Hansard -- Wednesday, October 19, 2005 p.m. -- Vol. 2, No. 9 (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		913

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		913
	Trans-Canada Highway safety
	N. Macdonald
	Small business
	R. Cantelon
	Williams Lake and District Chamber of Commerce
	C. Wyse
	Bear safety awareness
	D. MacKay
	Mid-Main Community Health Clinic
	D. Chudnovsky
	MRI scanning services in central interior B.C.
	J. Rustad

Oral Questions		915
	Role of facilitators in teachers labour dispute
	C. James
	Hon. M. de Jong
	J. Horgan
	L. Krog
	J. Kwan
	M. Karagianis
	Impact of government policies on education system
	D. Thorne
	Hon. S. Bond
	D. Routley
	Hiring of Gary Cowan for Fast-Track program
	H. Lali
	Hon. C. Hansen

Committee of the Whole House		920
	North Island–Coast Development Initiative Trust Act (Bill 7)
	N. Simons
	Hon. C. Hansen
	J. Horgan
	S. Fraser
	C. Trevena
	D. Routley

Report and Third Reading of Bills		934
	North Island–Coast Development Initiative Trust Act (Bill 7)

Committee of the Whole House		934
	Southern Interior Development Initiative Trust Act (Bill 8)
	N. Macdonald
	Hon. C. Hansen
	C. Evans

Report and Third Reading of Bills		939
	Southern Interior Development Initiative Trust Act (Bill 8)

Committee of the Whole House		939
	Forests and Range Statutes Amendment Act, 2005 (Bill 10)
	B. Simpson
	Hon. R. Coleman

Report and Third Reading of Bills		947
	Forests and Range Statutes Amendment Act, 2005 (Bill 10)

Second Reading of Bills		947
	Civil Forfeiture Act (Bill 13)
	Hon. J. Les
	J. Brar
	M. Polak
	D. MacKay

	Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		956
	Estimates: Ministry of Community Services and Minister Responsible for Seniors' and Women's Issues (continued)
	Hon. I. Chong
	H. Lali
	Estimates: Ministry of Agriculture and Lands
	Hon. P. Bell
	B. Ralston

N. Macdonald: It's with pleasure that I rise to introduce Pavi Khun Khun. He's a small business owner, a volunteer with victims services, an RCMP auxiliary constable for Golden detachment and a former student of mine. I'm very proud to introduce him as well as Neelam Bains, a local teacher in Victoria at Stelly's Secondary School. Please join me in welcoming them.

Hon. R. Thorpe: This week we are celebrating Small Business Week, a week dedicated to celebrating the tremendous contribution that small business makes to the economy of British Columbia. Today in British Columbia, one in five of our entrepreneurs is under the age of 35.

Visiting the Legislature today are Jan Bell-Irving, president of Junior Achievement British Columbia; Steve Wilson, chair of Junior Achievement B.C.; Jason Guille, president of the Young Entrepreneurs Association; Kate Falkenberg, a young entrepreneur; Davin Greenwell, a young entrepreneur; James Hackett from the Canadian Youth Business Foundation; Leah Painter of Business Victoria, a young entrepreneur; and Brian Wesley, chair of the Greater Victoria Economic Commission. Would the House please make these visitors very welcome.

J. McIntyre: I would like to welcome good friends of mine visiting the gallery today: Mr. Ted Upward and Ms. Julie Glover. Julie retired earlier this year from the Agricultural Land Commission after many, many years of service on staff and as a commissioner. I would like the House to make them both feel very welcome today.

Hon. W. Oppal: I have the pleasure of introducing the consul general of Portugal, Mr. Juan Adabrio, and a Member of Parliament for the national parliament of Portugal, Mr. Consuelo Santos, and his wife Mrs. Santos, who are in the gallery today. I want a warm welcome for them.

L. Mayencourt: I have the pleasure of introducing two guests from my neighbourhood in Vancouver-Burrard. They are Lowell MacRae and Tim McMahon. Today Tim is here in the Legislature to celebrate his 70th birthday. Would the House please make them both very welcome.

Hon. O. Ilich: I would like to recognize the accomplishments of one of my constituents in Richmond. Celine Gittens recently competed in the Genée International Ballet Competition in London, England.

This very prestigious competition promotes and rewards standards of excellence in young ballet dancers, age 19 years and under, from all over the world. Fifty-three of the world's best dancers had the experience of working with world-renowned teachers and choreographers and the opportunity to dance at the prestigious Sadler's Wells Theatre in London.

Celine Gittens won a gold medal — the first gold medal for Canada in the 75-year history of this storied competition. I ask the House to join me today in congratulating Celine Gittens on this truly outstanding accomplishment.

D. Hayer: Today we had, from the Surrey RCMP, visiting the caucus members, Patrick Mehain from Surrey. He's the president of the Mounted Police Professional Association in Surrey. He was here with others of his colleagues discussing some issues with the caucus members. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. W. Oppal: I want to introduce to the House articling students from the Ministry of Attorney General — Susan Nary, Simon Owen, Kathleen McIntosh, Bryant Mackenzie and their legislative counsel, Don Leroy — who are in the gallery.

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

N. Macdonald: I'd like to take the opportunity to talk about the Trans-Canada Highway and in particular around safety. In ten years, on the stretch of highway from Salmon Arm to the Alberta border, 150 people were killed and 2,900 injured.

I just want to talk to the House about a group of mayors, regional district chairs, MPs and MLAs from along the Trans-Canada. It stretches from Cache Creek to the border. They speak for the communities that know this highway has never been at an appropriate standard.

The spokesperson for the group is the mayor of Revelstoke, Mark McKee. The point he makes at the meetings that we go to is that the problems of the lower mainland are around the frustrations of gridlock for the most part, while the problems we face are around safety.

The implications of traffic accidents are not only for the victims, of course, but also for the circle of friends

and family that are scarred by the violence of the accidents. This government and my predecessor as MLA, Wendy McMahon, should be commended for the work on the Kicking Horse Pass. That is an incredible project.

N. Macdonald: …that the amount of money that has gone in, and all of the work, represents just four kilometres of road. I know there are stages to come, but what the member for Kamloops–North Thompson and the member for Shuswap will know is that that whole highway will always need more work.

I realize there are limitations, but I am just going to raise it, as the member here told me I must do, again and again. It needs federal help. It needs provincial money. It is not an area that many of you live along, but to those of us that do, it is crucial that more investment go in there.

R. Cantelon: I rise today to speak about Small Business Week. We have heard an array of numbers this week providing statistical evidence of the importance of small businesses to B.C., but it isn't just about the numbers. It celebrates what is at the core of what has built this great province. It celebrates individual entrepreneurship and people with a vision, a dream, who are willing to take the risk of putting their dreams on the line in that crucible of public judgment — the marketplace.

These are the individuals who have built and will continue to build this province. It is one thing to have big ideas and quite another to act on them. It is safer to tell no one, maybe to go so far as to talk it up among friends, to stay in a comfy job and not move out of a comfort zone, to take a safe attitude that might be described as one of entitlement. It's quite another to put it all on the line and just do it.

Yet this is the very spirit of individualism and entrepreneurship that has not only made B.C. great; it distinguishes us as a distinct region in Canada. Separated as we are by the mountains from the rest of Canada, geography made it necessary for our pioneers to be self-reliant and independent, and this spirit has endured. Those who have come here have embraced this can-do attitude.

One of the most encouraging trends lately is the increasing rate at which a number of women are taking up the challenge of opening up new businesses. Again, we lead the country in that regard. Recently I visited just such a business in Parksville. A young woman, Lori Wright, and her partner Jessica Cody, who is from the other side of those mountains — somewhere in Ontario, I think — started up their own business. They offer shiatsu massage, hot stone massage and facial rejuvenation in their spa to help us feel better, look better and indeed be better. We could probably all use some of that.

I asked them: "Why here? Why now?" Their answer was that the market was ready but, most importantly, that the economic climate in B.C. was ready and ripe. Creating and sustaining this economic climate of optimism where opportunity abounds is a key priority of this government. A key initiative that the Small Business and Revenue Ministry has begun is the small business round table.

C. Wyse: I rise to recognize the Williams Lake Visitor Information Centre. Tourism B.C. ranked Williams Lake the number-one information centre on its provincewide quality service evaluation for 2005. The Williams Lake and District Chamber of Commerce has operated this centre for over 30 years, with Claudia Blair presently serving as the executive director. The independent evaluation gave excellent overall marks and granted special recognition for the centre's wide array of information displayed, as well as noting the extraordinary sales skill displayed by its counsellors.

The Williams Lake Visitor Information Centre is one of 108 community-operated visitor information centres under the direction of Tourism B.C. In addition, at the Canadian Chamber of Commerce AGM in Charlottetown, P.E.I., the Williams Lake and District Chamber of Commerce was one of ten chambers accredited with distinction. While recognizing the president, Kathleen Cook, and her board of directors, I also wish to acknowledge the co-chairs of the committee undertaking this task: Lori Rushton and Ken Wilson. To achieve accreditation, a chamber must meet minimum standards in critical areas including areas of governance, operations, membership, programming, policy and advocacy, as well as strategic planning.

I request the House to join with me today in recognizing these most significant achievements by the Williams Lake and District Chamber of Commerce.

D. MacKay: On September 12, a 13-year-old boy from Burns Lake named Chris Solecki was attacked by a grizzly bear. The bear attacked Chris while he was on a hike with his brother Matthew and their dog just a few hundred metres from their ranch, which is located about 30 kilometres south of Burns Lake. The boys were well prepared. They were close to home, familiar with the area, had a dog with them and were carrying bear mace.

It is common for the family to see and encounter black bears, but this bear surprised the boys and at-

tacked quickly. Matthew ran for help, and Chris estimates that the attack lasted just ten seconds, but in that time significant damage was done. Chris suffered a depressed skull fracture that resulted in pieces of his skull bone piercing up to five centimetres into his brain. His skull was torn in four places. He also suffered a fractured femur.

Today Chris is recovering. He has undergone surgery and will need further surgery in six months to fill the gap left in his skull from the attack. His courage and recovery from this attack are remarkable and a testament to the resiliency of his family and the people of the Lakes District.

This is also a reminder about the dangers of bear attacks. We have had at least one tragedy this year from a bear attack, and at least one person is missing, with the concern of a bear attack. We must promote awareness of the danger these animals can pose.

On a final note, one thing Chris has asked for at Christmas this year is…. He'd like a bearskin rug. I hope the conservation officers who are looking for that bear find it for him.

D. Chudnovsky: I'm pleased to speak today about a community health clinic in Vancouver-Kensington, which should be a model for community-based, community-governed, patient-centred primary health care in our province. Mid-Main Community Health Centre offers a wide range of health care services under one roof. Seven doctors, one physical assistant, one chronic disease specialist, one clinical pharmacist, two nurse practitioners, one advanced clinical nurse, four dentists, four hygienists, four certified dental assistants and two dental assistants see more than 1,400 patients a month in an accessible, welcoming and community-based facility.

The Mid-Main clinic is unique in many ways. Perhaps the most important way it differs from traditional health care delivery is its governance structure. The board of directors is made up of members of the community and other interested parties. Among the current board members are an economics professor, a mental health nurse, a lawyer and a human resources worker. Instead of a bureaucratic and centralized hierarchy, Mid-Main is governed by community members volunteering their time, expertise and energy to help serve our neighbourhood.

Mid-Main has now instituted a system under which 80 percent of patients can book an appointment with their physician within 48 hours of calling the office. Unlike most of their colleagues across the province, the physicians at Mid-Main are on salary.

I want to congratulate and thank the staff and board of Mid-Main Community Health Centre for all of their hard work. Their dedication to more than 5,000 patients — members of our community — makes Vancouver-Kensington a better place to live, makes British Columbia a better place to live.

J. Rustad: Last week the Prince George Regional Hospital marked a milestone: the 10,000th magnetic resonance imaging, or MRI, scan performed at PGRH. This event was no doubt an important event for the person who received the scan, but it also served to highlight the advances in medical care in northern B.C., especially in the numerous northern communities that depend on the services of the Prince George Regional Hospital.

The people of the central interior made it clear they needed a permanent MRI. They proved that by raising more than $1 million through the Spirit of the North Health Care Foundation. Government heard their voices, and that's why the province contributed over $2 million towards the cost of the $3.4 million MRI machine. A permanent MRI unit was established at the PGRH in 2003, replacing the original mobile unit, which had to be shared with Kamloops and Kelowna. Thank you for that.

Since then, wait times for the crucial medical service have improved dramatically. Most urgent scans can now be performed within a single day. Elective scans are performed within four to six weeks, compared to wait times of up to eight months with the old mobile unit. The number of MRI scans performed in Prince George each year has jumped from between 500 and 700 to upwards of 2,000. This isn't just Prince George residents. PGRH serves patients from a large region, including communities in my riding like Vanderhoof and Fort St. James. Residents of those communities now have much better access to this critical diagnostics tool.

Health care needs and medical technology are constantly evolving. The government will continue to support our hospital's health care professionals to deliver the quality medical care that northern B.C. deserves.

C. James: Yesterday we learned that Vince Ready has been brought into the current teachers dispute, perhaps a positive sign that government recognizes we need to resolve this dispute. I'd like to ask my question to the Premier. Can he explain what direction his government has given to Vince Ready in his capacity as facilitator between the two sides in the dispute?

Hon. M. de Jong: With the greatest respect, I hope they didn't learn yesterday, because the appointment was made on October 6. He is fulfilling a role as an industrial inquiry commissioner, under the Labour Code. I did anticipate the question, and following question period or now, I'm happy to provide the Leader of

the Opposition with the terms of reference that provide him with the authority that he is relying upon now.

C. James: I continue, as I know the public does, to be confused about whether this government is actually finally taking some direction to try and end the dispute that has children out of classrooms. We hear the minister say that Mr. Ready in fact isn't fulfilling the role of facilitator, but today we understand that the Premier let some of the media know that Ken Dobell is now involved in this dispute.

My question is to the Premier. Can he confirm or deny that Mr. Dobell is involved as a third party, and has he had any conversations with Mr. Ready or the Premier or the Labour Minister on this dispute?

Hon. M. de Jong: Again to the Leader of the Opposition: the short answer is yes. Mr. Dobell is working with Mr. Ready and the deputy minister in particular.

Let me take a moment, though, to alert the Leader of the Opposition that on October 6, Mr. Ready was asked to do the following. Make inquiries, consult with parties and make recommendations to the minister concerning the following labour relations matters between the parties — the parties being the employer association and the union: (1) determining which matters, if any, should be concluded at local bargaining; (2) methods and costs associated with the harmonization of compensation structures within the financial mandates established by government from time to time; (3) establishment of a provincial master collective agreement; and (4) bargaining processes for provincial negotiations that are timely structured, provide for public accountability, promote settlement at the bargaining table, and foster effective and productive union management relations.

He was under the terms of those terms of reference and granted wide latitude to employ the methods he thought best to achieve those.

C. James: I'm going to continue to ask the question because I'm getting different answers and different responses. What I heard from the minister was the involvement of Mr. Ready in the long-term process in looking at the process after Bill 12, after the current dispute that we have now. The issue that the public is asking, the issue that 600,000 students are asking, is when this government is going to do something to make sure they get back to school, and accept responsibility for the problem they caused.

Again, I'd like to ask the minister: are Mr. Ready and Mr. Dobell involved in this issue to resolve the current dispute, and if so, are they in conversations with the government around that?

Hon. M. de Jong: Actually, I think the public are asking a few questions. First and foremost, to all of the parties: get my children back in school. I think they're also asking that the parties ensure that when negotiations resume for a collective agreement next year, this doesn't all start again — so rebuild a broken negotiating system that has failed for a dozen years.

You know what else? They're also asking this question: when are parties that have been accused and actually charged by the Supreme Court of British Columbia with breaking the law going to start following the law? I think they're asking all of those questions.

To the extent that Mr. Ready, an eminent labour mediator — one of the country's leading labour mediators — has a task to do and he must complete that task by December 31 of this year, I'm pleased that he's seen fit to begin that exercise now.

J. Horgan: I think we're getting to the nub of it now, after many countless days of discussion with the minister. In May of this year the Minister of Labour said the following during the election campaign: "The B.C. Liberals will not allow our students to be used as pawns in labour disputes with the teachers or support workers. The choice is clear," they went on. "Education is an essential service in B.C. It's either the B.C. Liberals or chaos and paralysis in the school system."

So my question is…. After ten years of NDP government, you allege that there were four million days of instruction lost — after ten years of free collective bargaining in British Columbia. After four months….

J. Horgan: …in four months we've had paralysis and chaos. The prediction was correct from the Minister of Labour, but the shoe was on the wrong foot. Why is it that we've had 13 days of Mr. Ready's involvement, allegedly not talking to the parties but now maybe talking to the parties? Get your story straight. Are we solving the problem, or are we wasting time?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm actually obliged to the member for pointing out a fundamental difference that distinguishes this side of the House from that side of the House.

It was an issue that was canvassed extensively during this year's past election campaign. We who sit on this side of the House do believe that education is an essential service. We do believe it is a fundamental right for students to be in the classroom and that that right shouldn't be held hostage to a labour dispute — no less a labour dispute that's being carried on in an illegal fashion. So that difference is there. It remains. And you know what? The public wasn't convinced by this member's argument in May. They're not convinced by it today.

J. Horgan: I certainly do, and the proof is always in the pudding. The public was duped in May, and we've had paralysis and chaos in the school system ever since.

My question is to the Minister of Labour. Is the former deputy of the Premier, Mr. Dobell, working on this file, or is he working on another file? Are they meeting with the parties? Are they preparing for some collective bargaining process in the future, or are we trying to get to the bottom of the issue?

This government has a responsibility and an obligation to tell the public — not cryptically. Is Mr. Ready working to solve the problem, the impasse, the dispute we're in today, or is he looking at something into the future? Are you going to try and get our kids back into classrooms today, or are you talking about something in the future? What is Mr. Dobell doing? What is Mr. Ready doing? Tell this House, so the public will have a clear understanding of that.

Hon. M. de Jong: Right. Well, look, out of fairness to his colleagues, the member should leave a few questions for some of his friends over there.

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm not sure what part of this exercise the hon. member is having difficulty with…

Hon. M. de Jong: …particularly when you consider that the terms of reference under which Mr. Ready is operating were laid before the public in this chamber on October 6. Those terms of reference stated that he would determine his own procedures, as he deems necessary and advisable, for the proper and efficient carrying out of his mandate. He's trying to fix a problem. And you know what? To fix that problem, these parties are going to have to learn to talk to one another. He is involved in that exercise.

The member himself, I think — and he may have chosen to forget this — not that long ago, just in September, spoke about that bargaining system and said on CFAX Radio on September 26: "But the process didn't work during the 1990s, Joe. You're absolutely right. The NDP was no better at this than the Liberals."

L. Krog: I will try and make this as simple as I can for the minister — very simple, a yes-or-no answer. Is Ken Dobell working on this file or not?

L. Krog: Mr. Ready's terms of reference prohibit looking at class size, composition, ratio or money, etc., — section 7(3) of the Public Education Labour Relations Act.

A couple of weeks ago we were told that the government wouldn't negotiate because it's illegal. Notwithstanding all of this, we are now in a situation where it appears there are negotiations going on. I guess the issue for me is — and I want to address this to the Attorney General: if it was illegal a couple of weeks ago, what's changed?

Hon. M. de Jong: I can only endeavour to assist the member by again referring him to material that was, in this chamber, laid before the public on October 6, which charged Mr. Ready with performing a specific task under the provisions of the Labour Code. He is performing those duties now. I'm glad he's performing the duties.

I, quite frankly, don't understand the angst that appears to exist on the opposition side of the chamber. On the one hand, we have the critic confirming on September 26 that we've got a broken bargaining process. Now we have someone, an eminent labour mediator, involved in trying to rebuild or construct something that will work better.

He's trying to engage the parties in that process, and he's got a very limited time in which to do his work. He's got to report out by December 31. I would have hoped that all of the members opposite on that side of the chamber would join with members on this side of the chamber in wishing Mr. Ready all of the assistance, and good wishes, because he's got a hell of a job ahead of him when you look at the history of this negotiation.

J. Kwan: I'd like to get a clear answer from the minister. Is Mr. Dobell looking at the issues that Mr. Ready

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Dobell is there to lend Mr. Ready whatever assistance he requires in fulfilling his duties under the terms of reference that the member is aware of.

J. Kwan: I think I actually hear the minister providing himself some wiggle room here. Is the minister saying that Mr. Dobell is assisting Mr. Ready and looking at issues that he was prohibited from looking at, or is he looking at the issues around class size, class composition and money in the current dispute?

Hon. M. de Jong: Back to the member's question. Look, we understand that the opposition takes great umbrage with the fact that we believe education is an essential service. We had that debate. The public spoke. We didn't, in fairness, actually think that we would be standing in this chamber having a debate or discussion with the opposition about the merits of obeying the law. That is not something I, quite frankly, anticipated, but here we are.

We asked Mr. Ready on October 6 to get involved in this exercise, to provide his guidance and assistance to the parties. That's what he is doing. He is deriving some assistance from Mr. Dobell and, quite frankly, from the deputy minister of Labour, Rick Connolly. That will continue. I hope these parties — one of them — can first of all see their way clear to abiding by the courts and obeying the law, and then get down to the very difficult but important business of rebuilding a broken bargaining process.

M. Karagianis: As fascinating as the continued storytelling is from the other side of the House, we're still not getting a clear answer to a very clear question that was asked by one of my colleagues. What are the terms of reference that Mr. Dobell is currently using — and Mr. Ready? Are they in fact reviewing class size, class composition and all of those things that were forbidden in the previous contract?

Hon. M. de Jong: It would take far too much time during this question period to read that. But I will, through the Clerks now, send the member a copy of the two pages which lay out, and have since October 6, the terms of reference by which Mr. Ready is operating.

D. Thorne: Apparently, since 2001 the Liberal government has changed the education system in a number of ways. While school board budgets have been frozen and school boards are not allowed to run a deficit, many unexpected and unanticipated downloaded costs have hit school boards in a negative fashion. Some of those costs we have mentioned before: pension increases, MSP premiums, unfunded salary increases, hydro and the move to the generally accepted accounting principles. The estimate on those costs across the province is $141 million.

Day after day we sit in this House. Questions are asked to the Education Minister, and we hear about the same increase of $150 million — day after day. I would like the Minister of Education to explain how this wonderful $150 million of new money in 2005 even begins to make up for the government's decision to shortchange school districts — $210 million in 2003 and $90 million in 2004.

