks, home of the Vancouver Canadians and Little League baseball, we will see enormous change. Residents of this quiet and scenic neighbourhood are working hard to promote sensible approaches to the project, and their volunteer efforts and sacrifice warrant recognition in this House.

It is paramount that all levels of government are fully committed to sustainability and working in concert to make the 2010 games the most environmentally sensitive and socially responsible in history. The city of Vancouver and the municipality of Whistler, along with the government of Canada, are aggressively supporting sustainability as the central theme of the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

However, the government of B.C. has lagged a bit behind. Social responsibility means an inclusive public process for people and organizations that will be affected by significant changes. I salute the local communities for striving to give the word "sustainability" meaning on the ground for the 2010 games, and I recognize the citizens of Vancouver-Fairview for their sacrifices and gutsy efforts to help their neighbourhoods adapt to big change.

J. McIntyre: I rise in the House to report that I had the honour of emceeing a very special event in the Legislature rotunda today during Women's History Month to celebrate women's changing role in the military. We had the opportunity to hear intriguing stories from women in service — from the past, the present and those who represent tomorrow's future.

Now, according to national statistics, women comprise 16 percent of the Canadian Forces and have been in the military since 1885, when nurses first served in the Northern Rebellion. During the First and Second World Wars, women served in an increasingly greater variety of roles outside the traditional ones of nursing and administration until the trend was dramatically reversed after the peak of 50,000 women in World War II, leaving only 80 nurses in service.

I would like to take a moment to go back in history and honour the memory of my father's two elder sisters, who both served in the military in World War II in very interesting roles. One sister, Cynthia Oakley, was a captain in the CWAC — that's the Canadian Women's Army Corps — who led them into Italy after the Allied landing in 1943.

The other sister, Helen Oakley, served in the U.S. Army, in the OSS, which was the Office of Strategic Services and the forerunner of the CIA, on Bill Donovan's staff in North Africa and Rome. My family is very proud of their contributions to the war effort, and I think they really serve as true role models.

Since the '40s there was a slow recognition of women's abilities, but it wasn't until a policy review resulting from the 1970 Royal Commission on the Status of Women that job opportunities expanded and policies were revised. By 1985, 75 percent of the trades in the forces were open to women, and women had already entered military colleges. In 1989 a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decision directed that all restrictions barring women from employment in the forces be removed with one exception.

In closing, I'm pleased to report today that Canada's policy remains fixed on achieving full integration of women in the military.

K. Conroy: This week in Greater Victoria it is Organ Donation Week. The B.C. Transplant Society is working with municipalities, local businesses and organizations to get this very important message out to people in this area. However, organ donation and transplantation is more than a municipal health issue. It affects people in provincial communities throughout this province.

Yesterday the Canadian Blood Services was here working with our colleagues who donated blood. To all of the members and staff who did donate, I thank you on behalf of those who so desperately need the blood but also on behalf of us who can't donate. Since my husband Ed was diagnosed with hepatitis C, neither I nor any of my close family members have been able to donate blood. However, we have all registered to be organ donors. As a family we have benefited — and that does seem like a rather inadequate word — from the unselfish act of an organ donor.

Many in this House followed Ed's trials and tribulations as he received his first transplant in 1996. When that liver failed and he had to get a second transplant in 1997, many of us wondered if he would make it. Well, this November will be eight years since his second transplant happened — eight years since we sat thinking he wouldn't see his younger kids graduate, his daughters get married and the birth of our four grandchildren. But these have all been witnessed by Ed, due to the selfless act of a young man and his family who gave us all a second chance.

We were supported by the incredible work of the B.C. Transplant Society. This society was established in 1986 as a comprehensive health organization and is responsible for all aspects of organ transplantation in British Columbia. Since its inception, the BCTS has supported thousands of British Columbians with life-saving organ transplants, hundreds of them in the Victoria area. Despite this, there is still a significant need, as there are more than 500 British Columbians waiting for an organ transplant. Sadly, unlike Ed, many of them will die before they get a second chance. But there is something all of us as a compassionate society can do: educate ourselves about organ donation and register your decision to be on B.C.'s organ donor registry.

Surveys suggest that more than 80 percent of British Columbians support organ donation, yet just 13 percent have registered on the organ donor registry. I urge all residents in the Greater Victoria area and all members of this House to ensure that they're registered as an organ donor.

C. James: More than 30 school boards from across the province have spoken out against the current education dispute. My question is for the Premier. Can he outline for school trustees and school boards from across the province, who work every day with their communities, what his government plans to do today to end this dispute?

Hon. M. de Jong: Yesterday in this chamber, despite a number of opportunities, the Leader of the Opposition refused to tell teachers categorically that they should return to work. In fact, outside the chamber she is reported as saying: "I'm not giving teachers direction. It's not up to me." I must confess that I asked myself why the Leader of the Opposition would refuse to make a statement that should logically flow from any

Before we get further into this, will the Leader of the Opposition confirm that her party's NDP offices are being used to contribute to illegal activities in defiance of the courts?

C. James: Unlike the other side, we're not here to use education as a political tool; we're here to get students back to school. We're actually focused on providing leadership and ensuring that students get back to school and on listening to members of our community. School trustees are members of our community. They are calling loud and clear for this government to take some action. So I would like to ask the Premier again: what is his government doing to ensure he listens to the elected officials in our education system to get students back to school?

Hon. M. de Jong: I hope the Leader of the Opposition will at least believe this. If I did not believe this principle was so important, I would not put this next statement to her.

The e-mail is dated Monday, October 10. That is after Bill 12 passed and after the Supreme Court's contempt order. It says: "Re Tuesday, October 11." It is from an organizer for the Teachers Federation. It says: "I want to thank everyone who worked so hard on Friday" — that would be October 7 — "and thought that we should divide up the roster and have single flying pickets instead of partners." It goes on: "We were wondering if a number of people could come around 11:30 to work at the later shift. We can shift times on Wednesday if someone prefers an early morning. Anybody else that would like to come and help out in the NDP office would be welcomed."

The integrity of this chamber and the integrity of our courts are in the process of being challenged, and according to this material, the New Democratic Party of British Columbia is standing side by side and contributing to that defiance of the courts.

C. James: Once again, what we see from the other side is fingers pointing absolutely everywhere else except at the fact that this government caused the mess that we see right now. This government will point fingers everywhere, other than accepting blame for the fact that they could have kept this dispute from escalating. They could have ensured that they sat down with teachers, worked through the challenges and ensured that they provided support for students in classrooms, which is what we should be here dealing with.

Again, I would like to ask the Premier: what actions is he personally taking today to ensure that the parties get back to the table and talk about education, talk about the issues that he said were important yesterday, so students can get back to school?

Hon. M. de Jong: When it comes to identifying and criticizing illegal actions in defiance of the court, we and I will point fingers whenever necessary and whenever there are people who are helping, aiding and abetting that illegal….

Hon. M. de Jong: I hope the Leader of the Opposition appreciates the seriousness of the situation. The NDP office in Courtenay located at 491 4th Street, directly below the Comox District Teachers Association, has apparently become a beehive of activity.

You know what, Mr. Speaker? We know about the political affiliations. We know about the work that the BCTF did on behalf of the NDP.…

Hon. M. de Jong: But, Mr. Speaker, there is a court order in place, and maybe the Leader of the Opposition….

J. Horgan: I just cannot believe that you can sit on that side of the House, Mr. Minister of Labour, and not take some responsibility for four million days of lost class time. I recall during the campaign that there were commitments from that side that not one day would be lost. My question is to the Premier: how's that going?

Hon. M. de Jong: It probably, thankfully, doesn't happen often, but every now and again in the life of an important issue, there comes a time when a party and its leader lose credibility to speak on that issue.

Hon. M. de Jong: Regrettably, we appear to have come to that point. Perhaps this member…. His leader chose to ignore some pretty disturbing facts. Maybe this member, who I'm certain is very tied in with the operations that are taking place, will advise the House what other NDP offices around the province are working in defiance of the courts.

J. Horgan: What appears to be clear is that there's no one on that side working on solutions for students in this province. How can the Premier sit there and speak about a golden goal of education and literacy when we reduce teacher-librarians? How can he talk, as he did yesterday, about the importance of special needs children and helping classrooms, and sit there and do nothing day after day after day?

That's seven days, Mr. Premier — seven days of inaction by you and your cabinet. When are you going to do something for the kids in this province, for the teachers and parents? That's what people want to know, not who is picking sides here. Stop the politics, and start doing your work.

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, it's a remarkable statement that the hon. member would equate the defence of our laws, our institutions, our courts as somehow picking sides. What a remarkable thing to hear from a member of the opposition.

Look, I know it makes them uncomfortable, but his leader wouldn't do it. Maybe the member will take advantage of this opportunity and explain how it is that as a lawmaker in this chamber, in this assembly, the party he represents is out there actively participating in activities in defiance of the courts and in defiance of the law.

D. Routley: I rise as an MLA, but I also rise as a current school trustee. School boards have been left to cope with chronic underfunding, downloaded costs in the millions by this government, and now with the damaged relations with our teachers.

My own school district has called on the Education Ministry to return to full and free collective bargaining. The school district of the former Education Minister, the Vernon school district, sent a letter to the Minister of Labour, which reads: "The board of school trustees of school district 22 Vernon at the public meeting of October 4, 2005, passed a resolution to send a letter to you expressing disappointment that the process was not allowed to come to a negotiated resolution."

Your legislation will not allow BCPSEA and BCTF to find a solution. The government says it wants to hear from the partners in education. They're hearing loud and clear. My question is: why can't this government…? Why is it refusing to reconsider its confrontational approach with teachers and refusing to act now to reach a deal when there is a clear precedent to reach a deal in the middle of a job action?

Hon. M. de Jong: The member is a thoughtful individual. Maybe he will tell me this. "Anyone else that would like to come and help out in the NDP office would be welcomed." He's a trustee. You tell me. What do trustees think of a political party that happens to be the official opposition in this province not only countenancing but openly encouraging illegal activity in B.C.?

D. Routley: We have waited for this government to take its responsibility seriously with students and stop using them as a political football in this province. We have seen this government take a confrontational approach to teachers that was guaranteed to come to this end.

I want to know from this government, from this Premier: when will the B.C. Liberal government stand up and take its responsibility to bring peace to our classrooms and bring our kids back to classroom conditions which will support the learning that they need?

Hon. M. de Jong: If memory serves me correctly, then, this member has taken two oaths — one as a member of this chamber and one when he became a school trustee. In both cases, he accepted responsibility for enforcing and abiding by the law.

Maybe the member again would explain to the chamber how it is he can reconcile those obligations and those oaths with clear evidence that the party he purports to represent in this chamber is in clear violation of an order of the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

G. Robertson: Well, rather than spending more time and energy worrying about us, why aren't they actively finding a solution to this problem? That's the beginning of my question: why aren't you actively finding a solution here?

Yesterday the Premier admitted that there might be a problem here: "We agree that there are classes that are too large, and that's not acceptable." The Premier is right. It's not acceptable. And he did it. Can the Premier tell us why it has taken over three million lost student-days to admit that class sizes are too large and that learning conditions in school classrooms are unacceptable?

Hon. M. de Jong: If I had my druthers, that's precisely what we'd be talking about. We'd be talking about it with a teachers union that is actually obeying the law.

Yeah, I wish they could applaud, actually. But they're not obeying the law, and what's disturbing to-

day is that we discovered they're being aided and abetted by a group that also holds the responsible position of being the official opposition in this province. You know, we wouldn't even be having this conversation if this member or his leader or someone over there could stand up and in clear, categorical, unequivocal statements say to the teachers: "You are bound by the same laws as four million other British Columbians. Go back to work, and obey the Supreme Court of British Columbia."

G. Robertson: Let me remind the members opposite that we wouldn't have this situation if the government hadn't enacted Bill 12 and inflamed the situation to start with. And again, let's return to the substantive issue here of finding a solution. Yesterday the Premier also had the realization — bing! — that classes with numerous special needs students and no resources are unacceptable: "If there are examples of classes with too many special needs students for any one teacher, that's not acceptable." Well, there are many examples that we all know about, and if question period were three hours long, I would list some of them here.

Here's just one example. Since 2001-20002 the Saanich school board saw a drop in enrolment of 1.2 percent, yet in that same period special education teachers dropped by 9 percent.

G. Robertson: That ratio just doesn't add up — does it? If education is one of the Premier's great goals….

G. Robertson: I'm getting to my question. If the Premier has said education is one of his great goals, why are there fewer special needs teachers today in our classrooms?

Hon. S. Bond: You know, it amazes me — $150 million, the largest single increase in over a decade in this province…

Hon. S. Bond: …which school districts are using for precisely the reasons that the members opposite continue to point out. In fact, 37 million more dollars to special education. We want to have a discussion about those classes. The member opposite is absolutely correct. We want to have that discussion. There is one fundamental issue, and even today, once again, the members opposite refuse to stand up, take their responsibility as legislators in this province seriously and join with us and ask the teachers to go back to work and end illegal job activity.

B. Ralston: It's very evident from the responses here that the government refuses to accept any responsibility for the crisis they've created. My question is about special needs students, because that really should be the focus of what we're doing in this place today. In the Surrey school district in 1998-1999…. Enrolment for special needs students for levels one and two — levels one and two are the students whose needs require the most attention — has increased by 82 percent. That trend is predicted to increase to 107 percent by 2008-2009. In other words, it will double over the ten-year period.

The Surrey school board, the largest district by number of students in the province, warned the Minister of Education about this rising trend years ago. My question is to the Minister of Education. Given that you were advised by the largest school board in the province, why did the government go ahead and remove class size and class composition from the teachers' collective agreement, and not replace that by enshrining it in legislation with guidelines similar to those in the collective agreement to avoid putting those children at risk?

Hon. S. Bond: We actually agree with the member opposite that we want to be talking about the needs of children in this province — every child, those with unique needs and those that are more typical. That's precisely what we want to do.

In fact, we've honoured that commitment by adding $150 million to the system. In fact — and the members opposite simply can't deny it — funding in this province is at its highest level ever.

The reason we believe that discussion needs to take place with people in addition to the B.C. Teachers Federation — and I say in addition — is that we think parents and trustees have a role to play — unlike the Education critic, who said that the last thing a parent advisory committee should be doing is addressing working conditions and student outcomes. That's precisely what they should be doing as partners in education, and that's what we intend to do at the learning round table.

B. Ralston: Well, clearly from the response of the minister, the minister is not prepared to accept that despite the expenditure of further money, a number of costs were downloaded upon school boards, making it impossible to carry out the mandate for special needs students had they wished to do so. Teachers understand how important class composition is, and parents understand how important class composition is. The Surrey school board, the largest school board in the province, shared that information with the minister.

So why did the minister choose to ignore the advice of the Surrey school board and not pay attention to that

important information and persist in her course, causing class size and class composition to rise to critical levels in this province?

Hon. S. Bond: That's precisely what we've done — in this budget year alone, $150 million more. In fact, we've seen 20 school districts, as a result of the additional funding, apply additional resources to meeting the needs of special needs students in this province.

I think it's fairly ironic that the question is coming to us about the involvement of parents in that process. Time after time after time, the Education critic on the opposite side of the House continues to imply that parents aren't an important part of that decision. That is shameful, and we're not prepared to accept that.

M. Sather: It's clear that members opposite in this government do not want to deal with this crisis situation that we're in. Fortunately, there are other people in this province that do want to deal with it. The member for Maple Ridge–Mission and I met recently with the trustees for school district 42. By the way, for members opposite, these are not members of the New Democratic Party. They were adamant that this government act to deal with this crisis. They said that it's a matter of dignity and respect.

They wrote a letter to the Premier and said: "We are extremely disappointed with the timing of both the introduction and the passing of Bill 12, the Teachers' Collective Agreement Act. It is our belief that this premature action by your government did not permit for the due process provided to the teachers under the essential services determination of the Labour Relations Board to run its natural course."

My question is for the Minister of Education, through the Speaker. Can you tell me why your government is not acting to deal with this crisis and has acted prematurely, instead of sitting down with the teachers and dealing with the issues like class size and composition?

Hon. M. de Jong: To the member: his criticism, which is part of what he is obliged to do in this chamber, is only going to be accurate if he familiarizes himself accurately with the information. The contempt order that is the subject of judicial proceedings now does not relate to Bill 12. I know what the member's view of Bill 12 is. I know what the view is of people within the BCTF. The contempt order before the court relates to an order of the LRB that was registered with the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

What the minister has said, what the Premier has said and what the government wants this member at least to understand is that we do want to talk. There are significant important issues that need to be talked about. But we can only do so with a party that can come to the table with clean hands, as the lawyers say, and is not disobeying the law. So when the member makes the criticism, he should at least take time to familiarize himself with the facts so he knows what we are talking about.

H. Bains: The earthquake in South Asia has left over 41,000 dead and over three million homeless and injured. It's estimated that it will take hundreds of millions of dollars to put those survivors back on their feet again. The B.C. government pledged half a million dollars to help the survivors, but this does not even come close to our reputation in the world as the most generous and responsive nation in such events.

My question is to the Minister of Finance. Will she or her government agree to raise that pledge considerably more than the half a million dollars that has been pledged?

Hon. J. Les: I want to thank the member opposite for the question. First of all, let us recognize the terrible suffering that is being endured in the Kashmir region as a result of that terrible earthquake just a few days ago. We certainly empathize and sympathize with all of those victims. The government of British Columbia has contributed half a million dollars towards the relief work that is going on. That is in addition to, of course, many other contributions that are coming in from all across Canada. For example, the province of Ontario contributed a million dollars, and there are federal efforts going on as well. We are continuing to monitor the situation, and I'm sure that other British Columbians are mobilizing, as well, to contribute to this very worthwhile relief effort.

H. Bains: Last week two radio stations in the community, Radio India and Shere Punjab Radio, held a radiothon and attracted children as young as four years old bringing their piggy banks to donate and seniors bringing in money out of their pensions. The community dug deep and raised $1.5 million in those three days.

My question, again, is back to this minister. Will she agree today to at least match the donations that were collected by those two radio stations?

Hon. J. Les: Well, the first thing I want to do is recognize the community in the Surrey area and beyond for their tremendous generosity. I think that's certainly very commendable. But I want to draw the member's attention, as well, to the fact that it isn't only this particular emergency that our government has been contributing to. For example, last winter with the terrible tsunami that happened in South Asia, we contributed significant funds to that as well.

Together with all Canadians we join in recognizing the terrible suffering that's going on in the Kashmir area. I'm told that the government of Canada has contributed very significantly not only in monetary terms but also in making resources and troops available, and I am sure that will continue. I thank the member for his question. In particular, I want to recognize those members in the community who have responded in so many different ways.

H. Lali: David James Caza, released into the community of Merritt last Thursday, is a sexual predator. He's got 42 convictions. He's a repeat offender who has repeatedly breached court orders and refused treatment. He's been in and out of jail on various charges, including sexual assault and other violent crimes, and has been classified as a homosexual pedophile at a high risk to offend.

His first act upon being released into Merritt was a very brazen act. He walked the entire town up and down, street by street, scoping the place. As a parent of three young children and with hundreds of other parents in Merritt in the same boat, we're afraid to let our children out of the house, even during the day. As Merritt mom Patty Taylor says, you shouldn't have to live like prisoners in your own town.

My question is for the Attorney General. What is the Attorney General doing to make sure that Caza is legally recognized as a repeat offender by the courts and that he is going to be put into an institution where he will receive court-ordered treatment?

Hon. W. Oppal: The concerns expressed by the hon. member are well placed. However, this matter is presently before the courts. My understanding is that Mr. Caza is in custody, and he is awaiting trial. In due course he will come to trial, and in due course the matter will be dealt with in court. It is no function of the Attorney General or anybody in this House to comment on the merits of the case while it is before the courts.

H. Lali: The Liberal mayor of Merritt, the NDP MLA and the Conservative MP from Merritt — we're all on the same page. This is not a political issue — no intent to make it that way. It's a safety issue. It is the safety of our children that is at stake, regardless of what community this individual is in — whether he is in Kamloops or Cranbrook or Merritt.

The Solicitor General has recently been quoted in the Province as saying: "What we should be doing with fellows like Mr. Caza is locking them up and throwing away the key. It's obvious that Mr. Caza doesn't get it. He is a high risk to the public." It continues: "The best the province can do is keep close tabs on Caza through local police and through the RCMP's integrated sexual predator observation team designed to monitor him."

H. Lali: Hon. Speaker, my question is for the Attorney General. Since the Solicitor General wants to lock up this sexual predator and have his movements monitored, and considering there is no court order to monitor Caza's movements, what's the Attorney General doing to ensure this sexual predator is monitored — whether he is in Cranbrook, Merritt, Kamloops or elsewhere?

Hon. W. Oppal: I'll reiterate what I said earlier. That is that the matter is before the courts, and the process will take place. The courts will deal with it in due course.