Hon. S. Bond: The member opposite is absolutely right. This year and this year alone, the largest single increase in over a decade — $150 million. But it doesn't end there. Let's go back and actually look at what's happened since 2000-2001, as the member brought up. Let's look at the fact that the education budget in British Columbia exceeds $5 billion for the first time — a 10-percent increase, the largest budget ever in the history of British Columbia.

D. Thorne: Based on the facts that I just repeated — the $141 million in unanticipated costs to school boards — and from the minister's excited response to my question about funding, I would like her to explain why, if this $150 million is so wonderful and is enough money for the system, we do have classes with 40 students and others with multiple special needs students and no support.

Hon. S. Bond: Part of the reason that we are creating a round table in British Columbia is to talk about the issues of class size and composition. If the member opposite has class sizes that are in fact 40, I would ask her to please send me that class, and I'd be happy to go and have a look.

When we added $150 million this year alone, we looked at what school districts did with that, in fact. School districts have reduced class size. When I look at school district 57, for example, for the first time they've actually targeted dollars. We've given school boards autonomy to do that. They've reduced class sizes by two in every elementary school class from grades four to seven in the entire school district.

D. Routley: We hear often from the Education Minister the number that she has repeated just now. I as a

school trustee see the reality of Liberal underfunding in our classrooms, and I share that reality….

D. Routley: I share an acute awareness of that reality with the parents and the children of this province, who stand outside the schools and bemoan the fact that their kids don't have the learning conditions that ought to be provided by this government. I'd like to ask the Minister of Education, who seems to like to take credit for funding that isn't materialized in improved classroom conditions, why she won't face the realities of what her government's funding formula and her government's policies have done to our classrooms.

Hon. S. Bond: Since 2000-2001 — to the member opposite — we've added $460 million to B.C. public schools, including $153 million in special one-time grants. We've added $253 million for the next three years and $700 million for the 2005-2008 capital plan. We added $5 million to support literacy programs, $10 million for new textbooks and $10 million to help make school centres for community services, and the list goes on. In fact, let's make it perfectly clear. Education funding is at its highest level ever in the province.

D. Routley: Again, let's switch back to the reality. The reality is that the $10 million for school textbooks, put together with the amount spent already, was not half of what had been spent under the previous administration. Let's face facts. There were more schools built in the ten years previous to this government. They have closed 113. Before that, schools were being built regularly.

What matters is the effect of your policies and your funding in our classrooms and the effect well-known to students, well-known to teachers, well-known to school trustees and well-known to British Columbians who watch this debate and watch this minister try to elude her responsibility for those effects — that Liberal underfunding and downloading of costs have added up to exploding classroom deficits.

I would ask the Minister of Education or anyone in her ministry, for that matter: has there been an analysis of how these increased cost pressures like transportation, heating, salaries downloaded to school boards, the GAAP funding requirements that weren't funded, and on and on and on…? Has there been an analysis of what effect that has had in our classrooms?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, we value the role of school trustees in British Columbia. The members opposite don't hold the only seats that actually had people serve as trustees. Our side of the House, as well, has people who have served. We understand that the people in the best position to make decisions about how we serve our children are people at the school board level.

In fact, we have added funding to every school district in this province to allow school trustees to make the decisions necessary. The member's own school district — school district 79, Cowichan — has in fact received, out of the $150 million, over two million additional dollars — that, at a time when they have 183 fewer students.

H. Lali: During the 2001 election the Premier promised that he was going to pass merit employment legislation based strictly on merit and not on patronage. Diane Rabbani was the Deputy Minister of Management Services and past Merit Commissioner under the Liberals, hired in 2001. The Merit Commissioner was charged with ensuring neutrality and fairness in public sector hiring, but not when it comes to her husband or when it comes to the Premier's friends.

The Premier circumvented his own merit-based hiring policy in 2003 when Gary Cowan, who is the common-law husband…. He was appointed as the head of the Liberal's fast-track program for decisions on economic development with a salary of $15,000 per month.

My question is to the Minister of Economic Development. How does the husband of the Liberal's Merit Commissioner, who is entrusted with ensuring neutrality and fairness in public sector hiring, get hired by the Liberal government for this plum $360,000 position in an untendered direct-award contract?

Hon. C. Hansen: I would certainly recommend to the member that he do some research and that he doesn't just fly based on some rumours and some false innuendo that he may have picked up. In fact, there was a position that was posted. At the time, there was an executive search firm in Vancouver that was contracted to find an individual to serve in this capacity. After an independent process, the gentleman that the member talks about was selected as a short-list of one. What was determined at the time was that this was a position that was more appropriately set up in a contract rather than an FTE position within the ministry. So there was an objective process, it was independent, and it was in keeping with guidelines.

H. Lali: As a matter of fact, I have done my research, and the minister's explanation is just as lame today as it was in the newspaper article that appeared this morning.

I wonder if the minister knows the definition of "nepotism." You know, with the patronage appointments that this government has done over the last four

Gary Cowan was the husband of Diane Rabbani, who is the past Liberal Merit Commissioner entrusted with ensuring fairness and neutrality in the hiring process for the public service. Gary Cowan was the past vice-president of Marathon Realty Co. That's where the Premier was the head honcho at one time. So my question is to the Premier. Can the Premier tell this House…

H. Lali: …why a competition for a civil service posting was turned into a sweetheart contract for a former senior executive in the Premier's former realty company?

H. Lali: I would like to repeat that. Can the Premier tell this House why a competition for a civil service posting was turned into a sweetheart contract for one of his friends in his former realty company? Can the Premier tell this House how he can break his own promise and government policy and direct-order a sweetheart contract…

Hon. C. Hansen: I wish to assure the member that the selection of Mr. Cowan for this position was done as a result of an independent process. If the member had done his homework properly, he would actually recognize that Ms. Rabbani did not become the Merit Commissioner until after this particular process had taken place. She was not in that position at the time.

Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I didn't take this opportunity to point out some of the success that has happened in this government as a result of some of the work that Mr. Cowan and others have done around programs to stimulate economic development in British Columbia. Just yesterday we had the Royal Bank come out and actually acknowledge that this province has gone from the dismal decade of economic decline in the 1990s to a dynamic economy today in the 21st century.

We have seen this province go from a time in the 1990s when he was a government member and a government cabinet minister, where young British Columbians were fleeing this province to seek economic opportunity in Alberta and other parts of Canada and the world…. Today because of the work that has been done in the Ministry of Economic Development and other ministries throughout government, we're seeing those job opportunities come back to British Columbia once again.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call in this chamber committee stage of Bill 7 and in the Douglas Fir Room, Committee A, continued debate, for the information of members, on the estimates of the Ministry of Community Services.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 7; S. Hawkins in the chair.

N. Simons: Madam Chair, I appreciate your indulgence, this being a fairly new process for me.

I rise to propose an amendment to section 1. I have copies for the Clerk and a copy for the minister. I'm simply asking that section 1 be amended.

N. Simons: The purpose of this amendment clearly is to separate the geographical locations that are physically separated by the Strait of Georgia and other bodies of water from the North Island. Obviously, if the minister is amenable to this amendment, we would be looking at making the relevant changes throughout the act at another time.

The reason — if this is the right time to address the concerns that have been brought to me by the local governments…. I would just like to state that, as you know, the mayors of the major communities on the Sunshine Coast and Powell River — the mayor of Gibsons; the mayor of Sechelt; the regional district chair; the mayor of Powell River; the regional district chair in Powell River; the Chief of the Sechelt Nation, also the Sechelt Indian Government District; the municipality,

as well as other first nations in the area — all believe that the interests of the Powell River–Sunshine Coast community are not significantly similar in most regards to those interests of the residents of the North Island.

I don't mean to create a division where none exists in regards to the desire to take full advantage of the opportunity to have some good economic development take place. But I do believe there's a significant difference between those needs of the various communities in this regard, and for that reason I'm suggesting this amendment.

I believe the minister has met with some of the representatives from this area, but it's my duty to make sure that their interests are carefully debated — as a representative of their interests. I understand that we will work together ultimately.

The fear, I believe, of the municipal councils who've passed resolutions to the effect that they would like to be seen separately in this regard is of being pushed aside as the application.… We're talking about an area on Vancouver Island from Malahat all the way up to the top end of the Island, and a significant lack of interaction — economically, for the most part — between the lower Sunshine Coast and that area, notwithstanding the fact that on the Powell River side there's obviously a ferry to Comox.

I believe there has been some discussion with the minister in this regard. I haven't been privy to all of it. Suffice it to say that I believe the reasons are fairly evident — fairly self-evident, in fact — that the region of Powell River–Sunshine Coast is not, even in terms of electoral districts, associated with North Island. So I propose that amendment to section 1 of this bill.

We certainly had a very good meeting at UBCM, which the member attended along with mayors and representatives of regional government from the Sunshine Coast, during the UBCM convention in Vancouver and had an opportunity to discuss this proposal. As I indicated at that time, there is the power for the trust board itself to designate whatever subregions it would like to see within the overall north island–coast region. There is absolutely nothing to prevent that from happening. It can be done at the wishes of the trust board itself.

I appreciate where the member is coming from. I understand the dynamic that takes place on the Sunshine Coast and how they see themselves as an entity. But in fact, if you look at a lot of the economic development initiatives that have taken place…. The one that comes to mind is the circle tourism routes, where there is the encouragement for people to do the tourist route over to Nanaimo, up to Comox, over to Powell River and down the Sunshine Coast. It is an absolutely fabulous trip that I know a lot of tourists enjoy. I think we have to be careful to keep open the opportunities to look at economic opportunities that are broader than just one smaller region.

Another reason why I would not be willing to accept this amendment is that I do believe it would lead to other similar requests that would have the net effect of balkanizing the trust.

For example, I was born in Port Alberni. I have family who live in Ucluelet, and that whole area of the west coast of Vancouver Island is also an economic region unto itself in some definitions. Would the logical next step be that we carve that off into its own separate regional advisory committee? Again, if that's the wish of the trust board, they have the power to do that, but I don't think it would be appropriate for us to direct that from Victoria.

While I recognize the intent of the member's amendment, I believe there are other ways to accomplish that objective. If the board of the north island–coastal trust were to see fit to do that, they would have the power to do that.

N. Simons: My understanding is that there will be one representative, one mayor, on that first committee, and I believe he's the mayor of Gibsons. I'm just wondering. Within that context, does the minister…? I respect the fact that there are some mechanisms there in the process to, hopefully, come together on these issues, but can the minister tell me exactly what composition the regional advisory committee will have that will allow it to stand separately or how the trust board will allow that separation to occur within the context of the bill as it stands now?

Hon. C. Hansen: The board itself is made up by a formula that's set out in the legislation. I think the first thing I need to stress is that this is just the interim board. We've got to set some governance framework to allow this to go forward. What we didn't want to do was appoint the entire board from the provincial government. We want it to be driven by individuals who are duly elected at their municipal or regional government levels.

In the case of the regional advisory committee for the north island–coast, which is the regional advisory committee that would include the Sunshine Coast…. It actually includes several representatives of the Sunshine Coast, including the chair of the Powell River Regional District. It would include the chair of the Regional District of Sunshine Coast. It would include the mayor of Gibsons, the mayor of Sechelt and the Chief of the Sechelt Indian Government District. So there is representation on there.

Again, I do want to emphasize…. The way the legislation sets it up, this is for the interim boards, the interim advisory committees. If the board itself was to determine that they wanted to restructure this into some other form of governance, they have the power to do that under the way the legislation is worded.

N. Simons: I'd just like to thank the minister for his responses. That answers the questions.

J. Horgan: I appreciate the opportunity to have a chat with the minister about this important piece of legislation, and I'd like to go to the first line in section 1. That is the central south Island region.

I appreciate that it will be defined by regulation, but if you're not aware, minister, Malahat–Juan de Fuca is a semi-urban, semi-rural constituency. As I understand, in the press package that went out with this during the election campaign or just prior to it, the defining line for central south Island was the Malahat. Can you give me any comfort on exactly where that line would be drawn?

Hon. C. Hansen: So the boundary for this south Island region…. The southern boundary of that would be the Malahat. Everything north of the Malahat would be in this south Island region, and south of the Malahat is, in fact, outside of the trust area.

J. Horgan: The Malahat isn't an area; it's a highway and an indigenous people. I know that it will be defined by regulation, but is it going to be at Spectacle Lake? Is Shawnigan Lake included in that?

Before you go on, I might bring up also on the west coast of the Island, in my constituency, are the communities of Port Renfrew, Jordan River, Shirley, Otter Point and, for that matter, Sooke. I think it could be argued that those communities are probably closer to Bamfield in terms of the economic development opportunities, and are even linked by a gravel road now to Lake Cowichan. So I'll certainly take any guidance you have, minister, on where the line would be on the Malahat, but these west coast communities of Port Renfrew in particular, Otter Point and Shirley would certainly benefit from participation in this fund. I was wondering if there'd been any thought to that or where they would place in the region.

Hon. C. Hansen: The trust area includes all of Vancouver Island, with the exception of the capital regional district. So if you look at the economy of the capital regional district, it's been doing considerably well over the last little while. We see the unemployment rate in Victoria has been the lowest in many months. I'm not sure if it's actually every single month that the labour force survey has come, but certainly in most of the months over the last number of years the CRD areas had the lowest unemployment rate in the province. In fact, what we've seen with a significantly declining unemployment rate in the province generally is that the CRD actually has one of the most dynamic economies in all of Canada right now.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister for his comments, but within the CRD we have an electoral area representative, Eric Lund, and he currently represents these unincorporated areas within the CRD. I think an argument could be made. I don't know if we need to talk about amendments, but certainly if the minister could give me some assurance that, particularly with respect to Port Renfrew — which is, I believe, legally within the CRD…. In any realistic description, they don't spend a whole lot of time coming from Port Renfrew into Victoria to do commerce or to affect economic development.

The challenge, I think, with the definition is that those west coast communities linked by the West Coast Trail to Bamfield and by the circle route to Lake Cowichan perhaps may have more economic synergies going north and east than they would coming south to Victoria. Perhaps your officials might give some thought to that. Again, I guess if it's bounded by the CRD, that would mean that Shawnigan Lake, which is part of the Cowichan Valley Regional District, would be under this definition within the boundaries of the trust?

Hon. C. Hansen: As has happened with the northern development initiative, which was put in place by legislation a year ago…. What happened there was the northern development initiative board members came to us with some requests for amendments to some aspects of the previous legislation. As I've said many times in this discussion, it is not for the provincial government to dictate to these trusts. It's up to the trusts to actually manage their own affairs and the scope of their affairs, and if the trust of the north island–coastal initiative was, at some point in the future, to want to request an amendment to their boundaries, it's something that we would certainly be prepared to look at.

J. Horgan: I appreciate that the intent here is to create a trust that is accountable to those areas north of the Malahat, and I understand that the minister doesn't feel it's the province's responsibility to dictate boundaries. But we're in this place creating this law today, and once it's passed you will have authority and your staff will have authority through regulation to define the parameters of the trust in terms of its geographic area.

I think it would be irresponsible of me to let this opportunity pass without saying once again that Port Renfrew, Shirley, Otter Point and Jordan River — these communities within my constituency — would benefit greatly from the objectives of this bill. I believe they fit nicely into the objectives of this bill, but yet they're precluded because of a municipal boundary that may well change during the life of this parliament, with discussions of amalgamation in the lower Island and right through my constituency into the Cowichan Valley.

I'm a bit concerned that we leave this one opportunity to speak for the people of Port Renfrew, in particular. But I'd like to go back again to the Cowichan Valley Regional District. If all those areas north of the CRD are within the boundaries, would that then include Shawnigan Lake?

Hon. C. Hansen: The intent is to establish a trust that would include all of Vancouver Island with the exception of the capital regional district. If the boundaries of the capital regional district were to change at some point in the future, affecting any of the various communities that the member has mentioned, then we would certainly be willing to take a request from the initiative trust board to amend the boundaries to meet their needs. I think it's hypothetical for us to speculate on what may or may not happen to those boundaries in the future, and I believe that there is a mechanism in place for us to deal with that, should the boundaries change at some point.

J. Horgan: That's a fair comment from the minister. We don't want to be hypothetical. Can I get a commitment from the minister and his officials to meet with representatives from Port Renfrew, from Otter Point and from Shirley to discuss why they believe, and why I believe, that they are communities that, although they are within the CRD, are not benefiting from the same economic development that the minister referred to earlier? Would the minister commit to a meeting with representatives from my community, before the regulations are brought into force, to discuss why they are not able to participate in this fund?

Hon. C. Hansen: I'd certainly be willing to meet with them, but I would want to take advice from the board of the initiative trust itself. So if that was to be their goal, they should probably…. It may be a more beneficial use of their time to meet with the initiative trust board members to make that pitch, and if the board itself were then to come back to us with that recommendation, we would do our best to accommodate it.

J. Horgan: I don't want to belabour this — I know my colleagues have other questions — but if I understand the minister correctly, should these communities go to the board after the regulations come into force? Is it not the government that's setting the regulations after this law comes into force? Or is it the board?

Hon. C. Hansen: As I've said in the context of other discussions, it's the intent of government to set up a governance framework. It is not our intent to go in and tell the trust boards how to do their job or how to structure this. We've put in flexibility so that changes can be made in the future by the board without having to come back cap in hand to the provincial government from time to time, but if there are changes that do require the provincial government to act, we're prepared to consider those on the advice of the board.

As it stands now, it is the intention to establish boundaries for the north island–coastal trust that includes all of Vancouver Island except for areas that are currently in the capital regional district. If the board itself were to make a request of government, we would do our best to accommodate changes that they may wish to see happening.

J. Horgan: I understand clearly what the minister is saying, but I still think that cap in hand is going to be the order of the day for the people of Port Renfrew regardless of whether it's to the minister or to the board. I'm hopeful that as legislators here…. If I could get a commitment from you or your staff to sit down with representatives from those communities prior to the regulations coming into force, they'd have a better opportunity to make their case.

I know this is a sizeable sum of money, but Vancouver Island is a big place. I've lived here for a long time, and I know from my experience with the Columbia Basin Trust in the 1990s, that prescribed area was defined by watersheds and the course of the Columbia River, but there were communities on the other side of the hill that felt they had a legitimate reason to be participating in that trust.

I understand there are challenges and give-and-takes, but once you're in the tent and you look at the pot, as it were…. Inasmuch as I heard the words of the minister when he was speaking at second reading about the hope that there would be a broader view of that money, parochialism tends to strike fairly quickly when pies are being cut up.

I would prefer to have my communities have the opportunity to speak directly to the minister responsible for the bill, at this stage, rather than have to go to a board that's already entrenched and that is looking to the future to how they can spend that money in their community. If I could have a commitment to meet with some staff members and you, that would be terrific.

Hon. C. Hansen: We can certainly try to facilitate a meeting, but as the member knows, every change has other consequences. I think, as the member just alluded to in his comments, you can always move a boundary, and there's always one more community that's just not quite in, and at the end of the day, you would probably wind up with a region that would include the entire province of British Columbia. This would take us back to square one and really not accomplish the goals that we're trying to make — that's to target some money at regions of the province and to give them the decision-making power in terms of how moneys are allocated. But I'd certainly be willing to try to facilitate a meeting with representatives of those communities.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister for that. I will agree with him that, if you open up the door, everyone will try and get in. But I do invite the minister. I'd be delighted to drive out with him to Port Renfrew on a sunny day and see the breathtaking scenery out there and give him a clear understanding of the vast difference between that part of the CRD and any other part.

N. Simons: I'm just going to ask about another aspect of the definitions. It stood out to me when it said a qualified individual didn't include an MLA, but I know that the context of this bill doesn't really cast aspersions. But it doesn't include, for some reason, a Mem-

Hon. C. Hansen: Our desire here is to make sure that the role of the provincial government is clearly arm's length from the actual decisions that need to be made. The intent is to make sure that it is local and regional elected officials that make the decisions on how this money should be spent. We want to make it very clear that the provincial government's role is very limited. In the case of the advisory committees, the MLAs do have a role there. But when it comes to the actual board itself, we want to make it explicit that this is up to local and regional government to make ultimate decisions.

I can't think of a case where a Member of Parliament would be involved, but I think that this particular clause was put in there more around how we make it explicit that the provincial government doesn't have a direct role on the board itself.

N. Simons: Yeah, I sort of see your point. It just sort of strikes me as interesting that it isn't…. We have somebody who could potentially work thousands of miles away, yet be a representative on the board. I understand the minister's explanation. I think it wouldn't hurt to be in there.

S. Fraser: I'd like to thank government in this regard. The trust is, I know, a one-time setup, and it's spread over a fairly large area, but it's very much appreciated and very much needed in the region.

In part 2(2)(1), it's dealing with the establishment of the regional advisory committees. I'm going to propose the amendment, and I can speak to it after the amendment. That might be the best way to do it.

S. Fraser: In keeping with the government's New Relationship document and some of the words that I happen to agree with that came out of the throne speech and the budget speech, I believe that there is a lacking in the way this section is written now, because it does not include first nations. I know there is movement, rightly so, towards an inclusion of first nations in working on economic developments — not exclusively, but inclusively — with local communities.

I think this would be a very, very good fit with the New Relationship agreement and the statements and the good words that came out of the throne speech and the budget speech that followed.

Hon. C. Hansen: I agree with where the member is coming from on this, because we, too, are anxious that first nations be a part of how these funds may be allocated. I think, as I mentioned yesterday afternoon in the context of the northern development initiative, I can't think of a leader of a municipality or a regional government in British Columbia that would not want to have first nations involved to the fullest extent possible in economic development opportunities. There are several funds available for economic development, including the new first nations New Relationship fund of $100 million. It will obviously have an economic development component to it.

I think what we want to make very clear is that these initiative funds are to the benefit of first nations just as much as they are to the benefit of everybody else, and the first nations have every right to expect that their proposals will be considered by the trust board.

In the case of the regional advisory committees, there is, in fact…. With the case of the north island–coast development initiative…. The way it's set up there would, in fact, be a first nations representative appointed as a result of their position as the Chief of the Sechelt government. But I think what's probably even more important is the role on the initiative trust board itself where the ultimate decisions will be made.

On that, it is our intent as government…. We have five representatives that we will be appointing. We recognize that it is very important that first nations be represented on that board, so I can assure the member that there will be first nations representation among the government appointees to this trust.

S. Fraser: I appreciate the response from the minister. Just for clarity, though: does that mean this amendment would be potentially changed or accepted to include, specifically written in the bill, a representation from first nations, that that will be an addition? Sorry if I misunderstood.

Hon. C. Hansen: The initiative trust has the power and the flexibility to make those kinds of changes if they wish to, but in terms of setting up the initial regional advisory councils, we felt it was best based on a formula that identified municipal and local government representation which, in this particular case of the north island–coast regional advisory committee, would include a first nations representative as a result of that formula that's in place.