B. Simpson: I would like to table a petition in the House, a petition of protest against the Terasen Gas sale to Kinder Morgan. There are 1,400-plus here, and they've all been copied to the Minister of Energy as well.

G. Coons: I would also like to table a petition in the House from concerned citizens in Prince Rupert in support of public education, who urge the government to set aside Bill 12 and to begin meaningful negotiations with teachers and put in place a collective agreement that addresses both working and learning conditions and the salary of teachers.

Hon. W. Oppal: I have the honour to present the 2004-2005 annual report of the public guardian and trustee of British Columbia.

Hon. M. de Jong: In this chamber I call continued second reading debate on Bill 8 and in the Committee A room, continued estimates debate, for the information of members, on the Ministry of Community Services.

S. Hawkins: I am pleased to rise today to speak in favour of Bill 8. I want to join my colleagues from the southern interior region to support this very important

initiative. I am very excited about the $50 million Southern Interior Development Initiative Trust. I want to acknowledge all the hard work of the minister, and I want to thank the Premier and our government for following through on this very important promise.

I know my region and my community are already looking at the possibilities, the probabilities and the opportunities that this fund might present. I can tell you quite clearly that there is really a growing recognition in my region of the fact that the fund will only be as effective as the partnerships we build and the projects we take on collectively in our regional partnerships.

In the past year or so — probably two years — the Okanagan has done just an incredible job creating Okanagan Partnerships, a collective of industry and sectors big and small across the region. Each participating sector has identified not only the assets and the needs for this sector to grow but also the opportunities that are there to be captured. We are ready, and this fund will certainly help us get on our way.

I'm sure you have often heard it quoted that there are 50 ways to leave your lover. Well, I'm sure I can safely say there are going to probably be 50 million ways to spend this fund. But in keeping with our government's commitment, it will be the southern interior region, not the government, that will decide where this money will be invested, how this money will be spent and what opportunities will be funded. It will be our region that will make the decisions for our residents, our projects and our future.

Bill 8 creates a $50 million trust for the southern interior, for the communities, to help them create new economic growth for more jobs. I can tell you that we've got more jobs than workers right now, and I'm really happy to have that problem in the Okanagan. So make it grow.

This bill enables the southern interior trust to operate independently of government. I think that is really important. It requires the trust to report publicly to the residents of the region. It establishes trusts with regional advisory committees, and a board that is going to manage and administrate a regional account to support investment in the areas that are listed in the bill. Frankly, they cover just about all the areas that our region is interested in. There's forestry; transportation; tourism; mining; obviously Olympic opportunities — and I know my community is happy to share in those; small business opportunities; economic development; energy; agriculture, including our wineries and our fruit growers.

This legislation is really about giving our communities the resources and the tools that they want to pursue for their priorities. I think that is important — that they will have the control over how this money is going to be invested, how this money is going to be doled out and spent. They will identify those opportunities. I really think that's important because we've always said — in our government, anyway — we believe that decision-making should be more responsive to local needs, and this fund really creates that kind of initiative.

I just want to outline four points. I'm going to speak very shortly on this. In general, the government really has made it a priority, I believe, to help all regions of the province. We saw a Vancouver Island fund; we saw a northern development fund. We are very happy to join in that legacy of now having a southern interior fund, because it really is going to help our economy in our region.

The trust will give, as I said, our communities, including the first nations, the funding, the control and the ability to identify and pursue new opportunities — new opportunities, I think, for sustainable economic growth and job creation because that is really what we are looking at in our region. We don't want just overnight businesses. We want stuff there; we want a legacy for our kids. We want opportunities that are going to grow and be there for generations.

This is exciting. This fund is an exciting thing to happen because it makes people think, it makes people dream, and it makes people hope that they can finally bring some of the things they've been working on to fruition in our region. I think that's important.

I've heard members talking about communities that have projects. They come to government, and somehow it just doesn't fit into the government's priorities or the government's criteria. This is about a region being able to create its own incentives and its own criteria. Really, as I said before, the fund is going to be as effective as the partnerships it can create to help build that fund, grow that fund and invest that fund. I can tell you that my region — talking to people across the Okanagan, anyway — is very excited about getting involved in this.

I think it's going to be great for businesses, for families, for developing sectors in our region. Really, the investment is going to create, I believe, a very prosperous southern interior, a very exciting place to live, with some of the things our government has already done for our region. You know, in the last year we now have University of British Columbia and Okanagan College there. Having this kind of fund and those kinds of partners in secondary education is very exciting for us, because it brings other opportunities from around the world when you have a world-class university sitting right in the middle of your region. So I think that's very, very exciting.

I do want to say to the minister, the Premier and to the government that I am very appreciative of this. My community is looking forward to getting involved in this. I support the bill, and I wish the minister would get on with it. We are very excited about this.

N. Macdonald: With Bill 8, the Southern Interior Development Initiative Trust Act…. This is one that I'll agree with in principle, as I think all members will. Fifty million dollars to support economic development activities is always going to be welcome. As a mayor, I worked to put resources into economic development, and I've seen it work. I know it can work.

The structure within the bill recognizes local government, and I appreciate that. I think that's the right way to go. Interim directorships are mayors from the Kootenays and Thompson and Okanagan, and the permanent structure, as well, looks well-thought-through. The structure does not appear to include first nations. There must be first nations representation. It must be guaranteed in the act, and that's a discussion we can have when we come to the committee stage.

This remains, however, simply a stopgap action. There has been a fundamental shift in the province's interaction with the interior. There has been a fundamental shift in the way that services are provided by the province, and I'll just talk about those for a few minutes, just to explain some of the things that I think will need to follow this bill. As I say, it's simply stopgap.

In terms of courthouses, the area that I represent used to have four of them. Three of them have been sold by the province. Family services, health care, seniors' support, women's support, forestry with offices closed; education, eight schools closed.

My point is that in the last four years, there has been a fundamental shift, and it has hit smaller rural communities very hard. There are some that represent regional centres, and I think they are perhaps less impacted. Certainly in the area that I represent, the province has drawn away from providing services that are needed and have been provided for a long time. That has changed.

I think we also need to recognize that there's been a shift in the way we tax — in the way we collect tax and who pays for these services. The province has reduced personal income tax. I think most would accept that that has benefited, in particular, the wealthy. There have been cuts to the corporate tax rates.

Now, very often what will look like a tax cut will appear as a tax shift to those that are impacted, and I speak for a part of the province that has very definitely felt that it is a tax shift that has taken place. I'll give you an example. The community that I was mayor of, and one of many of the communities that I represent, lives along a river. The river needs diking. In the past the province would put up 75 percent of the money for the diking. Now it does not do so. These communities are still going to build dikes. The only difference is that the money is going to come from a different pot. In this case it is going to come from municipal property owners. Whether they're business- or homeowners, they are going to pay for something that previously came from the province.

If you look at policing for communities under 5,000, it's very much the same thing. There's still going to be policing. Previously it was paid for provincially; now it is going to be paid for locally. As well, when certain facilities were closed, the community still felt the need for that service. For instance, in Kimberley, you know that the province closed the hospital. What you might not know is that the community purchased it. So to keep it there, they tried to purchase it.

In Invermere and Revelstoke the courthouses closed. The community uses the tax that it generates from homeowners and from businesses to buy the courthouse. If the province is going to remove services from rural areas, then very often the communities find that they have to provide these services for themselves. How that happens needs consideration beyond this bill.

I'll give you an example. We can use hydro as an example. The member for Kamloops–North Thompson talked about the moneys that forestry generates. There are other examples, as well, with mining. If you look at Revelstoke…. It produces, through the two dams that sit above it, the energy to give electricity to 1.7 million homes every day. So when turbines are added to both Mica and Revelstoke dams, the benefit to the whole province is going to increase even more. What you have is a huge benefit to the economies, to the social structure of all of British Columbia.

The benefits that accrued to the community that lives close to the dam are these. For the ten years of the construction, especially with Revelstoke Dam, there was a tremendous number of jobs. They were good jobs, but they lasted for the ten years. The flip side of it is the impact of these developments, and with hydro, the impacts are there.

Revelstoke, of course, like all of the riding, shares the benefits of a relatively inexpensive hydroelectric energy, but it is not even up to the standard that you would get in the lower mainland. Last Valentine's my wife and I had the chance to go to a restaurant, and it was a wonderful dinner. It was very dark, and the restaurant was depending upon candles. Normally you would have that for Valentine's anyway, and it was nice, but the fact was that all of the community was without electricity. It happens once or maybe twice a year.

The reason is that the system is not looped, so if the line is cut anywhere from Kimberley all the way up, then we don't have power — okay? So it is not even the service level that you would expect within Vancouver. The area that produces the electricity does not get any better service than any other part of the province and perhaps slightly worse.

Let's look at other impacts. The Mica was built in the 1970s. It floods massive areas of previously forested valley. The implications for the communities close to Mica are that forestry, which is a very important industry — and, done properly, one that can go on indefinitely — is limited. This is forest land. It's at the bottom of the valley, and it is prime forest land for the industry. Communities, not only in Revelstoke but in Golden, would benefit from the jobs that that would provide.

You also have the fact that the forestry that exists is limited by the reservoir, because these are reservoirs. So you have Mica — almost 200 kilometres of forest valley floor flooded. You have the loss of the land for forestry. You have the limitations in the forestry that you're going to do, because with the forest floor elimi-

nated, the valley floor flooded, you have people forced to go and build roads along the side of the reservoir and access the forests — the timber that's there — in a very roundabout way. You also have Revelstoke Dam, built in 1984. It is within city limits. It also floods 200 kilometres of forest floor.

The reservoirs. The Revelstoke reservoir is somewhat balanced in terms of how much fluctuation there is, but at the Mica reservoir the fluctuation is incredible. So as a tourist site, it is not particularly useful, and there is a constant problem with the amount of debris that comes into the area.

So what we have, then, just using hydro as an example, is a region that has contributed enormously to the provincial benefit in providing power and in helping a number of industries. You do not have anything flowing back to the community beyond some grants, and I think the grants are in the range of around $2 million per year. For the amount that is generated, it is very little that flows back into the community.

My main point is this. This bill is something I will support. It is $50 million that is coming into the communities, but overall, we need to do much more thinking about how we develop a new relationship between the province, the provincial government and local regions. There has to be a way for the local regions to get more systematic control of the resources that generate wealth for the whole province. That's something that needs to be given a lot more thought. It's something that I would look for this government to do in the time that is ahead. It is certainly, as a caucus, something that we on the NDP side will put effort into.

So I speak in favour of Bill 8 in principle. I reiterate that I see it as stopgap. I see inequities between what the province collects from our region and what the province gives back, and those inequities have become far greater in the last four years. I thank the Legislature for listening.

Another example could be with forestry. Within forestry you generate a tremendous amount of money in stumpage. You're taking the resource and extracting a tremendous amount of value from it with hydro, without properly putting back the resources to the communities.

Just to finish off again, Bill 8 is something I support — stopgap. There is a need for far more thought around how we're going to have a more equitable sharing of the resources and a more equitable way of providing local governments with providing the services that have been removed.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank you, and I thank for their attention those on the opposite side.

Hon. B. Bennett: I'm up on my feet to support this bill, but the previous speaker did say something that I feel obligated to respond to. He is a member that clearly cares a lot about his constituents and about the province. I don't say this with any disrespect, but I do want to disagree with the member, who said that our tax cuts were only for the rich. Actually, you know — and I think we need to keep saying this — we have the two lowest tax brackets in the province. We have the lowest rate of tax in all of Canada. So it's actually low-income people that receive the greatest relative benefit in our tax cuts.

I also want to just inform the member, because he clearly doesn't know this, that we reduced MSP premiums for low-income British Columbians. We also reduced our Pharmacare costs for low-income British Columbians. We increased our disability benefits for those folks who need that, and we have thousands of people working in the province who were once on welfare not that many years ago.

Although I wouldn't sweep away all the criticisms in the member's speech or other opposition speeches, I do think that we need to have that balance.

Hon. B. Bennett: The member from Chilliwack reminds me that there is the Kicking Horse Canyon project, which I believe is a multiple-hundreds-of-millions-of-dollars project in the member's riding, which I'm sure he's very excited about. I see him and hear him clapping over there.

But I do want to speak in support of the specific legislation. I disagree with the member for Cariboo North that $50 million is "not much money." I think it's quite a bit of money. In fact, it's about Z\z/, I think, of what was spent on the fast ferries. I think it's a lot of money. I also don't agree with my colleague for Nelson-Creston that this money will be…. I don't want to get this wrong, because I enjoyed his speech, and there are a lot of things he said that I agree with. It's not going to be dissipated. I think we will give local people an opportunity to decide how that money will be invested, and "invested" is the key word here. I certainly don't think it's our intention as a government — certainly not the minister's intention — to put $50 million into a bucket and hand it over to the region and say: "Go for it. Get it out of there as quickly as you can."

The idea is that we'll gather together, as the member said — you see, I read your speech very carefully — some smart people. They will decide along with us, incidentally, how that money should be invested. I think it can have long-term benefits, and I actually have trust in the people of the region that they will invest it so that we do get those long-term benefits.

I wanted to make a point of getting up today because it is an opportunity to talk about rural British Columbia, and it's an opportunity for us rural guys to get our licks in. We don't get that many opportunities — even those of us in government, even those of us who are members of the executive branch — to get our licks in. There are just not that many of us anymore because the province has changed. The country has changed. Most people have moved from the country to the city.

There is something, I agree, that is fundamentally dysfunctional about the model. It's a 100-year-old model that we have in this province. I don't know what the answers are, but I know that when I drive through a community that's actually not in my riding…. It's in the riding of Columbia River–Revelstoke. It's the community of Kimberley. When I go to the ski hills, sometimes I think, when I pass all the fairly modest houses in that community…. I think to myself: there was a mine there for a hundred years, and we pulled $20 billion out of that mine. I wonder sometimes: where did it all go?

That is a community that I think is a model, actually, for resource communities in transition. They had a mayor there, Mr. Ogilvie, for many, many years. In fact, I believe he's seeking re-election. I won't take a position on that, but he did a great job of trying to prepare that community for the day when that mine would close. He had the community get involved in golf resorts and ski resorts. I think they did probably a better job than a lot of resource communities do when the mine or the mill is coming to the end of the road. Still, you go through that community and — $20 billion, 100 years later — you ask yourself: where did it all go?

I would share in some of the comments made by other rural members — that it's difficult when you throw a bunch of money at rural regions, especially when you throw it at big regions like the Okanagan and the Kootenays. We do suffer from a certain amount of parochialism in rural B.C. I know that Kimberley often expresses its distaste for the city of Cranbrook and vice versa and that Fernie regularly expresses its distaste for the city of Cranbrook. The differences of view and the almost hatred that exists between the three big communities in the West Kootenay is legendary.

I remember, in the last term, hearing some of my colleagues discuss the issue of where the regional hospital should be located, so I'm kind of familiar with some of those challenges that come from parochialism. But I think that despite the fact that we have that history in rural B.C. — and I'm sure that that history is common to all rural areas of probably the world — I still have confidence. I have faith in the people who live out in the rural regions that they will be able to take up this challenge and take this money and invest it wisely in a way that will pay dividends not only to our children and grandchildren but to our great-grandchildren and thereafter.

I did want to get on the record. That's all I've really got to say. I wanted to say that I think the trust is an innovative approach, despite what some members have said, to get some assistance out to communities that want to diversify their economy. There are no strings attached to it. I think that is one of the strongest features of this legislation and of this initiative. We're not telling rural regions how to spend the money, so it really is up to them as to whether they make the most of the opportunity or not.

I don't share the view that it's even subject to partisanship. In fact, people may not realize this, but I'm the only Liberal MLA in the Kootenays. The other three MLAs happen to be opposition MLAs, and my understanding of how this process is going to work is that they'll get an opportunity to be involved in this and to express their view. So actually, I'm going to be outnumbered — which I'm a little concerned about, to be honest — because I have a lot of respect for my three colleagues from the West Kootenay and Columbia River–Revelstoke.

I am very pleased just to wrap it up here. I'm very pleased that the member for Nelson-Creston expressed his support for capitalism. I've read him wrong all these years. He said that he recognizes how investment drives the economy, and that's great. That's great stuff, so I know that we can count on the member for support in the future for our policies that will further increase confidence — investment confidence.

You know, in the Kootenays we've got an unemployment rate of between 4 and 5 percent, but the real estate rates are going up. Everything really is going pretty darned well. I mean, you can always find things that you want to find fault with. There are always things that are not going perfectly, but if you look at the last, say, 30 years in the Kootenays, we're doing really, really well. We don't take all the credit for that on this side. We really don't. But we take some of it; we take some of it. We inherited what we think was a heck of a mess in 2001, and we had to do some tough stuff, and it wasn't a lot of fun. In fact, it was no fun — that part of it — but we did it because we believed it was the right thing to do.

Things have turned around, and we've had a little bit of assistance from commodity prices, and I think somebody else over there said interest rates. That's probably had something to do with it, but they had those things in the 1990s too. But I won't go there today. That's not why I'm on my feet here today.

I do want to support the legislation. I'm way off my notes. I have no idea where I'm at, so I will close there. Thank you for the opportunity.

H. Lali: The hon. member for East Kootenay who just spoke before me mentioned that he is outnumbered by New Democrat MLAs in the Kootenays 3 to 1. Well, I've got him beat, because in the Thompson-Okanagan I'm outnumbered by the Liberal MLAs 8 to 1. So my job, in terms of holding the government to task, is a little tougher than the hon. member's over there, who is talking about the East Kootenay. But I can relate, anyway, and we will hold the government to task.

I rise on this occasion to talk on the bill before the House for the southern interior development initiative, and obviously, while I'm talking about that, I will say a few words about the northern development initiative as well. I also happen to be the only member in the House, I think, who gets to sit on two trusts, because Yale-Lillooet…. As you know, the trusts are divided

per constituencies. The northern half of my constituency is in the NDI, and the southern half will be in the SIDIT. I guess that's what they're calling it: SIDIT.

H. Lali: Double-dipping, as the hon. member says. That's correct. My constituents are allowed to double-dip, and they're allowed to do it in a legal manner.

It's good that the government has put forward this fund to help constituents all throughout rural British Columbia, basically, outside of Victoria and Vancouver. This is something that's long overdue. When I was a member of a previous caucus in government and also in cabinet, I actually lobbied for this exact sort of thing to take place at that time. As you know, we kind of ran out of time in the late 1990s there.

But I also have some concerns that I want to express and put forward on the record. As so many members before have said about what this is all about in terms of economic development, rural British Columbia has been really hit devastatingly hard by the social and economic policies of this Liberal government since the year 2001. With the exception of a few pockets, perhaps, like Kelowna and other communities that are of a sizable nature, every small town and every rural area in British Columbia has been devastated, not only by the pine beetle infestation that's taking place but also by the policies of this government, the failed policies to deal effectively with the pine beetle and, at the same time, with the social and economic problems that rural British Columbia faces. As a matter of fact, all of those huge cuts that the Liberals administered over a four-year period have actually really devastated the economy of rural British Columbia.

How this fund actually came about, as you know, is this secret deal that the Premier and the Liberals made in selling off B.C. Rail to CN, the privatization of B.C. Rail. The proceeds from that…. I guess it must have been a guilty conscience on the part of the government, who said: "Well, look, here we are selling off this prime asset that the people of British Columbia own, and now we've got this pot of money that's coming in from CN. I guess we'd better throw a few of the crumpets back to the people of rural B.C." That's why the NDI first came out. It was supposed to be a way to alleviate the negative economic consequences of B.C. Rail now being looked after, administered and owned by a company that's 50-percent owned by Americans. It's guilt money that has flowed from that situation.

Nonetheless, it is designed to do some good things, and I will talk about that in a minute. I've already talked about the regional disparity a little bit — how rural British Columbia has been suffering under the rule of the Liberal government over the last four years, especially in a constituency like Yale-Lillooet where we have 56 small communities, which includes 27 aboriginal bands. And there are seven municipalities and also about another six or seven sizable communities that don't have any kind of municipal government but are under the auspices of regional districts.

So obviously, it was rural British Columbia that really got hit in a big way, and the economy is suffering in terms of economic development. People are looking for the government to actually come in and help the private sector, to prop the private sector to make sure that the population of those small communities does not continue to go to other outlying areas, like the Okanagan or Kamloops or the lower mainland.

Hospitals have been closed, and schools have been closed in record numbers in Yale-Lillooet. As well, the forestry policies of this government have favoured big business, but the small operators are all suffering because they can't get enough wood. Obviously, the pine beetle, which has been really big in central British Columbia and the north, has been ever steadily increasing its presence over the number of years into the southern interior, which is going to be the next big area for devastation, if it hasn't already begun.