I don't believe the amendment is necessary because the trust board itself would have that flexibility and power to structure the regional advisory committees in that manner on a go-forward basis. The flexibility is there to do that. But while I don't believe this particular amendment is necessary, I can also assure the member

that it is our intent to make sure that first nations are represented on the trust board itself.

I don't believe the amendment is necessary. Therefore, I wouldn't support it, but I think the objective that the member is trying to achieve can be achieved through the board itself.

S. Fraser: I appreciate the minister's statements, again, and I would hope that such a position would be made available, but as the minister has indicated, it's not mandatory. We've seen other examples in the past where first nations have not been included in committees or in meaningful representation, and I believe the new relationship is supposed to get beyond that. I don't think it's just symbolic to have first nations explicitly placed, as the amendment would do.

I know the minister is probably aware, but the Columbia Basin Trust…. If I can just read from the mission statement…. This is a trust that's been in place, and it's been considered quite successful. It "supports efforts by the people of the basin to create a legacy of social, economic and environmental well-being and to achieve greater self-sufficiency for present and future generations." Then it goes on: "The Columbia Basin Trust's program model both reflects the diversity and history of the basin and allows many decisions to be made directly by the basin's residents."

This trust does include first nations representation, and it's been quite a successful model, I think. The Columbia Basin Trust has all the subregions within the trust area represented on the board of directors, and in addition, it has a representation from the tribal council. Another example is the BC-Alcan Northern Development Fund Act, which includes the Nechako-Kitimat development fund, and it, too, includes first nations in its decision-making structures.

So I appreciate where we're going with this, and I'm supportive of this trust, but I mean, with other examples out there that have been successful and successfully including first nations and that are so in keeping with the new relationship, it just seems like an opportunity that we should actually make to formalize.

If I can just add further to that. As the minister has indicated, he certainly has some experience on the west coast of Vancouver Island, and I had some experience in the creation of the Clayoquot Sound UNESCO biosphere reserve in the year 2000. That trust is set up explicitly with an equal representation between first nations and non–first nations. There are quite a number of examples that predated the new relationship document and the words of the throne speech and the budget speech, so to omit them formally from this trust seems not in keeping with that new relationship. I'm very hopeful for that new relationship. I'll leave that for now.

N. Simons: I'd just like to speak in favour of the amendment for a reason that my hon. friend has not stated already. My concern is that, in fact, there is a place for the Sechelt Indian government district as a municipality. However, further up the coast and across the Jervis Inlet, there's another band of equal size — it's closely in proximity to Powell River — that will not have legislated status on the regional advisory committee. That concerns me because I'm already concerned about the potential for conflict between the different regions' concerns. While I hope — and I'm hopeful, as the minister is — that we will be working together and finding solutions together, I'm concerned that we have…. There are two major first nations on the Powell River–Sunshine Coast area. One is Sechelt; one is Sliammon — equal size, both Coast Salish. One has the status on this committee, and one does not.

The situation is clearly different in every region, and I know the response before has been to say: "Well, if we do this here, we'll have to do it everywhere." But I think in terms of the Sunshine Coast and Powell River, it almost reinforces my concern on the earlier question about not being lumped in with the Island. Can the minister advise me and the residents of Powell River–Sunshine Coast, and particularly the first nations, how that can be explained?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think the member may have answered his own question, in that, if you were to take every single municipality on the north island–coast region, there's an argument for every one of them to be involved. If you took every single first nations community, there's an argument for every one of them to be involved. The answer is: we want them all involved.

I think when you come up to actually having a governance structure in place that is arm's length from government…. It's not something that we can manipulate. It's one that we have to put in place and allow for individuals, based on a prescribed formula, to form the governance bodies. Then, they in turn can make decisions.

This is an interim body. It's there initially for a six-month period, and then it's up to the trust board itself to establish the governance and the advisory committees going forward from there. So there's the flexibility to make that kind of change.

The other thing I'd like to point out is that another important role for the individual MLAs to play on their advisory committees is to make sure that they are bringing the concerns and the ideas and the proposals from first nations communities to the regional advisory committees and to make sure that those proposals from first nations are front and centre as the work of the advisory committee is done.

N. Simons: You can obviously count on me bringing forward the issues of the first nations' communities, but there are places where this might not happen. What will be the mechanism in place if first nations are not being heard?

Hon. C. Hansen: As I said earlier, we are committed to making sure that there is representation for first nations on the trust board itself among the five provin-

cial government appointees, and I would welcome suggestions from the member. If he has suggestions of first nations individuals that would be able to bring a first nations voice to the board, I would welcome those suggestions, and we would certainly consider those. I want to find the best people possible to make up the five provincial government representatives.

N. Simons: I just wanted to be on record as stating that I believe there's a definite role, there's a definite place in the bill for ensuring that it happens. The good graces of this government may not always carry the day, and I believe that in legislation we need to account for the possibilities of the future.

I see that it's very clearly stated…. We could say the exact same argument for the municipalities. We could say: "Well, as an MLA you're representing Gibsons and Sechelt and Powell River." That argument could work in every single respect. You have two formal governments that have elected bodies representing significant numbers of people who are excluded through legislation from taking part, and I don't think they're going to be satisfied with that explanation.

Hon. C. Hansen: I just want to make sure I correct the record. In the definition section that we approved already, there is a list of individuals who would be excluded from serving on the board itself, under the definition of qualified individuals. Those are the only restrictions. Certainly, not only is first nations representation not excluded, it is in fact welcomed, and I would heartily invite suggestions of potential candidates.

S. Fraser: Well, I'll echo the comments of my colleague from Powell River. I appreciate the fact that I think it's necessary that first nations are represented on the trust, but there's a very key role that the regional advisory committee plays. While it's great that the government has a desire and is urging these committees to have first nations representation…. I don't want the minister to speculate, but in a hypothetical situation, if the committee has the ability to choose a first nations representative, does that also not mean that committee has the ability to choose not to have a first nations representative?

Hon. C. Hansen: One of features of the board itself, going forward on a permanent basis, is the fact that the provincial government will be able to designate five individuals to serve on the board itself. As a government, we are making that commitment here and now. I've made it earlier in days prior, subsequent to this legislation being introduced — in fact, at the time the legislation was introduced on that very first day — and that is that among the five representatives that the provincial government will designate, there will be first nations representation. I invite suggestions as to who that might be.

S. Fraser: I appreciate the minister's comments, but the advisory committee…. It's not explicitly laid out. My amendment, the amendment proposed, would ensure that on the advisory committee there was, incorporated in the bill, first nations representation or tribal council representation as an advisory function, as part of the advisory committee.

As the minister knows, traditional knowledge of first nations is an important part of any inclusivity in decision-making and economic development on the Island, and certainly in the rest of the province and the rest of the country, and is a direction we should be encouraging. I think it can be done quite easily by simply including the section (d) as proposed in this amendment.

N. Simons: I just want to reiterate…. I'm sorry. I'm the third of three boys in my family, and I'm often worried about being overshadowed by larger communities. In this particular case, I believe that first nations in my communities will be worried about being overshadowed. There's a legislated mandate that the regional advisory committee be made up of the mayors and the regional districts of any community over 500. There is not a huge number of first nations communities in my riding, in my particular constituency, of over 500. There are two.

If you have set random…. Not randomly, excuse me. If you've picked the number 500 for any particular reason — I don't know — that's one thing. But perhaps there's a number that we could choose of a first nations community with a membership of a certain number that could also find representation. I believe that with the spirit of goodwill and the new relationship, one glance at this legislation will indicate that they're not in the regional advisory committee.

I think there's a way, and if you want my help in figuring how to do that, I can do that. I can offer my assistance in trying to figure out how we can manage that. I just want to say quite clearly that I believe this amendment would be appropriate so as to ensure that first nations do not feel…. They are not seen to be excluded.

Hon. C. Hansen: The board itself will have the obligation under the terms of this act to establish a strategic plan. It would certainly be my expectation, although we can't direct this, that the strategic plan would actually include deliberate initiatives to support first nations communities. The other thing, I just want to remind the member, is that he is a member of that regional advisory committee, as are his colleagues from the opposition benches and as are the government MLAs from these various regions. They serve on the regional advisory committee.

I would be astounded if this member did not feel that he was a worthy advocate for the interests and ambitions of the first nations communities in his riding.

S. Fraser: We'll move along with this. We have assurances of representation. I must say I do regret that

we can't have the assurance written in the bill as far as the advisory committees go. While my colleague and I and others in this room, as MLAs, will be doing our best to represent first nations on the advisory committee and first nations interests, it is not the same. And it is not in keeping with the new relationship, I believe. So we will certainly be working with that, and we will be working with government to try to effect, maybe, a more effective way to run this advisory committee.

C. Trevena: I have a question. It is on the composition again. I think it's just for some clarification. In section 3(b) it says that there will be "an opportunity for municipalities or regional districts within the region that have populations of less than 500 to be represented."

C. Trevena: I'll repeat my question. I apologize for that. I was looking at division sections.

Yes, there is under section 3(b) the statement that there is "an opportunity for municipalities or regional districts within the region that have populations of less than 500 to be represented on the regional advisory committee." I wanted some clarification of what that meant and possibly some indication of which municipalities we're talking about.

Hon. C. Hansen: Again, I think this speaks to some of the challenge that we had in trying to design a governance structure for a body that's going to be arm's length from the provincial government. We've got to get it going somehow. We've got to put a structure in place so that you have a body that can then make decisions. We've established the initial makeup, the initial governance structure, but we've also built in the flexibility going forward.

We recognize that small communities should have a voice, and we are putting in there the opportunity for the board itself to determine how that representation should be there going forward. So the flexibility is there. We're not prescribing how they do it. We just want to be able to flag that they need to cover that base as they look at what kind of a permanent governance structure would be desirable.

Would this be one representative for each community? So if there were four communities with fewer than 500 people, that would be four representatives? Or would it be one person representing all communities with fewer than 500?

Hon. C. Hansen: That would be up to them to make that decision. We won't be prescriptive. We won't give them any kind of direction in that regard. It's going to be up to them to make that decision when the time comes.

C. Trevena: Going back to the issue of the first nations involvement and mentioning that one possibility of getting first nations involved in this would be through the appointments…. Is this also being perceived as a way that small first nations bands could become involved so that they could have more voice in the structure?

Hon. C. Hansen: There is a requirement that they be elected officials. So in the case of the Sechelt aboriginal government, that does meet those qualifications, but that's part of the reason why we feel it's important to have a strong voice for first nations on the board itself. In terms of the regional advisory committees, we see those being comprised of elected officials from municipal and regional government.

C. Trevena: So elected officials, but not elected officials from band councils, not elected officials from within a band?

Hon. C. Hansen: Yes, and as the section states, it would include or be made up of individuals who are elected officials of municipalities or regional districts within that region. The flexibility is there, but they would have to meet that parameter. As I say, when it comes to the overall board itself, there is the flexibility to make sure that first nations are represented as a result of the five provincial government–designated individuals.

D. Routley: To the minister. Section 18, management of the regional account: will the moneys invested be taxable to the recipients?

C. Trevena: I wanted to ask about the five members who are going to be appointed. Yesterday the member from government benches for Nanaimo-Parksville was talking about somebody who has already been referred to as a possible member of the board. I may be a little behind on this, so please indulge me. I understood that

this bill was what's going to be setting up the board, so I wanted to get some clarification on how these five members are going to be appointed and what sort of areas are being looked at for those appointments.

Hon. C. Hansen: There have been no predeterminations as to who individuals should be, and I can tell the member quite frankly that we have not decided on any single member. To date I've only had one suggestion come to me, so I would welcome suggestions that the member may have for any nominees for these five particular appointees.

We do want to look at skill sets that would be useful to the board. Looking at the skills that some of the various elected officials will bring to the table…. Just as an example, I personally feel that there should be somebody on the board that would have some financial experience. There's going to be a need for an audit committee or a finance committee, and to have somebody that has some financial skills would be great.

After November 19 — after the dust has settled on municipal elections — if we recognize that one of the new mayors or regional district chairs has one of those qualifications, then the board may be well served in that capacity. My intent is to wait and see what happens with the municipal elections on November 19, and then ensure that the provincial government designations — the nominees — will flesh out some of the other skill sets that may be desirable on a board of this nature.

C. Trevena: Well, you have given me confidence in the respect that we're waiting until after November 19. I think that's very healthy. Will there be a commitment to make sure that these are from across the region? As my colleague from Malahat–Juan de Fuca and others have pointed out, we are talking about a very large area for these boards. Will there be that commitment, as well as the skill sets?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think the member touches on a challenge that governments always have when it comes to appointments, which is that you need…. We often refer to a matrix, where you've got certain skill sets, and then you've got regional things that you're looking for. You're looking for a balance of a whole bunch of competing interests, one of which is a balanced geographic representation. Certainly, all of those factors will come into play. I wouldn't want to give the member any sense that each of the five people is going to be from distinctly different parts of the region, because we do have to make sure that some of the other balancing objectives are met as well.

C. Trevena: We are, though, effectively talking about four people, because you made a commitment earlier that one of these five is likely to be first nations. So it's going to be four people from across the communities including, possibly, more first nations. Is the flexibility there for including more first nations here as well as others?

C. Trevena: I have a slightly separate question on this. How much ability will the board and the trust have in inviting advisers to work with them beyond the prescribed numbers here that have been set out?

N. Simons: I'm just curious as to whether there are any guidelines or regulations over the appointment of the CEO and the CFO in this, besides what's exactly here.

Hon. C. Hansen: As the explanatory notes in the legislation explain…. Let me give the short answer to the member's question. No, we would not be providing any additional direction on this. We do want to leave that up to the board at their discretion. We're not going to try to prescribe a process to them. As is noted in the explanatory notes, we are encouraging them to be guided by some of the best-practice publications, which are outlined in the explanatory notes to the legislation, but we are not giving any specific direction over and above what's actually in the text of the legislation.

C. Trevena: In the appointment of the CEO and the CFO, I wondered whether they will be appointed on a fixed salary scale, so all across the trust we're talking about the same salary.

C. Trevena: Will the salaries for the CEO, the CFO and the other administrative staff come from the $50 million that is there for the trust?

C. Trevena: Just maybe a point of clarification. That means all administrative costs for the running of the trust — including all salaries, office space and so on — come from that $50 million?

Hon. C. Hansen: Yes, it would come from the $50 million, plus whatever interest would be earned on the trust itself. In the case of the northern development initiative, they've taken some approaches that are actually trying to make…. One approach is to only spend the interest earned. There's another approach that is to

look at repayable, interest-free loans to the trust, which would extend the life of the trust.

There are different initiatives, and it's really in the power of the trust itself to determine how it would like to approach this particular initiative on the north island–coast region.

C. Trevena: It's about the strategic plan. I just really wanted to know how the minister envisages the time frame for the strategic plan if it is the duration of the trust itself — the time frame for drawing up the strategic plan.

Hon. C. Hansen: I knew there was a requirement that it be done within six months of the proclamation of the bill. I was actually just trying to quickly double-check whether that's in the legislation itself, which it is not. In fact, it will be in the regulation — a requirement that the first three-year strategic plan has to be put in place within six months of this act coming in. Sorry, if I said "royal assent," I was mistaken — within six months of this act being brought into force.

C. Trevena: It's going to take six months to get together to get the strategic plan for the trust, which is going to then run for approximately three years. Am I correct?

Hon. C. Hansen: There is no termination. There's no time frame in which the trust exists other than what we've built in, as we'll get to in one of the later sections — a provision that if the trust actually disburses all of its funds, then there's a sunset clause that winds up the affairs of the trust at that stage.

The first three-year strategic plan would be in place within six months. Then each subsequent year, they have to issue a new three-year plan. It will always be rolling forward an additional year each year, so there's always that future three-year vision for where the trust would like to go and where its priorities would be. There's no set time frame by which the trust would cease to exist.

C. Trevena: The annual updates. If they're every year, these are really seen as sort of a continuation. Or would it involve writing a new strategic plan for each time?

Hon. C. Hansen: Actually, I'm going to apologize to the member because I didn't catch her question. I was actually just getting a clarification on what I had said previously. In fact, in the legislation is the requirement that the strategic plan be prepared…. Let me just read the section here: "The directors must prepare (a) the first strategic plan required under subsection (1) on or before the earlier of (i) the date on which the North Island-Coast Development Initiative Trust makes any of the payments contemplated by section 20, and (ii) the first anniversary of the coming into force of this section."

When I said it was within six months of the coming into force of the act, I was mistaken. It is, in fact, within 12 months of the coming into force of that particular section. It is certainly our anticipation at this time, at least, that we would be bringing the act into force in its entirety, not section by section. But again, for those that will be the makeup of the first board, there may be an argument to bring in some sections at different stages. We would certainly receive that advice from them at the time. I apologize to the member for the need for that correction, and I would ask her to restate her next question.

C. Trevena: I apologize. That has given me, actually, a separate question. We're talking of directors coming together and spending up to a year building up their plan, their vision for how they would like the moneys to best be spent. Am I correct?

Hon. C. Hansen: Yes, but I also think there's an incentive for everybody involved with the trust to get this done as quickly as possible. I think it's in everybody's best interest that this money be put to work in these communities. As the member knows, in the North Island there's a need for these moneys to get put to work as soon as we can.

Our hope, obviously, is that it would take much less than the one year, but we did want to put some time frame on it.

C. Trevena: If you'll excuse me, I'm working this through. We have a pot of money — we have $50 million — that is a lot of money, and it's going to be very useful. I know in my constituency and in my colleagues' constituencies around the coast, there is a real need for this money. What concerns me, I think, is that the overriding need for moneys for specific projects will come before the strategy and vision is in place of how the community, the board and the trust see the economic development plan going.

I wanted to know, really, if there is any guidance on effectively waiting for the strategic plan before moneys are allocated or if the board will start allocating the money ahead of having written the strategic plan.

Hon. C. Hansen: I think it's stronger than just guidance because it's actually a requirement that the trust cannot be disbursing moneys for projects, other than their administration needs, until such time as they have that strategic plan in place.

I think that's an important element of this legislation. I think something that was requested, in the context of the northern development initiative, was the need to not just look at proposals one at a time but to

look at them in a broader context of what can really be accomplished by this particular trust initiative.

So there is a requirement that the strategic plan be in place and made public for everybody to read and inspect and to comment on. There is that requirement that the strategic plan be in place before funds are disbursed. While there is going to be some anxiety to get the moneys flowing to good projects, that will be all the more incentive to get the strategic plan done as quickly as possible.

C. Trevena: The question which you didn't hear before, minister, is on the updating of the plan. Is this going to be an annual update, or will the board be looking at more of a revision on lessons learned as the moneys are starting to be disbursed?

Hon. C. Hansen: The answer is yes, there is a requirement that a new strategic plan be put out each year. Whether that is just an update of the previous year or whether it's going to be a whole new rewrite of a strategic plan is really up to the board to decide. They do have that kind of flexibility. If they were to set out a three-year vision for that plan and then substantially alter it 12 months later, they're going to be held accountable by the residents of the region, who will have the opportunity to read these various reports as they are posted and made publicly available.

D. Routley: Will the funds be taxable income to those recipients and project recipients?

Hon. C. Hansen: There are rulings that prevent us from doing what the member is suggesting. It may be useful if I read this explanation, because it gives some of the technical background on this. There has been a concern expressed that the trust is not exempt from taxation. Interest earned on the funds is taxable, creating a significant expense. Exemption under paragraph 149(1)(d.3) of the federal Income Tax Act essentially contemplates an exemption for entities owned or controlled by the Crown — in this case it would be the province of British Columbia — or are agents of the Crown. It also contemplates municipal authorities.

For us to be able to set up a trust that is arm's length from the provincial government and not controlled by the provincial government, we do not have the power to make it tax-exempt. The only way that that can actually happen would be for them to make application through the federal government. For us to provide for any kind of a tax-exempt status would be one of the indicators that says that that is, in fact, an entity of the province of British Columbia, and that's not the intent of what we're trying to accomplish with these trusts.

D. Routley: We've heard discussion of first nations involvement. If there are projects either sponsored by first nations or participated in by first nations, with their tax-exempt status, would this be an advantage to the fund — directing funds to projects either with participants who are first nations or through first nations bodies?

Hon. C. Hansen: There is certainly nothing about these trusts that would make them an exception to funds that may be received by a first nations community for an economic development initiative. I think the same rules would apply. If there are employment opportunities provided on-reserve, then those obviously have a different tax status than employment opportunities provided off-reserve. But the same rules would apply with moneys flowing from this account as other sources of economic development funds for first nations communities.

N. Simons: Would there be a substantive difference between moneys administered by one of the municipalities — i.e., the Sechelt Indian band and the Sliammon Indian band? Is there a difference in how they would administer the funds in terms of their tax-exempt status?

Hon. C. Hansen: The tax-exempt status of first nations is really driven by federal legislation, so I can't give the member a specific answer. I'm not familiar with the federal statutes that would apply in this case.

N. Simons: I'm proposing an amendment to section 20. I believe it's possible that the minister is aware of this proposed amendment. I have copies here for whoever needs them.

The purpose of the amendment is to add to the list: "The purpose of the regional account." Under section 20(1)(i), I would add "(j) marine infrastructure" and, as well, "(k) community appurtenances." That was a direct response to a request by the two regional districts, four mayors and first nations in communities on the Sunshine Coast — so the coastal part of the North Island constituency there.

N. Simons: Marine infrastructure. Partly because many of the projects anticipated to be worked on with the assistance of this generous trust, including marine infrastructure, as it states, the wharves and the marinas and such, which may, in fact, already be covered under another subsection…. I may be reassured by that.

However, community appurtenances include such things as community facilities, which unfortunately are sadly lacking on the lower Sunshine Coast, and there is some hope among the elected representatives there that these will be part of that.

I would like to propose that amendment. I'm hoping that it will receive some thought and some consideration. I know that the elected officials there would be most appreciative.

Hon. C. Hansen: I would like to assure the member that the intent of the amendment can be achieved without the amendment being put in place. If we talk about marine infrastructure, you know, there are certainly opportunities, whether it's under transportation, whether it's under tourism, in some cases, or whether it's just under economic development, which can be pretty broad. We are not giving any kind of limited scope to how these various areas need to be defined. I think in the cases of both marine infrastructure and the community appurtenances that the member refers to, they can certainly be covered under these other areas. I would like to assure the member that the amendment he proposed is not required because it's otherwise achieved through the other wording.

N. Simons: To the minister: thank you for that response. I'm hoping the community will be reassured. I guess that's part of the problem of listing some so that others will feel that they're out of it. I would like just to make sure that harbours are included and community centres are included as potential recipients of funding.

C. Trevena: I know that there is the argument that this would be as part of economic development, but I think arts and culture does have a separate niche. I know already from my own constituency that there is a new theatre festival that's opened up, and our office has already been approached about how they can apply for funding through this trust, even though the trust isn't active yet. I know that there are other arts festivals that will be looking for this, as well as other small theatre groups and so on.

The needs of arts and culture, really, while they could be defined as economic, I think are much broader. There is much more to their requirements, helping in different aspects of the cultural development of communities. By saying that it is economic development, my concern is that these will be sidelined for also very important economic development projects. But if arts and culture is there as a separate heading, there will be the opportunity for them to be taken as a separate entity rather than just being seen as, "Well, we really do need this economic development one," whether it is a small fish processing plant in one community weighed against moneys for a theatre festival in another community. I think that by having a separate section for arts and culture, it will allow that area to have the recognition which I think it deserves for our communities.

Hon. C. Hansen: There was a similar amendment put forward in the context of the northern development initiative yesterday, and I think the same discussion applies here. I think it's important that we look at what the intent of these trusts is. The intent of these trusts is to provide financial resources to community leaders at the community and regional levels to help to direct, to guide, to structure the economic future. Arts and culture, I believe, has a very legitimate place in the context of economic development.

I had the pleasure just eight weeks ago of being in Telegraph Cove in the member's riding. It's a great little community where they've really celebrated some of the history and culture of Telegraph Cove. There was a parking lot full of tourists, and it was a great economic generator for that part of Vancouver Island.

I think what's here in the wording, as we have proposed for the legislation, is the opportunity to approve projects that relate to economic development. I believe that it is up to the board members themselves, to local and community leaders, to decide what constitutes economic development. If they make the determination that an arts-and-culture-related project fits into their definition of economic development, then they have all the power necessary to fund those kinds of initiatives.

I do not believe that I as the minister should be prescribing to the members of the board how they should define how arts and culture fits into economic development, because I think the right place for those decisions to be made is in the region by those officials that will serve on these boards.

C. Trevena: Yes, on the amendment. I understand that you don't want to give the boards prescription and to say that these are the specific areas. However, basically we have a prescribed list. We have forestry, transportation, tourism, mining, Olympic opportunities, small business, energy and agriculture, as well as economic development. If we're looking at this list, we could put all of these categories just under economic development. There is no need to break the list down in this way. So by giving that focus to the boards in this list and suggesting that these are the areas they may want to look at, including that subcategory of economic development which I think does envelope everything, I

think it's really only fair to include arts and culture as a separate category and to give the boards the flexibility, if they choose, to invest in that way. If they don't choose, that's fine, but we have already got a list which has given prescription to the boards.

Hon. C. Hansen: I think if the member looks at the various subject areas or industry areas, as she mentioned in her remarks, they are all economic development initiatives. They're all economic-focused, whether it's forestry, transportation, tourism, mining, Olympic opportunities, small business, energy and agriculture — all are economic development opportunities. The reason for adding economic development as a line unto itself is just to say that these are all areas that should be included. We're not saying that it's just these, that it's that narrow in scope. We wanted to broaden the scope to include other things.

I think in the member's second reading remarks she mentioned fisheries and aquaculture, which I think have a very legitimate role in terms of the future of the economic development of the province. I think those examples she mentioned in her second reading remarks are case in point as to why it's important that we not just list the initial list, because we may have forgotten one. It's important to give it a little bit broader scope to say "and anything else that's of an economic development nature."

In the case of arts and culture, it can fit in there, providing the proponents of a particular project can convince the board members that their particular arts-and-culture-related project fits into what the board's definition of economic development might be.

C. Trevena: So really economic development, subsection (g), is the catch-all. It's for fisheries. It's for aquaculture. It's for arts and culture. It's for anything we haven't listed anywhere else. If the board wants to look at it, they would be looking under subsection (g).

Hon. C. Hansen: Yes. The board has the flexibility to define these categories as they see fit.

N. Simons: I am concerned that the definition of arts and culture is quite subjective. It is very likely that all the boards will see it differently. I know the minister sees that this local decision-making is always a good thing. I don't think there's ever any doubt about what mining is. I don't think there's every any doubt about what forestry is. There's never any doubt about what tourism is.

Arts and culture. This is a list, (a) through (i) currently, which basically can mirror actual ministries themselves.

Tourism. Is part of tourism sport and the arts? Sport and the arts are not in here. Sport and the arts could be. There's no guarantee in this list. There's no guarantee that a board can't summarily dismiss a request from arts and culture by saying: "We don't see any economic benefit to the community." They don't have to have any justification, whereas if somebody comes with a mining proposal that would be an economic development initiative, there will necessarily be a reasoning on the record as to why a certain proposal will be turned down.

I'm quite sure that whatever happened in Telegraph Cove was a tourism event. It could also be that there are arts and cultural activities that are simply for the benefit of the communities themselves, within the communities. It's not always a tourism event. I really do think that people who work…. As a musician, myself, I do know that sometimes it's not always considered art, too. However, that's another issue altogether. I do think that it's a worthy amendment to this section.

N. Simons: Could I just ask how the Offence Act does not apply in this act, and if there's any reasoning that I just don't understand at first scan here?

Hon. C. Hansen: I will just read the explanatory notes on this. For everybody's edification, it refers to the…. Section 5 of the Offence Act does not apply. What section 5 of the Offence Act says is the following: "A person who contravenes an enactment by doing an act that it forbids, or omitting to do an act that it requires to be done, commits an offence against the enactment."

If this section were to apply to the act that's before us today, it is conceivable that the trust or a director of the trust, if having committed an offence against this act, would be subject to a criminal prosecution. Now, when we look at the requirements that are in this particular act, we're talking about the requirement to submit a strategic plan. We're talking about an annual report. I would argue that those are not the kinds of oversights that we would perhaps want to see trigger a criminal response.

The accountability is to the public, and so there is a requirement that these officials who are duly elected by their respective electorates…. If they don't put out the three-year strategic plan or if they don't put out their annual report in the time frames that are required, they're really going to be held accountable in a court of public opinion. We felt that in this context, that's a far more powerful accountability than holding them subject to what, in fact, could be a criminal process.

N. Simons: I'm wondering if this has anything to do with liability issues for members of the board or in any respect.

Hon. C. Hansen: Yes, it does. It prevents the members of the boards, including the advisory committees, of being charged with an offence as a result of the spe-

cific work of their…. It doesn't indemnify them, but it does prevent them from being charged in a criminal sense with respect to oversights of requirements in the legislation, which as I mentioned, are primarily those reporting requirements.

N. Simons: Those requirements also have a significant fiduciary obligation and could potentially run into some criminal act besides just the legislation discussing issues of annual report filing. So I'm just wondering if it has the potential of affecting criminal activity or the investigation of such.

Hon. C. Hansen: There is a requirement in this act that the trusts have an auditor duly appointed that would be required to abide by generally accepted accounting principles. So there is that extra level of oversight the public can count on to ensure that the work of the trust is aboveboard and that it is properly reported publicly for everyone to inspect.

N. Simons: In the unfortunate circumstance of the auditor coming back with evidence of questionable activity, it will not have an impact on whether or not a board member responsible would be subject to investigation?

Hon. C. Hansen: This section would not, for example, prevent somebody involved with the trust, whether it's a staff person or a board member who was, perhaps, responsible for misappropriation of funds…. They would still be held responsible for that, and they would be subject to charges under other legislation. The wording of this legislation or this particular section would in no way save them harmless in a situation like that.

N. Simons: "Rest assured that the fund itself will not be subject to penalty because of the offence of a board member," I guess is…?

Hon. C. Hansen: The legislation actually provides for the trust to be set up as a corporate entity. This corporate entity would be responsible in the same way that any other corporate entity would be.

N. Simons: I'm just wondering if the minister can explain who is going to be a member of this committee, and what is a…? I guess we know what a qualified individual is; it's not an MLA. Just a little explanation of what the committee is, in this respect, to review the act….

Hon. C. Hansen: The intent of this section is to provide for an independent review of the trust after a period of time. It's partly because this is an entity that will be outside of government — totally at arm's length from the province — that we need to set up a requirement for this review that, again, is driven from the legislation and is not something that gets directed from the provincial government, when the time comes.

This committee is set up of qualified individuals, and if you go back to the definition of qualified individuals, it includes an individual who is not an elected official of a municipality or regional district. In other words, the individuals who have served on the regional advisory committees and the members of the board itself who are drawn from municipal or regional governments cannot serve on this. It cannot be an employee of government. It cannot be a member of the board of directors of the initiative itself. It cannot be a member of a regional advisory committee. And finally, it cannot be a person who is a spouse, child, parent, etc. of the above.

The intent is to have a body that is independent and can take an independent review of the work of the trust, but the actual structure of that committee beyond that would be determined by the trust board itself.

N. Simons: My question is: does the minister, then, suggest that the fact that the committee is appointed by the directors makes it independent of the directors?

Hon. C. Hansen: It would be appointed by the committee. Again, it's a way to facilitate this body, and the effort, in terms of defining who is a qualified individual, is to ensure that there is a degree to which these individuals are arm's length from the board itself. There is a requirement that they publish their report, and there's also the requirement that they consult with a range of individuals in producing their report. We believe that will lead to the kind of independent, arm's-length review that can allow the public to really evaluate the success of the board, when that time comes.

N. Simons: My question is: would it be only if the trust has not been dissolved at that point? Is there any review? If, in fact, it does dissolve, is there any possibility for review of the act if the committee's been…?

Hon. C. Hansen: Yes, there would be that kind…. Well, it wouldn't be the same kind of a review, but there would still be a requirement for financial audits to be done in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. There would also be a requirement that the trust would produce its final reports and make those publicly available, as provided for in the act.

N. Simons: The audit and those other reviews are not a review of the act. I'm curious as to whether

there's a mechanism for a review of the act by any committee if the trust has been dissolved?

Hon. C. Hansen: If the trust was dissolved at that point, which means that they would have disbursed all of the funds in the account, I think the review of the act at that point would be somewhat redundant. There is certainly the opportunity, when that day comes — or if it comes, because there's the opportunity this could exist in perpetuity if they structured it that way….

If it came to the point where the trust was dissolved, there is always the opportunity that the government of the day, when that time comes, would have the opportunity to put in place a similar trust or to learn from the experience of the trust. That would be a decision that would be made by a provincial government when that time came.

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 7, North Island–Coast Development Initiative Trust Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 8; S. Hawkins in the chair.

N. Macdonald: I rise to propose an amendment to section 2 of Bill 8. Norm Macdonald to move in Committee of the Whole on Bill 8, intituled Southern Interior Development Initiative Trust, 2005, to amend as follows:

N. Macdonald: The tradition in the Kootenays is to work with first nations. The example I give you is the Columbia Basin Trust. The Columbia Basin Trust is something that has long standing and is well-respected within the Kootenays. Certainly, within that framework the first nations are there. The regional advisory committees are where proposals, as I understand it, are going to come forward from. It's an important group. It's a group that is going to generate the ideas. Participation from first nations, I'm sure, would be welcome.

Since it is such an important committee, then, and given the fact that during the throne speech there was a lot of talk about first nations and the important role that first nations need to take within all aspects of government, this is an appropriate amendment. It is one that definitely has a representative from the Kootenays who supports this initiative. It is an amendment that needs to be made. There has to be first nations participation, and it has to be there in a systematic way.

Hon. C. Hansen: A similar amendment was put forward with respect to the north island–coastal trust, and we had an extensive discussion when that legislation was before the House. At that time, I made it clear that it is the intention of government to make sure that among the five provincial government–designated board members, we are committed to making sure there are first nations individuals that will be chosen to serve on these boards for both the north island–coastal trust and the southern interior trust. There is currently first nations representation on the northern interior trust board, as it is constituted. So that commitment is there.

As I mentioned with the previous bill, the challenge we have is to set up an entity which is arm's length from government and to provide for an initial governance model for it. There is also an opportunity for the board themselves to look at how these bodies should be constituted going forward. There is flexibility there for the board to constitute these in a different manner if they see fit. In the meantime, we do welcome and respect the contribution that first nations individuals can make to the trust and the allocation of the funds of the trust, and we will be ensuring that that's provided for on the board itself, as opposed to on the regional advisory committees.

N. Macdonald: I'll make two points. First, just to emphasize, it is absolutely crucial that first nations are involved not only in the board but also within the regional advisory committee. That's what we're talking about here. It's the regional advisory committee. It is in

that place, as I understand it — and the minister can correct me if I'm wrong — that the proposals for spending will be made. That is the area where they're going to decide what proposals are put forward to the board, and it is in that place that you need first nations participation, if you are serious about having a first nations voice.

I'm asking you to reconsider and really think about what is being talked about here. Now, as I understand it, the minister has said that the committee can be changed. But in reading section 3, to me it seems restrictive. There's language around: "…the regional advisory committee must" and then it lists…. But in that list of what must be included, first nations is not included. It seems to me that you cannot change the structure with the bill as it is presently. So what I'm suggesting is that this amendment is something that will actually allow first nations to participate.

Like I say, in the Kootenays it is traditional that local government also include first nations and that we work together. In the structure that we have within the Columbia Basin Trust, we have included first nations, and the outcome of that is that some very good work has been able to be done with the Columbia Basin Trust. First nations have felt involved. They have taken leadership roles, and they have benefited from that model.

I am just asking members to please look at this amendment. It is something that I think really benefits this trust, this act. It will improve it. It is something that fits exactly with what was said in the throne speech — that first nations are important; they are going to be included. So there again…. I've said a few things, and I'm sure the minister has explanations that he wishes to share with me.

Hon. C. Hansen: It is certainly the government's intent that first nations communities are going to benefit from the moneys that are put into these trusts. The regional advisory committees have the ability to structure their affairs in a manner that they see fit so that they can receive submissions and proposals from all communities and groups.

As the member will know, with the way the regional advisory committees are structured, some communities will have direct representation and others won't, based on the size of the community. But we had to come up with a formula that allows us to put a governance structure in place to get these trusts going in a way that is arm's length from government and doesn't require the direction of government, or even the guidance of government. Because they must be independent and at arm's length.

By having the various municipal and regional representatives on the regional advisory committees, they will be able to bring input. They're not there to specifically advocate for their community; they're there because they bring a perspective to that committee. They would be expected to speak and bring the interests of the region, of all people that live in the region, to the deliberations of the advisory committee.

In addition, there are the individual members of the Legislative Assembly. The member himself will serve on this regional advisory committee, and I know for a fact that he will be a strong advocate for proposals that will be coming from first nations communities in his constituency, just as he's going to be a strong advocate for communities that may not otherwise have a representative sitting on the regional advisory committee.

N. Macdonald: Just more on that point. I'm sure that everyone will take a regional view. That's the experience from the Columbia Basin Trust, where people step onto the board and try to look beyond their parochial needs. It is, nevertheless, a fact that when we structured the Columbia Basin Trust, we very consciously included all types of governments, and I can tell you from the Kootenays — and I'm sure I'm speaking for the Okanagan as well — first nations participation has to be more than simply somebody else speaking for them. They have a structure. They have representatives that, like I say, have taken leadership roles within the Columbia Basin Trust.

I think it is appropriate — but more than appropriate, it's very, very important — that there specifically be first nations representatives as part of the structure for the regional advisory committee. That is something I think is easily done, it's appropriate, and it would strengthen what I think is an initiative that the whole region is going to appreciate and be enthusiastic about. This is a way of improving it.

Hon. C. Hansen: One of the criticisms that we hear from time to time is on who is actually on an advisory committee as opposed to who's on the ultimate decision-making body. The ultimate decision-making body in this context is the board of the trust itself. It is the board that actually gets to structure the three-year strategic plan, and it is the board that gets to make the ultimate determinations of allocations from the trust.

It is on that decision-making board that we are committed. We have committed right from the day when this legislation was first introduced to the House that we will ensure that there is a strong first nation voice or voices on the trust board itself.

N. Macdonald: I agree that the board is an important component and that first nations participation on that would be, of course, expected, and we'll look at the mechanisms that are in place to make sure there are first nations.

I nevertheless return to the point that proposals for spending will come out of this group, the regional advisory committee. That is where they are going to sit and make the decisions on what comes forward to the board. If you do not have systematic participation, something set up for first nations to participate at that level, then what you will end up with is a different set of proposals, I would put it to you, than if you had first nations.

As I've said before, this is an improvement. This is something that will make this a stronger act and something that will certainly be of importance to the Kootenays and, I would say, to the Okanagan region as well. I would just ask you to reconsider and to think of supporting that amendment, because it does strengthen it, and it is different than having participation on the board — significantly different.

Hon. C. Hansen: Certainly, I think all of us would like to make sure that first nation voices are heard at the regional advisory committee table. As that member is going to be on the regional advisory committee, he has the opportunity to be part of making that happen.

C. Evans: Did the minister have the opportunity to hear my remarks the other day about the difference between boards created by government appointment and by self-selection?

Hon. C. Hansen: I did try to review remarks from second reading. I have to admit to the member that I can't remember the concise details of what he's referring to.

C. Evans: I'll admit that sometimes what I say might be sort of boring. It's not the minister's fault for missing it. I'll just reiterate a little bit.

My experience with regional advisory groups is that they work hugely well when the citizen group that is being engaged has the opportunity to self-select their representation. They don't work well when the representation is selected by a third party, not themselves.

My friend's amendment, in part, is attempting to create a chair that first nations would fill themselves, rather than by selection or by advocate or by some third party choosing who would fill the chair. The minister's comments — while germane and understandable, and everybody gets it — don't answer the question of the paternalistic nature of selection by a third party and the adult method of selection by the group themselves.

Having an opportunity now to have listened to this argument again, can the minister see some structural difference between an appointment by virtue of a guaranteed seat self-selected by the group involved or an optional chair chosen by some third party that may or may not represent those people?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think the member is touching on one of the challenges that we had in putting this legislation together. We want to establish a governance structure that allows for it to be arm's length from government, that allows for a process — as opposed to government appointment — for the majority of the board members. A requirement for this is to be outside of the entity, that the majority of the board members cannot be appointed by the provincial government. That's why there are only five.

So it is a challenge. I guess the approach that we chose in the case of the northern development initiative, which is replicated with the other two trust initiatives, was to draw upon duly-elected officials from municipal and regional governments, and then there is the opportunity through the five provincial government appointees to ensure that other interests are represented. We've made the commitment that as a province, we will ensure that first nations representation is on the board itself as a result.

I take the member's point. It may be desirable in some cases to take a different approach. We chose this one. It may not be perfect, but we think it does allow for those interests to be represented and the assurance that there will be a first nations representative.

Again, first nations communities, if they were to come to us with a consensus name to sit on the overall board…. It would obviously be pretty compelling to the province as we try to choose the five provincial government nominees.

C. Evans: I'm sure that people will appreciate everything the minister just said on the record. Besides, it sounded like he half agreed with me. They've just gone as far as they could with the legislation and then had to stop short of a guaranteed seat.

Let me ask the minister this: if one of the MLAs…. We have a thing called the Kootenay caucus. We're trying to get along — Liberal and NDP. There are four of us. If we were willing as a group to reduce our representation by one — in other words, one MLA guaranteed not to sit there — would the minister, then, be willing in this instance to substitute a guaranteed seat for first nations?

Hon. C. Hansen: The legislation has been designed in a way that includes elected officials from municipal and regional government and also MLAs. I think it's incumbent upon all of us as MLAs, whether we're opposition or government members, to speak for all of our constituents whether they're first nations or otherwise. I certainly take that approach in my constituency, and I'm sure that the member in his role on that advisory committee will make certain that the interests of first nations communities are strongly advocated and have a prominent position when the proposals are being considered by those advisory committees.

C. Evans: I'd certainly never put words in the minister's mouth, so I'll tell you what I heard, and never mind what the minister said. I just heard the minister say no, that he would not consider replacing an MLA's seat — should an MLA offer to withdraw — with a guaranteed seat for first nations.

The minister goes on to say that he takes the approach in his constituency that he is advocate for everybody, and I am positive that that's true. However, we're not talking about advocacy; we're talking about representation. They are two completely different things. We advocate for all citizens, of course, but to

suggest to first nations, who have a legal standing in this province and in this country, that their right of representation is just like every other citizen is certainly not in keeping with the new relationship and isn't even in keeping, I think, with the old treaty relationship.

My question to the minister is: can the minister help me understand what the definition of "advocacy" is and what the definition of "representation" is so that I can understand why I'm asking about representation, he's answering in terms of advocacy, and I am intended to hear them as the same thing?

Hon. C. Hansen: In designing this legislation, we had to make some decisions around how these boards could be structured in a way that would allow the work to be done. We think we've accomplished that. It may not be perfect, but at least it allows for the structures to be put in place and the work of the trust to get underway. There is, as I mentioned, a commitment that government has made that first nations will be represented on the trust board itself. They will have a voice in the decisions that are made by the board and decisions that are made in terms of the allocation of funds, and they'll have a voice and a say in the development of the strategic plan that the boards are obligated to do.

C. Evans: I'm not making myself clear, so I'm going to go to the hypothetical. The minister knows there are first nations that are involved in treaty and those that aren't. There are those who recognize the sovereignty of the province and those who do not. There are first nations who tend to vote with the government side; there are first nations who tend to vote with the opposition side. There are first nations of different language groups all within the parameters that this bill is attempting to assist.

If we don't create a seat for them, self-selected by first nations, whoever goes to sit there will be interpreted as having achieved their seat by virtue of partisan politics, by virtue of treaty politics, by virtue of a relationship with someone else on the board. The only way that first nations will get to pick that person — and their position on treaty or how they vote will be irrelevant — is if they pick it themselves.

Could the minister tell me what we, as MLAs, are going to say in the region when first nations people say to us: "Who gets to sit here, and whose friend do we have to be in order to get that seat"?

Hon. C. Hansen: I welcome names from first nations communities. If there are individuals that first nations communities think would make a valuable contribution on these boards, as board members, to look at the broad interests of the region, or as board members to look at the specific first nations interests as they pertain to the work of the trust, I would welcome those names. Whether the member has suggestions for us of individuals who could provide that voice or whether first nations communities themselves have suggestions as to who could provide that voice for first nations on the trust board itself, I would welcome it.

C. Evans: I'm going to say this as nicely as I can, because I'm starting to get grumpy here, and I do not wish for this to be a personality thing or anything like that. When the minister suggests that I would submit names, the minister is suggesting that wonderful people would gain access to this committee by me knowing them. Or if they write to the minister and say, "Can I be on this committee?" the minister is suggesting that their ability to get on the committee is how good a letter it is.