All of those cuts to government ministries are pulling out of offices, whether they were government agent offices, probation services, schools or hospitals, forestry offices, environment offices, highways offices…. You name it; they've pulled it out of Yale-Lillooet and the southern interior, as indeed happened in small towns of northern British Columbia and the northern Island as well. The result has been economic devastation in that neck of the woods.

I know that during the last election in May the Premier and the Liberal Party made a number of promises that they were going to actually institute a fund for areas of rural B.C., including putting extra money into the NDIT and also creating the northern island development initiative and the southern interior development initiative. Both of those were coming right out of the promises that were made by the Premier.

I want to put forward on the record that the three pots of $50 million now that are in each one of these trusts that is going in…. This actually falls short of what the NDP had said during the election as well. The NDP platform had contained a similar proposal: $200 million, which was actually one-half of the '05-06 forecast allowance for all regions outside of Victoria and the lower mainland for economic development initiatives in the '05-06 budget year.

The NDP platform also committed additional funding in years to come, as the commitment was tied to the budget's forecast allowance, specifically one-half of the annual forecast allowed. Note that the updated September budget reduced the forecast allowance to $300 million from $400 million. So although they have not presented it in this context, the Liberal government has committed one-half of the forecast allowance.

What I want to also point out is that where our position really differs from that of the Liberals is that the Liberals are putting in this one-shot deal. You get this one chance, and that's it. There's no continuity in terms of providing for economic development funding for rural British Columbia, whereas the NDP position was to do it on a yearly basis and not just a one-off one year.

I just want to talk a little bit about the northern development initiative. I found out after I got elected that I automatically get to sit on one of the RACs, regional advisory committees, of NDIT, specifically the Cariboo-Chilcotin-Lillooet region of the four regions that form the NDIT.

We found out, even though the hon. member — and he probably said this in his naivety…. The hon. member for East Kootenay said this, and I'm paraphrasing. I tried to write it as quickly as he was speaking, but he said that this is not a bucket of money given to them — "them" meaning local areas and municipalities — to shovel out.

But unfortunately, when the NDIT trust fund was created, it was done in a really hurried, haphazard fashion because they wanted to meet their electoral cycle guidelines, as opposed to actually setting in place some legitimate guidelines for municipalities, the folks from the municipalities and the regional districts who sat on these RACs and some of them who sat on the board as well.

I also want to put on the record that my comments should not in any way be construed as trying to say something negative about those local officials. I believe that the local officials are honest people. They're trying to do an honest job. They're only going to work with the criteria or the guidelines that were put forward to them by the government. In my opinion, the government in a number of instances kind of left those local officials to hang out to dry.

I'll give you an example. There was no public accountability put into place. There is going to be some now in the two new trusts, and the new guidelines are going to apply to the NDIT as well. But the fact of the matter still remains: there was no accountability mechanism. First of all, you had this NDIT covering three-quarters of British Columbia from, basically, Merritt north, excluding Merritt and the Island, and it was broken off into four regions. There was the Peace region, the Prince George region, the northwest region and the CCL — the Cariboo-Chilcotin-Lillooet region. Then that, of course, was broken off into subregions.

So basically the applications, and it was a one-page application with four sets of criteria…. I imagine there might have been 13 or 14 pages. These proposals were really coming forward in an ad hoc sort of manner, and then it was up to…. If it was the village of Lillooet, for instance, in my riding — I'll use that as an example — or the village of Cache Creek, which is in the Cariboo South riding…. The applications that came forward to those particular villages were to be judged by the administrator or the town clerk for those particular municipalities, and then the recommendations were to come from the subregion to the region, and then from there on to the board, and the board would make the final determination. So there were a number of steps where there were no people put into place. It sort of reminded you of the HRDC scandal that took place a few years back. They had the makings of that.

The push was to push this money out as quickly as possible. Of course, it didn't really meet the Premier's electoral cycle in May, but then it was the next cycle, which was the municipal cycle. I don't blame the municipal officials at all, because they didn't have those accountability measures given to them. They didn't have those guidelines or any detailed guidelines given to them. There was no staffing really put into place in Prince George at the head office where all of these hundreds and hundreds of applications actually could be filtered through and judged against the criteria.

At our first meeting the members for Cariboo North, Cariboo South and I, all New Democrats…. We happened to be on the CCL region of the NDI trust. It became really apparent to us within — we were there for about a four- or five-hour meeting — the first hour that there was something fundamentally wrong here. So I raised the issue about accountability, and my cohorts from Cariboo North and Cariboo South also joined. All three of us raised the issue about accountability and how we didn't feel that it was appropriate for members from senior levels of government, from the Legislature, to be sitting in on these meetings where, without any kind of an accountability measure put into place, we would be recommending these grants for approval. It was really difficult.

We raised that issue. We wrote letters to the chair of the board and also to the CCL RAC chair, saying that we had some concerns dealing with that. I'm happy to say that in Bills 6, 7 and 8 the $50 million each that is going out has taken into consideration the comments that the three members of the opposition were able to raise on the CCL region. It was done only after members of the opposition raised it, and it's a good thing. I want to congratulate the government on that, because otherwise it had the makings of an HRDC scandal if it was not done. That's exactly what happened at the federal level with the HRDC. When Mr. Chrétien fired about 50,000 civil servants across the province, a big chunk of those came from HRDC at the ground level in communities all throughout Canada.

That's why for about two months they didn't know where the $2 billion went, because there were no people at the ground level who were able to look at those applications or even to provide the information back to headquarters that this was what was going on.

The Premier and the government should be thankful that the three New Democrats who were sitting on this RAC were able to flag this issue and prevent the Premier from getting into that kind of a scandal that Mr. Chrétien got in. He should be thankful. He should be thanking the NDP opposition for actually saving his skin on that particular issue.

Another concern that I've got is the fact that this is not subject to FOI — freedom of information. There's a big chunk of money that the government of British Columbia controls as a result of the B.C. Rail sale.

H. Lali: Transparency. There has to be transparency. The member for East Kootenay said it's not a way

we're just shovelling out the money from the back of a pickup — or implied that. This is not what we're doing. But in one sense, when there is no transparency, how do we debate that in the House? How do we debate that if it's not subject to FOI? How do we do that? It has to be a mechanism. It has to be brought under freedom of information.

You're looking at a pot of, I think…. A total that's been given out is about $237 million. That's a huge chunk of money. That's a quarter of a billion dollars with no transparency. It's not FOIable, and it should be. You know, this is the purview of the provincial government. They are responsible for that $237 million — a quarter of a billion dollars — and they've sort of pushed that out without any measure of visibility there.

Now, of the $50 million with the southern interior development initiative trust fund, there's $30 million for the pine beetle fund that's in there. Again, that's good that the $30 million is going to be in there, but the fact of the matter is that you have this….

Hon. member, don't confuse me like that. I'm rolling here, so just give me a moment. I'm just about finished.

So the pine beetle fund is in small pockets in different ministries now. How do we administer it? How is that going to affect the deliverability in terms of dealing with the pine beetle? It's a billion-dollar solution, and you've got, basically, the government coming up with these small pockets of funds, and it doesn't even match the fund that the federal government wants to put forward.

There are a number of other inconsistencies as well, and I won't go into all of them. It's these inconsistencies across the regions with respect to the regional committee guidelines and procedures. For example, some regional committees are prohibiting MLAs from voting while others are not. We're allowed a vote on our RAC. Now, I'll probably sit on one of the RACs for the southern interior development region, and I'm just sort of wondering: will I be allowed to vote there or not? So you've got one MLA allowed to vote in one area, and in another area, he's not allowed to, possibly.

So we're waiting for those guidelines to come out, and I think the government has got to make those guidelines consistent throughout all of the regions. You can't have some MLAs voting while some can't vote. It has to happen where all MLAs are really treated equally.

The last item I want to put on the record, because I have to be in the little House pretty quickly, is in terms of aboriginal participation. Now, there was a small fund. I think it was $15 million. I stand to be corrected. I know the minister's across the way. He can nod if it was $15 million. I think it was. That was for the aboriginal peoples, the first nations that were along the route of the B.C. Rail who felt they were going to be negatively affected, and that dealt with them. I think there are about 28, 29 bands.

In British Columbia there are over 200 bands there, and probably in the area north of Merritt, there's got to be closer to about 170, 175 bands. So you've got all of these aboriginal first nations who are saying: "Well, regional districts are getting their funds." The first nations along the rail line have got a small pot of funds. Municipalities are getting a thought…. Applications and proposals could come forward from the public and the private entities as well. Those aboriginal people, about 150 bands, are saying: "Well, where are the economic development moneys for us?" It's almost like they're going to be an afterthought, if they are indeed going to be looked after. But they're not.

I think this is grotesquely unfair — that you have another level of government in British Columbia that is not going to get access to these funds. I think government seriously has to look at that to make sure that our first nations citizens who live in British Columbia — the first nations of this province — should have an equal right to the fruits of this province as well, and not just the municipal, the regional and those bands that are along the rail line.

This is a serious flaw. I don't know if it was done on purpose or was an oversight by the government, but it has to be corrected so that those aboriginal people who don't live along the BCR line, who haven't had access to this fund, are able to get access to this fund or a fund that would be set up specifically for those bands as well, because I think it's discriminatory in the way that it has been done. It has to be dealt with. I know in my constituency I've got 27 first nations bands, more than any other constituency, and they're all crying foul.

So on behalf of all of those aboriginal residents in my riding, I'm putting this on the record for the government to consider. They should seriously either let aboriginal people have access to these funds as well or set up a fund separately for them so they can enjoy equal rights just like every other citizen who does in rural British Columbia.

I've spoken at length. I think I've gone a few minutes over what I said I was going to, but I thank you for the opportunity.

Again, I have some concerns as I put them on the table. Overall, I want to state that this is a good thing that the Premier and the Liberal government have put forward. This is something that the New Democrats, when we were in government for a number of years, for ten years, had protected rural British Columbia from the kind of massive cuts that the Liberal government actually brought forward in the last four years.

Now I think this is some way that the Liberal government is trying to make up for it. I know my friend

Having said that, thank you very much, and I will listen to the rest of the debate by the hon. members opposite as well.

L. Mayencourt: Thank you and just so that…. I apologize to the member for Yale-Lillooet. I didn't mean to interrupt him when he was on a roll, particularly when he was praising our government. I seek leave to make an introduction.

L. Mayencourt: I have two very good friends that I greatly honour from my community here in the gallery today. They are Teri Nicholas and Renata Aebi, and they have joined us from Vancouver. These two ladies are responsible for building the integrated youth services building in my riding. It's a phenomenal addition to youth services in our community and they deserve great praise for it. It's been a pleasure working with them on that project. So would the House please make them welcome.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Minister of Economic Development closes debate.

Hon. C. Hansen: Thank you very much, and I think there are some common threads that have been woven through members' comments on the second reading of these three bills that are before us — Bills 6, 7 and 8, all of which establish regional trusts in the province or, in the case of the northern development initiative, add an additional $50 million to that particular trust.

There are a lot of specific questions that have come up and issues by various members that have spoken on these bills, and I think they're probably best dealt with when we get into committee stage. I'll be pleased to try to give them the fullest answers possible.

I think the one theme that comes through is a recognition that these pieces of legislation are really a great initiative to provide financial resources to communities so that decisions can be made on a local and regional level about the economic future and economic opportunities in those regions.

But I would like to make one appeal to individual MLAs who are from these regions of the province, and it is this. I believe that the greatest outcome of these trusts will be some of the big issues, some of the big regional issues, not so much the community-by-community issues where one community may want a particular project and another community may want another little project, but rather that these funds be used as an opportunity to create some strategic, economic, dynamic opportunities that are bigger than just the individual communities. I know there may be a temptation to say: "Let's take this allocation of money, and let's just divide it up according to population. Let's let the town councils in each of these communities decide how they would like to spend their per-capita contribution."

Quite frankly, if they decide to do that, that is their right, because it is not for us as the provincial government to tell these trusts how they should spend their money. The best I can do is ask this of the MLAs who are going to be sitting on the regional advisory committees, MLAs from both opposition and the government party: that they do their best at that regional advisory committee level to try to try to seize on the opportunities that are long term, that are strategic.

I believe that if everybody looks at their challenge, as a member of either the trust itself or as a member of the advisory committees, we can truly make some new miracles happen with these financial resources that are being put at the disposal of these regions throughout the province.

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 8, Southern Interior Development Initiative Trust 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.

Bill 10 proposes amendments to a number of forest statutes which will enable this government to continue the implementation of the forest revitalization plan. The plan was aimed at restoring the strength of the forest industry. We took steps to improve the competitive position of our industry, steps to improve the stability of the communities that depend on the industry and steps to ensure the environmental protection and sustainability of forest and range values.

There is still a lot of work to do. There are challenges facing forestry in British Columbia. Many of them do not relate to legislation but rather to world markets: how we deliver the fibre, how we price it, how we operate as a government and as a ministry; and how our companies will adjust in the future to what is seen by many people in world markets as an adjustment necessary in forestry worldwide.

The amendments are consistent with this plan. Although minor in nature, they will ensure some clarity. The 2003 Forestry Revitalization Act contained a schedule setting out which licences would be impacted and which of these licences were subject to reallocation. The schedule was up to date as of March 31, 2003. Changes in ownership of the licences requires an update to the schedule in order to carry out the final steps of the reallocation process. The amendment would allow us to update the schedule to reflect these changes.

Specifically, at the time of legislation, tree farm licence 46, which we refer to as a TFL, was held by TFL Forest Ltd. of the TimberWest group. That licence is now held by Teal Cedar. The schedule must be updated to reflect this in order that the ministry's order can be issued to allow the transfer of this timber to a new operator.

Amendments also provide a regulation-making power so that in the future, changes to the schedule could be made by regulation, rather than amending legislation every time.

The bill also makes proposed amendments to compliance and enforcement provisions within the Forest and Range Practices Act and the Wildfire Act. If someone contravenes the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act, the Forest and Range Practices Act or the Wildfire Act, they're going to be held accountable. This clarifies that any contravention of the old Forest Practices Code is subject to the compliance and enforcement measures authorized under the Forest and Range Practices Act or the Wildfire Act.

While all licensees must transition to the Forest and Range Practices Act by December 2006, many licensees will still carry obligations incurred under the old Forest Practices Code for years to come — for example, maintaining young forests until they are free to grow. It is essential that we clarify the authority to apply penalties no matter when a contravention or obligation occurred.

Under section 67 of the Forest and Range Practices Act, we are able to seize timber or hay as a result of contraventions of specific provisions of the Forest and Range Practices Act. Amendments will ensure that we can use this same power for a contravention of the code by listing the provisions of the code to which section 67 will apply. Similar cross-referencing provisions will be made to the Wildfire Act.

The Wildfire Act was brought into force in March 2005. It moved fire-related provisions out of the Forest Practices Code and into new stand-alone legislation. This legislation provided an approved set of fire management policies that streamline regulation and improve accountability. We want to ensure that fire contraventions of the code that occurred during the transition period of January 31, 2005 to March 31, 2005 are subject to the Wildfire Act.

In conclusion, these proposed amendments allow government to continue to deliver the benefits of reallocation and a revitalized forest sector to British Columbians. They will help deliver tough compliance and enforcement measures aimed at protecting forest and range values in British Columbia.

N. Simons: I just noticed in the gallery the arrival of Chief Stan Dixon of the Sechelt Nation, who I've worked with closely in the past and hope to continue working closely with in the future. I would just like to ask the House to make him feel welcome.

B. Simpson: I rise to speak to this bill before us today, and I want to make a few comments about it. I thank the minister for his opening comments. It helps to clarify a couple of points on the schedule, and I look forward to having a further discussion about that as we hit the committee stage.

There are a couple of aspects of this amendment that give rise to the debate that previous members of this House had around the institution of the forest and range bill itself, the Forest and Range Practices Act. That was whether or not there was sufficient consultation on this bill in the first place. As we know from past experience of all governments not only in British Columbia but in other jurisdictions, failure to consult and failure to consult adequately result in bad public policy. There's no question about that.

The previous member of our caucus who retired from this House, Joy MacPhail, argued that case vehemently with respect to the act that this bill is now amending. What she stated over and over again was that there was not sufficient consultation to ramrod through the original bill, which this bill today is amending.

As a consequence, this is the third time at least that this bill is having to be amended and, in particular, the third time that it is having to be amended with respect to the compliance and enforcement. In 2003, when introducing Bill 44, the then Forests Minister stated that that bill would strengthen compliance and enforcement regimes and harmonize them with what exists in the Forest and Range Practices Act. "These changes will improve the effectiveness of the ministry's compliance and enforcement program."

Again later in 2003, Bill 69 was introduced with the then Forests Minister stating yet again: "I want to underscore to the House that the key objectives of the Forest and Range Practices Act remain the same: a focus on results, not paperwork, and a focus on high environmental standards supported by tough compliance and enforcement."

So yet again, we have another attempt to strengthen compliance and enforcement of this act with another amendment. I think it's important that we recognize that the Forest and Range Practices Act was

passed hastily. It was passed in a way that really brings into question what the intent of the act was.

One of the individuals whom this government depends on to give some feedback on whether or not it's doing a good job under the professional reliance model that the government has implemented in conjunction with the Forest and Range Practices Act has indicated that, in his estimation: "Most of the changes in FRPA appear to have been made only because they were NDP policies and not because the Forest Practices Code was lacking in any of the policy attributes that were desired."

There are those who claim — and, I believe, correctly so — that what the Forest and Range Practices Act was, was an attempt to institute an ideological agenda on the land base, not an attempt for good forest practices or for good forest stewardship. The evidence for this is mounting. I believe that if we were having this debate on this amendment in as much as 18 months to two years, we would see insurmountable evidence that we are no longer positioned to be the good forest stewards that we have so long claimed that we were capable of being.

Again, I would like to read into the record a comment by Fred Marshall, who is an RPF and a critic of this government, but he's been a critic of all governments, so I think he's non-partisan in his criticism. In a document entitled The Liberals' Forest Policies: Backwards to the Future he states: "The Forest Practices Code had significantly improved the level of resource management in B.C. Both the MOF and the forest industry seemed comfortable operating under it."

Now, that's from someone who works in the industry and is more intimately associated with the industry than any of the members on the government side of the House. His critique is that, under the Forest Practices Code, people were settling into it, understanding it and it was beginning to work for them.

He goes on to say that FRBC funds supported a lot of good work — for example, reduced the backlog of NSR lands, restored many degraded watersheds, supported some excellent research — and that IFPAs and many other pilot projects such as community forest licences were funded as well. He goes on to state — and this government has used this statement as proof that the FRPA is working: "These improvements have been well-attested by Ben Cashore, who indicates that forest resource management in B.C. is among the best in the world." It's important to note that he continues: "This ranking reflects the results of the Forest Practices Code and FRBC, not the Liberals' forest policies, which are yet in the development and implementation stages."

The amendment that we have in front of us is fixing some minor aspects of the Wildfire Act and the Forest and Range Practices Act and the Forestry Revitalization Act, but it absolutely fails to address anything substantive about either the revitalization act or the Forest and Range Practices Act that this government has had multiple recommendations on changes. They have had multiple sources of input that things are not right in our forests and on our forest land base, and they have had more than adequate indications of what changes could be made. So this amendment act is insufficient in the extreme.

Why are we having such difficulty on the land base? Well, from an organizational perspective, one thing that is a recipe for disaster is when you implement significant organizational change and, at the same time that you implement that organizational change, you gut the workforce and its capabilities of implementing that change. This government made a simultaneous change in the Forest Service, where they gave them a brand-new code and a brand-new act under which they were supposed to operate and, simultaneous to that, gutted the Forest Service.

In fact, the group of professionals that this government is relying upon to not only implement the Forest and Range Practices Act but also to give insight into government policy with respect to our forests…. That same group of professionals, on December 20, 2004, wrote a letter to the Premier. In that letter to the Premier they stated that they were concerned about the substantial restructuring of government that was undertaken by the Premier's administration. "We were particularly concerned that the changes might negatively impact the ability of the Ministries of Forests; Sustainable Resource Management; and Water, Land and Air Protection to fulfil their mandates." That's a very strong statement: "We were particularly concerned that the changes might negatively impact the ability of the Ministry of Forests to fulfil its mandate."

The letter goes on to indicate that the gutting of the Forest Service, contained in a report by the Sierra Club of Canada called Axing the Forest Service, which this group of professionals say they have some different points of view with it, but they agree, in essence, with the cuts. They go on to say that that report raises issues that "we, ourselves have become concerned about, such as the limited resources currently being focused on research, inventory and forest health."

They then say that the bottom line is that forests remain vital to B.C.'s future. This fact, together with the reality that forestry is a very long-term discipline involving social, economic and environmental elements and requiring science of the highest order, make it clear that forest resource management is no place for minimalist, short-term thinking. "The Association of B.C. Forest Professionals calls on the Premier to restore Forest Service capabilities, not only to put the Forest and Range Practices Act into play but to ensure good forest stewardship on the land base, to ensure we have good science to make decisions on."