That is not my understanding of democracy. That's my understanding of patronizing relationships. It's sort of like Turkey asking to be in with the European Union and the European Union saying: "Well, you can't really be in, but sometimes in terms of trade, when it suits our interests, we'll let you have an observer at the table. When we need your NATO bases, we'll let you have an observer at the table. If you want to have someone at the table, send us some names and we'll decide, but you can't be in." It's the way we related to first nations before the Nisga'a treaty or before the courts told us to do treaties.

It doesn't matter if the minister agrees with me. Our individual positions don't matter, but I would argue that this is an important question and more important than the minister and me. Would the minister consider withholding the bill…? No, let me ask the question differently. Has the minister engaged in a consultation process with first nations in southeastern British Columbia — Okanagan to the Alberta border — over this question?

Hon. C. Hansen: As I indicated earlier, we have not given specific consideration to who the five provincial government nominees should be for the board itself. It is my intent that the determination of those names would not be done until after the November 19 municipal elections, when we get a sense of the various skill sets that other members would be bringing to the work of the board. We will then be focusing in on who the five individuals should be, but we have made that commitment that there will be a strong first nations voice on the board, and we will be ensuring that as a result of the provincial government appointees.

C. Evans: I'm not sure I understood the minister's answer. Let me just put a slightly legalistic framework on it, because I understand, say, the mining or the logging industry. There is a requirement to get a cutblock for a consultation process, and courts have defined "consultation" as a real discussion — not veto, but a real discussion. Can the minister assure us that there has been what the courts would define as a real discussion about the nature of this bill with the first nations who live within the territory?

Hon. C. Hansen: One of the things that I think this government has made some significant progress on is

working with first nations communities on the various issues that they're facing. This legislative framework that we're putting in place today will in turn lead to consultations with regard to who an appropriate representative of first nations communities would be to serve on the trust board itself.

C. Evans: That was a really good answer — a direct answer. I think the minister just said: "We have to pass this bill, and then we'll have consultations." As the minister knows, that's exactly what the courts have said we are to no longer do in drilling for oil, catching fish, assigning timber, mining. We are not supposed to, anymore, in this building, pass the bill and then have consultation. We are supposed to have consultation and then pass the bill.

Can the minister say whether or not he's had discussions with his Attorney General or his legal advice about whether passing the bill before the consultation is even legal?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think the bottom line in terms of the section that we are considering today is with regard to the membership of the regional advisory committees. I'm not sure what more I can add to the amendment that was put forward by the opposition member, other than to say, as I already have said, that we are committed to ensuring that there is first nations representation on the board of the trust itself.

N. Macdonald: Coming back to that board, what I can't see is the link between the throne speech, where there was a lot of rhetoric around participation of first nations…. You would agree with me that this is an important group that is going to generate funding initiatives and things that are going to be considered by the board. I would once again separate the two and say that this is the area that is going to generate the ideas and is, therefore, a crucial area to have participation of first nations if we're sincere about having first nations participate in a way that is different than we have historically.

Certainly, when I was hearing the throne speech, that was the language that was used. I saw people who were here witnessing it and waiting to see, in practical terms, if something was going to flow from it or if it was simply rhetoric. Certainly, our tradition over hundreds of years has been to be more rhetorical than to actually deliver things in a true way.

This is an improvement. I know if I go back to the Kootenays and simply say, "Don't worry; I'll talk for you," that is not the same as first nations being within the group that is going to make these important decisions and having their own seat and speaking for their own community.

Once again, I tell you this is an improvement. This is my first time through the process, so what I'm assuming is that we are discussing this for more than simply as some sort of a procedure and that we're actually trying to improve it. What we have talked about is very clearly an improvement. As the representative from the area, I'm telling you that much of what you've done here is good work. This is a simple thing, but it would mean a lot, and it would make this work better. So what I'm asking members to do is to support this amendment.

N. Macdonald: I move in Committee of the Whole, on Bill 8, to amend as follows:

N. Macdonald: The purpose of the amendment is as follows. The minister had talked about the possibility that would exist for the regional advisory committees to change and add to the membership of the regional advisory committee. I think that if it were possible, members from the Kootenays and the Okanagan would add first nations representation. However, with section 3, there is provision that restricts them from making that decision.

What this amendment speaks to…. It creates the possibility of this group deciding that first nations participation should take place. By adding to the listed people that are eligible for membership in the regional advisory committee, it holds out the possibility. What I would say is that given the choice, people from the Kootenays, who have a tradition of including first nations and have done so with the Columbia Basin Trust…. They would choose, I believe, to have the first nations participation in that very important initial group.

Recognizing and appreciating that the minister will have first nations participation on the board, we believe it's also important to have the possibility, in this case, of having first nations participation in this regional advisory committee. Therefore, I would ask the minister to look at the suggestion here and to include the amendment as part of a way of strengthening this bill.

Hon. C. Hansen: This is an identical amendment to one that was put forward by one of the member's colleagues with regard to the north island–coast trust. I think we've had a thorough discussion of the fact that we are very anxious to have a first nations voice on the trust board itself, which is the board that's going to set out the strategic plan for the trust and that ultimately makes the decisions on funds that will be allocated from the trust.

I believe, through that mechanism, that we will have strong representation from first nations. It's certainly a commitment that we as a government are making, and we will make sure that it's delivered on through that mechanism. Therefore, I do not believe that this amendment is necessary at this time.

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 8, Southern Interior Development Initiative Trust Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Abbott: We'd like to have a brief recess here if we could. Then we'll be calling the next bill, the committee stage of the Forests and Range Statutes Amendment Act, after the brief recess.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 10; J. Nuraney in the chair.

B. Simpson: There are a lot of dates in this act and lots of retroactivity. This first section has one of the first retroactive effect clauses. I'm wondering if the minister could explain the need for retroactivity in here and in particular, in this case, in section 1.

Hon. R. Coleman: Before I start, I think I'll introduce my staff. On my far left is Michael Leeson. He's from the Ministry of Forests and Range. Cassandra Mann, who is legislation and policy forester, is also in the Ministry of Forests and Range. On my right is Richard Grieve. Richard is the manager of policy development and legislation.

Under this act, this basically dates back to the Wildfire Act. The act provides for compliance and enforcement powers related to matters such as inspection, searches, remediation orders, administration penalties and offences.

The amendment adds a new stand-alone provision and contains a definition of the act as part of part 6. This will ensure that the definition applies to all of part 6 and is in keeping with the convention that definitions that apply to the entire part should be in a separate

section at the beginning of the part. The existing definition section 59(1) is repealed by section 3 of this bill.

B. Simpson: Welcome, to the staff. In light of last night's debate, let me reinforce the fact that I honour and respect the Forest Service and all the work that you do. I appreciate that you're here and look forward to this discussion on this point.

The retroactivity on this clause to March 31, 2005, wasn't explained, I think, under the acts portion. Is it because you have to blend these acts under that definition that you then have to go retroactive back to the 31st of March, 2005? Are those two clauses connected in that way, and that's why we've got the first retroactive clause in this section?

Hon. R. Coleman: That's why legislative drafters exist. Basically, this section is improving it to make it clear — to some of us, I suppose. March 31 is the date that the Wildfire Act came into force, and it's taking it back to that date because prior to that, the reference to acts would have been in other pieces of legislation. So this is taking the definition and placing it in the Wildfire Act.

B. Simpson: That's helpful, because my next question was whether or not that was somebody's birthday or something, and we just wanted to celebrate it in the act. But the minister has clarified that.

Under the definition of the acts, there's a reference made here a number of times to the Wildfire Act. But if I understand this correctly, this section is a section of the Forest and Range Practices Act. In the clarification of the definition of "the acts," it appears to me…. Again, you have to bear with me because I'm learning this process, and I may not be seeing it right. It appears it's naming the Forest Act and the Range Act, and I don't see the Wildfire Act anywhere in here. So if you can clarify for me — because you've referenced the Wildfire Act, and that's why that date is there — what's going on with the definition clarity and where the Wildfire Act fits into that.

Hon. R. Coleman: The Forest and Range Practices Act came in force in 2002 to 2004. It still retained in it, under the Forest Practices Code, the provisions related to fire. What happened is that when the Wildfire Act came into place in 2005, it repealed the Forest Practices Code as being the enforcement provision for fire. Therefore, it was removed from this. The acts were changed to have the Forest and Range Practices Act, the Forest Act and the Range Act. The code wasn't required to be in this section any longer, because it's now contained in the Wildfire Act.

B. Simpson: That's helpful. If I understand correctly, because there's no word "repeal" in here, it's that kind of correction. It's a definition. If I understand correctly, we now have a stand-alone Wildfire Act. That's where all the regulations exist for dealing with fire. You don't need it in this, so you've cleaned that up as to what "acts" means in this case.

B. Simpson: The second thing is that again, we've got a Forest Act in here. I'm aware — and this is probably showing my own ignorance — that we do have a stand-alone Range Act. We have a stand-alone forest and range act. Which Forest Act, then, is this definition of "acts" referring to? Is there also a separate, stand-alone Forest Act?

Hon. R. Coleman: That's because the compliance portions of the Forest Act and the Range Act fall under the Forest and Range Practices Act. Basically, before, it fell under the code. It's always been the case that the enforcement provisions for those two acts were in another act.

B. Simpson: I guess I'm not clear, then. Again, I know we're talking to an amendment here to the Forest and Range Practices Act. The government had stipulated that part of its agenda, particularly in the forest sector, is reducing red tape, streamlining and things like that. If I understand it correctly now, we have a Forest Act, we have a Range Act, and we have a Forest and Range Practices Act. There's no streamlining in that.

What's the date of the Forest Act? My understanding is that the Range Act was updated and is relatively new. What was the date of the Forest Act that's referenced in this part?

Hon. R. Coleman: The Forest Act and the Range Act, in some form or another, have been in place in British Columbia since 1978. If you were looking for the structure to go for a grant on a Crown tenure or for a forest tenure or that sort of thing, you would look to either the Forest Act or the Range Act as to the qualifications and the process.

The Forest and Range Practices Act is the enforcement and management side above that. Before that, it was the Forest Practices Code. When the first two acts were amended three years ago, I think the Range Act in particular, there were a number of streamlining provisions put in place then. The Forest and Range Practices Act has replaced the code as the provision where you would go for the practices on the land base. That's how we have — with those three acts, or components of — managed forestry since 1978.

B. Simpson: Hopefully, this will be a good lesson for both of us, as the minister gets into the policy side of his own portfolio and as I learn it as well.

That was very helpful. My understanding, if it's correct, is that the Range Act was recently updated. In

fact, I think it was in the spring of this year. Was the Forest Act also updated as part of the process? Is there a more current version of that, or is it still the version that goes back to 1978?

Hon. R. Coleman: Under the forest revitalization plan suite of amendments that were done in 2003, there were a number of amendments made to the Forest Act. But ostensibly it's still the same act.

B. Simpson: Thank you for that. There's another act, and you've mentioned that act. I'm curious why that isn't rolled in here as well, because the Forestry Revitalization Act is also a stand-alone act. Are there no implications from that act that would be rolled into here from a practices perspective and, therefore, it needs to be named under the definition of acts as well?

Hon. R. Coleman: It doesn't need to be named in this act, because there are no contraventions in it. It's about the takeback, and it wasn't about the operation of forests.

Hon. G. Abbott: Mr. Chair, noting the hour, I move the committee recess until 6:35 p.m.

B. Simpson: Since this is the first section that's got substantive changes in it with respect to the Forest and Range Practices Act, I'd like to know if I can be told how many amendments we have made to that act since it came into play.

Hon. R. Coleman: Madam Chair, my understanding is that there were amendments made in 2003 and 2004 and now in 2005.

This particular amendment in section 2 that we're dealing with now deals with the retroactive ability that we need to put into the act under all the sections that we're changing under section 58(2). Those are so we can retroactively ensure that the compliance and enforcement provisions of the Forest and Range Practices Act can be used to investigate matters under the old Forest Practices Code that come to light — which occurred before January 30, 2004, when that act was repealed — and it allows us, basically, to take enforcement action retroactively.

The second part of this particular section is that if the penalties have changed between the old Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act and the Forest and Range Practices Act under the penalty section, the lower penalty or the fine that is in the Forest and Range Practices Act would apply relative to the contravention, if it took place under the old code.

B. Simpson: Thank you for that. So there were amendments in those years, but my question was more explicit. How many actual amendments were made to the Forest and Range Practices Act?

Hon. R. Coleman: We don't have that information, because we're debating the sections of a particular act, but we will get that information in writing to the member as quickly as possible.

B. Simpson: Thank you to the minister. I have the Revised Statutes in front of me, and I know that this particular piece of legislation has seven pages of changes to it. The Fisheries Act has half a page. What's sort of a normative number of adjustments that you'd have to make to an act? Is it within the normative range that we've got seven pages already, and this is a fairly new act?

Hon. R. Coleman: This might help the member. Of course I didn't do the legislation back when the legislation was brought to the House, but when it was introduced into the House the first time, the House was told that the act was being presented without its consequential amendments and without its transition provisions, and that they were going to be brought….

So the larger portion of the first amendments that were made to the act were, basically, foreshadowed in the House and were made in the following spring.

B. Simpson: Again, as part of my education on this, so I understand the context for these changes, I note that in the statutes, there's a whole section under the Forest and Range Practices Act which is entitled "Changes not in force." Then there's a whole other section that says "Changes in force." So that I understand and can move into some of the meat of this, what's the difference between those two, and why wouldn't this amendment…? Or do you need an amendment to bring things into force that are not in force? Could you help me with a little bit of clarity around that?

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm going to answer the question, but at the same time, I'm going to offer the member an opportunity for a briefing on the history of the act, maybe with the legislative drafters, etc. When you take on a large new piece of legislation, there's quite an evolution that takes place. I'm familiar with that as I've been through it in the past.

My staff think you're looking at the loose-leaf portion of the act, which may give you an indication that there's less in force than there is. Basically, almost all of the legislation is in force with some minor exceptions which they would be prepared to go over with you.

When we deposited the act in 2003, the next process was an extensive body of work called making the regulations, which have to come through cabinet. When that happens, sometimes — and this is what happened in this case — legislative counsel, which is a…. There are two groups there. One is the drafters and the people that write legislation and review it by law. Then there's the legislative review committee that goes through it. As they came to do the suite of regulations, they made some recommendations of some amendments to the act that they felt would streamline the ability to do the regulations. While doing that, they were also consulting with industry, which brought some changes to the regulatory side and some minor amendments to the legislation.

I know I found on other acts that I've done that oftentimes the delivery has to be adjusted by legislation because of how counsel may have originally interpreted the law. And then when the act comes through, they say: "Well, actually, we can adjust the law now, because maybe we were a little bit too hard on that one particular section and may have some adaptation."

That can happen oftentimes in legislation. I suspect it happened here. I know that in some other acts — I just saw some stuff come through today — I asked for changes two years ago which I was told couldn't be made and now are able to be made. I think it's just the evolution of law on one side, but more so, when you do new legislation, you do get this…. When you go to the regulatory side, sometimes you have to change the legislation to adapt to the regulations as well.

B. Simpson: That's helpful, and the briefing would be appreciated. This is certainly one side I have no experience in — the policy formulation side. I think that would be helpful, and I appreciate that. Thank you.

Into the substance of this, then, I'm wondering how many times then…. Let me back up. If I understand correctly, the enforcement component was alluded to in the Forest and Range Practices Act but then brought in later on. Let me be clear that that's what I understood the minister to say — that when it was first tabled, the enforcement and compliance component of it was spoken to and therefore had to come in as amendments. A couple of those have been done already, and this is a further amendment on the enforcement and compliance.

Hon. R. Coleman: In the fall of 2003 the bill was introduced with all its enforcement provisions included. However, that didn't mean the act was actually in place to do the work. In the spring of 2003 the consequential and transitional amendments were made, as well as some housekeeping amendments. The regs were written from 2003 into 2004, and the act came into force in January 2004.

As we did the act and it came through in 2004, my understanding is that the Attorney General's office, on the enforcement provisions of the act, had some concerns about their enforceability as far as them being able to defend it or have a successful prosecution on a contravention. Their recommendation was to clean up the language in and around that and to clarify in legislation the retroactivity to the Forest Practices Code, so any contraventions prior to….

As the member will know, sometimes old Forest Practices Code violations could come through five years later. To make sure the language was cleared up so that we would be able to be successful on any prosecutions that came along…. That's the language that's here today, and the change is to the act to allow for that to happen at the recommendation of the AG and leg. counsel.

There's a term the minister used that I'd like to clarify so that I understand this a bit better — consequential amendments versus housekeeping amendments. What would you couch this as — a housekeeping or a consequential amendment to the act?

Hon. R. Coleman: I thought I knew the definition of the first, and I wanted to clarify the definition of the second. Consequential amendments are this: changes that are necessary as a result of a piece of legislation coming into force. For instance, wherever in any legislation in British Columbia it formerly referred to the Forest Practices Code, the consequential amendment would then be that all the acts would be changed to refer to this act. That's a consequential amendment. Oftentimes that's more the harmonizing with other legislation than anything else.

Housekeeping is where you're doing minor changes and language changes that are sometimes faulty as a result of a legal review of the act, or whatever the case may be, and not changing policy. This would be termed as being a housekeeping change because it doesn't change policy. It just clarifies what we said we were already going to do, and that is basically to be able to prosecute people for contraventions under acts after they were repealed.

Are those terms that are recognized, standard defined terms for amendments, or are those terms that the Ministry of Forests uses? Would I have an expectation that those terms would be used for anytime we have an amendment coming forth?

Hon. R. Coleman: I've been here nine and a half years — five years in opposition, four and a half years in government — and the terms were used in legislation when I was a critic questioning legislation and the same as when presenting legislation. And it's every ministry, so they're standardized terms.

B. Simpson: The minister referred to the enforceability components and some struggles that the Attorney General had with enforceability. I would like to know, again — because this is an enforcement and

compliance issue, and I do want to get into some of the substantive clauses here — what the Attorney General's concerns were at the time and why, when you have a fully formed policy ready to come into the House, as I understand it, you then have the Attorney General saying: "Hang on a second. This may not be enforceable. There may be some things we have to do." What's the due process that prevents that and could possibly then prevent future housekeeping amendments like this one or even consequential amendments around something as important as this?

Hon. R. Coleman: Let me first clarify. It wasn't a struggle. There was no struggle with the Attorney General's department or anything. The process for the legislation is…. These very interesting folks that actually like to write law take what is basically a request for legislation from a ministry and start to try and write the law. They author this stuff. They're very, very good at it, and they're very unique in what they do. The lawyers in the Attorney General's office aren't involved in the writing of the law. It is actually the legislative drafters.

It then goes from there to where it goes through a legislative review committee, which is a committee made up of a number of members of the House who sit there with a chair. They go through it clause by clause. They don't deal with the policy side of the legislation, just the language side of the legislation.

The bill then goes into a final draft and is brought forward to the House. Sometimes the debates will pick up on something that might be interesting or need to be changed, and that's happened before. It did happen when I was doing the Residential Tenancy Act, where we changed some language under the act as the House went through it.

Then what happens is that as you're evolving through this, sometimes there would be case law that can change because of results of cases in the courts, oftentimes in as much as two years that it takes to get a piece of legislation ready. That has an effect on it after it comes through the House. Then you get into a situation where you have an enforcement provision which says that we want to enforce contraventions — in this case under the old Forest Practices Code, an act that has now been repealed and replaced. The AG gives advice that says: "Well, I'd like you to clean that up, because it would make it more enforceable if you changed the language so that it was clearer to the courts if I step in front of the courts."

That happened in this particular case. Frankly, that's why we're making the change — to clean it up because of the discussions that we had. Because of the uncertainty that exists, an amendment is desirable. Sometimes the AG will say: "I have some uncertainty under the provisions of this act under section X, because it might be coming relevant now, that I might not be able to use it. My recommendation would be that you would amend the language to meet what I think will be the criteria for success if we want to go after a contravention."

B. Simpson: Were we in a position, then, where we had two parallel regulatory regimes — Forest Practices Code, Forest and Range Practices Act…. You talked about uncertainty, and I'm curious if that uncertainty applies to the people who had to live under this act, as well, during this time period.

Hon. R. Coleman: Actually, this never affected any licensees or any of the land-based operations of the ministry. It had no effect on that. The original drafter of the legislation relied on the provisions of the Interpretation Act when they were drafting the legislation. It was felt, as we looked through the law, that the way that the transition was done was okay but that it was a bit muddy. The language wasn't clear enough. So, in order to make the language clearer, the recommendation was to amend this section and make the language clearer.

This is a cleanup of language to make it clearer that under the under the Forest and Range Practices Act of British Columbia, we will go back if necessary. We have the power to enforce and charge people who may have made contraventions under the old Forest Practices Code. That was there before, but it was felt — advice by legal counsel — that we needed to clarify it and make it stronger so they would be successful if we ever had to use it.

B. Simpson: The minister refers to another act now, the Interpretation Act. How does that act articulate with this one? What is that act?

Hon. R. Coleman: I don't think I want to get into a debate on the Interpretation Act. The Interpretation Act is a very important piece of legislation in government. It has rules for when you're drafting legislation and changing from one law to another. It's like a guide, I guess you could say. It's almost like a road map, to some degree, on both repeal and repeal and replacement of acts within government. It's invigorating reading that I might recommend to the member if he's having trouble sleeping on a particular evening.

Usually when you do that with legislation, unless it's a large, complicated piece of legislation…. The Interpretation Act — for a draft it works fine. Sometimes you need to go back and codify some things, which is what we're doing here. We're basically putting it in clearer and making it a stronger basis of law for us to do enforcement under the old act.

B. Simpson: I wouldn't want to have to debate the Interpretation Act either. I think that probably, on the broad scheme of things, we'll be giving some people some opportunities to fall asleep if they're watching this on video as well.

B. Simpson: I ask my family to watch, because I haven't been home for so long I thought it was a good way for them to see me.

If the minister would bear with me so that I have clarity on this. The minister points out something that's very important: sometimes you don't get back to the land base until years after, and therefore you're having to impose penalties well after the fact. If I was a tenure holder or an operator on the land base with legal obligations to that land base and I had committed a contravention prior to January 31, 2004, which this is backdating to, what act would I then be contravening? And under which act would compliance and enforcement be implied?

Hon. R. Coleman: The contravention would be under the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act — the provisions of it when it was in force. The enforcement and penalties side would come under the Forest and Range Practices Act, so that would take place. That's what this does. It allows us to enforce the old code and still lay charges under what contraventions may have existed under the old code.

I'm going to try and anticipate the member's next question. There is a statute of limitations, which is three years subsequent to the offence being caught. So if it happened ten years ago and hasn't been reported or whatever, it's three years after we're aware of the offence that there's a statute of limitations.

B. Simpson: That was quite proactive of you, except I didn't have that question in my head. It was a good question. It's quite helpful.

Is there a substantive difference between the enforcement and compliance regulations in the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act and those under the Forest and Range Practices Act? Was there a substantive change made between those two acts for somebody who is found in contravention?

Hon. R. Coleman: No. There is substantially no difference between the two. If anything, we probably clarified some things for licensees in the language so that they have a better understanding of when they might be committing offences. But, no, there have been no substantive changes.

B. Simpson: If that's the case, if there's no substantive difference between the two, then it appears to me that there's an overlapping of the two acts here. If I was a person working on the land base, I'd like crystal clarity on which one I'm under. This one seems, because it's rolling these two together, backdating the Forest Practices Code…. If the compliance or penalties are not different, then why even bother having to clean this up?

Hon. R. Coleman: There is no overlap. One act was repealed. The other one came into force. If there's any confusion for the member, it's that prior to this act coming into place, people were governed by a law on the land base called the Forest Practices Code. We still want to be able to deal with offences under the old Forest Practices Code, so we had to put in legislation where we have the ability to do that. We did that when we did the original act. So there's been no loss of opportunity there and no confusion. There's no overlap.

But in addition to that, we're clarifying this so that it's stronger for us to take our actions and be successful in court because of a recommendation on the language.

B. Simpson: That's helpful. I feel a little bit like Colombo here — Peter Falk. Remember that? Aw, shucks, Mr. Minister.

That helps me with the first two bullets: the retroactive effect and then the specifications under the act. Now, the third bullet under section 2 says that it is also making sure that the maximum administrative penalties and maximum fines and periods of imprisonment are as provided under the latter act at the time of the contravention.

Just from the language here, it appears as if those have been singled out and specified under the previous act. I wonder why those in particular have been specified or singled out in this case.

Hon. R. Coleman: Prior to the repeal of the Forest Practices Code there were penalties in place under that act. It has to be clarified in law that people are still subject to those penalties — so that's why this section. The only difference is that if under the Forest and Range Practices Act the penalties were lowered or changed — were actually lower in any circumstance…. I don't have a list that that is actually the case anywhere. But this is part of the process.

There are two aspects that come into play. The first one is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, when we change law. The second one is that the Interpretation Act reference requires that if the admin penalty, fine or jail term under the equivalent section of the act — in this case, the Forest and Range Practices Act — is lower than the lowest maximum to be used under the previous act, it's the lowest maximum of the act that has to be used.

That's just a requirement of both the Charter and the Interpretation Act that you have to abide by any time you change the law. But those penalties…. Basically, that is stating that those that occurred before midnight January 30, 2004, are subject to the same maximum penalties that were under the old Forest Practices Code retroactively.

B. Simpson: Let me be more explicit then. Are the maximum administrative penalties — let's just take that one — under the Forest Practices Code the exact same as under the Forest and Range Practices Act?

Hon. R. Coleman: My understanding is that in 2002 we actually raised the penalties under the Forest Prac-

tices Code in British Columbia. They transitioned over to this act, and they weren't changed. The provision that's there is because of the…. Frankly, there has to be language in law because of the Interpretation Act, but we didn't change the penalties, as I understand it.

B. Simpson: As a matter of curiosity, I'm wondering if the minister or his staff is aware of any times that we've actually used imprisonment under either the previous act or this act for violations on the land base.

Hon. R. Coleman: Evidently, we once, we think, sent a shakewhacker to jail. A shakewhacker is, presumably, somebody who steals shakes. That's the terminology.

Other than that, we don't have any information on particular cases, because that prosecution would obviously be done through the courts. We would be the agency that would be requesting Crown counsel to lay a charge, and we would be following through with our evidence and our investigation, but of course, we wouldn't be imposing the penalties of the courts. That would be up to the courts. But I am familiar with a new term in forestry this evening that I have never heard before.

B. Simpson: Again, for my own edification, there's a difference here, then, in administrative penalties and fines. In the absence of any shakewhackers that you're going to try and throw in jail, could you please give me some sense of what an administrative penalty would be and what the difference is between applying an administrative penalty and a fine?

Hon. R. Coleman: An administrative penalty is one that we can, through our statutory authority within a ministry, administer to someone. The other is prosecution, which, basically, can be a ticket with a fine attached or an actual charge — long information — to the courts.

In my previous role as minister, the best example I could give you of an administrative penalty versus a charge would be someone charged with impaired driving under the Criminal Code versus somebody who had a driving record with two 24-hour suspensions as well as some other…. The administrative penalty from the superintendent of motor vehicles is that he could suspend their driver's licence for 90 days. The appeal process of that is into administrative tribunal, to the director, who has the statutory authority to do that administrative penalty. Our staff in the field have those authorities, statutorily, to do some administrative penalties.

B. Simpson: Does the ministry track, or has the ministry tracked, the previous…? If you take an equal time period of the application of the Forest Practices Code versus the Forest and Range Practices Act, is the ministry tracking the utilization of penalties — administrative fines or whatever — in a relative time period to see how many have been given out and where and to see what the implications are of putting this new code in place?

Hon. R. Coleman: We publish annual reports of contraventions on the majors. Those are sort of tracked through the ministry. This is actually more of an estimates question than it is a question about the section of the act, not that I'm not prepared to discuss it tonight. It's just that I don't think I have appropriate staff here to answer your question. So I will take note of the question and make sure our guys get that information together in anticipation that it might come up in estimates.

B. Simpson: Thank you for that. We'll look forward to that in estimates. I note under FRPA that seizure is also seizure of timber, chattels, hay, livestock, the forfeiture of livestock, etc. Is that an administrative penalty? Does that constitute a fine? Where does seizure fit in as a punishment for contravention?

Hon. R. Coleman: The seizure is an administrative penalty, and our folks have the statutory authority to do that.

B. Simpson: So, if I understand it correctly, is that similar to conservation officers? For example, when they capture somebody, they can take their gear — they can take all of that stuff — if they get somebody that's acting without a licence. Is there a similar sense to it?

Hon. R. Coleman: It's similar but not exactly. We can only seize Crown assets, as I understand it, whereas under the law that we're going to discuss in the next couple of days, we want to do the civil forfeiture — the proceeds of crime, for instance. The conservation officers have powers to take things like rifles and stuff like that.

As I understand how it used to work, the police have certain seizure provisions under certain acts, that sort of thing. There are provisions under most enforcement provisions of some kind or another that are given or delegated to some body — whether it be a statutory authority…. In the case of conservation officers, they are actually special constables that are given authority by the Solicitor General under the Police Act. So different ones are done differently, but they all have it within their acts, and the flow through is that.

B. Simpson: The reference that the minister makes to Crown assets…. I have a document in front of me that has the headings for FRPA, and it has hay and livestock in there as objects for seizure. Are those then regarded as Crown assets?

Hon. R. Coleman: Evidently, yeah, but they eat our hay. The hay is actually a Crown asset. We are evidently allowed to seize livestock under the act, and

they can have it returned to them if they pay us for the cost of the seizure. But we only seize it if it's on Crown land.

B. Simpson: So, talking about livestock and hay reminds me that this is the Forest and Range Practices Act. The one that it is replacing was the Forest Practices Code. I understand from our previous discussion before the recess that there's the Forest Act and the Range Act, which talk about the licences and tenure, and how you access that. This now talks about enforcement. Did the Forest and Range Practices Act then…? Was there a previous Range Act there? Was it rolled into the Forest Practices Code before? Where did the range enforcement and compliance come under previous to this act?

Hon. R. Coleman: The provisions for enforcement for the people that were on the range, previous to the Forest and Range Practices Act, were under the Forest Practices Code. When we were doing this act — and hence the change not only of the name of the act but also the change of the name of the ministry — the cattle industry, the people on that part of the land base, felt that if we're going to change the name of the act from the old Forest Practices Code and call it something new, they should be included in the name. The enforcement provisions were already under the code, so we don't have to identify that this is now "forest practices code and range" backwards. The reason we have put the name in there is to recognize the significant contribution that the cattle industry makes on the range in British Columbia and to be able to move in some provisions and operations so that we could focus on how Crown lands affect their industry.

B. Simpson: Given that range component and given the minister's reference to livestock being claimed, being seized…. If I understand correctly, they've been seized as an administrative penalty, but then can be reclaimed by cash, which would appear to be, then, a fine of sorts. Is that not an area that also begs to be cleaned up? It seems like the livestock falls into that difference between administrative penalty and fine.

Hon. R. Coleman: No. It's an administrative cost. It's a cost recovery. It's no different than when we seize a car from the side of the road and the individual pays their towing bill to get their car back. That's the same thing with this.

B. Simpson: Under what circumstances, then, would there be a contravention of this act that would cause a staff person to go in and actually seize livestock? I'm struggling with that concept. Is it because they ate too much grass or ate a bunch of seedlings? What would be something that would cause someone to actually go and have livestock taken?

Hon. R. Coleman: We give out permits and licences for people to graze their livestock. Livestock that don't have a permit to be on the Crown land, that are on somebody else's tenure, are illegal. That's where the seizure would come into play.

B. Simpson: Has there been anyone implicated that's sort of fallen into the cracks in this circumstance? I think I'm getting the fact that there is in the overlap and so on. But is there a circumstance in which we're now enacting this because there were some circumstances where it was nebulous and there was a possibility that we could not enforce an act because we were in a grey zone of some kind? Is that why this amendment is being brought forward now?

Hon. R. Coleman: No, and there have been no appeals launched under the provision. We're just cleaning it up.

B. Simpson: If the minister could, then, just explain to me the timing of this: why is the amendment being tabled now? Is there a reason for the actual timing of this?

Hon. R. Coleman: We were advised in March-April of the concern of the AG. We went into a drafting process. The House, if you recall, did not sit in April, May, June, July and August. We drafted it through. We took it through legislative counsel The House is sitting, and that's why it's here: so that we can fix the problem.

B. Simpson: I do have some questions around section 5. Again, I need some clarity. I have trouble reading these just now, as I'm learning. Section 5, just so that I'm crystal clear, is on page 4 of this amendment and is under the Forestry Revitalization Act. Is that the section we're referring to? It's headed "Forestry Revitalization Act," section 5 — just so I'm clear. It's just a point of clarification so I know I'm on the right section. I'm on page 4, on the left-hand page, where it says "Forestry Revitalization Act," section 5. Is that the section we're referring to when we talk about section 5?

The schedule in here that it refers to, where it says: "…augments the power to amend the Schedule by regulation by authorizing regulations to take into account transactions that affect timber volumes of groups of…licensees." I know the minister made reference to this when he tabled this bill. I wasn't clear on the nuance that he gave to it about changes in licensing structure or changes in volume. I would like to give the minister an opportunity to expound on that a little bit more.

Hon. R. Coleman: This is the evolution of legislation. Remember earlier when I was mentioning to the

member how sometimes when you're doing an act, they tell you that the only way you can make an amendment to a schedule of an act or add another body to the act is that you have to actually bring in another piece of legislation that amends the piece of legislation? For example, under the Consumer Protection Act, which I did as a minister, I wanted to be able, two years ago, to add additional organizations that may want to do some self-regulatory relationship with that particular body. We were told we had to do it by legislation every time. That's now evolved and changed to where now we can look at changing the act to do it by regulation. The schedule of people who are on that can actually flow a lot easier without having to come to the Legislature every time to do it.

This is the same thing. We passed the act. We passed the schedule, which included, at the time, the current TFL licensees across the province in every area of the province. As the member knows, some of those have now changed hands. When they change hands, the requirement under the legislation was that we had to come into the House and present a new schedule every time a licence changed hands. Well, that's a pretty administrative, punitive thing to do, because now you have to go through that whole process of drafting, leg. counsel, bringing it to the House at the appropriate time to get the work done.

This changes it so that the schedule can be changed by regulation. When you're in this job awhile, the first thing you hear when you hear somebody say something…. If they say it's policy, you know that as a minister, you can actually change policy and move things quicker. When they say regulation, it takes a little bit longer, but you know they can get it there. When they say legislation, you realize that there are 20 other ministries who are queuing up in line for their legislative priorities, as well, and yours might take one or two years.

In order to make it possible for people to actually deal on the land base without having to go and have a piece of legislation and wait to finalize their deal 18 months from now — if the House isn't sitting or you have to draft it or whatever the case may be — we're changing it so that the transfers and consolidations and subdivisions can take place by regulation, versus us having to bring a piece of legislation each time for individual changes.

I'm clear that in the schedule, as the minister has mentioned, there's the opportunity to change the licensees, and we've had the corporate concentration go on, and licences have moved around. Does it also allow the volume takeback to be changed by regulation as well?

Hon. R. Coleman: This has nothing to do with volume takeback. Volume takeback is done by ministerial orders.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendments.

Bill 10, Forests and Range Statutes Amendment Act, 2005, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. J. Les: The position of this government is clear. No one should profit from unlawful activities.

If you run a grow op or a meth lab and get caught, you shouldn't be able to keep the money that you have made running that meth lab. If you're part of an organized network smuggling drugs across the border or bilking seniors out of their savings through some kind of internet scam, this government believes that you should be held accountable. You should have to pay restitution to your victims, and if you lose the boat or the house or the business that you've acquired with the money made from your unlawful activity, well, that's simply the price that you should pay.

For some people who care nothing for the laws of Canada or British Columbia or the well-being of our province, unlawful activity and crime has become a business, a very well-organized and lucrative business, where profits are made at the expense of individual victims and ultimately at the expense of all of us as members of society. These people undertake thefts and fraud, exploiting vulnerable individuals, and supply the drugs that ruin people's lives for their own financial gain. In this process, public safety is often at risk.

The number of meth labs and marijuana grow operations in some parts of this province have increased at alarming rates. These operations are often maintained through the theft of electricity, which causes fires, destroying the premises where they are housed and putting other homes and communities in danger. These operations often house toxic substances, putting entire neighbourhoods as well as law enforcement personnel at great risk.

This past spring, my predecessor introduced Bill 5, civil forfeiture legislation aimed at giving government the tools it needs to go after money and assets acquired through unlawful activity. At this time I'd like to thank

him and acknowledge his hard work and vision in moving this legislation forward. Based on the feedback that we've received from interested parties since last spring and on information from other jurisdictions where similar legislation is in place, we have reintroduced the Civil Forfeiture Act with some changes, which I will outline shortly.

The act authorizes forfeiture of interests in property which are found by the courts to be the proceeds of unlawful activity. It will also authorize forfeiture of property that was used as an instrument of that unlawful activity. This legislation will also assist the province in deterring and preventing unlawful activities in matters regulated by other provincial statutes, including illegal gaming, tobacco smuggling and the illegal dumping of toxic wastes. The province will be able to seek forfeiture of both the proceeds and the instruments of such activities.

There is an old saying that crime doesn't pay. Today we are updating that idea, moving out of the realm of criminal law, which is largely a federal concern, into the areas of civil law, crime prevention and public safety, which are within the province's jurisdiction. With this new legislation we will be taking the profit out of illegal activity. It will be another tool to deter and prevent fraud, theft and a host of other illegal activities, and it will enable the recovery of ill-gotten gains and will assist in providing compensation to eligible victims.

The moneys recovered through forfeiture will compensate eligible victims and will be used to support further crime prevention initiatives. The moral and legal underpinnings of civil forfeiture are very clear. Civil forfeiture is similar to the civil remedy against unjust enrichment. It takes back assets derived from illegal conduct. No one should be allowed to get rich as a result of breaking the law. No one, I hope, can or will seriously argue that point.

The use of civil forfeiture has been developing for years in numerous jurisdictions around the world, including jurisdictions that share a common legal tradition with British Columbia. These jurisdictions include England, Ireland, South Africa, Australia and the United States. British Columbia will become, in fact, the fifth Canadian province to enact civil forfeiture legislation, joining Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Ontario.

Ontario currently leads the country of Canada when it comes to civil forfeiture, having introduced its legislation in 2001. Its caseload is now expanding at the rate of approximately 200 percent per year. This past summer, the Ontario legislation successfully withstood a constitutional challenge in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

In drafting British Columbia's civil forfeiture legislation, we have been careful to ensure that the legislation will be an effective tool while protecting the rights of innocent parties. Civil forfeiture does not seek to imprison and punish those found responsible for criminal activity. Those are matters properly dealt with in the criminal law process in appropriate cases and where there is a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The goals of civil forfeiture are remedial, reparative and preventative. It accomplishes these goals by targeting and seizing the profits of unlawful activity, cutting off the financial lifeblood of those people seeking to victimize others through illegal activity.

As I mentioned earlier, we originally introduced this bill last spring, and during this past summer my ministry engaged in consultations with various groups and organizations that had expressed an interest in the workings of this bill. We made a number of key changes aimed at strengthening the bill and ensuring that innocent parties will be safeguarded. For example, we added a limitation period of ten years and won't be seeking forfeiture of proceeds or instruments related to unlawful activities after more than ten years have passed. We've also specifically excluded municipal and other bylaws from the definition of unlawful activity in answer to concerns that the scope of the legislation was too broad.

When it came to the definition of "instrument of unlawful activity," we modified it to include forfeiture for past illegal use as well as the future likelihood that the property would be used for unlawful activity. We also changed the definition of "proceeds of unlawful activity" to ensure that it includes situations where the value of an interest in property has increased through use of illegal proceeds such as the paying down of a mortgage or other secured debt with proceeds of unlawful activity.

The definition of "uninvolved interest holder" was changed to protect individuals who are not directly or indirectly involved in the unlawful activity. Individuals who participate or acquiesce in unlawful activity will not be shielded from civil forfeiture, but those who are not involved in illegal activity will be sufficiently protected from the possibility of losing their property. We have also clarified the provisions relating to the standard of proof and to the discharge of legal presumptions.

These changes aside, Mr. Speaker, how will this legislation work? We will appoint a director to commence civil forfeiture proceedings on behalf of the province. Subject to the regulations, the director will gather information from police and other public bodies for the purpose of determining what properties may be subject to forfeiture and will commence proceedings where appropriate.

Court proceedings will be conducted within the civil law framework and will rely on the civil standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities, to determine which interests in property will be forfeited. Upon commencing proceedings, the director may file notice of the proceedings in the land title office and the personal property registry. The director may also apply for interim preservation orders to ensure that the property which is the subject of forfeiture proceedings is not disposed of, removed or hidden to avoid forfeiture.

The courts may make orders necessary to ensure the preservation of property and its value. Civil procedural rules and the civil standard of proof, the balance of probabilities, will be applied in determining which interests in property are to be forfeited. This will be a fair and open process overseen by the courts. The court will make its determination upon a hearing of the evidence.

Unlawful activity is not restricted to criminal activity or dependent upon criminal charges or convictions and may be found even in the absence of criminal charges or an acquittal in a criminal trial.

As part of the forfeiture process, the court will determine if any uninvolved interest holders have interests in the property which must be protected and will make the orders necessary to protect those interests. This will include protecting secured creditors and mortgage holders as well as any co-owners of assets who are found to have had no involvement in the unlawful activity.

In appropriate circumstances, the court may also grant relief from the forfeiture, in whole or in part, if it is clearly in the interests of justice to do so. At the time the court makes the forfeiture order, it will also make the necessary orders cancelling or severing interests in the property and orders relating to the disposition or sale of the property, including giving directions to the director of civil forfeiture regarding the sale and the distribution of proceeds.

Moneys recovered from the disposition or liquidation of the forfeited property will be paid into a special account called the civil forfeiture account. This account will be used to compensate eligible victims who have suffered a pecuniary loss directly as a result of the illegal activity. The account will also be used to administer the act and to prevent illegal activity generally and provide for greater resources for crime prevention initiatives. It will also remedy the effects of unlawful acts through the rehabilitation of land or housing, for example, that has been damaged by unlawful activity.

It is important to keep this legislation in context. This government is deeply committed to helping victims of crime and unlawful activities. We are taking a tough stance against people who engage in these kinds of activities. The Civil Forfeiture Act does not work in isolation. It reflects our government's deep and ongoing commitment to public safety.

Last spring our Premier announced that 215 RCMP officers will be added to British Columbia's communities this year. It's part of a crime-fighting strategy that will see an additional $122 million invested in policing, corrections and the courts over the next three years. This is the biggest investment in new police officers for B.C. communities in over 20 years. We now have 400 more officers on the streets of British Columbia than we did just four years ago.

We've returned 100 percent of traffic fine revenues to municipalities to enable them to invest in additional policing resources and public safety initiatives. As well, over the past year, we have created a number of integrated law enforcement teams that allow us to focus effectively and in an integrated provincewide manner on specific crime-related issues.

The Combined Forces Special Enforcement Unit battles B.C.'s drug trade and other organized crime. The integrated sexual predator observation team, or ISPOT, has 19 police officers who keep recently released sexual predators under surveillance to make sure that they comply with probation orders and bail conditions.

Meanwhile, the Integrated Homicide unit maintains one of the best solve rates on the continent, of around 80 percent. The integrated gang task force deals aggressively with the issue of gang violence on the lower mainland.

Our integrated road safety units have shown immense success, to date, in removing unsafe drivers from our roads. The bait car program has received a lot of attention. It is currently rolling out around the province and proving to be an effective tool in the fight against auto theft. In the lower mainland, for example, auto theft currently is down by 15 percent.

We're supporting these integrated units and all police with technological innovations like PRIME: the police records information management environment. PRIME will connect officers across the province by allowing access to data entered on to the system within minutes and identifying patterns of crime and similarities between crimes, suspects and missing persons.

One of our key areas of concern is road safety, and we have taken significant steps to address this issue as well. For example, we have given police the authority to impound vehicles involved in street racing. Police can impound vehicles for 48 hours on a first incident. Drivers caught racing again within two years can have their vehicle impounded for 30 days. Police can also ask the superintendent of motor vehicles to issue a driving prohibition on dangerous and reckless drivers. Since the start of the province's crackdown on street racing in March of 2002, over 250 driving prohibitions have been handed out, and over 120 vehicles have been impounded.

We've also taken steps to strengthen the graduated licensing program, including increasing the learner stage from six months to one year and limiting the number of passengers that novice drivers can carry. This is expected to reduce new driver crashes by 15,000 over the next three years, with 3,500 fewer crashes involving fatalities.

The final sections of the government's new impaired-driving law came into effect to give police additional tools for getting drinking drivers off the road. For the first time in British Columbia, drivers convicted of drinking and driving will have to complete a user-pay education and rehabilitation program before they can drive again.