What was the response to this letter — a letter to the Premier from a group of professionals that, in the new Foresters Act we've said under "Professional reliance," will be the keepers and stewards of our forests? The response, Madam Speaker, was none. Not the minister, not the Premier, not a deputy minister, not an assistant deputy minister, not even a manager of a dis-

trict had the decency to respond to these professionals on their stated concerns.

We can do all the changes that we want to, to the compliance and enforcement in this act. We can change dates around if we want to. We can make it grandfathered or grandmothered if we want to. If we don't have the resources on the land base to make sure we are able to get out and audit what's going on, on the land base, this is pointless.

The other aspect of the Forests and Range Practices Act is that it is a minimum standards act. It is a minimum standards act, and it is vital that we understand that. Because, again, you can make all the changes you want to enforcement and compliance, but if your standards are the bare minimum, what are you enforcing and complying with? You're complying with the bare minimum. So we're going to very quickly….

I would predict that in the next 24 months we're going to see the results of this. I would predict that we're going to see a devolution to those minimum standards. We can go out and we can enforce and comply all we want. We can grandfather all we want. What we're going to do is lose our place on the world economy as the best stewards of our forest resources that we had — by the admission of Fred Marshall, a registered professional forester who knows what he's talking about and is on the ground — that we had those standards under the previous Forest Practices Code, and there was no need to change it.

I don't wish to be presumptive of the minister's response to me, but I will be because I have that right as long as I have the floor. One of the comebacks that can come back to me on this is, of course, one of the intents of the Forest and Range Practices Act. I find it quite interesting that there are not amendments in this bill to this effect. One of the intents was to reduce red tape. It was to allow our forest companies, tenure holders, to get rid of a lot of red tape, to allow them to, as we would say under this act, have the freedom to manage.

Again, I refer to somebody who knows more about this than I do, Fred Marshall, and his paper. He says the following — and again, this was a paper presented to the Association of B.C. Forest Professionals up in Prince George earlier this year. This is not an outdated document. This is very current. He says: "The questions we as professional resource managers must ask ourselves…. Will the policy changes as developed and proposed and implemented by the Liberals (a) be more administratively efficient and allow more freedom to manage? (b) result in significantly reduced administration and costs relative to current practices? (c) result in better resource management over the long term relative to measures implemented by the NDP?"

Those are pertinent questions. I'm sure they're questions that the Minister of Forests and Range will have his own answers to. But someone on the ground, someone who knows what's happening on the ground, someone who is versed in this and who belongs to a professional association that we changed the Foresters Act to rely more on, says the following, with respect to: are these changes more administratively efficient and allow more freedom to manage? He says the answer is no.

With respect to "result in significantly reduced administration and cost relative to current practices," Fred Marshall says the answer to that is no. With respect to "result in better resource management over the long term relative to measures implemented by the NDP," his answer is a double no. That's an emphatic no, by the way, in case somebody doesn't get what a double no means.

Mr. Marshall goes on to say: "The positive aspects of improved resource management, increased professional independence and reliance and freedom to manage could have been more easily achieved under the Forest Practices Code with some modest changes."

Now, this government ramrodded the Forest and Range Practices Act through without appropriate consultation, without hearing the voices of Mr. Marshall and many like him. But in case they wish to discount the voice of Mr. Marshall, then I would go to another voice who is also a registered professional forester; who is in fact an instructor at the University of British Columbia school of forestry, and who is someone that this government used during the minimalist consultation process that they undertook. That someone is George Hoberg.

George Hoberg, as late as 2004 and I believe earlier this year, although I haven't been able to put my hands on that report, states the exact same things that Mr. Marshall is stating — that the implementation of the Forest and Range Practices Act has been suspect; that it has not achieved the forest steward objectives that we had wanted on the ground; that, in fact, the contrary may be the case.

In fact, what is happening is that we are going backwards. We are losing ground in our forests, and we are losing our place on the world stage as stewards of our forests of the highest calibre. Even their own consultant that they used in that minimalist approach to consultation is saying the same thing. So it bothers me that in the bill that we have before us, the Forests and Range Statutes Amendment Act, 2005 — another one of many that I assume we will be seeing over the next little while, because this policy is so bankrupt — we will not see those changes come forward.

Why? Because there's a reason this government did not consult in the first place, and that reason is that the changes they were making were ideological. They were not necessary. They didn't want to hear from the public that truth — that we do not have time for ideological changes. We do not have time to move forward in this direction. Therefore, make some changes to the Forest Practices Code, adjust it, and let's keep business going.

Again, in case those two voices aren't sufficient, I would refer to Mr. John Allan, president of the B.C. Lumber Trade Council, who as late as 2004 addressed a community meeting in Prince George and stated that the unprecedented changes that the Liberal govern-

ment has made to forest policy in this province have created upset in the industry. He said that the bulk of planned policy changes, translated into law…. There are too many amendments. Some are in force; many are not tested. There's a lack of internal consistency. There's no overall road map; it's not been developed. Policy linkages are not identified. There are significant threats to business continuity under the policy changes, and there's a significant amount of work remaining to get it right and to ease concerns about business continuity. In fact, the minister himself, when he introduced this bill, made the statement: "There is still a lot of work to do."

Well, I go back to a comment I made at the beginning. You can save yourself a lot of work when you're formulating policy, when you involve people in the front end of the policy creation and when you engage people in a consultation process that makes sense, that works and that hears their voices. Then you take that consultation process, and you roll it into your act and your public policy. Then you don't have to keep making amendments, and you don't have to keep saying there's still a lot of work to do to try and get this right. You don't have people out there having the ability to detract from what it is you're trying to accomplish.

But the problem is that despite amendments to this act, the overwhelming feedback this government was given when it went out with the consultation process for the results-based code was: don't do it. That's why that consultation process was shut down, that's why we have a Forest and Range Practices Act that isn't working for anyone, and that's why we're in the situation that we are just now, where we have yet another amendment to this act.

There's another voice out there that speaks to this same issue. Again, this government was given this feedback. It's from the Cattlemen's Association of British Columbia. The Cattlemen's Association has a particular vested interest in this, because it is the Forest and Range Practices Act. The range component impacts them directly on the range. The forest portion impacts them, because many of them are woodlot owners, and many of them also harvest in Crown land adjacent to their range property.

What did the Cattlemen's Association have to say? Again, this was this year. Subsequent to previous amendments to the act, none of their suggestions appear in this act as amendments. The Cattlemen's Association, in a document presented to cabinet, said the following: "We have a Forest and Range Practices Act that leaves us in the unacceptable position of being subservient to timber interests on the land base, while important details in the regulations have not been dealt with. BCCA acceptance of FRPA was conditional on several long-outstanding issues being addressed. Compliance and enforcement." That's what this one is addressing. "Monitoring and evaluating standards, training for ranchers and ministry staff, recreation and wildlife conflicts, timber encroachment and in-growth, invasive plants, profile within the ministry, interaction with timber companies and funding for range developments." And what did the B.C. Cattlemen's Association say? "These issues remain unresolved."

That was in February of 2005 in a report from the B.C. Cattlemen's Association to the cabinet. They also raise the exact same issue that the professional association raised with respect to the ability of the Forest Service to implement this act, let alone conduct their normative operations. I quote again:

Madam Speaker, that's a scathing indictment of this government's forest policy not from a partisan group such as the NDP caucus, not from people that this government likes to discount in the environmental community, but from people who go out of their way to support this government and its actions. They have stated that this legislation is not working. They have stated — and again I quote, because it's such a strong statement: "Lacking clear direction, confused Ministry of Forests staff now implement their personal views, resulting in a patchwork regulatory framework across the province."

How can we have the best forest stewardship? How can we maintain our place on the world stage as global leaders in forest stewardship when the government's Forest and Range Practices Act and its cuts to the Ministry of Forests are leading us down a path where we are going toward a patchwork regulatory framework and we are going toward minimum standards?

There's another voice that needs to be heard in this, which is not heard in this amendment to the Forest and Range Practices Act. That is of Roy Nagel, manager of the Central Interior Logging Association, who stated that what we're seeing and what we've seen so far from the Liberal policy changes "is taking us in the opposite direction of what we all wanted to achieve through the revitalization policy"— the opposite direction to what we all wanted to achieve through the revitalization policy.

So there are numerous voices out there who are still trying to be heard, and that's the critical part of this. It's voices that are still trying to be heard because they were not heard. They were not given the opportunity to be heard during the consultation process, and that's why we have bad public policy. That's why we have to make amendments. That's why we have to have this debate about this amendment. That's why I have to, in my role, bring those voices into this House and get them on the record of this House because this government fails to hear. They turn a deaf ear every time.

I'd like to talk a few minutes about the Forestry Revitalization Act. The intent of the Forestry Revitalization Act was to increase small tenures. It was to take back from the major licensees in order to give some

tenures out to first nations, community forests and woodlot owners. Well, the whole Forestry Revitalization Act has had a questionable implementation cycle, and the minister is well versed in this, because I know that he has had lobby effort after lobby effort to fix what is not right with the Forestry Revitalization Act.

I want to just key in on one group in there. I happened to attend this past weekend the woodlot federation annual general meeting, which I spoke at. I heard from a person sitting down with me deep and sincere concerns about where our forests are heading — the fact that we are in a process where we are slipping, as I've indicated before, on the world stage in terms of our ability to manage our forests and in forest stewardship.

Again, there's an interesting trend here where you have a very large group of individuals who are ranchers, logging contractors, registered professional foresters, people who work every day on the land base, who see for themselves firsthand — not secondhand, not thirdhand, but firsthand — the implications of the Forest and Range Practices Act on the land base. What do those folks say? It's not working. What we are devolving to are minimum standards, but also it's not working because there appears to be a double standard out there. The application of the Forest and Range Practices Act to the small tenure holders is failing.

I have a letter here from the Woodland Almanac, the publication of the Federation of B.C. Woodlot Associations, that really speaks to this. Again, the act was intended to reduce red tape. It was intended to increase the number of licences out there for small tenure holders. This letter states:

If that's administrative streamlining, Madam Speaker, I don't know what this government thinks of that.

It seems that every time we are offered a fix for one legitimate concern, we get a multiplicity of worse problems to go with it.

So there's the question of this bill that we have in front of us as an amendment act: what problems is this bill going to create?

That, Madam Speaker, is a recurring theme time after time, voice after voice, sector after sector — a vastly diminished Forest Service with no ability for extension or support.

B. Simpson: Yes, I am, Madam Speaker. Should I have clarified that at the beginning?

B. Simpson: You see, if you give a short Scottish guy a pulpit, it's a recipe for disaster.

B. Simpson: I would be disappointed if that were not the case, Mr. Minister.

I could go on, but as they say, tell it to the judge. This letter-writer goes on to say:

Madam Speaker, for the life of me, I cannot understand how the Minister of Forests and Range, how his compatriots in the cabinet, can turn a deaf ear to the multitude of voices out there that are calling on this government to reflect on the Forest and Range Practices Act at a much, much deeper level than these small amendments are calling for in the bill we have before us today.

There's a final voice that I'd like to bring into the room, and it's a voice that this government should adhere to because they fund them. That's the Forest Practices Board. The Forest Practices Board, on numerous occasions since the Forest and Range Practices Act has started to come into force, have stated time and time again that they have significant concerns about the implementation of the Forest and Range Practices Act on biodiversity. They have significant concerns on the Forest and Range Practices Act on species at risk, and they have significant concerns that the Forest and Range Practices Act is undermining our ability to be good stewards on the land base, explicitly because it is a minimum-standards regulatory framework.

We will see that, as I've indicated before — and I am being predictive about this — over the next 18 to 24 months. I have witnessed it myself. I have been out in the land base. I have looked at the utilization standards.

The utilization standards are how much wood comes out of the bush, how much is left behind and the

condition of the land base that's left behind as part of that. Those utilization standards are slipping dramatically.

I think we're going to see more complaints to the Forest Practices Board over that in the next little while. I know that the Forest Practices Board will be tabling a report shortly on their investigation into the salvage logging operations that are occurring in the TSA, the timber supply area, in my community.

Those utilization standards, the Forest and Range Practices Act minimum standards and the failure of this government to consult are all rolling up to position us poorly to maintain our pre-eminent place in the world as stewards of our forests. I find it fascinating that in the five great goals of the golden decade, there's a mention in there of being good environmental stewards. Fisheries management is singled out, but not forest management. I think that's telling. I think it's because that is no longer an objective of this government.

The objective of this government is to liquidate our forest assets. The objective of this government is to allow large corporations to concentrate all of our land base and to concentrate all of the manufacturing capabilities. Under that regime, we will be driving out independents, we will be driving out small woodlot owners, and we will get the exact opposite of the forest revitalization strategy. Under the Forest and Range Practices Act, we will get the exact opposite on the land base of what we, as good stewards of our forests, have an obligation to champion.

Madam Speaker, I look forward to the committee stage of this bill. There are some issues that I'd like to speak with the minister about with respect to this, but my basic intention is that this does not fix a poor consultation process. It goes nowhere near addressing all of the voices that we have heard over the last year and that the government has heard over the last four years about what's wrong with the Forest and Range Practices Act. It disappoints me that we have something here that has no substance to it and does not address the substantive issues that are occurring on the ground.

Hon. R. Coleman: Madam Speaker, I am going to respond to the member opposite, to a level. I am not going to do what I would be tempted to do, which would be to revisit history, as he likes revisionist history himself. I'm also not going to comment on one RPF when I've had other RPFs tell me that it's working.

I do remember this, though. Back when I was in opposition, we were good at finding a few letters with a few quotes to build a speech around. Any one of us can do that, but here's a quote I want to remind the House of, from former Forests Minister Dave Zirnhelt: "The Forest Practices Code of British Columbia added billions of dollars of cost with no benefit." That was a Forests Minister of the day who made that comment.

When we talk about this stuff, we're going to find that we're going to have revisionist history, and everybody is going to have an opinion of what forest policy might have done 15 years, 20 years, 30 years ago. I will remind the member that in committee stage of this bill, we are going to discuss the appropriate sections of the amendment. We're not going to re-debate a piece of legislation that was passed by this House.

I do want to say this, though. I am not happy as a minister to sit in a House and listen to somebody insult the professional staff of my ministry on their delivery of forest practices in British Columbia. British Columbia has today, in my opinion — and other people tell me, whether it be CIBC World Markets or people I've dealt with as a minister in the last three months internationally and across this country — the best forest practice stewardship of any jurisdiction in the world bar none, and I'm proud of that. I believe my staff are the ones who had a great deal to do with that in delivering that on the ground base.

I don't want to remind the member of the jobs and timber accord — Prince George, British Columbia, a promise of 21,000 jobs. Nothing happened, and jobs were lost. I don't want to remind the member, because we're going to get into these debates in estimates, about the mountain pine beetle and the eight years of complete inaction by his colleagues in government in the NDP from 1993 to 2001, and the complete action — which I am prepared to defend with regards to pine beetle — moving forward.

As a matter of fact, today C.H. Anderson is awarded a tender in the Cariboo. In the Cariboo — and they're going to invest $110 million in your region, hon. member, to make pellets out of fibre that nobody else wants — because it's part of the pine beetle strategy, because we're actually delivering on the land base for the people of British Columbia.

The reality is this, and the members will know this after they've been here as long in this House as I have been. Legislation, no matter what form it is, is a living document. Legislation evolves, changes and gets amended by every government and every time in history, relative to how it exists. Sometimes you'd never get it perfect, because if we were all perfect, nobody would need to be here today at all.

I am familiar with the concerns of the people the member spoke about — the woodlot federation, who I have met with twice. I have explained to them that we're going to deal with some of their issues and the time frame we're going to deal with it.

The community forest groups. What he didn't mention is how we're dealing with small-scale salvaging on the land base and what was supported by previous governments — not just mine and others — that has created some difficulties and concerns on the reforestation in this province.

All of these aspects — including the B.C. Cattlemen's Association, who I've sat down with and explained how we're going to deal with their issues — are going to be dealt with in the ensuing months.

What we're going to do with this bill is discuss in committee stage not the original legislation — not re-

debate a piece of legislation. We will deal with the sections that are up for debate, which is the amendment to the act. We'll do that because that's what we need to do.

I knew it, but at the same time I think the member capsulized, frankly, some very good issues within forestry. If the member were to go back two years, four years, eight years, ten years, probably 20 years in this House, he would find — I am sure, because I can remember the debates in opposition — that a number of the issues he articulates are issues that were there then and will be there in the future.

The important thing is this: do we have a plan in British Columbia for companies, for forest workers, for loggers, for communities and for the professional development of our staff and their professional integrity that people can work with as we build a future for forestry? I could go back — and because I did do estimates with the two former Ministers of Forests and sat on some committees with forestry — and do revisionist history. But then I wouldn't accomplish a thing as a minister if I spent my time doing that.

I spent the last 90 to 120 days looking for the solution so that we can get back to the table on softwood, where today we are closer than we ever have been in having a position that will work for Canada. I've spent the time in the last 90 days putting together a plan for the emergency preparedness on beetle kill and am about to roll that out. I spent my time in the last 60 to 90 days looking at the issues facing the coast of British Columbia.

I find it incredible that not a member from the coast side of the opposition stood up and talked about forestry at all in this bill. We need to find some solutions on the coast, and those solutions won't come from playing some negativity back and forth. They will come from us working together so we can find them on the land base for your communities and ours, because the coast needs some adjustments. The coast needs work from government and international markets and investors so we can get together and make things happen.

I am more than happy to debate this legislation, and I look forward to the opportunity to actually defend the Ministry of Forests in estimates in this House.

B. Simpson: I don't believe that it is appropriate for any of us to deliberately misquote other members of this House for political purposes. I don't believe it is appropriate for any member of this House to do that. Therefore, I want to be crystal-clear, because the minister has impugned me as calling into question the Forest Service in this province. I know that the Forest Service is working very hard. In fact, the contrary is what I argued — that because….

Deputy Speaker: Member, state your point of order concisely. It's not a speech.

B. Simpson: Okay. In my speech I read one statement. That statement was from the B.C. Cattlemen's Association. That's what the minister is referring to. Those were not my words, Madam Speaker; they were the Cattlemen's Association's. None of my words impugned the Forest Service.

Deputy Speaker: Member, I thank you for your point of order. We'll deal with the question, and then we'll deal with the point of order.

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

Bill 10, Forests and Range Statutes Amendment Act, 2005, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. R. Coleman: If that was the case and I heard the member wrong, I would apologize. I obviously am defensive about people that work for the civil service of British Columbia. The member recognizes that, and I am satisfied with that. I apologize to the member if that was taken out of context.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 6; S. Hawkins in the chair.

B. Simpson: My apologies. It's new to us, and it's going a little bit quickly. I do have some questions, if the minister would….

B. Simpson: I'm curious about the allocation of the pine beetle account, if the minister can give us some sense of how, within the NDI Trust, this account would be used. There are some questions out there about the cross-regional money already and how that's to be allocated.

I think the minister's statements with respect to this bill in your closing comments on the reading of the final trust act are very well taken — that I believe we as MLAs bring that cross-regional look and feel to the regional advisory committees. There are questions about that, but now, on the NDI, we're specifically adding a pine beetle account. Two areas under the trust are going to be significantly devastated, and some other areas are not. I'm wondering if there is any sense in here that the minister can give us of whether there's going to be any direction or what the NDI would do with this money.

Hon. C. Hansen: Our intent is to keep the legislation as flexible as possible and the purposes of the legislation as flexible as possible. Obviously, we recognize that the interior of British Columbia is facing some huge challenges with regard to the pine beetle infestation, and we did want to allocate a specific amount of money, being the $30 million, for the purposes of addressing the pine beetle challenge. Beyond that, we don't believe it is our role to define how best to allocate that. That is up to the trust itself.

I think we have to keep it broad. I'll try to just give the member a sense of why keeping it broad in scope may be in everybody's best interest. You may have a region of the province where the pine beetle infestation has been particularly problematic. The member's constituency is a case in point. In fact, in order to address that challenge, it may mean, for example, that there needs to be transportation planning done. Maybe there needs to be land use planning done to determine how best to utilize that.

Sometimes the solution to a particular problem that may exist, say, in Quesnel may in fact be for some economic development initiative that is broader. It could mean, for example, part of how the pine beetle response plugs into a port strategy in Prince Rupert. We don't want to define that. We think that's up to northerners to define how best to allocate those moneys. The intent is to keep it broad and to allow the members of the trust the latitude to define how they can best utilize this $30 million to respond to the pine beetle challenge.

I understand the creative tension that exists here when you're trying to roll something out that is, as a matter of principle, allowing the various regions and the various areas that are impacted by this the freedom and the latitude to make some of the decisions. But I can tell you that already, in some of the regional advisory committee meetings I've sat in, those regional disparities are offset by equitable distribution issues.

I'm curious if the minister and the ministry will be examining that issue longer term and specifically with respect to the requirement around a strategic plan. Will the minister and the ministry be looking at that strategic plan? Will there be any kind of vetting or input that the ministry and the minister might give to that if they see, in fact, that this $30 million, as an example — and I know it may be a ridiculous example, but it proves the case in the extreme — is simply divided across the region equally and not in accordance with need? Will the minister actually be monitoring that through the strategic plan process?

Hon. C. Hansen: That is part of the reason why we didn't simply take the $50 million and just divide it equally among the four regional advisory committees. It's because the pine beetle infestation, obviously, isn't an equal challenge across the entire region. This particular $30 million is really just one of many initiatives that are going to have to be there to address pine beetles. We were very pleased that the federal government responded to some of our lobbying efforts and came up with $100 million towards the pine beetle response. We made it clear as a government, at the time, that we felt it was a very nice down payment, thank you very much, but that we and the residents of the interior of British Columbia would certainly be looking for much more assistance from the federal government in the years to come.

Similarly, in the provincial government budget we've allocated $102 million over three years for pine beetle response. Those are all in addition to this $30 million. One of the reasons why we're putting in place in this bill today the requirement for a strategic plan is so that whether it's the pine beetle account or the other expenditures from the northern development initiative, there is a requirement that the Northern Development Initiative Trust actually put forward a strategic plan to the residents of the north to outline how they are going to meet these challenges and approach the allocation of these funds.

That will give the residents of the north an opportunity to have direct input on that specific strategic plan — again, abiding by the fundamental principles of this legislation, and that's that it should be northerners that make those decisions and can impact on those decisions. I would hope that for however long I stay in this position as Minister of Economic Development, we will be watching it, as the member suggested. But I also don't believe that it would be appropriate for me to try to give direction to the trust. We can try to be helpful with the resources of this ministry and with the rest of

government, but ultimately, decisions have to be made by northerners for northerners.

There are two lines of reasoning I want to pursue here that the minister has raised. Let's take the latter one first, and that is allocating money into a beetle fund. Okay, if you look at that on the surface, it appears…. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what beetle activity and mitigation activity means, but the reality is: what does it mean?

You know, to put aside a beetle fund where the money is simply going to be used for mitigating the impacts of the mountain pine beetle — I really struggle with what that means and the interpretation of that. As a consequence, I'm curious. If the minister looks at the strategic plan and sees that a lot of this money has rolled into small projects, you know, to fix the warming huts on cross-country ski trails or to paint a community hall or whatever the case may be, which was one of the avenues that one of the regions was going down with all of their money, and some of that money is pulled out of beetle funds to do that, how will the minister have any oversight to say: "We don't think that's an appropriate use of the beetle money to be doing those kinds of activities"?

It begs the question of definition. I understand the tension there of not being prescriptive, but under the beetle fund as a generic term…. I'm not sure that even many of the communities know what beetle mitigation activities necessarily look like. There's a big question there of how that's different substantively than the other money in NDI for economic development. So again, I'm curious if that strategic plan will be looked at and if the minister will be able to provide direct comment to the NDI and its CEO if they see things in that strategic plan that seem to be off-kilter with what the intent was.

Hon. C. Hansen: The short answer is that we in the ministry will obviously be reviewing these strategic plans, but we do not, from the provincial government, have the ability to give direction to the trusts. These are decisions that must be made by the members who make up the board of the trust and the regional advisory committees. One of the things that we want to be careful of is to make sure that we put in proper accountabilities to the public. Some of the amendments that are before you strengthen the accountability mechanisms that are there.

Ultimately, I think this is one of the arguments why it is appropriate to have duly elected representatives of local governments and the duly elected members of the Legislative Assembly to be part of this process in making these determinations. They are the ones who are accountable directly to the residents of the north in a way that I as a member of the Legislature from a Vancouver constituency am not directly accountable. I think the short answer is: will we review the strategic plans? Yes. Will we give advice? Yes. But we cannot give direction.

B. Simpson: I guess that is the case in one respect. In the other case, this legislation is giving direction to NDI about accountability mechanisms and other things that were not there under the original act. There was a loose act given to put the money in place in the first place, and now we have an amendment act to that act which is, in fact, giving direction and putting a framework in place. So the minister does have at his disposal the ability to intervene through legislation.

Be that as it may, I'll give you an example: the Cariboo-Chilcotin Beetle Action Coalition. When they were given money by the government, they used $200,000 of that money, and they gave it to the licensees' committee for some land-base work. I asked the Deputy Minister of Forests directly and the chief forester why the licensee group did not apply under FIA for that money — the forest investment account. Neither one could give me an adequate answer.

That strikes me as a situation where you've got a group that doesn't know the nuances of the different pockets of money that are available and doesn't know the nuances of legislation and the framework that they're working in, who assigns money to a group under the auspices of beetle activity which group could have drawn off of another account. If those kinds of activities are seen to be on the horizon, I believe that the government, from a due diligence perspective and as an oversight perspective, should be giving direction. I'm wondering if the minister or ministry staff would at least intervene at that stage, saying maybe that money doesn't need to come from there; it can come from here.

Hon. C. Hansen: There certainly is a very good working relationship between the ministry and the NDI, as we now know it. Presumably with the other two trusts, as they develop, there will be a similarly good constructive relationship. In no way should this be an adversarial process. We have already, through my ministry, been trying to assist the NDI to look at where other sources of funds are. It's not a case of us saying here's funding through NDI and that sort of excludes them from participating in any other economic development opportunities. Those still exist, and we are working with NDI — the members of the board as well as staff — to identify where other opportunities for funding might exist.

I think it's also important to put on the record that we have in this province a very tight definition as to what constitutes something that's in the government reporting entity or outside of the government reporting entity. In structuring these trusts, right from day one we wanted them to be purely independent of government. That requires that not only do we have to set up the trusts, but we then have to back off, and we don't have the ability to give direction or oversight.

That is why you will see in here the requirement that reporting be to the public and to the residents of the north. The reporting is not back through the pro-

vincial government, because that would, again, be one of the things that would require the NDI to be pulled back into the government entity. I don't think that's what anybody wants to see happen.

Actually, there was one other point that I was going make that has just suddenly slipped my mind, but I'm sure it will come back to me.

B. Simpson: Madam Chair, I find this longer afternoon session without that coffee break and a bit of sugar is depleting the energy of the brain.

Let's go back to a more fundamental question, then. Again, I would suggest to the minister that this act is an oversight act — right? The minister does have within the ministry the ability to step in, because the NDI was formed. It was arm's length. It was structured and everything else, but obviously, something wasn't going quite right; something needed to be tightened up. Therefore, the minister and the ministry stepped in, tightened it up, put in an amendment act and then rolled that into the next two acts. There is still that oversight, even though they're arm's length, and that's good government. It's good government to have that oversight and use the legislative authority appropriately in this case.

Let me back up, though. I'm curious why, and you mentioned it yourself, there's money coming from the federal government. There are other pockets of money and so on. Let me back up. Why was NDI chosen as the place to put this $30 million? In the interim between the original NDI act and the amendment act, two groups formed in that area: the Omineca Beetle Action Coalition and the Cariboo-Chilcotin Beetle Action Coalition. Both of those groups have asked for beetle trust money, and yet they only got some seed money, and $30 million went into the NDI instead.

I'm wondering what the decision-making process was to put it in NDI and not give it to those two entities.

Hon. C. Hansen: First of all, with regard to the amendments that are before us, it wouldn't be correct to say that this legislation is proof that we have an oversight responsibility. Rather, this is legislation that provides for the legal framework for the operations of a trust that is 100-percent independent of government. The accountability measures that are in this legislation were actually suggested to us by the NDI.

A year ago when the initial legislation was put through, I think everybody took their best stab at getting a framework in place for it. We've learned a little bit from that experience, and we've been able to — based on the feedback from the NDI board itself — now come in and incorporate some of the things that we've learned around accountabilities that will perhaps make the job of the NDI board easier. It's also obviously been instructive as we set up the other two pieces of legislation.

The member asked about the other two bodies that are out there, and there is certainly nothing to prevent the northern development initiative board from funding either of those two bodies that are out there in the beetle action committees. But I think one distinction is that the NDI board and the NDI Trust, including the regional advisory committees, are largely — almost exclusively — comprised of individuals who have themselves been elected by electors in these communities. They have their own accountabilities through the roles that they play in their communities.

The beetle action committees are great committees. I've had the opportunity to have input from one of them in particular, and certainly, they're doing some great work. I think they obviously have the community interests at heart. I would suspect that those action committees are going to be a great resource for the northern development initiative board. They're obviously up and running, they're on the ground, and they're prepared to get to work.

It may well be that the trust itself will see those action committees as very worthy beneficiaries of some of these dollars.

B. Simpson: I appreciate the clarification on the nature of the legislation.

On the beetle action coalition, though, I asked a specific question. Why did the government decide…? Those two groups formed in the interim between the original act and this act. Both those groups were acting, and they're still acting, as though a beetle trust fund will be established for both those regions. In fact, the Cariboo-Chilcotin Beetle Action Coalition asked for $480 million just for their region alone in trust — half federal, half provincial.

I'm curious what the decision-making process was to say, "Well, park this in NDI," and to not equip those two groups which were specifically acting on pine beetle activities. So remove the nebulous nature of what it means in the NDI Trust and park it with two groups who specifically formed to deal with those things — why those funds didn't go there, and why they went into the NDI where you now have the question of utilization of that….

Hon. C. Hansen: I was trying to wrestle with how I could add to my answer from the previous one, but I think the crux of it is that the NDI is established and governed by individuals who have accountabilities to an electorate in the north. As I mentioned, the beetle action coalitions — I think I referred to them as action committees — are certainly great organizations, but I guess the question we need to ask ourselves as MLAs and members of this House is: where should the decisions be made as to who is best in a position to manage funds for beetle recovery? I think there's certainly a role for the provincial government to play. There's a role for the federal government to play, and there's a role for local and regional governments to play in terms of the beetle response.

One of the challenges that we know from discussions that we've had with local and regional govern-

ments is that they don't have the resources at their disposal to do that. So this is a vehicle by which we can provide resources that they can allocate at their discretion. The action coalitions will, obviously, play an important role, perhaps through some of the future initiatives of the provincial or federal governments. There may be an opportunity to use those coalitions to undertake specific initiatives, but there's also an opportunity for the NDI board to use these coalitions for specific initiatives — but there, the decision-making is not being made out of Victoria as to what is or is not a good project for which coalition. The decisions can actually be made by northerners directly, and the resources are there and the flexibility is there for them to do exactly that.

B. Simpson: Well, I guess I'm getting a little bit more confused, then, because the beetle action coalitions are funded by the provincial government to do work specifically around beetle mitigation activities in two of the substantive regions of the NDI Trust. They are under the impression that what they're doing is the groundwork for substantive dollars to come for beetle mitigation activities. They are also made up predominantly of the same elected officials that sit on the regional advisory committees and on the NDI board. So the preponderance of membership on the beetle action coalitions just now are those same municipal and regional district representatives.

I believe that the beetle action coalitions would be potentially…. I shouldn't speak on their behalf. I guess if I was sitting in their shoes, knowing what I know from having discussions with them, I would be troubled by the minister's comments that the NDI is in a better position to determine what to do with that beetle money than those beetle action coalitions might be, when they're specifically and explicitly formed to deal with beetle mitigation activities.

I guess it looks like it's a left-hand, right-hand possibility that we're setting up here, and that serves no one well — where you have simultaneous economic development activities occurring on the ground, both funded by the provincial government and both integrated in talking to the provincial government about beetle mitigation and all of those activities, and yet they're two different processes, and there isn't a clear articulation between the two. So it seems to me at a time when we need a focused, concerted, coordinated effort, we are dividing those efforts up, and I think it's going to muddy the waters.

Is there an opportunity for, either through your ministry or through the Ministry of Forests and Range or whoever is articulating with the beetle action coalition, to find a mechanism to clean up that relationship so it's clear to everybody, whether or not it's through this legislation or some other agreement — an MOU or something — what that articulation is between NDI and these beetle action coalitions so we don't have two parallel processes competing for money?

Hon. C. Hansen: I have full confidence in the individuals who, because of their positions, are being designated to serve on the Northern Development Initiative Trust. I believe that these northerners have the ability to sort out the kind of memorandum of understanding that the member is proposing, but I do not feel that it is necessary for us to direct that from Victoria or from the provincial government. I have full confidence that they can sort that out as they go forward.

I think that the issue of the pine beetle is something that affects just about every single corner of the northern trust area, perhaps with some exceptions in the Peace, but as the member knows, even that is threatened. There was certainly some impact of the pine beetle on the Peace River area, in the Peace River–Liard region, which fortunately got dealt with, in theory, because of the harsh winter last winter.

But I think there's every expectation that that threat is still real. I know even if you come down to areas in the southern regions of the northern development initiative region, into the Yale-Lillooet constituency, for example…. I drove up through that area last summer, and I was surprised at the impact that the pine beetle has already had that far south. I think as you go out Highway 16 to Prince Rupert, you see evidence of the pine beetle starting to move into those regions where it wasn't previously.

So the pine beetle is not a challenge that's limited just to the two regional areas that have the action coalitions in place. I believe that the NDI, the board, is well positioned to make determinations and to work cooperatively with the beetle action coalitions, because clearly, those coalitions are going to bring a great deal of expertise and contribution to the table. I think as the member mentioned, there's a great overlap in terms of the individuals involved, and I have every confidence that they're going to work out some very beneficial ways to use these dollars to great benefit.

B. Simpson: Please bear with me as I kind of talk this through. As someone who lives on what could arguably be called the leading edge of this epidemic — and the implications for my community, where I reside, are significant and quite staggering, frankly — my concern is the role that the provincial government is playing in having separate conversations with these groups as well. So while I agree with the minister that in an ideal world, the NDI and these regional advisory committees or beetle action coalitions can sit together and figure that out, the provincial government is also having separate conversations with those groups and allocating separate monies.

That's where some of the conflict may arise, and it's more along the lines of the expectations of the beetle action coalitions in the conversations that they're having with government. Those expectations are significant dollars coming to them as a result of the work they're doing over the next 18 months. So is the minister saying today that beetle money will now go through NDI, because if that's the case, if beetle money is just going to go into the NDI, then these beetle action

coalitions need to hear that, because that's not their expectation, from my conversations with them.

If it's not the case that beetle money is going to go into NDI — not just NDI, but into these other groups — then, again, I think there is a role for the agencies that are dealing with these things to sit and facilitate that conversation. They don't have to be prescriptive, but at least facilitate that conversation of how these things will articulate together.

We don't have the time to be at cross-purposes. We don't have the time to work in an uncoordinated fashion. As the lead agent in all of this, I think it's important to maybe have those conversations in the same room with those agencies and clarify this for all those groups that are working in these communities.

Hon. C. Hansen: I think, just to clarify for the member, that there is no intention that all of the beetle action moneys would flow through the NDI. What we're talking about is a $30 million fund, and it's $30 million that is being put at the disposal of local and regional decision-makers in the north to determine how they can best play their role in responding to the pine beetle challenge.

The Ministry of Forests, and the Minister of Forests, is the lead provincial government agency when it comes to the pine beetle response. The Ministry of Economic Development is very much involved in that. We realize that there is a very important role that the Ministry of Economic Development has to play, particularly in the long term when we start looking at the diversification that may be necessary to ensure that we can maintain employment levels in this region once we start to see the harvest and reforestation efforts start to decline.

There are going to be multiple sources of dollars that are going to be focused on the pine beetle challenge. As I say, there's going to be presumably hundreds of millions of dollars coming from the federal government, and there's presumably going to be hundreds of millions of dollars coming from the provincial government over the time frame that we're going to have to look at in dealing with this challenge.

What we're talking about here is just one pot of money, $30 million, so that local and regional decision-makers, local and regional political leaders, through the NDI, have resources so that they can meet some of the challenges as they see fit.

I still think, and I'll just go on the record with this one last time…. I do think that if that's the case, if there's going to be more money rolling out, it's not going to be through the NDI Trust. It's going to be to other groups that come together. I'm not in any way, shape or form — so again, members of this House, do not misconstrue my words — impugning the activity of the beetle action coalitions. I think those groups formed with a very serious purpose, and they're taking it very seriously and working on it very hard.

My concern is that if there is more money that's also going to roll out to those groups, that fractures our efforts. Both are working in the realm of economic development. If you look at the beetle action coalition's work plans, those work plans are economic development in general, which falls within the domain of the NDI. They see beetle mitigation activities as generalized economic development activities, which fall within the domain of NDI.

So there is crossover. It does appear as if it's a right-hand and a left-hand issue from the part of the provincial government, but I will leave it at that and let my concerns be on the record. We will certainly be monitoring that going forward, and I would suggest and hope that the minister with his cabinet ministers…. If they do see that there is this uncoordinated activity going on, I do think that bringing the parties into a room and having a conversation is not presumptive of what the outcome is. It's just leadership and making the conversation happen.

I believe one of our other members has some questions on this, so thank you for your time.

G. Coons: Thank you for the opportunity of going over the bill. I did have a question. Perhaps being a rookie MLA, I did want to question the RAC membership, but I won't get into that at this point.

Being a legislative member of the RAC and hearing the hon. members of the region saying in here that they sat on the committees and participated in meetings…. At this point in time our particular RAC has eliminated MLAs from voice and vote on the northwest RAC. I guess they took a section out of the act and decided that the MLAs would not have a voice and a vote, so I hope that I can get some friendly amendments in there for our RAC to change that.

If I can clarify that, it says in section 3 — or somewhere on page whatever; I'll just read it anyway: "Within six months after the coming into force of this act, each of the regional advisory committees must…determine the size of, and the manner of appointing members to, the regional advisory committee." I assume that through whatever wisdom of the RAC in the northwest, they decided to not have the MLAs participate. So I look forward to participating in debate in here and also debate back in our own region on the RAC.

Following up on that — that's just a side note that I hope to follow up on — I do have a question about the beetle fund. I do have that same concern that the 60 percent is going for cross-regional projects. What I noticed, sort of being left out of the process and trying to get to meetings and trying to be involved and having lots of people phone and e-mail me about what's going on and not having the answers…. Please bear with me as I try to get some answers here.

Sixty percent of it, $30 million, is going to cross-regional. I foresee people grabbing parts of it and trying to get economic development or projects going in their own region to the detriment of the whole battle

that needs to be going on with the beetle kill. I foresee this as the same as the government giving money to school boards and saying: "It's your problem for the class sizes." I wouldn't want to see that happen in this province.

As far as the 10 percent that's in the RAC — the 10 percent, the $5 million, coming to my RAC — and the participation of members on there for dividing that up, I'm wondering how a first nations community or a first nations area can access that money.

Hon. C. Hansen: Certainly, with these three trusts, whether it's the NDI or the other two trusts that are being established, there's nothing that precludes first nations communities from being part of receiving funds or part of the economic development initiatives that might flow from that. In the case of the way that the NDI was set up a year ago, at the same time there was also a separate, stand-alone fund that was specifically targeted for first nations along the B.C. Rail line.

I appreciate that doesn't impact directly on the member's constituency, but there are also numerous other funds that are exclusive to first nations communities — for example, the most recent one being the New Relationship fund, which I think will be a tremendous boost to first nations that are looking to benefit from economic development opportunities. There are others — I can't remember all the titles of them — that have been in existence for some time. I think the main point that I want to underscore is that there is nothing in the way any of these three trusts are set up that would preclude first nations communities from being the recipient of trust dollars for their particular economic development initiatives.

G. Coons: I find that interesting, because we had some visitors down here — three from the Nisga'a Nation and one from Cache Creek — trying to meet with the minister, and they ended up meeting with the opposition MLAs on their concerns about how they can access the funds. I hope that's clarified somewhere. Perhaps we can get to an amendment to this. I'm not quite sure. They had real problems when they accessed their RACs and the regional office out of Prince George and got different answers from everybody. I would like it clarified on record that we are really concerned about how first nations groups can access….

Hon. C. Hansen: I think the short answer is that first nations communities can access funds the way everybody else can access funds. I've seen some great proposals come forward from first nations communities for economic development initiatives. I would certainly encourage them, and I'm sure that members who serve on the regional advisory committees would want to encourage first nations communities to come forward.

When I look at the various individuals who will comprise the boards and the advisory committees as a result of their positions, I can't think of anyone that would be on the trust boards or the advisory committees that would not want to celebrate and work closely with first nations communities to ensure that they are very much part and parcel of the economic development strategies and the economic future of these regions.

C. Wyse: I'm very appreciative of the minister's response to this item because there has been some confusion in the RAC that I sit on as to whether the application was made to the first nations component or whether it's the general sums of money that are available. As I mentioned earlier in our discussion, I tried to give some warning here to the minister that the understanding I have is that the original $15 million and the first nations portion of this fund went to approximately 25 first nations groups whose properties had been directly affected by B.C. Rail.