Finally, as this civil forfeiture legislation underscores, we have not lost our focus on the victims of

crime, and our need to support them. We have restructured and enhanced the programs that support them. Among the changes we have created a consistent funding mechanism for police-based programs, leading to 18 new police-based and six new community-based victim assistance programs. We've protected a $9.3 million budget for victims programs with new structure and services, and we've established a provincewide 24-hour victims hotline for immediate assistance and referrals.

As Solicitor General, I am proud of our government's record on public safety, and I believe that this new legislation will further strengthen our ability to directly address specific threats to that safety.

To start with, I would like to say that it is a good idea to introduce this bill. I have certain reasons for that — to say why it's a good idea. I have done some research.

The first fact I say is that RCMP Inspector George Pemberton, head of the 50-member proceeds-of-crime unit at "A" division, fully supports such legislation. I trust their judgment because they are the people dealing with the situation on a day-to-day basis, and they are in touch with on-the-ground reality.

The second factor I would like to bring is that, as the minister mentioned, other provinces — particularly Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario — have already introduced such legislation in the past to deal with similar situations in proceeds of organized crime. I think when four such provinces have introduced legislation, they must have done some in-depth research, groundwork, to make sure that the end point of this legislation is good and effective service to the people of the province.

The third factor which I would like to say is that this legislation will provide an opportunity and an avenue to take money out of organized crime. The court system, because of the burden of proof, has the highest standards, so sometimes those people get free. This may open up opportunities to deal with the money they make out of organized crime. Sometimes it's pretty difficult under the current court system, particularly when we talk about the burden of proof, to penalize these people who have massive organized-crime operations going on.

The last reason I want to bring forward is that this legislation provides some hope to the victims of crime. The money received through such legislation will be reinvested or provided to the victims of crime or will be used, as the legislation indicates, for crime prevention.

That's a very important point for me, because this government has cut funding to the victims of crime in the past. I would like to read this. In an open cabinet meeting on June 19, 2001, the former Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General announced the result of the core review of victim services. This is what the minister said:

That's what happened in 2002. That's why I think it's a good idea, because this legislation will provide some hope to the victims of crime and some opportunities for those people.

There are some elements and principles within this bill that the opposition supports.

Individuals and groups involved in organized crime and serious criminal activities should not be able to enjoy the proceeds of their unlawful activities. That is very simple. Any commonsense person can think about that, and from that point of view, I think this is a very good idea.

Secondly, ensuring that the victims are compensated, preventing unlawful activities and providing solutions to the negative effects of unlawful activities are also important goals which I see in this legislation.

I do have some concerns about this bill, which I would like to list as well. Before I go, I would like to speak to some of the issues that the Minister of Public Safety and the Solicitor General just indicated at the introduction of second reading of the bill.

One of the things is what we call the Integrated Gang Task Force. The reference was made to that one. I think it's pretty well known that, particularly in the South Asian community, we have lost about 70 young people through these gang-war activities during the last about ten years. That's a huge number of murders which we saw in the community — over 70 in the last ten years. This government took almost four years to

think about what needs to be done and finally put together a task force which, in my opinion, is a good idea. But at this point in time I have yet to see, of course, the outcome and the effectiveness of the task force.

I have spoken to the people in the task force. They have now probably hired all the people, and they are in full force. At the same time, the police force, the integrated force, is dealing with the people who have already become part of this process — the organized crime unit. But there is also a majority of the young people who are outside that circle. They also need help to deal with this. Particularly, I'm talking about the prevention programs. I need to see some leadership in that area, which is not totally missing, but there's a weak link there — to provide what we call the development of some prevention programs and to help the community to educate children and youth in the community so that they can somehow become aware of what's going on in the community.

Secondly, this government made a promise in 2001 that they will return traffic fines to the local governments so that they can invest that money for hiring more police and to deal with crime in their own areas. This government took almost three years to decide about that. It was almost in the middle of the by-election when this government came back, after three years, to actually give that money back to the local governments. That has also impacted the local governments in dealing with crime in their own communities.

We saw huge news just yesterday. I'm talking about property crime in Vancouver, and the same way in Surrey. We have the car theft issue and many other areas of crime, which our community is struggling with. Just recently we saw two people murdered at the SkyTrain station, and two seniors were attacked, as you know, in Bear Creek Park.

We are talking about victims of crime here, but those families of the seniors — I have spoken to them — did not receive any service from anyone about the tragedy they faced, other than from the community. After that, the seniors, in general, in that park also…. In my opinion, they have also become victims to some extent. I don't know what has been done in order to assist those people, those seniors, to make sure that they feel safe in the park, that they enjoy their life in that park. Those are the things happening out in the community.

We are talking about community safety here, and we are talking about reducing the crime, and this government has done…. When we talk about gambling, for the last four years one of the promises made was that the government is not going to expand gambling at all. What we have seen is the expansion of gambling one by one. First it started with the slot machines going in. There used to be a limit on slot machines per casino, which was — if I recall correctly — 300 machines per casino. Back, I think, about a couple of years ago, this government increased that limit to 500, and then it was totally removed. Now we have casinos in the province which have over, or close to, 1,000 slot machines.

Later on the minister also introduced what we call electronic racetracks into pubs and bars. Just recently a decision was made to put 500 of those electronic racetracks in the pubs and bars. Of course, all the research and studies show that the more of those machines, those electronic racetracks, you put in…. They invite more criminal activities, more addiction activities and more negative impact on this society.

I would like to list some of the key concerns which I have about the bill. First of all, we are concerned about the track record of similar legislation in other jurisdictions. What I hear from the bill is that the model of this bill is based on the Ontario model, which came into effect, I think, only about two and a half years ago. I don't think two and a half years is a lot of time to see or to judge or to measure the effectiveness of the bill. But we have based our bill and driven our model from that particular model when this legislation has actually been brought, debated and introduced, in the end, by more than one province.

I think we need to have full and comprehensive research done to make sure that the legislation, when we finally implement it, has all the available intellect or research into it so that the community of British Columbia can benefit from that and that it is really much more practical for the purpose for which it's being introduced.

We need to see, in those different jurisdictions, even if we look at the four provinces…. It has been introduced in other countries like England and Australia. We need to see what the actual benefits are that those communities are receiving from this and what the challenges and the complications have been with the introduction or implementation of this particular legislation.

Although the work on this, if we look at the record, started about a year ago when the former Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General introduced the bill, Bill 5, it never went beyond first reading. If we compare that bill and this bill, there are certain changes. That means some research was done after that, and some improvements or some changes have been done — for the better, I believe.

That one year of work is there, but I think we need to look into all those different models available to us, rather than looking only at one, as I said to you earlier, to make sure we have the best possible legislation which is very effective at the end of the day when we implement that.

The second concern of mine is the substance of this bill and the implication of some of its provisions. For example, the forfeiture of property under the bill requires proof that unlawful activities occurred, and the proof of unlawful activities includes a conviction or a finding of guilt by a court. But what if a person has not been convicted or even charged with an offence? Under the bill, that person can be found to have engaged in unlawful activities. What if a person was actually ac-

quitted of all charges? That person can also be found to have engaged in unlawful activities.

We do have some questions about that — as to how we define, and as to how we can justify our position under this act that these provisions are right. I'm not saying that they can override the decision of a court, but there are some justifications required. We do need some burden of proof in those situations because in some situations these persons may not have been charged at all, but we can proceed under this legislation to actually seize the property of those individuals without any charge or even if the persons have been acquitted by the court.

We are also concerned with the standard of proof that has been applied in this particular legislation. As we all know, proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the cornerstone of our criminal justice system and, I think, of the global criminal justice system. An individual cannot be convicted of a crime unless he or she is found to have committed that crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

Yet the standard of proof applied under this bill is proof on what we call a balance of probabilities, a significantly lower standard. Now, this is a point of debate as to what standard we apply in this bill to make it really effective, workable and pragmatic. Of course, if you apply the highest standard, which is proof beyond reasonable doubt, that is a difficult scenario. I understand that. That is not an easy route for the director of this program or the police. But at the same time, if we use what we call the balance of probabilities, I don't know whether that's 51 percent, 50 plus 1 percent, 52 percent or 60 percent — as to how we will define it.

I think the definition of this is extremely important. Also, we need to make sure that the definition is reasonable at the same time that it is pragmatic so that it is effective.

At this point in time I need to know a lot about that area and why we pick one over the other. What are the benefits? What are the challenges? Will that in any way compromise the public safety? Those are the kind of questions I have in my mind.

We also feel that the bill is not specific enough in the types of unlawful activity that it is targeting. Should it not be a priority to target the most serious criminal offences, including organized crime? I think we need some more clarity on that issue as to what we're talking about here. We're talking about organized crime. We're talking about what kind of crime? Can we define that in more specific language so that it's very objective and so that we can see it through and can have some debate on that one?

The other concern I have is the protection of innocent and uninvolved property owners in this particular situation. I will give you an example of this one but, as I said, I have to see it through. What we said before, when we talked about the standard of proof…. If we apply, for example, the balance of probability, that could make it very simple to seize property of many people who could be very innocent — not involved in the activities at all. If that happens, then the burden of proof remains with the party who has their property seized to prove that they're not a part of it which could, as I said, open up doors to a lot of innocent people becoming victims of this particular legislation on the other side. That is also a concern we have on this side of the House.

The other thing I have is the scope of this legislation. I'll give you one example on that one. If, for example, there is a grow operation going on at location one, and the police finally find it and take it out from the particular house, who are the victims of crime in that situation? Will all the neighbours be part of it? How far, when we talk about the victims of crime, will this legislation be open to define those things as to the victims of crime of these unlawful activities? That's one example. We need to know about the boundaries and scope of this particular legislation more clearly at this point in time.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we are concerned with what this bill does not do in terms of crime prevention — protecting and compensating victims of crime and addressing the needs and concerns of the most vulnerable people in our community. For example, this bill does not change the fact that the government has eliminated services for victims of crime, as I mentioned before, leaving the innocent victims to fend for themselves.

The government record indicates a complete indifference and insensitivity towards victims of crime. Because of this government's dramatic cuts, as I mentioned earlier, families who have lost children or parents to a drunk driver, violent offender or sexual offender can no longer turn to a counsellor working alongside our provincial prosecutors. Grief-stricken relatives of the murdered and wounded are being left scrambling for information, unable to access the expertise of professionals, unable to lean on anyone for support and comfort.

There are so many other important issues in parliament that this bill does not even come close to addressing, which have been created by this government of British Columbia while currently struggling with the dramatic funding and service cuts that have been made by the government in the past, including some I mentioned already. I also mentioned the cuts to counselling funding for those convicted of domestic violence, cuts to funding for sexual assault centres, cuts to rape crisis counselling and cuts to legal aid funding.

Indeed, the list of problems that this bill does not address, many of which have been created by the government, goes on and on. But at this point in time I will conclude my comments and, of course, I will have the opportunity to debate and ask lots of questions when we move on to the next stage later on.

M. Polak: I guess I'm a little confused by the debate from the member opposite because on the one hand he begins by saying that, really, we should have done this before and we should be tougher, but on the other hand he's really concerned that this might be just a

little bit too tough and that we might be catching people in this legislation that really shouldn't be caught.

Let's be clear about this. This is about making it difficult for people to profit from unlawful activities. It's about making sure that if we have the kinds of people out there who feel that somehow they have a right to go around and take money from innocent people, take property from innocent people by various means, make their lives miserable, impact them through fires and damage to property, we're going to make sure that those who would make our communities unsafe are not profiting by that. There's something really wrong with the idea that they should profit from that, and there has been for a long time.

I'm really glad to stand in this House and support this legislation. I'm really glad that we have a government that's willing to take the leadership on a matter like this. Is it difficult to craft legislation like this? Of course it is.

I'm glad to see that the time was taken to consult with stakeholder groups. This is a government that's certainly proud to work with communities around the avenues of solving crime that are going to work for us. We know that where we have the best public safety initiatives is when we work together with communities. In that vein, we've done that by returning 100 percent of traffic fine revenues to municipalities and cities.

I want to address something else that seems to be a myth out there. This is the government that made sure that women's crisis lines were there for women 24-7. They weren't calling up and getting a busy signal or having a multiplicity of agencies that didn't have that full coverage. This government did not close a single women's shelter. This government has been supportive of women, and as a single mother of an 18-year-old daughter, I can tell you I'm very proud of our record on that matter.

The member does raise some points of concern that I'm sure the public would also be curious about. I'm pleased that the Solicitor General has provided legislation that I think does answer those. Some of these are concerns around Charter rights, Charter challenges. Certainly, we know that Ontario's legislation has already passed through some Charter challenges. At the end of the day, we know that our Charter in Canada is not there to protect criminals, not there to protect people who are engaged in unlawful activities.

When it comes to evidence, I think the member opposite was confusing the issue of criminal law and civil law. Certainly, this is not a piece of legislation that is going to have someone roaming the street, deciding they want somebody's nice car and therefore accusing them of having gotten it unlawfully and it's going to be theirs. This is an issue where the director…

M. Polak: …would have to seek evidence through the police and other agencies that would be collecting that data and would have to show that there is certainly a balance of probabilities that the proceeds were gained by unlawful means. At the point where there is a belief that that may be the case, it is then determined by the courts whether, in fact, those proceeds were gained through unlawful means. It's not something that's just open to the whim of government or any individual.

This is something that is canvassed by the courts, and that's a standard of civil law. It's a balance of probabilities and not beyond a reasonable doubt. I think that's really important, because unfortunately, organized crime, gang activities and the people that engage in those have very often hidden behind the very high standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" that's apparent in criminal law. Thus, we have not seen the ability for those of us who would like to help victims. We haven't been able to take the profit out of it.

That takes me to the member's concerns around gang activity, particularly in ethnic communities. One of the things I know, as a mother of a teenager, is how teenagers respond to what they see around them. It's very difficult to talk to young people, particularly young men, about the inadvisability of unlawful activity when they are watching other young men around them walking around with wonderful jewellery that's obviously expensive, with big rolls of cash in their pockets, with wonderful cars that probably cost more than a person's house in many cases. It's very difficult at that point to turn to your teenaged child and say, "You know what? Unlawful activity doesn't help you; it doesn't profit you," because they look at that other fellow across the road and they say: "Well, Mom, it looks like it's profiting them."

One of the best ways that we can begin, and I agree it's only a beginning…. It's a huge problem, but one of the best ways in which we can begin to tackle the problem of youth becoming involved in gang activity in increasing numbers is to take the profit out of it, to make sure that our young people are growing up and seeing that when you engage in unlawful activity, it's going to be a negative. I really look forward to the moment when that young person who's considering getting involved in gang activity, instead of looking across the street and seeing the wild party that's going on at the fabulous house, looks across the street and sees the repo guy coming to take away that drug dealer's Porsche. That's what I want to see. That's the kind of message that's going to the hit home to our youth, and that's how we start to get a grip on this.

Beyond that, I think about the residents in my own riding of Langley. I think about the frustration I hear in phone calls to my office when families who live next door to what they're quite sure — and are probably right — are operating meth labs or grow ops…. Right now, there's very little we can do to make sure that even if there's criminal prosecution, even if there are charges laid, the reaction from the residents around is: "You know what? It's not going to help." It's not going to help because there's so much money involved in this business that will get transferred on to the next person who's going to rent the house, that organized crime people engaged in these activities simply consider it a

cost of business — that's it. Somebody goes to jail for a little while. Somebody pays for their bail. They go through the courts. They have another appeal. They're out on probation. It's not the deterrent we need.

It's time to see legislation like this brought to bear to ensure that those who are living in communities that ought to be safe, ought to be quiet, ought to be great places to raise their children, remain so.

I want to talk a little bit about what this does for victims as well. Certainly, we know that in Canada there's an awful lot of discussion — frequently, and has been for years — about how, despite our best efforts, it always seems that it's those who engage in unlawful activity who benefit and that the victim, even after court proceedings have completed, is still left with nothing — left with no compensation, left with nothing that gives them back even a part of what they've lost.

I'm glad to see that there's a certain natural justice in this legislation that I love, which is that we're not just going to be compensating victims. We're going to be compensating them with the money that's taken from the sale, the liquidation, of assets that we've taken from the crooks. That's what I like. We're taking the money, the proceeds that they shouldn't have had anyway, and we're using that very fund from them to help those victims. It's time that there was a feeling of natural justice returned to our laws in that way.

In a bigger picture, that's what contributes to the culture we want to build. There are all sort of mechanisms that governments and courts use to try and assist in creating and maintaining a healthy and safe environment for all of us to live and grow and raise our families in, but at the very heart of it, there's a culture, an idea, a feeling that you have when you live in a certain place, live in a certain community. Part of government's role is building that culture.

When we talk about the tragic effects of crime, the beatings that took place in Bear Creek Park…. What is it that brings us to a point where in our culture somehow that's okay, where somebody thinks that's all right? I think, at the heart of it, it's when we have people growing up and not seeing justice done, growing up and seeing that things are fundamentally unfair — that if I do something wrong, I'm going to benefit, and if I do something right, I'm not.

This is a start of changing that. This is a start of showing that we really believe that if you do something wrong, you shouldn't benefit from it, and that if you're a law-abiding citizen, you ought to be assured that you are going to be the one who is protected and who is rewarded for your just and right behaviour. If we can create that kind of culture in our province, if we can rebuild that among our young people, that is what is truly going to change and direct our young people toward opportunity, toward prosperity, toward the kind of life that we want for all of our children.

I am really proud to support this legislation. I'm glad it's before us, and I am looking forward to watching that big Porsche being taken from that drug dealer's house.

D. MacKay: I happen to be one of the people in this chamber who actually believes in the rule of law. I spent 28 years looking after law enforcement, looking after the communities in the different areas that I served, and now I'm here as a legislator. So, yes, I am pleased to say that I happen to be one who believes in the rule of law.

This piece of legislation before the House today is another great example — Bill 13, called the Civil Forfeiture Act. I can't believe it's taken this long to get into the House. I retired 15 years ago, after serving for 28 years in the RCMP. Then I heard about the member from the opposition talk about the fact that it's only been two and a half years since Ontario introduced this piece of legislation and maybe we should study it longer. I think it's been studied long enough. I think it's time a piece of legislation of this nature got into this chamber and gave law enforcement personnel what they need to go after people who make their living from those people who are victims of crime.

D. MacKay: Actually, maybe I would like to engage in a debate with the man sitting in front of me here. He would like to take part in the debate.

D. MacKay: As I said, I've been retired for 15 years now, and I want to tell you a couple of stories about why I'm excited about this piece of legislation. It's been said over and over that crime does not pay. Well, actually, crime does pay.

You know why it pays? Because there are not enough tools in the law enforcement basket to allow them to go after those who make their living from preying on other people — the victims of crime. These people that prey on those people realize financial benefit, financial gain, and law enforcement personnel are prevented from going after them because we had no legislation that would permit them to do so.

Property crime. I want to tell you about some victims of property crimes. The apprehension of culprits involves a great deal of paperwork on behalf of law enforcement personnel.

Mr. Speaker: Member. Will the other members in the House please give the courtesy to the member speaking. Continue on.

D. MacKay: The paperwork that's required to get somebody into the court system today and get court

approval is long and involved and very tedious for the law enforcement personnel. When we do get them into the court system, quite often…. I'm going to deal specifically with property crimes, because property crimes are the ones that stand out most in my mind.

I can think of having gone to house break-ins where the house was absolutely trashed — televisions were broken, fridges were knocked over, the beds were slashed, knives were taken to different personal items in the house. After some pretty good legwork, we happened to catch up with a couple of the people who were doing this.

I want to tell you what happened years ago in our court system because law enforcement personnel didn't have the tools. The people would be taken into court, and quite often they were convicted. The courts were more concerned about the guy who had committed the crime, and we started down this road called rehabilitation.

Well, I have to tell you: rehabilitation, in my world, doesn't exist. You don't rehabilitate somebody. If you're going to send them to prison, you've got to make the punishment severe enough and bad enough so they don't want to go back in there. That to me is what rehabilitation is all about. You have to make the offender…. He has to be punished so he doesn't want to go back into prison. That's how you stop repeat offenders. The pendulum is actually starting to swing.

I want to go back to the story about the victim of the house break-in where the damage was done to the house. After conviction, the victim of the crime asked the courts: "Your Honour, what about me? I was the one that was victimized. My house was damaged." The courts would say: "You have insurance, don't you?"

The victim had to pay the deductible on his insurance, and invariably what happens after you have an insurance claim is that your insurance rates go up. Now you've got the victim being victimized a second time. The offender is out there on probation, and quite often the courts are saying: "Well, the fact that he's got a criminal conviction now is punishment enough."

That used to bother me as a police officer. I'm glad to see that we're finally moving in a direction where we can start going after these people that decide they want to prey and make their livelihood from people who are law-abiding citizens.

You just have to look back at the victim impact statements that have been introduced into our court system lately. My God, are they ever having a profound effect on sentencing provisions in our courts. The courts are now required to listen to these victim impact statements and sentence accordingly. They've got to have a huge impact. When you take somebody's life and you have the family members in there telling them what they're going through as survivors — what it's like without that person being around — if you've got a judge sitting up there and he's not moved by some of those statements, there's something wrong with that man.

Those victim impact statements have had a very profound effect on sentencing. These are changes that are coming about because laws are changing and people are changing, and we're moving in that direction with this piece of legislation.

It's really great to see this shift, moving towards going after those who prey on other people, and it's long overdue. I heard the member of the NDP speak about concern about what is an unlawful activity. Well, it's explained on page 3 in the interpretation section of Bill 13. It says — and I'm going to read some of it:

It could be a provincial statute, and it could be a federal statute. That's what we're going after.

The Civil Forfeiture Act is kind of unique, because we're not going to be using the burden of proof that's required in the criminal courts, and that is "beyond a reasonable doubt." After the evidence is in at a criminal matter, there must be no doubt in anybody's mind that that person was the one who committed the crime. If there is a doubt, the accused is released from the courts because there's a reasonable doubt. That's a pretty heavy burden of proof required for convictions in the criminal courts.

This piece of legislation lowers the requirement to start a proceeding, so rather than use the criminal standard, we're going to start using a civil standard of proof. That civil standard is based on the balance of probabilities.

If you've got a man driving a brand-new Dodge Viper, living in a half-million-dollar house with a big boat parked in the backyard and an airplane parked at the airport, and he files an income tax return showing he makes $15,000 a year, I would suspect there are going to be some eyebrows raised. That's the sort of stuff that would be required on the balance of probabilities. You don't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this man is living off the avails of crime. The balance of probabilities would suggest that yes, he is. The burden of proof that the proceeds of unlawful activity…. I described the different types of property that it could be, and it could also include cash.