When first nations from the Cariboo South area did make application originally to the trust fund — the general component, the $5 million that had been assigned to the RAC — they were given the general instructions that they should make their application to the first nations portion. So I just want to be clear that these first nations communities are eligible, as all other groups are, to the general boxes of money that are available across the entire region.

Hon. C. Hansen: I would like to move the amendment to section 9 standing in my name.

C. Wyse: I very much appreciate your grace with me being new at this and knowing where I should be and so on. To the minister: I had meant to ask this question earlier, but underneath section 11, dealing with remuneration, there had been some confusion — I

believe right across the RAC here — in dealing with expenses for the MLAs to attend RAC meetings. One interpretation that had been given was that unless the member did not live within the area where the meeting was held, in order for their expenses to be picked up, a business trip would then be required. Those, of course, with greater experience on the other side opposite me, understand that those business trips being used up to attend these RAC meetings cause a cramping for the MLAs.

I will speak for myself. I have been able to attend both RAC meetings because the meetings are held in Cariboo South and the expenses are covered in my constituency. It has put some limitations on the other two MLAs.

The question I'm asking, hon. minister: does this proposed section deal with that issue, or is that a decision that remains at the NDI board level?

Hon. C. Hansen: The short answer is that it is a decision that must be made by the NDI itself. I certainly recognize the challenge that the member has. We had a very good discussion with the member and some of his colleagues and some of the government members who are directly affected by this issue.

I can only speculate that there may have been a misunderstanding on the part of some involved with the NDI — this thinking that MLAs had some other access to expenses for these kinds of trips. I'm sure that once they realized that there is no other expense allowance for MLAs to travel, there may be a different approach taken. It's not something that I have the power to direct the NDI on. It is something that that board will have to make a determination on.

B. Simpson: My apologies. Actually, it's under section 9. I need clarification here, because at the tail end, on page 5 of the actual bill in front of us, it goes back to other sections again with more clarity on sections 7, 8 and 9. So section 9, section 18 is what I want to speak to, with the addition of agriculture. I'm not clear how that is structured in here.

The Chair: Member, that section has been passed. But if the committee wishes to go back to section 9….

B. Simpson: A point of clarification, Madam Chair. If you look at page 5 of the bill, which is past where we've been working on, there are additional amendments, or amendments are slotted in to clarify some of the language. It raises section 9, or section 18. I'm just not clear.

That's the point that I wish to speak to, which we have not got to yet. I'm just not clear on how that is structured.

The Chair: Member, we were on section 9. Section 9 was amended, and then we had debate on section 9 as amended. If the committee wishes to go back to that….

What are the committee's wishes? Does the committee agree to revert to section 9 as amended?

B. Simpson: My apologies, and I thank you for bearing with me as a novice MLA. I would like to propose an amendment to that section to add another sector.

B. Simpson: No, I was only equipped with one. It's quite simple. The amendment suggests that we "add an additional sector on arts and culture." It just simply adds a section that explicitly states that arts and culture will be an acceptable area under this act.

B. Simpson: The reason for that is that we've already had an incidence of this with the regional advisory committee that I sit on, where a proposal came from Horsefly specifically for an advanced arts school as part of their economic development initiative. Because of the way that it has to fit into sectors, the regional advisory committee and the board were quite concerned that they were actually abiding by the intent of the legislation by slotting into the sectors, and it wasn't clear whether or not that one could actually be funded under the NDI because that sector was missing. Arts and culture is also, of course, a significant potential economic generator, particularly if you're moving out of the resource base. So we'd like to add that as an explicit sector to clarify that issue.

Hon. C. Hansen: I thank the member for his input. As a huge supporter of the arts myself, I have some sympathy for where he's coming from on this. But it's our sense that this is covered under economic development and that economic development as it's listed as one of the ten could really be defined in any way that the board deems it to be defined. We don't prescribe a definition to economic development in this legislation. Therefore, it is really up to the board itself to define those parameters. So if the trust wanted to define economic development to include arts and culture as an economic generator, they would be entirely at liberty to do that.

I'll tell the member that I am reluctant to entertain an amendment of this nature. I will tell him why: because we have tried to be true to the original intent of

the legislation as it was passed last year, and that was to provide a legal framework for the trust but then to ensure that it is arm's-length.

The amendments that we have before us here today are really of two purposes. One is to do the additional funds into the trust, which certainly has been well received in the region; and the second is to reflect requests that have come from the trust for specific amendments. The inclusion of agriculture in the purpose of the trust was a specific request that came, so we tried to accommodate it, as opposed to directing any particular changes in terms of the scope of how the trust might operate. Certainly, it's our interpretation as a provincial government, and I think I would want it to be the interpretation of this House, that it is up to the board itself to determine the definition of what constitutes economic development and it's not for us to prescribe to them.

B. Simpson: I guess I struggle with that a little bit, as you can imagine, because economic development would also include agriculture and some of the other sectors that are listed. If you use that line of reasoning, then it should be simply stated that it's for economic development purposes, and the board can define it as it sees fit. Because the NDI act explicitly states sectors, it does open up the difficulty that this one regional advisory committee struggled with, where some members on the board did not see arts and culture as an economic development activity. They did not see it as a stimulus to economic development.

While you've accommodated agriculture and were explicit in other sectors here and have not left it at economic development, it opens up that whole debate, then, if you're being prescriptive in those sectors. There are other areas. As the minister well knows, as a supporter of the arts, it's often not seen in the right light. Arts and culture are not necessarily seen as economic development activities. Therefore, if anything, one could argue that agriculture is more easily seen as an economic activity and as part of economic development, whereas something like arts and culture would not necessarily be seen that way.

I can think of communities in Alberta that went from resource communities to thespian communities, where the only thing that's operating for them is dinner theatre and summer theatres and so on. At the time, they had to fight long and hard to get arts and culture and drama, in particular, recognized as an economic development potential. So, in this case, we forward this amendment to prevent us from having to come back at some other time, potentially, to insert arts and culture.

Given the government's predisposition towards this, given some recent funding that has gone into this area, I think it would be, again, leadership on the part of the government to include it. It doesn't prescribe it. It doesn't say they have to spend their money there, but it allows arts and culture to be recognized by the government and by NDI as an economic stimulus — and not have to be debated at all the regional advisory committees.

Hon. C. Hansen: I think the member makes some very valid points, but I think we accomplish them by the approach that's being taken. As the member mentioned, agriculture is clearly an economic initiative. Arts and culture, depending on how you approach it, may or may not be. You could have a project that really has an economic spinoff to it, but you may have another project that clearly meets the parameters of arts and culture that, arguably, may not have an economic development spinoff to it.

I think that the boards of the various trusts need to have a certain rigour around their proposals. If there is a proposal that comes in pertaining to an arts and culture initiative, then I think it should be incumbent upon the proponent to demonstrate to the adjudicators of it that this is, in fact, an economic development stimulator for that particular region.

The amendment that the member talks about may well be a valid amendment, but it is an amendment that should be made by the NDI board, I would argue, rather than one that should be made by this House.

G. Coons: Again, coming back to first nations and the diverse, unique cultural aspects of my riding, where over 40 percent is first nations…. We're dealing with quite a few tribes — Heiltsuk, Nuxalk, Kitasoo, Haida, Tsimshian, Nisga'a — and all of the cultural aspects of that. And the problem with…. I'm unsure who's making the decision — the board of the NDI or the individual RACs?

Before it gets to the board, the RACs have some jurisdiction over approving or not approving proposals, particularly in my RAC. At this point in time, out of the 17 jurisdictions that are in there — whether it's the mayors of the 14 communities or the four regional districts — they each have developed, apparently, their own jurisdictions, their own proposals or their own guidelines for how it's going to be approved.

G. Coons: On the amendment. So I would hope, as I do get on the RAC as a full voting member, that eventually I can go to first nations communities and say that arts and culture is a vital component of our northwest RAC and of the cross-regional.

Hon. C. Hansen: The member may well be able to say that, but that is a determination that must be made by the NDI itself.

C. Wyse: Hon. minister, it would be my interpretation, from what you have said for the inclusion of the board determining whether an application is viable and fits the criteria, likewise would apply to the amendment here. What the amendment does, then, is clearly state that should either the RAC — to get it started — or the NDI board consider the application to

have met the general objectives of the bill, then clearly underneath this category they could give approval to that particular project.

One of the things that happens is that a certain segment gets left out of the discussion at the RAC table. From where I'm from, there are applications that have cleared the RAC table onto the NDI board for their consideration, and approvals-in-principle have been given around funds to go to an arena in one of the communities. A very good, strong case was made for that particular activity to proceed through. It met the approval all the way through. However, in discussions around an item for arts and culture, it was more difficult, if not impossible, to elbow that on the table for discussion in front of the board. They had to go, in essence, through two hoops.

What this amendment does, hon. minister, is simply say that underneath this proposed category the board or the RAC would be entitled to consider that application to meet all the other criteria, and so it opens a door. You have mentioned that the idea of this trust fund is to open the door and to leave the determining aspect of where the actual decisions are made with the RAC, the local people.

I would ask, with that in mind, hon. minister, that you might reconsider your initial response.

Hon. C. Hansen: The door is very much open. A proposal such as the one the member described may be a very legitimate, bona fide proposal to fit into what the purpose of the trust is — and that's to promote economic development over the long term. But that is not, I would argue, for me to determine what is or is not a good economic development project. It is for the officials on the board of the NDI and the regional advisory committees to make that determination.

We are empowering them. What this legislation does is empower those individuals — including the member, as one who sits on the regional advisory committees — to be part of determining what is or is not a project that is going to provide economic benefit to the region in the future. I believe that what the members are arguing for in this amendment can, in fact, be accomplished with the existing wording of the legislation.

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Bill 6, Northern Development Initiative Trust Amendment Act, 2005, reported complete with amendment.

Bill 6, Northern Development Initiative Trust Amendment Act, 2005, read a third time and passed.

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

Hon. W. Oppal: I would like to make a personal statement relating to an answer I gave in question period earlier today. I want to clarify comments I made in response to a question from the member for Yale-Lillooet.

In speaking of David James Caza, I mistakenly said that this matter is presently before the courts and that Mr. Caza is in custody, awaiting trial. In fact, he is in custody, but he's not awaiting trial. I based my comments on the reports that I had that he was in custody. He had turned himself in to custody voluntarily, due to the publicity that surrounded his release in Merritt. He has, in fact, served his complete sentence, and he's currently on probation.

There's a bit of an anomaly here, because he served his sentence, but there are persons in the community who have deemed him to be a danger. I can tell you that the province is monitoring his activities through the local police and the RCMP's integrated sexual predator observation team, which is designed to monitor sex offenders.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
COMMUNITY SERVICES AND
MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR
SENIORS' AND WOMEN'S ISSUES
(continued)

B. Ralston: My question to the minister is this. I understand that cuts have been made to the B.C. Institute Against Family Violence. Can the minister confirm that and advise in what way the program is being downsized?

Hon. I. Chong: The budget for that is within the Ministry of Health, so I could ask the member to refer to that minister.

B. Ralston: One of the objectives of the ministry in the service plan is specifically targeted to deal with women and children who are fleeing or recovering from violence. One would have thought that analyzing those problems and developing policy to combat that would be of assistance to this ministry and to fulfilling the objectives that the minister has set out in her service plan.

Could the minister express a point of view as to whether the downsizing or reduction of the B.C. Institute Against Family Violence is something she supports or not?

Hon. I. Chong: I can tell the member that the institute has provided useful information and advice to our ministry from time to time on violence and prevention issues. However, the funding for that particular program does rest with the Ministry of Health, and the member would need to refer his questions to that ministry.

B. Ralston: Well, given that the minister has confirmed that that institute did provide policy assistance that was of value to the ministry, is the minister prepared to take a position that the downsizing of that particular program is regrettable?

Hon. I. Chong: As I've indicated, the institute does have opportunities to speak with our ministry. It has provided useful information regarding our funding for our services and our Stop the Violence programs. We will continue to work with them regarding the programs and services that we provide within this ministry.

B. Ralston: The former minister responsible for this portfolio said she was working with the Attorney General and the Minister of Labour on a response to the report of the task force on pay equity from 2002. Has this new minister taken up this project?

Hon. I. Chong: I believe that the minister is referring to an issue that was raised as a result of a task force report that was done a number of years ago. What I am able to share with the member is that our ministry does have ongoing discussions with the Ministries of Attorney General and Labour and Citizens' Services to determine what more can be done to eliminate gender-based wage disparities.

B. Ralston: Perhaps the record should just reflect that I am not a minister, however much I may aspire to that status in the fullness of time.

I do have a supplementary question. Is the minister then saying that her ministry has no role in advancing the project of pay equity? I note from the objectives in the service plan that one of the objectives of the ministry is to enhance women's options for participating in the economy. One would have thought that when women participate in the economy, they were entitled to be paid equally for work of equal value and that this would be of significance and, therefore, part of achieving objective number two in the service plan. Does the minister have a comment on that?

Hon. I. Chong: I did apologize to the member in my earlier reference. I don't know if he heard that.

One of the best ways to eliminate gender-based wage disparities is to reduce occupational segregation. That is why in the coming years we will be developing and implementing programs to encourage more women to enter non-traditional fields of work and, in particular, the trades, which is an item that we canvass and that I spoke about this morning. We have dollars set aside in our budget to assist women who are looking to be a part of the new economy and to be employed in more non-traditional fields of work. So our ministry will continue to have ongoing discussions, though, with other ministries across government to ensure that we can continue to work together and that all ministries can support the efforts that we have in this ministry.

B. Ralston: I understand the reference to the previous program — the mentoring program which is in development and is expected to be operational in about nine months from now, I gather — but my question, just so that I'm clear, is: is the minister saying that the ministry under her direction is not advancing or work-

ing on the issue of pay equity at all and that it's being left to other ministries in the government to do, if at all?

Hon. I. Chong: What I indicated to the member is that our ministry continues to have ongoing discussions and dialogue with the two other ministries that I mentioned to determine what more can be done to eliminate gender-based wage disparities.

B. Ralston: Given that the minister has referred to a number of issues that require policy-based answers, can the minister give a breakdown of the function of the — I understand 33 full-time-equivalents — 33 employees in the ministry and their duties?

Hon. I. Chong: I just wanted to make sure we have the breakdown. The 33 FTEs, as stated, are in the seniors', women's and community services. That will break down to 16 in the STV or Stop the Violence area, three supporting the ADM's office, one for dealing with seniors' issues, six dealing with the inner-city partnerships branch, six in policy and one in community transition.

B. Ralston: I just want to make sure I heard that clearly. The number of FTEs working on policy work, then?

Hon. I. Chong: There would be six, then, who are involved in policy and who would provide policy support for the women's, seniors' and community services division.

B. Ralston: Has the policy unit initiated or concluded a study into the expansion of gambling in the province and its effect on women and children?

B. Ralston: Has the ministry or the policy unit under the direction of the ministry done an assessment on the impact upon women of cuts to legal aid?

B. Ralston: Is the ministry working with the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation to ameliorate conditions for native women and doing policy work with that goal in mind?

Hon. I. Chong: Because of the Stopping the Violence program that is within our ministry…. That also provides funding for programs for aboriginal women to address issues of violence. As such, we certainly have coordination with the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation to advise them of the work that we're doing and to ensure that within their program services, they can coordinate with the violence programs and initiatives that we have in our ministry.

We do provide funding for several aboriginal women's organizations to address, as I say, their health and safety issues. For that reason, we will continue to have the discussion and dialogue with that particular ministry.

B. Ralston: Is the six-person policy unit working on any issues relating to program design or policy that touch upon the conditions of aboriginal women?

Hon. I. Chong: I can tell the member that at the recent Federal-Provincial-Territorial Meeting of Ministers Responsible for the Status of Women, there certainly was discussion — and have been discussions that I've attended over the last two years — regarding improving the status of aboriginal women. Of course, it's true that our ministry provides policy work to contribute towards improving the status of aboriginal women right across Canada. The Northwest Territories has the lead on that along with Canada, but every province, every jurisdiction, provides input on that.

As well, we have senior staff in our ministry who serve on a committee, working with other ministries cross-government to deal with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. Again, we provide policy input in regards to that.

There are a number of initiatives that are happening in this province that various ministries are responsible for. We have created the Joint Aboriginal Management Committee, which was formed to oversee plans for aboriginal regional authorities to provide better services for children and family development. We have the A Child's Roots are Forever project, which helps identify aboriginal children in government care who are in need of services.

We also have dollars that have been provided to combat fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, another amount of dollars in the Ministry of Health. The member can canvass there, but there are dollars there to support regional aboriginal health programs. Also, through the Ministry of Advanced Education, I believe, we fund mentoring for aboriginal nurses. So there are a variety of services and programs provided there.

Our ministry, where we have our policy work to deal with prevention-of-violence issues, will certainly engage and have discussions and dialogue with other ministries that touch on the work that we're doing as it pertains to the prevention of violence against aboriginal women.

B. Ralston: In this six-person policy unit, how many of those six persons are working on policy that relates to aboriginal women?

Hon. I. Chong: If the member is suggesting that we have one person dedicated to one area, then I could tell him that that's not the case. The six policy people work on a variety of projects, and over the course of the year they can interchange their work that they are assigned.

But there is not one person dedicated to one specific area, if that's what he's asking.

B. Ralston: I understand how the work might be apportioned out, but what I'm looking for…. I believe the assistant deputy minister might be able to assist you with this answer, judging from her responsibilities. Is it the equivalent of the staff time of one person, the equivalent of the staff time of three persons, or the equivalent of all six? I'm interested in the relative allocation of the staff time of this six-person policy unit to that issue.

Hon. I. Chong: I know that the member can appreciate the fact that there are workload changes. I guess the best way to provide the information he's looking for is that at least up to one FTE, when the work is shared amongst them…. Their time could be allocated towards this.

As I've indicated, because of the FPT on the status of women and because of the input and the work that all jurisdictions and territories provide to that, we certainly have a workload that will require a substantial amount of time from a staff person. That staff person wouldn't be dedicated to that throughout the entire year, but certainly a good portion. Another staff person, as well, can be taking a look at other issues dealing with the prevention of violence against aboriginal women — again, perhaps, another portion of that.

I guess our best estimate, for the benefit of the member, would be at least one FTE.

B. Ralston: The minister, in an earlier reply, said that the ministry was not engaged in policy work to assess the effect of the end of the no-tolerance-for-violence policy and prosecution policy in the Ministry of Attorney General. Is there any policy work in the six-person policy unit presently being conducted that is focusing on policy advice to the Ministry of Attorney General?

Hon. I. Chong: As I've mentioned to the member on a number of occasions, this ministry works cross-government with other ministries on a variety of issues to determine programs and services in other ministries — whether it be in Health, whether it be in Employment and Income Assistance, whether it be in Attorney General — and how those programs and services may impact and affect women.

In looking at policy work, which is the area of his question, when we engage in policy work with other ministries, and in particular with the Attorney General, our staff provides input. Our staff shares information, and as a result, the staff involved at those meetings are able to identify some areas that may require changes to policy, if a policy was being contemplated, but it's because it's a working group. It's because information is shared. It's because input can be provided from not just our ministry but others as well. The development of that will ultimately come from the ministry that is responsible for a particular program, that particular program that may be funded.

If the member is seeking a particular program that our ministry has a responsibility for, then I can speak to him on that. If he's looking for a particular program for which another minister has responsibility, I could refer him to that ministry if I knew which specific program he is interested in.

B. Ralston: What I'm trying to get a sense of is just what this policy unit does. From the responses of the minister it would seem that the policy work…. This six-person unit, aside from the fairly clear answer on its dealings with conditions for aboriginal women, seems to be an agency or a policy group that works in response to requests from other ministries, rather than initiating its own policy work and advocating on behalf of women in promotion of the goals that are set out in the service plan.

It seems to be, judging from the response — and I want the minister to confirm if my impression is correct — that this policy unit is given tasks by other ministries in response to their priorities and their concerns and does not advocate for women.

Hon. I. Chong: Let me try to explain it to the member in this way. I'm sure he understands, because I'm sure he's been involved in instances where policy work is performed and prepared. We in our ministry have the ability to work across government to influence other ministries, to share information and to provide input.

It works the other way as well. Other ministries can come to our ministry requesting input and wanting to share information. We can initiate a number of things that we determine need to be addressed, therefore initiating them in our policy work and asking for further work to be done in another ministry.

For example, when we want to deal with the women's health strategy…. While the Health Ministry would fund a program for a provincial women's health strategy, we may initiate the work that starts there. We may do the policy work that requires that ministry to look at that and develop a strategy.

We could also initiate work that needs to see a program developed around seniors. In such a case, we now have the Premier's council on aging and seniors that is being supported through this ministry. We can also take a look at issues relating to elder abuse.

Our ministry will be the initiator in these areas. Therefore, we can ask other ministries that may have the dollars and the programs, perhaps partly in place or perhaps not, to see whether they can fund that and whether we would work cross-government to see that that happens. I've indicated earlier, as well, that because we very much want to see women participate in the economy, we will work and initiate within our min-

istry, through policy work, how that can be accomplished and then work with another ministry.

For example, the Ministry of Small Business and Revenue is one ministry I know that we've worked closely with over the past two years that has provided a guide for women who want to start their own business. They recently launched a subsequent guide on having their businesses grow. I mentioned that earlier today as well.

We also take a look at the area that concerns fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, again providing input to the ministry responsible for that. We're able to initiate, in that program area, consideration of some of the things we find within the work that we do.

In addition, as I say, we can initiate a variety of work, because our policy people continue to dialogue with our community organizations, which brings matters to our attention. Then we work cross-government to see what program, what service, what initiative can be provided through those other ministries.

In 2003 this government did develop a Gender Lens through this ministry. That is a guide for other ministries to ensure that when they're reviewing their policies, they review them through this lens to determine how their policies, as well, impact on women.

B. Ralston: Yes, that is somewhat helpful. Given that the minister has confirmed that the ministry does have the capacity to initiate policy reviews of the actions of other ministries, is the ministry conducting at present or planning to conduct a study on the effects on women of changes that this government has made to labour standards, including the $6-an-hour training wage, overtime averaging and the move from a four-hour to a two-hour shift — particularly, its impact upon single working women with children?

Hon. I. Chong: Our ministry, as I've indicated, with our policy unit, is able to initiate work that thereafter includes work with other ministries. We also respond to requests from other ministries when they're taking a look at program areas and asking us for information and input.

At this point, our priority in our ministry is dealing with prevention strategies and prevention initiatives. We're focusing on Stop the Violence. We're focusing on safety of aboriginal women. We are also focusing on women returning to the workforce, women in the economy. Those are the areas of focus that our policy unit is primarily engaged in at this time.

B. Ralston: Given that the minister has confirmed this policy and has the capacity to undertake and initiate policy projects, will the minister advise whether the ministry is prepared to conduct or is conducting a review of the impact of the government's cuts to income assistance and disability rates, particularly as they affect single women and their children?

Hon. I. Chong: I'll repeat for the member that our priorities at this time are to deal with our Stop the Violence and prevention initiatives and programs. Our priorities are dealing with women returning to the workforce, women in the economy, women wanting to enter into non-traditional roles such as the trades, dealing with the safety of aboriginal women, dealing with a number of seniors' issues. Those are the priorities of our ministry currently.

B. Ralston: Similar to the last longer response, can I interpret that response as an answer of no to my previous question?

Hon. I. Chong: As the member has indicated…. He used the word "capacity." Well, we have six persons in our ministry, and the capacity that we have to engage in policy work in every facet, obviously, is not possible.

What we have the capacity to do is to focus on our priorities, and those are the priorities that I've listed for the member.

B. Ralston: Then can I conclude fairly that a priority of this ministry is not to conduct a review of the impact of the government's cuts to income assistance and disability rates as they affect single women and their children?

Hon. I. Chong: Again, I'll repeat what our priorities are. They are prevention initiatives and strategies about our women in the economy and also dealing with aboriginal women and their safety. If the member is interested in the policy work that is being done in another ministry, then he would need to refer to that ministry.

B. Ralston: Is the minister then saying that a review of the impact of those cuts is being done by another ministry's policy unit?

Hon. I. Chong: Again, I've stated a number of times for the member — and I hope he will heed what I've indicated — that he can certainly canvass areas he's interested in that are the responsibility of other ministries, and I would suggest that he do so. I've indicated, as well, more than twice or three times now what our policy branch does, the capacity that we have, where our focus is and where our priorities are. I've also indicated that we do receive requests, we respond to requests from time to time to provide input and provide information, and we will continue to provide input and information where we can.

B. Ralston: Will the minister confirm that the policy unit of her ministry is not at present and has not done

and will not be doing in the future a review of the impact of this government's cuts to income assistance and disability rates, particularly as they affect single women and their children?

Hon. I. Chong: What I heard from the member is: what have we done and will we do? Again, I've indicated that if in fact we receive a request from another ministry to provide information, then we certainly will provide information to that ministry. We are currently focused on the areas of priority that I've listed.

The capacity of our policy unit to work in those areas is certainly complete with those priorities that we've listed, but if another ministry would like to have input from our ministry — asking us for additional information because of the work we've done through the status-of-women conferences that take place where we hear information across Canada from other jurisdictions — we're willing to provide that information. We're willing to share that information, but the capacity of our policy unit is to focus on these priorities in our ministry.

B. Ralston: I'm going to conclude, and the member can correct me if I'm wrong, that the ministry hasn't undertaken such a review, is not presently undertaking such a review and is not currently entertaining a request from any other ministry to conduct such a review. Is that correct?

Hon. I. Chong: We have not currently received a request to respond to information from another ministry.

B. Ralston: Does the minister have any plans to direct that such a review take place in the future?

Hon. I. Chong: I don't know how many times I can share this information with the member, but I've indicated that the capacity of our policy unit is to focus on those priorities I've listed. Those priorities are to deal with our prevention strategies and initiatives, women in the economy, women returning to the workforce, and aboriginal safety. Those are the focus currently that our policy unit is undertaking.

B. Ralston: I'm going to interpret that refusal to answer the question as a no, and the minister can correct me on the record if she chooses.

S. Simpson: I have a couple of brief questions that relate to BladeRunners, and then I would like to move to a brief set of questions related to local government. In the service plan it's noted that the ministry is hopeful to have a hundred new people moving into employment through the BladeRunners program. Could the minister tell us how she'll be measuring moving into employment and what that expectation is?

Hon. I. Chong: I know that the member is particularly familiar with the BladeRunners program, or I'm presuming he is. For the benefit of other members, I wanted to just quickly say that the program has a 50 percent to 70 percent aboriginal participation rate, which is certainly a very commendable participation rate and a commendable goal.

We measure the success of this program. The success rate of this program has been measured between, I think, 68 percent and 80 percent participants in jobs after one year. There is a constant monitoring that occurs so that, as you can appreciate, of the participants entering into this program, some may be able to stay in employment for a long period of time. Others, because of personal situations, may not, so the success rate is measured for the number of participants who do enter into the program. We're very pleased that it is between 68 percent and 80 percent. We'd like to be at 100 percent, but certainly that would be a goal we could all strive to attain. So far, though, we are happy that there is a very large participation rate of aboriginal persons, and we will continue to monitor and see how we can move them along and ensure an even higher participation rate.

S. Simpson: Maybe the minister could confirm that the participation rate, as she said, I believe, was 60 percent to 80 percent of people holding a job after one year. Is the minister then saying that there will be a hundred people who will have a job after one year? Is that the goal of this?

Hon. I. Chong: The 100 persons as indicated on the plan, I believe, is the '04-05 year, and our target for '05-06 has been moved to 120. That represents the number of participants that we are expecting and working on to move through the BladeRunners program. The success rate has been between 68 percent and 80 percent of those who are entering into the BladeRunners program. Ideally you would hope for 100 percent, but again, because of circumstances not everyone may be able to stay in employment after they become a participant in the program.

S. Simpson: Then to confirm, what the minister is saying in the service plan for this year, which was the 100, and presumably for the next year with 120, is that 100 people will move through the program and, if percentages remain constant, somewhere between 60 to 80 of those people will be expected to have employment after one year?

Hon. I. Chong: If the success rate remains as it was in the evaluation we had done in the previous year, it was between 68 percent and 80 percent. It has varied from time to time. We certainly will be monitoring it to move it beyond that, if possible. But again, it's some-

times circumstances that participants enter into the program with who may leave for family reasons or health reasons or whatever. We are aiming next year to move 120 through the program. As I say, the success rate that has been measured is between 68 percent and 80 percent. Obviously, the success rate is what we will continue to monitor and work on improving, where that is possible.

S. Simpson: Could the minister tell us how many individuals are currently involved in the program?

Hon. I. Chong: Because there's a continuous intake of participants, I don't have the exact number. Staff do not have that figure here, but we can provide that information to the member if he's looking for that. Through you, Chair, to the member: is he looking for a particular date and time as to how many participants were there at the end of September, for example, or at the end of April? If he's looking for a specific date, perhaps that would make it easier for my staff to get those numbers together.

S. Simpson: I would appreciate those numbers, and maybe there are actually two numbers there. One would be: over the last year how many people moved through the program and then maybe to say at September, I think would be a good time, how many people are in the program at that given time?

Could the minister tell us what percentage of people in the program over the last year — and it may not be exact — were women?

S. Simpson: Could the minister tell us what the success rate for women is? Is it different than the overall rate? How does it vary from the success rate for men?

Hon. I. Chong: I don't have that detail of information available. We can see whether we are able to put that together for the member as well. As I say, sometimes participants who come into a program leave for personal reasons, family reasons, health reasons. It's a very good question. We'll try to get that information for him.

S. Simpson: In relation to that, minister, I'd also be interested in those figures for visible minorities — in terms of percentages of visible minorities who have gone through the program and their success rate as percentages of the others. I would hope that information would be available as well, if the minister could confirm.

Hon. I. Chong: Certainly, we can do that. With respect, we're doing this piecemeal, so I'm just wondering if the member would like a variety of information. If he would just like to state that and put it on the record, then my staff can look at Hansard, and we can get that information for him. I understand he wanted to know the number of people going through, the success rate, the different men and women, visible minorities and that. If there are others, maybe he can put it on the record, and we'll certainly get that to the member.

S. Simpson: Thanks to the minister. The only other that I would add to that would be first nations and the success rate for first nations.

I'd now like to move from those questions around BladeRunners — thank you very much — to some questions that relate a little bit more to local government. My first question relates to the Community Charter. Could the minister tell me whether the government has completed any of its amendments to the Community Charter? Are there plans for any further amendments or additions or expansions on the Community Charter at this time?

Hon. I. Chong: I just want to seek some clarification from the member. What I heard was: whether there were any legislative amendments to the charter and whether we have completed all the amendments. I'm not clear on whether he's referring to a particular section or if he's just asking globally whether there are amendments.

As he will learn or has already seen, legislative amendments can be made to pieces of legislation from time to time, if requests come in and after some work has been done. At this point I don't have a legislative amendment before me regarding the Community Charter — unless he is aware of a pending request for a legislative change or has an interest in a particular section. I hope that provides the answer to the member, but if he has something specific, perhaps I can entice him to ask that question.

I'm particularly interested in a couple of areas around local government and governance. Maybe the first question, the first area we'll go to, is around the role of regional districts and regional governance questions. I notice in the minister's message and accountability statement in the service plan that there is a reference here to "reviewing issues related to regional governance." Possibly, the minister could tell us what she was thinking when she talked about a review of regional governance and what she has planned.

Hon. I. Chong: If I can just take a step back, as the member was not engaged in some of the debates that took place at the very start of our estimates. We talked about the Community Charter. I did indicate that it had been a fairly lengthy process that involved the Community Charter Council and members, past and present, of UBCM. As a result of the exhaustive work that was done, the Community Charter legislation came into being.

After that work was completed, there was a thought that there should be more work done in terms of regional governance. However, the UBCM, as well, agreed that they needed some time to work with the Community Charter to see how they can use the tools and instruments within it to provide more authority in the work that they are doing. We agreed that we would allow them such time to see how well the Community Charter was working before we would undertake any further in-depth reviews.

We acknowledge that this province does have a very well-established regional governance system. It provides a very high degree of flexibility to respond to the diverse needs of our citizens from all parts of our province — from our urban metropolitan to our rural and remote and resource regions. As such, the UBCM and the province did agree that we would focus on making the existing regional district legislation work better rather than embarking on a new wave of legislation or a new wave of legislative review.

If this is where the member is headed in terms of his questions, I can say that the Premier's task force on community opportunities, which was established in 2004, has been mandated with a task to, amongst other things, look at governance issues. They have spent the past year seeking information. That task force does include members from regional districts, from smaller communities, from the large communities — from the more northern part of the province to the very urban parts here in the lower mainland and, of course, on Vancouver Island.

Again, they have spent some time looking at the governance issues. At this point there's no decision or recommendation that has come about as a result of that. We continue to seek input from this task force as well as to work with UBCM. We'll take those opportunities with UBCM or any other area association to hear what their views, their issues and their concerns are before we embark on any legislative review or legislative change.

S. Simpson: That work in your ministry presumably would be done under the governance and structure division of the ministry?

Hon. I. Chong: It's done within the entire local government branch, department, of our ministry.

S. Simpson: Could the minister tell us how many people work on that? How many FTEs are involved in that work — whether it's the outreach, the consultation or the policy work — around what those changes might look like, including work with other ministries?

Hon. I. Chong: Two FTEs are available to work in these areas, plus if contract work is necessary from time to time, then we may seek some outside help or special expertise — if that's what's necessary.

S. Simpson: The minister spoke about the cross-ministry work that her ministry is involved in, working with other ministries. I know she spoke extensively about that with my colleague from Surrey-Whalley in terms of issues related to women's issues.

Does the ministry have the same method of operation in terms of its local government branch with other ministries that work in communities?

Hon. I. Chong: Yes, in fact we do work cross-government when it comes to local government as well. In particular, it's very important that we do when we deal with communities in transition. We will work, for example, with the Ministry of Economic Development, or we can work with another ministry to see how we can assist a community in that regard.

The mountain pine beetle is another example. While it seems to be a forestry issue, it is not solely a forestry issue. So we will work cross-ministry with that ministry, because those communities impacted or affected by the mountain pine beetle will require assistance through this particular ministry.

Those are two examples of how we can work cross-government. There are others that will occur from time to time. We endeavour to absolutely work cross-government.

S. Simpson: In a previous life, before being elected here, I worked for an organization that worked around sustainability and Smart Growth measures, and that's my background. Could the minister tell us what work her ministry does in the area of local urban sustainability around sustainable growth management, around Smart Growth measures, and how you work with communities or regional districts on those matters?

Hon. I. Chong: I know from past experience, and I was just confirming with the staff, that this ministry does fund regional growth strategy projects. As I say, I know that from past experience, and we do continue to do that. Absolutely, when regional districts ask for assistance and they have a plan to take a look at their regional growth, we're there to assist them. We do have some smart development agreements in place, as well, and we have opportunities to assist in that area.

It is about assisting local governments when they sometimes need funding for planning — planning grants. They're usually small amounts, but they need to be able to at least initiate that. We, again, provide that assistance.

Sustainability is an important part of all communities, small and large. I did speak earlier to — I don't recall which member it was — one of your colleagues about the urban development agreements that are in place in a number of cities. It was the member for Surrey-Whalley — how can I forget? Those urban development agreements look at sustainability from the economic, social and environmental viewpoints.

We will continue to provide information and support for local governments — towns, districts, cities, regional districts and those that come to us — who are looking to make their communities more sustainable.

S. Simpson: I appreciate the support that the ministry gives in terms of helping to fund regional growth strategies and such. I'd like to focus on a couple of questions that relate to the Greater Vancouver regional district, in particular, and the liveable region strategy plan, which is largely part of the growth strategy for our community.

Could the minister — and maybe it's not just that plan — tell us: is it her responsibility to be an advocate for the integrity of those plans with other ministers who have plans of their own?

Hon. I. Chong: Certainly, we do provide support to regional districts or others who are looking at mostly regional districts, regional growth strategies and other plans that they develop to make their communities more sustainable, more liveable. What we're able to do in our ministry is work with that body, usually the regional district, and work with other ministries that may be involved — if there are other ministries involved — to help coordinate the plans or the strategy they put in place.

As an example, the Ministry of Environment may have some input into a regional growth strategy plan that is there. As local government, as this ministry, we certainly are there to provide assistance to ensure that the provincial interest and local government interest can find a meeting point and be able to work together so that the plan can be advanced.

As I say, because other ministries can be involved, I acknowledge that there can be differing views from the local interests as well as from the provincial interests.

Our objective is to provide that support, to assist where we're asked to assist. So if that is what the member is seeking…. If there is something specific, again, I would ask that maybe he provide that so that I can specifically look into our involvement in that.

S. Simpson: I will be specific. Could the minister tell us what role her ministry has played, if any, in the policy — the debate going on between the Ministry of Transportation and the Greater Vancouver regional district over the Livable Region Strategic Plan and the gateway program and some of the initiatives that the Minister of Transportation has on the table?

Hon. I. Chong: Currently the discussion that is taking place, as the member points out, is between the GVRD and the Ministry of Transportation. Our ministry has not played a role in that particular debate. We have not been asked to be engaged in that. The GVRD has gone directly to the Ministry of Transportation, and to our knowledge, a request has not come in to participate in that debate.

S. Simpson: Does the minister not see a reason in this kind of debate, an understanding that…? The minister previously talked about the importance that her ministry places on sustainability, on Smart Growth, on whatever terminology we are going to use for it. Does the minister not see a reason to take a more proactive approach in those discussions to help find some consensus or some common ground based on what I understand the regional district's request to be, which was for significantly more analysis and a number of questions to be answered that, at this point, I don't believe have yet been answered by the Minister of Transportation? The minister doesn't see a need to take a proactive role in these kinds of situations?

Hon. I. Chong: I believe there is a rather active discussion that is still taking place. It's still a discussion in progress between GVRD and the Ministry of Transportation. Whether there is a role for our ministry to be engaged in that, I would say at this point remains to be seen, strictly because it is still a discussion that is taking place. It's still in progress. As I have indicated, we have not received a request to be involved in that discussion. They may be able to resolve some of these issues and not request any involvement from this ministry. That remains to be seen.

S. Simpson: Possibly there have been other instances where the ministry actually has received such a request from a regional district or a community to play a role as it relates to other ministries on matters of development or ministry plans. Could the minister tell us what kind of capacity the ministry would have to play a role in that discussion?

Hon. I. Chong: Within our ministry we have experienced people and staff who are able to provide assistance to find some commonalities, if that is requested of them. Whether we have the capacity to provide the assistance that is required depends upon the nature of the requests that come in. But we do have, as I say, experienced staff who work in the area of urban sustainability, and when requested to provide assistance, we certainly try to offer that to them. Again, depending on the number of requests we receive, the time of year that we receive those requests and the workload that is there…. That we're able to handle that would depend upon the capacity, depending on that particular request.

S. Simpson: How many requests for that kind of support from the urban sustainability staff have you received in the last year?

Hon. I. Chong: We aren't able to provide a list. We don't keep track, necessarily. Our experienced staff who work in this area get calls. Some of them can be dealt with fairly quickly; others may take longer. These staff will deal with them on an as-needed basis, as is required — which is, I guess, what their job is — when the requests come in. It's not tracked in any formal way.

If we had to go back and find all the workload and go through everyone's time sheets as to what projects

they worked on, we could do that. I don't know what kind of benefit would be gained as a result. I would hesitate to ask staff to go back to prepare that for the member, so I hope that he'll accept that the staff remain busy in this particular area.

S. Simpson: I guess the point I would make is this: I would have thought, if formal requests come in from local governments for assistance around these matters, that there might be some other kind of process. I wasn't thinking, necessarily, about a phone call from a planning director to somebody in the ministry asking a question or asking for a document or seeking some advice. I had assumed there might be a more formal process of request for staff to come in and play a supportive role or to provide complementary planning services or consultation services.

Hon. I. Chong: I am informed that the requests that come in have been rather informal, which is, perhaps, why they haven't been tracking them. There will be, perhaps throughout a year, four or five formal requests, I guess — if that's the wording that the member would like to use — that come in and that do ask staff to take a more engaged role in providing some assistance. The staff we have there do work on a number of issues throughout the year, which is one of the reasons why there is not the tracking. I thought that's what he was after, but perhaps four or five formal requests is what we receive on an annual basis.

S. Simpson: I appreciate that answer. How many staff or FTEs are there dedicated to urban sustainability matters in the ministry?

S. Simpson: Does that staff or policy staff or some combination…. Do they do policy work in the ministry looking at sustainability questions and guidelines or frameworks that they would encourage local governments to adopt — or that they would come and encourage that the policy be looked at — to ensure that we are developing our communities in as sustainable a fashion as possible?

Hon. I. Chong: I know the member can appreciate, because of the work that he in a past life…. I wouldn't say past life but the former area of interest that he had before it brought him here.

Hon. I. Chong: Yes, it doesn't take long to find a new life when you arrive at the Legislature.

Because of the work he has done previously, he will understand that there is a whole host of work that is done by individuals in the community as well as by local governments. What happens when that occurs and when everyone feels they have a role to play when it comes to sustainability and cities, villages and towns and such…. When they are working together, sometimes our ministry is called upon to take a look at that work and address gaps that may exist, and we will address that through the smart development partnerships.

We may from time to time offer to assist by providing some funding between local governments and other partners. We may also provide assistance by developing some best practices to provide for sustainability. At times we will even champion initiatives.

The one area that we in this ministry were successful in championing in terms of liveable and more sustainable communities, of course, is the new deal for cities and communities. Our branch was able to take the lead on that with UBCM to see an agreement put in place that would bring dollars back to local governments whereby they can improve air, water and energy efficiency initiatives in their communities. I have to say that a great deal of time was spent recently putting the new deal together, and we'll continue to work in that area.

Other areas that we would champion are the infrastructure programs with the federal government — again, working with them to ensure that we have a program in place that allows for flexibility in our local governments to have sustainable communities. Water-sewer projects are always very important for sustainability in our communities.

S. Simpson: I have a question or two here, and then I actually want to ask a couple of questions about the new deal.

Has the ministry done any work through its urban sustainability folks or others related to urban containment? A critical issue that we're seeing, particularly in the high-growth areas — whether it's the lower mainland, the South Island, the Okanagan — is questions around urban containment in the high-growth areas. I wonder if the minister could tell us what work has been done around that and whether any policy work or advice is being provided about how we contain our urban growth areas and protect critical areas — like our farmland, our ALR — and advice that the ministry might be giving in policy terms to government on how best to achieve that.

Hon. I. Chong: Well, some of the more, I guess, creative work that's been done around urban containment boundaries and urban densification was able to be achieved through the regional growth strategies. Our ministry does provide support for those who are looking to do regional growth strategies. That's how our ministry interacts with that.

Certainly, when a district approaches the ministry to determine whether they want to look at a regional growth strategy, they can come and seek advice from our experienced staff to advise them of the kinds of things they should look at when they're doing a re-

gional growth strategy. Oftentimes they will already have very clear ideas of what they're looking for, what they're looking at. Then they will have their consultants or private persons that they engage develop their regional growth strategy plan, which generally does contain some form of urban containment boundary policy or objective within it.

S. Simpson: Just a question related to regional growth strategies. One of the areas that we're increasingly seeing pressure on — and I know the urban areas best — is for better cooperation around local economic development matters. Yet in many regional districts, economic development isn't a regional matter. It tends to be very much a local community matter.

I wonder whether the minister has any thoughts, in terms of regional growth strategies, about economic development components to that and what role she thinks that might play in the future of local economic development?

Hon. I. Chong: I do want to say that economic development is certainly a very important part of regional growth strategies. We have encouraged those who are doing regional growth strategies to consider economic development. In some cases, we've also encouraged adjacent areas, adjacent regions, to think more broadly in terms of economic development, in cases where it's necessary or we're requested to offer assistance. Perhaps we will be able to provide that in staff expertise or sometimes even in funding, because as the member indicated, economic development is very important.

I think in the past local regional districts did not feel that they had a role to play when it comes to economic development. Personally, I have seen that increasingly change over time. I have heard more and more areas and regions talk about having a better coordinated review or analysis of how to take a look at regional growth as well as economic development within that particular region. So we are encouraged by that. We will continue to ask regions to be responsive to adjacent areas — that they do plan them that way.

We do certainly believe that economic development is a very important part of the framework of a regional growth strategy, and we have so stated.

S. Simpson: Does the ministry have staff who have expertise in the area of local economic development that can support that process? If so, could the minister tell us how many FTEs?

Hon. I. Chong: We do have the expertise within the staff complement that I mentioned regarding the urban sustainability who have skills in economic development. There are two, of those up to eight people that I mentioned, who specifically specialize in that area. So when we get requests for assistance, absolutely, those individuals will be able to provide some guidance.

S. Simpson: Just a couple more questions, and I'll be done. They relate to the new deal. Could the minister confirm that the agreement on the new deal provides money for investment in what's called sustainable infrastructure or sustainable projects? I think I've read that terminology in the service plan. Could the minister tell us what that means?

Hon. I. Chong: For the benefit of the member, I would also say that there is a package. I don't know if he received that when he was at UBCM. We had some additional information about what the new deal was and the composition and information on that. We did make that available at UBCM. If the member would like a copy or booklet, we certainly can send that over to him, because I think he'll find it has got more information there.

The new deal that was signed for British Columbia was signed to encourage investment in some particular areas, some projects, such as public transit, community energy systems, obviously water and wastewater area projects, solid waste management and capacity building. In terms of capacity building, that can take into consideration a number of things: increasing local government capacity to undertake integrated sustainable planning to include community plans, community energy planning, infrastructure development plans and things of that nature.

Those are some of the project categories that were listed and part of the requirement on how the dollars can be accessed and spent in accessing the new-deal moneys.

S. Simpson: Is there a specific set of criteria being prepared or that has been prepared that local governments need to follow in order to apply for and access this money?

Hon. I. Chong: I do understand that the UBCM is currently working with local governments drafting the criteria, working with them to draft the framework upon which the applications can be made. That's still in the works.

As I indicated, there was a booklet we were able to provide at UBCM. Within it was contained information as to what kinds of projects would be eligible. Then, of course, the criteria which are just being developed now with UBCM, I believe, will be out shortly. I don't have the time line on that, but I know that with the UBCM having just ended and a new executive being put in place, they're probably just going through some of their workplans for the year as well.

S. Simpson: I'm sure they will get there sometime after November, but they're busy now.

If the UBCM…. I understand they're a partner in this. They're developing the criteria. The federal government is delivering the money through the gas tax. I believe that in the service plan it says that the Ministry of Community Services is the lead ministry for the provincial government on the new deal. What is the role of the ministry and the minister in this if it seems

to be the UBCM and local government developing all the criteria and the federal government writing the cheque?

Hon. I. Chong: The new deal for cities. There was a requirement to establish a number of committees: a partnership committee and a management committee. The UBCM, as well as our ministry, had representation on that. That's why we're the lead ministry involved in that.

The partnership committee oversees some of the policy that surrounds the new deal. The management committee is more on the operational side. We will have staff that serve on both of these committees. Some senior staff members will be there. I'm not sure who the UBCM people will be on there. They may have already decided, or they may have to rethink that after November 19 as well.

Again, there are these two working committees that do provide some oversight over the dollars that are provided for. But the member is correct. The dollars are in the account of the UBCM that was set up. I won't say bank account. That was corrected. It was a credit union account. That is where the dollars are.

S. Simpson: Maybe this isn't totally resolved yet, but could the minister tell me who…? Once the criteria are finalized by the UBCM for what's eligible for money — and presumably it goes back to one of these committees, which signs off on it in some way — who do local governments make application to? And who will vet those applications and decide whether they meet the criteria and whether the cheque will be written?

Hon. I. Chong: The application would come in to UBCM, and it would be the management committee that would then do the vetting, as the member has indicated.

S. Simpson: In terms of the composition of that committee, could the minister tell us what the make-up of the voting members of that committee is in terms of where decision-making lies?

Hon. I. Chong: I'll just read this for the record so the member has it, because I do have some terms of reference here: "The management committee will be established to administer and manage the implementation of the…agreement" — the new-deal agreement. "The…committee will consist of three local government members appointed by the UBCM, one provincial member appointed through our ministry and one federal member appointed by the Minister of State for Infrastructure and Communities." That would be Minister Godfrey, I believe. The management committee then will be headed by a chair appointed by the UBCM. So UBCM is very much involved and in a very direct way.

S. Simpson: Could the minister tell us what kind of resources it is expected that committee will have to be able to do its work? In particular, I'm interested in — because the notion of the new deal is quite new — what kind of resources are going to be there for evaluation and what the plan is for evaluation to monitor the success of this initiative.

Hon. I. Chong: The UBCM is presently preparing a business plan for the partnership committee. Once that is put in place, they will have the ability to determine a number of the evaluations that the member is seeking. It's still very much in its initial phase. I think the UBCM themselves are…. I wouldn't say they're overwhelmed, but they certainly are looking at this as a very unique initiative that has come their way. They haven't yet worked out all the details, which is why they are developing this business plan. Once that is available, they will present it to the planning committee, who will then sign off on it, and then we're off to the races.

S. Simpson: Is there a requirement in this business plan for a full measure of accountability and transparency on how applications are considered and where those dollars might be allocated?

Hon. I. Chong: When the new-deal agreement was signed…. There was certainly contained within the new-deal partnership agreement with the UBCM, the provincial government and the federal government a number of measures and a number of accountabilities that they put in place. Again, when we provide that document to the member, he will perhaps have a better understanding of how we have derived this particular agreement. It very much provides for results of the program to be measured. That's how the agreement was drafted.

In terms of the selection or approval of the project, if that's what the member is concerned about, there is a history here in British Columbia of the fact that we have had federal-provincial-local government partnerships when it comes to infrastructure. There is experience in dealing with the selection and the approval of projects to meet the eligibility requirements as well as the criteria that are set. We will definitely draw on that as well.

S. Simpson: I appreciate the minister's comments about previous infrastructure and programs and such, but what's unique, of course, about this program is that this is the first time that the UBCM has played such a significant role. As people know, the UBCM is a unique organization, but it's not an organization that, I think, has had this kind of responsibility before.

The questions that I would have are further questions around the committee. The minister said that

there would be three local government representatives, a provincial representative and a federal representative. Could the minister tell us whether it's anticipated that those will be elected officials, or will they be government officials?

Hon. I. Chong: Our representative on this committee will be a staff person, not an elected person. I understand that the federal government would also put a representative there from the staff level.

The UBCM, as I understand it, has not yet determined how they are going to have their three representatives there. They can have a staff person. Again, I don't know whether they have made that determination or whether they want it to be a person from the UBCM executive — so that person likely would be an elected person — or whether they would choose to have an outside person represent UBCM. That's a determination that they're still making at this time. From our perspective, and I think I can speak for the federal level, we will have staff persons there, not elected people.

S. Simpson: The terms of reference that the minister referenced before that helped to put this together…. Presumably, those kinds of details aren't defined in those terms of reference in terms of who will represent the different bodies?

Hon. I. Chong: No, that was not defined. It just said three representatives representing UBCM, one representing the province and one representing the federal government.

S. Simpson: Maybe the minister could tell us: at the point where the business plan, the criteria and those things are finalized, the proposal from the UBCM is finalized, and will be coming back to the partnership committee, could the minister tell us what opportunities we will have as legislators to review that in terms of scrutiny around that and to provide comments to the provincial partner?

Hon. I. Chong: The agreement that was signed and that the federal government certainly had agreed to, recognizing these are…. Well, they're taxpayers' dollars, but they're their dollars in the sense of being transferred from the account from Ottawa. The agreement made specific reference that UBCM was to certainly be, in our case, very much involved in this — and our provincial government involvement, as well — in terms of the partnership and the management committee. However, there was no provision made for any role for members of the Legislature to be involved in that business plan.

S. Simpson: Is the minister saying that at the point the business plan and the criteria are done, there won't be, if not a process here, a public opportunity for some public discussion about how the first phase of money, the $635 million, will be spent? There will be no open public process for people to comment on those criteria?

Hon. I. Chong: I apologize to the member if I've not been clear. The criteria were in fact very much in place in the signing of the new deal for cities and communities. The business plan that UBCM is developing now will be to offer more on how the new deal will be administered. Because the outcomes that have been specifically identified through the new deal from the federal government are to deal with reduced greenhouse gas emissions, cleaner water, cleaner air — through those five project areas that I mentioned earlier, through projects such as that — those will be what communities and local governments will be able to access.

The dollars that are available to local governments, again, have been determined by the signing of the new agreement. A large portion of that — in many cases, either 50 percent or 75 percent of it — will be accessible to local governments on a per-capita basis. The other part of their per-capita amounts — and I explained this to a number of communities that I had appointments with at UBCM — will be pooled so that larger projects that need to be undertaken, which one local government could not possibly do, will have access to a regional project grant, again meeting some of these criteria.

Much of it has been outlined in the new deal agreement that was signed. That's why, I believe, when I provide that book to the member, he will see exactly how that works. There isn't an opportunity for public input, in the sense I think he was getting at, to sort of rewrite the agreement or to take a look at whether people like the criteria or not. That's been more or less established with the signing of the agreement that took place. What will happen is local governments will have to seek public input through their local government officials as to what projects they may wish their local council to support, to undertake. That's how local input can be derived.

S. Simpson: The minister can confirm: the criteria that were set by the federal government — am I to assume that these were the criteria that…? I believe that Mr. Harcourt, the ex-Premier of British Columbia, was appointed as the co-chair, and there was a committee of folks from across the country who helped frame that for Minister Godfrey. Would that be the committee that set those criteria?

Hon. I. Chong: That's correct, and I prefer to say former Premier, as opposed to ex-Premier, Harcourt. Yes.

S. Simpson: That works for me too. Is there a requirement there…? A separate question. I believe, and maybe the minister could confirm, that the expectation is that a significant amount of this money is being targeted, as the minister said, for bigger projects. I believe transportation was one of those projects that would go cross-municipality in places like the capital regional district or the Greater Vancouver regional district.

Hon. I. Chong: Yes, that is correct. In fact, in the GVRD, 100 percent is what is being allocated towards the transportation.

S. Simpson: Maybe the minister could confirm, from the work that was done by the committee: is that money all dedicated to what we would call sustainable transportation, i.e., transit, or is it dedicated to roads as well?

Hon. I. Chong: In the case of the GVRD, for public transit, what their dollars would be eligible for is to develop or improve the public transit system — which is rapid transit, buses, busways, SeaBus, commuter rail, ferries, streetcars, cycling and pedestrian infrastructure — as well as to implement innovative technologies that support environmental sustainability. That's what the GVRD is able to use those dollars for, in terms of public transit.

S. Simpson: Could the minister tell us: is there a reporting requirement with this money, an annual report or one every two years? Is there a reporting process here where the committee or the partnership needs to report out to the public on what money got spent on what?

As well, UBCM will be required:to prepare, publish and disseminate to the public, by no later than December 30, 2009, and periodically thereafter, an outcomes report.

Hon. I. Chong: Hon. Chair, I believe there are no further questions on Vote 20, but we have questions on Vote 21, which is the PSA. Is that correct?

H. Lali: While the question was being read before that, the hon. member sitting next to me actually got up to make a point, and I think he should have beenrecognized before the vote was called. He's got some questions.

Hon. M. de Jong: I've had a chance to speak with my friends across the way, and there are some additional questions. I think, by agreement, it appears the vote occurred too quickly or prematurely. There are some questions, and members should have an opportunity to ask those questions, so I wonder if we might return, by agreement, to Vote 20.

G. Gentner: Thank you to members across for your indulgence. Hopefully, we'll be out of here by six.

On a general note, what influence does the minister have over the disbursement of federal GST rebate money to local governments?

Hon. I. Chong: I'd like to recognize the member, but I can't recall his riding.

Hon. I. Chong: Delta North. Through you to the member for Delta North, the answer is: none.

G. Gentner: All municipal bylaws come to the province for approval — and particularly to your office, minister — bylaws that put forward such things as setbacks, density, etc., etc. Under the farm protection act, what role does the ministry play when a local government comes under the scope of this legislation?

Hon. I. Chong: In fact, I just want to make a correction. He stated that all municipal bylaws come to the minister for approval, and that's not correct. Very few bylaws actually come to us.

In terms of the farm protection act, this is legislation that is administered by the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands. I would ask the member to canvass that with that minister.

G. Gentner: Does the minister believe that local governments should have autonomy regarding decisions relative to local bylaws?

Hon. I. Chong: As the member will know, this government does support our local governments and allowing them to have local decision-making and as much autonomy as possible. I would hope that this member and his colleagues support that. That was the whole exercise involved in the Community Charter, which local governments very much applauded.

As a general rule, yes, local matters and local decisions should be made at the local level. However, from time to time there can be some overlap between local and provincial issues, and in cases like that, there needs to be some mechanism of working that out.

Provincial interests can be a variety of things. Because of the area that he represents, agriculture, I'll just make reference to that. If it deals with supporting the agriculture industry, if it means supporting the ALR — which are provincial interests as opposed to local governments'…. Perhaps he may not see that as integral to their interests. From time to time, then, the provincial ministries can be directly involved in addressing those issues. We absolutely do support local governments and them having autonomy and making local decisions that make sense for their local governments.

G. Gentner: Does the minister therefore believe that local autonomy is compromised under the right-to-farm legislation?

Hon. I. Chong: I just wanted to confer. The member referred to the Right to Farm Act, and the legislation that I think that is referenced is the Farm Practices Protection (Right to Farm) Act. The Right to Farm Act, I guess, is what it had been originally called.

The question was whether he felt that the local autonomy had been compromised. The answer is no. This is an area where there are overlapping interests. So in fact, with the Farm Practices Protection Act, the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands has the right to approve certain local government bylaws to protect what would then be the provincial interests — in this case, the provincial interest being the agricultural industry and to enable that industry to continue to flourish.

G. Gentner: What influence does the ministry have, if it has any, in setting or approving local government's development cost charges?

Hon. I. Chong: It's the inspector of municipalities who has the ability to approve local government development cost charge bylaws. That has been the case since 1978, and that has not changed.

G. Gentner: When the municipality is under the microscope of the farm protection act, how do we determine the development cost charges? Is it through the Minister of Agriculture, or is it through your office?

Hon. I. Chong: As I've indicated, our ministry is, through our inspector of municipalities, able to approve the local government development cost charge bylaw. That's our area of responsibility. The drafting of the bylaw would come from the local government.

G. Gentner: However, I still don't know what the connect is here. With the approval of the valid cost charges, is it through the Minister of Agriculture, who has purview over a whole municipality that's under this legislation, or does it rest with the authority as mentioned?

Hon. I. Chong: As I've indicated, normal practice, and this has been since 1978, provides for the inspector of municipalities to approve local government development cost charge bylaws. I believe what the member is alluding to — and if he wants to be more specific, I certainly would appreciate it — is that where there are bylaws that are impacted, the agricultural practice and the Farm Practices Protection Act also have a role to play.

That doesn't happen all the time, but I would imagine that's why he's raising this. Perhaps it has happened in his area. That would be — I wouldn't say unique — an infrequent practice or situation that arises.

If there is something specific, I would have to get back to him as to whether the Farm Practices Protection Act — because we don't administer that — would have jurisdiction over this. Ordinarily, our ministry has the ability of approving the local government development cost charge bylaws, as I've indicated. If there is a specific situation, we'd be happy to look into that for the member and provide him with that information.

G. Gentner: I take from this discourse that there are exceptions where the minister acknowledges that local government does not have autonomy.

Hon. I. Chong: What I've said is that we have supported our local governments to have autonomy, which is one of the reasons why the Community Charter was developed. However, we also acknowledge that from time to time there will be conflicts that arise between local government interests and provincial government interests. In those cases we do have to have a mechanism to work that out. Where the provincial interest needs to take precedence, then there will be some provincial action that is necessary. It's quite clear that if a local interest was going to do severe harm to an agricultural industry as a whole, which is a provincial interest, certainly we would want to have impact and input into that and help work out a resolution that everyone can live with.

G. Gentner: Recognizing the minister's position that there is conflict between the interests of local government versus that of the province and as the minister responsible for municipal affairs, who looks after the interests of local government in this instance? The minister?

Hon. I. Chong: Firstly, I want to state for the record, because I think the member…. I don't think it's his intention to suggest that this ministry does not support or work with local governments. In fact, we do.

As I've indicated, from time to time there will be circumstances, situations that arise, where there will be a conflict — not with all local governments but perhaps with one or two or even more. From time to time there may be a conflict that exists between local governments and a provincial interest. When those situations arise, our ministry is there to assist local governments as well as to help facilitate and work with the particular provincial ministry to help mediate at times or to find where those differences are and find a common ground. That's what we will continue to do.

Ultimately, if there is a threat to a provincial interest such as an industry that can be detrimentally harmed, I hope the member would appreciate that that has a fairly significant impact on British Columbians as a whole.

G. Gentner: The minister suggests that there is a threat to the provincial interest. Is she suggesting that the threat is from the local government?

Hon. I. Chong: Again, I'm not trying to put a scenario in place. I've just said that if in fact there are conflicts between provincial and local interests, there is a role for our ministry to play, particularly if it involves another ministry and another piece of legislation. We do represent local interests in that sense, or local governments, in trying to mediate or to find a common ground that we can seek resolution on. That's what I've said.

G. Gentner: The farm protection act has been invoked upon the municipality of Delta. Could the minister explain to me what she has done, or intends to do, relative to finding that compromise between the minister and the concerns of the local government?

Hon. I. Chong: This is, I guess, a past incident where the member indicates that the Farm Practices Protection Act was invoked. I understand that occurred in 2001. Since then we have tried working with local government and the Minister of Agriculture. I believe there has been a panel of people brought together. The differences, I believe, still remain, but if the member still needs to canvass the Farm Practices Protection Act as to how it relates to his particular area, then I would ask him to refer those to the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands.

H. Lali: Just noting the time, that there are a considerable number of questions that my colleague still has and that I haven't started mine, I would ask that this 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.