I'm certainly pleased that we're going to be using the balance of probabilities to proceed down this road. I'm also pleased and looking forward to the passage of this bill and the subsequent enforcement and forfeiture of those properties and cash realized through these illegal activities. The application of this act is under section 2 and applies to an unlawful activity on or before or after the date this bill comes into force. Do you realize what that means? It means that law enforcement personnel will now be able to go after those whose assets were acquired before this bill was passed. Part 4 of the act defines what unlawful activity is.

Section 18 is an interesting section. I was quite pleased when I saw that there. It talks about how you don't have to be convicted of an offence, because the

balance of probabilities is a different level of requirement. In the criminal courts you could be found not guilty on some legal technicality, but you could still be guilty of some unlawful activity.

Section 18 says: "In proceedings under this Act, an unlawful activity may be found to have occurred even if (a) no person has been charged with an offence that constitutes the unlawful activity, or (b) a person charged with an offence that constitutes the unlawful activity was acquitted on all charges." So he can be found not guilty in the criminal courts, and we can still go after him in this new Civil Forfeiture Act. That's really great and exciting news.

This act can still apply because of the legislation and will rely on the balance of probabilities and not the criminal standard of beyond all reasonable doubt. As I have said earlier, I am so pleased to finally see legislation such as this come before this assembly. I know I speak on behalf of all those men and women who serve this province in the field of law enforcement in supporting Bill 13.

I will be supporting Bill 13 as it moves through second reading, committee stage and third reading. On behalf of myself and the law enforcement community, thank you to the Solicitor General for bringing this piece of legislation into the House.

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

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

Hon. I. Chong: Before we begin, I would like to be able to introduce staff. I'm just going to have staff changes from our local government ministry to the PSA. If I could just have a five-minute recess.

Hon. I. Chong: Before we begin, I would like to introduce staff with me here from the B.C. Public Service Agency. To my right, I have Deputy Minister James Gorman. To my left, I have Assistant Deputy Minister Lynda Tarras. I also have Assistant Deputy Minister Barry Turner behind me and Executive Financial Officer Cheryl Wenezenki-Yolland. I would be pleased to take questions from the members opposite.

H. Lali: First of all, I want to take this opportunity — I don't believe I've had the opportunity to put it on the record yet — to congratulate the minister on her appointment to the ministry. I'm looking forward to working with the minister for however long she happens to be in that ministry. I know changes take place now and then at the whim of the Premier, and that's how our parliamentary system works. I had an opportunity to serve with the minister when she was on the opposition benches and I was on the government side, from 1996 to 2001. I must say that I had quite the honour of actually being able to talk to her on several occasions, and her demeanour has been very, very good.

While we're talking about the estimates of the public service, I want to make a few remarks before I actually get into my questions, and that is to honour our public service in British Columbia and, indeed, across the country. They do an honourable job. They do a great job on behalf of the people of British Columbia in terms of the delivery of all of the programs and the services that we have in all of the ministries, and not just the Ministry of Community Services itself. They're the front line of troops at the community level in hundreds of offices throughout this great province of ours. Often we don't get to see the real nitty-gritty, down-to-earth kind of work that they do on a day-to-day basis, and often what we hear from members of the public are complaints as opposed to a lot of the good things that the public service does.

I wanted to honour them for that, and at the same time the executive and the management level in Victoria and in Vancouver and the directors within the

communities, who do a great job of keeping tabs on everything, whether it's on the financial side or the programs that are going to be delivered, handling complaints from people or the day-to-day management of their particular portfolios. I wanted to put that on the record and let the folks know — the staff that are here with the minister — that I recognize the great job that you and the people who work underneath you do on a daily and a weekly and a monthly basis throughout your tenure as public servants.

Having said that, I just want to talk about government reorganization for a minute. After the 2005 government reorganization following the May 17 election, the Public Service Agency was assigned to the Minister of Labour and Citizens' Services. Now, the September budget update just a month ago still included the Public Service Agency and its service plan in the Ministry of Labour and Citizens' Services. That's a little bit of a tongue twister here. I want to ask the minister: can the Minister of Community Services explain how she came to have responsibility for the Public Service Agency?

Hon. I. Chong: Firstly, I would also like to acknowledge and thank the member for his very kind remarks to me personally, as well as his very generous remarks regarding the public service. I do, in fact, look forward to working with him over the however-many years that I will have responsibility in this area and find it extremely exciting at this time in government. I hope to be able to continue in this role for quite some time. I do look forward to his constructive comments and ideas that he may offer throughout the time that we can work together.

I want to say, as well, that I believe we do share the same objectives, and that is to be mindful of the very important and very valuable service that we do receive from those who work in the government, in the public service. I have seen this time and time again. We've always been supported, and the member knows, as well, when he had his time in government, first as a private member and then as a cabinet minister, how well he was supported. I don't think any of us would say that we could have done our jobs without their input and their support, so I thank him for his very kind remarks.

I think the only thing this member and I ever had a competition on, of course, was whose fashion sense was noted for the day, but I know….

Hon. I. Chong: This member has toned down for this session, but I'm looking forward to how he ramps that up.

I thank, as well, the member for his question regarding the reorganization and how this agency became a responsibility for us. As the member knows, the B.C. Public Service Agency is an independent agency. It can fit with any particular ministry, because it is independent. When it was originally placed with the Ministry of Labour and Citizens' Services, it was because of the citizens' services objective, and that is to pool a number of government shared services to be under that ministry, Citizens' Services. But clearly it was the Ministry of Labour's area of responsibility.

There was a perceived potential for conflict for the Minister of Labour, who was responsible in his area of responsibility, with his roles that may arise, for the B.C. Public Service Agency, which is to represent collective bargaining with the public service. For that reason, while it fits with Citizens' Services, it did not necessarily have the correct fit with Labour. That's how it has now arrived under my area of responsibility.

H. Lali: I guess in the fashion department the member placed a distant second to the minister, I must admit.

I guess my question is a little more specific: who made the initial decision? Who is the individual who made the initial decision to place the Public Service Agency under the Minister of Labour? It was either a conflict or a perceived conflict. I'm not saying that the Minister of Labour was in that or that he placed himself in that — rather, that the agency's coming into the Ministry of Labour at that time would have placed the Minister in an untenable situation. I guess my question is pretty specific: do you know who the individual was who actually made the decision to put it under the Minister of Labour?

Hon. I. Chong: Well, as I indicated in my response, when government is reorganized, particularly after an election — and I know that the member is fully aware of that; he had seen it twice in the administration that he served under — and when shuffles occur as well, oftentimes agencies don't always stay with particular ministries. They sometimes move with different ministers.

Right after our election, of course, there was another restructuring that took place to better align services that we thought could take place. As a result, the B.C. Public Service Agency, which had been under Management Services, now reclassified as Citizens' Services, had naturally progressed to that particular ministry.

Upon further reflection, having seen the Labour portfolio combined with that, it didn't make sense that that's where it belonged, so a corporate decision was made that it needed to be placed with another ministry. This ministry had a good fit with that. I feel it has a good fit. I'm very excited and keen about being the minister responsible for the B.C. Public Service Agency. That decision was made, and it came to our ministry.

H. Lali: Just a follow-up on that: who was the individual who made the subsequent decision to move the agency out of the Labour Ministry and into the Community Services Ministry?

Hon. I. Chong: Well, again, I state to the member that a corporate decision would have been made. I would imagine that a number of people noticed that it

didn't fit appropriately, or as appropriately, with the Ministry of Labour. I was notified by way of a memo from the Premier's office. When looking at how all the alignments took place, where things best fit, it was clear that it should not stay with that particular ministry, and it was felt that it would come to this ministry.

H. Lali: I thank the minister for that answer. What practical implications did this initial placement, first with one ministry and then a subsequent move to the Ministry of Community Services, have for the agency?

Hon. I. Chong: Just for clarification, I'm not sure if the member is asking whether there were any implications as a result of the first placement and then the subsequent move. If that's the request that he's making, I can advise that there were no implications that occurred as a result of having it originally placed in the Ministry of Labour and then the Ministry of Community Services.

After the reorganization, it was noticed fairly quickly thereafter…. Within two weeks of my assuming this ministry responsibility, I was made aware that this agency would then fall under my area of responsibility. So there were no implications, if that's what the member is seeking to find out.

H. Lali: I guess I was looking for some specific examples. For instance, were there any staff changes as a result of the move?

Hon. I. Chong: No, there were no staff changes as a result of the move from Labour to Community Services.

H. Lali: I guess to be a little more specific, how many deputy ministers have been in charge of the agency since the 2005 election?

Hon. I. Chong: I was just trying to be clear on the member's question. He indicated since the election, so I'm presuming he meant since May 17. In that case, there have been two deputy ministers. However, since I've assumed this responsibility, I have had my present deputy minister, who was appointed the deputy at the time of the swearing-in of cabinet.

H. Lali: Was Ms. Rabbani ever in charge of the Public Service Agency through Citizens' Services?

Hon. I. Chong: Yes. Ms. Rabbani was the deputy minister prior to Mr. Gorman being appointed as deputy minister. From May 17 until the time of the swearing-in, that's where…. When the member asked how many there had been, because of the two…. Currently there is one deputy minister.

H. Lali: Diane Rabbani, as you know, had been appointed Merit Commissioner just last May, after a special committee set up by this government conducted a nationwide search and made her the unanimous choice. I believe it was on May 20, 2004, in the report by J. Bray of the Special Committee to Appoint a Merit Commissioner for the fifth session of the 37th parliament. Why is Ms. Rabbani no longer the Merit Commissioner and deputy minister for the Public Service Agency?

Hon. I. Chong: I'm advised that Ms. Rabbani resigned in June of 2005, which is why I appointed a new deputy minister on the swearing-in date of cabinet.

I just want to talk about the leadership renewal program. Ms. Rabbani was in charge of the agency's leadership renewal program. What was her role in this program, and what will happen to the work she was carrying out?

Hon. I. Chong: The leadership and learning centre continues to exist today. I want to share with this member that it remains a priority of this agency as well as of this government. The role of the deputy minister was, in fact, to lead this centre. That is still in effect today, and that is the role undertaken by my deputy minister currently.

H. Lali: The previous minister had earmarked $10.75 million to provide 7,000 public service supervisors and managers with leadership and training over five years. I'd like to know if the minister can tell me: has this budget item changed with the change of ministers and deputies?

Hon. I. Chong: I can advise the member that the budget has remained constant for the past two years; that's for the past year, '04-05, and the current year, '05-06.

H. Lali: According to the PSA resource summary, this budget item has been cut from $699 million in '04-05 to $455 million in '05-06. I'm just wondering how that would have impacted the previous question that I asked.

Hon. I. Chong: I know, in looking at the document that the member may be referring to, that it is a bit confusing, because there is an amount stated for one year which differs from the other. To be clear for the member, the amount of money that is being spent on leadership and on leadership training has remained constant over the last two years. There was a reallocation of some of those dollars into another category that is listed within the resource. It is still being spent on leadership and leadership training but is more aligned in a particular description, if you will. It is still related to leadership and leadership training within those other categories.

H. Lali: I just want to shift to the Merit Commissioner's report. Ms. Rabbani presented the most recent

Merit Commissioner's report in May of this year. Reporting on the previous year, she looked at a sample of 39 random appointments within the public service and concluded that of these 39, one person had been hired without merit, and six others had been hired under "flawed staffing processes."

That's 18 percent of the audit sample that did not follow correct hiring procedure. Is the minister satisfied with this rate?

Hon. I. Chong: First and foremost, I would say: no, the percentage is not acceptable. I acknowledge that it was a random audit. You sometimes don't know…. If the size got larger, and you found no other issues to report out on, then the percentage would actually come down. It does depend on audit size. I don't know why 39 were chosen, but based on 39, as the member has indicated, 18 percent is a number far too high. We do expect to do better. The Public Service Agency is two years old, and its focus will be ongoing in terms of its objectives. Of course, one of those objectives will be to bring in higher standards of rigour and transparency to those competitive processes, and we will continue to do that.

H. Lali: I don't think there was a direct answer there, but I'm trying to glean from the minister's remark that the 18-percent figure is not acceptable, and the ministry is going to do better, perhaps.

According to the Merit Commissioner's own report, in 2004 the B.C. government hired 2,905 people, and that does not include political appointees. If you look at a random sample of 39 from there at 18 percent, over those nearly 3,000 people, you're looking at 523 people — if you were to apply that figure from the random sample over the 2,905.

Now, 523 is a lot of people, by any stretch of the imagination. I mean, if I were an employer employing a number of people and 18 percent were hired by my personnel management team, I'd be really worried in terms of how the merit principle is actually being applied and also in terms of the process that is put in place for hiring people.

I'd like the minister to further comment and not just on the sampling of 39. Over a sampling of the entire 2,900 people hired, if that 18 percent were by a flawed process, that's a major issue to be concerned about.

Hon. I. Chong: I apologize to the member if he didn't hear the original answer I provided. I did say that the 18 percent, if we were to take that number, is unacceptable in terms of it being a high number. But I did go on to say that 39 is indeed a random sample, a statistical sample. If that number had been larger, you don't know whether that number could have dropped. I mean, if 80 people were chosen and no other cases were found to have flaws, then in fact that would have dropped to 9 percent.

I'm not going to get into the numbers of statistical sampling, because that is what the Merit Commissioner chose to do, but to suggest that the 18 percent is what is across the board, I think, would be an assumption that would be flawed and incorrect. What I can say, though, is that if you read the report, it was not that the merit was not applied in terms of hiring. It said: "…in one of those cases." The member himself said that in one of those cases of 39 the merit principle did not appear to have been applied. And in six of those cases, again, he stressed that the process was flawed, not that it had not been applied.

So if we deal specifically with one case where it was not applied, then we would be down to something like 3 percent. We can play with percentages all we want. I think it's important, though, to accept that the Merit Commissioner's work indicated that there can be more rigour applied, more standards of rigour and transparency. That is what I've indicated to the member that this agency is committed to doing, and we are focusing on that.

H. Lali: Just to follow up on the minister's point, that's correct. I guess I got my words mixed up a little bit here. I was wanting to actually refer to the flawed staffing process; that's the quotation. I think I inadvertently threw in the other one, the issue of merit, so I stand corrected by the minister on that.

Even at one person who had been hired without merit, if you look at that in terms of the sampling, you're still looking at over 2,905 employees and roughly 87 people who would not have been hired based on merit. That's really high. I understand that the minister said it was a random sampling of 39. Perhaps if it was a bigger sample, it might have lowered the figure. Well, it could have raised the figure as well. It could go both ways.

When random samples are done, it's obviously done in a random fashion. There was, I would imagine, no attempt to try to pick certain categories or…. If it's random, it's random. The whole definition of random is to not do something in sequence but to do it out of sequence or out of any kind of symmetry. That's what random is.

Perhaps the minister can explain to me what kind of a random sample it was, and what the definition of the random sampling that was done was, before I go to my next question.

Hon. I. Chong: I thank the member for his clarification. Again, I don't think it's particularly valuable to try and apply percentages or decide on statistical samples and how you can extrapolate how the merit principle may or may not have been applied in terms of numbers of hirings. I think what is important is to acknowledge that the Merit Commissioner did her work and did in fact choose a sample size that she felt she wanted to do for whatever reason — perhaps given the time frame that she wanted to put out a report in or just because that was the number that she chose to look at.

I do not have the information that the member's requesting, if I understand his question, in terms of how she chose the selection. The Merit Commissioner was an independent officer and will remain an independent officer. As such, I do not have responsibility to direct the Merit Commissioner in that kind of work that is done. The responsibility rests with the Merit Commissioner in terms of the methodology of choosing the random sampling and the size that is done.

I do want to stress that it's important that, as a result of the report issued by the Merit Commissioner, we have taken note of what was stated and have stated that the agency will focus on placing higher standards of rigour and transparency into the process. That's what we will do. This agency is two years old, and we are going to continue to improve the functions of this agency. We will benefit from the report that we received from the Merit Commissioner.

H. Lali: I don't want the minister to be as dismissive of this random sample as she's coming across — not just coming across but actually being pretty specific about…. What I'm trying to ask the minister is: what was the method that was chosen for this randoming, for lack of a better word, of the sample? What defined this "random"? That was one question. There has to be some basis for the randomness. For instance, if the minister thinks that six out of 39 — 18 percent — could be skewed because the sampling of 39 was perhaps too low and could have been higher….

Let's suppose I were to agree with the minister that perhaps that might be too high or that there's something wrong, according to her way of thinking. Would the minister then agree that if, for instance, you have…. If the flawed process — the hiring of the six folks had been under flawed staffing processes — is too high, then would the minister agree that the one person out of the 39 who had been hired without merit was perhaps by her logic too low, that that sample could be higher? One out of 39 is about 3 percent, which represents 87 people. Maybe that's too low if we were to follow the reasoning that the minister is trying to put forward here.

Hon. I. Chong: Again, I just want to make it clear to the member that I have attempted to explain where we are headed with the Public Service Agency, what we are doing in terms of taking the benefits of the report that was issued. Certainly, I have not tried to be nor will I try to be dismissive of that. I very much appreciate what auditors do and the kinds of random samples that are taken. I have, in my previous profession, done many audits myself.

I think it's fair to say, though, when the member is searching for the method that was chosen, that it is not possible for myself as minister or even a previous minister to share what method was chosen simply because of this: when an audit is proceeded with, especially by an independent commissioner, there is no clear direction that is usually offered to the scope of the audit work that may take place. What generally takes place, especially with an independent officer…. That person can decide on the size. That person can decide on which ministries they may take a look at.

From audit firm to audit firm to audit firm in the accounting and audit world, each firm will have their own guidelines for their auditors, and even within that, their auditors will make decisions that they feel are most appropriate depending on the particular file that they are working on.

In this particular case, I am aware that the Merit Commissioner in choosing the size and in choosing to do the audit, did so using professional audit standards, and I guess that's the best I can provide to them. Those standards are what a professional auditor has. Just as I can't explain how a doctor performs his surgical operations…. These are things that they learn in their professional life. What I can offer up, then, is that the Merit Commissioner had used professional standards according to the internal audit and advisory branch under the comptroller general, which assisted in how to choose a random size and where she may want to investigate in terms of the particular ministries.

The report is valuable. I take it very seriously. I note the member's concern that he's raised. I, too, would like to improve upon that. That's what this agency is going to do. That's what we're committed to doing, and as I've indicated, we will work on improving the rigours and the transparency of the staffing process.

H. Lali: If I heard the minister correctly, she said that the sampling that would have been done would have been in accordance with the professional audit standards that would be in place. I imagine that this is a standardized process within government under which these audits are done.

I would imagine that it has the nod of the Auditor General in terms of how those standards are set. If that is correct, then obviously, there can't be a problem with the methodology. The premise of my previous couple of questions was to try to get at that methodology.

If the minister is satisfied with these professional audit standards that are set in place to do these sorts of audits, then obviously, there must not be something flawed with those methods. If that is the case, then a random sampling of six out of 39 — which represents 18 percent or a total of 523 people out of almost 3,000 that were hired in 2004 by this government — can't be flawed. By the same token, then, even one out of 39, which is 3 percent, for those based not on merit — the person hired without merit — would represent 87 people out of 3,000 that were hired. How could this happen?

I'd like the minister to explain if she is satisfied with the hiring policies of this government in accordance with their own Merit Commissioner over the last four

years — if the minister is personally satisfied that these numbers are correct and if she can live with them or this government can live with them. That's the question I'm putting before the minister to see if she is satisfied — 523 people hired out of almost 3,000, even though they were hired due to flawed processes, and then the 87 people, according to this sample over the larger sample, who would have been hired but were not hired on merit. I'd like the minister to go on record if she is personally satisfied with these numbers.

Hon. I. Chong: With respect, to the member: I don't think he is trying to change the words I've spoken today. I have not indicated in any fashion…. If he thinks I have, then I apologize. I have not said that there was a flaw in the methodology. I have not indicated that the methodology was impaired. I had simply stated that had the Merit Commissioner chosen a different sampling, the results could very well have been very different. He seems to be fixated on the fact that this percentage would be extrapolated to the entire number of hirings that he's indicated. All I've said was that that may not necessarily be the case, based on using what the random sample was.

I'm not suggesting, nor have I suggested, that that sampling that the Merit Commissioner undertook was flawed. I've just stated that results could have been different if another sample size had been chosen. But she didn't choose a different sample size. She chose to do 39, and that's fine. I accept that.

What I've also stated, though, is that we have valuable information from this. I've also said on the record — and the member's heard me say more than twice now — that based on that report, I'm not satisfied that that percentage is as high as it is. That's why the agency is focusing on ensuring that higher standards of rigour and transparency will take place.

You know, the member consistently offers up the 18 percent, but if you take a look at the audit report by the Merit Commissioner, it does say this in section 1.4 here, "Audit Results." "The audit results concluded that 38 appointments, 97.4 percent, were based on merit, and one appointment, 2.6 percent, was not based on merit." If he's going to talk about percentages, then we actually should refer to those numbers. But I don't think that has any benefit here, for the sake of these estimates, to be fixated on that.

The member wants to know if it's acceptable to have high numbers — what he's implying as being the 18 percent. I've indicated that I would agree that we can do better. We're going to do better. I hope that will satisfy the member so that we can move on into another line of questioning.

H. Lali: I don't mind, actually, moving on to another line of questioning if I can just get some correct information here. I'm not saying that the minister is trying to provide incorrect information. This is what these estimates are all about — communicating, the opposition with the government, to get to the bottom of these kinds of issues.

I would apologize to the minister if I have misinterpreted her words and not understood basically what her position was as well. If I've done that, I don't mean to do that. I'm just trying to get to the bottom of this issue. The minister just clarified that and actually repeated that perhaps the sample used could have been different and it could have been a different result. I'm paraphrasing. I couldn't write that fast to try and get the exact words.

In a previous question that I asked, she thought perhaps the sample size was too low. It could have been bigger, and it might have produced a different result. I just wonder, if something is done according to the professional audit standards and if it is a random sample, how one random sample done according to these standards would be different from another random sample of 39 or an even larger sample.

If that is the case — and I don't necessarily agree that that would be the case — then would the minister commit to another larger, different sample by the Merit Commissioner on new hires in this current year, 2005-2006, so that we could have a comparison in next year's estimates as to what is taking place here in the ministry in terms of the hiring that is taking place in the public service?

If we were to believe that this is the correct sample, if the minister and I were both on the same page — let's suppose for a minute — then six out of 39 is too high in terms of flawed processes. One out of 39 in terms of a person being hired on non-merit, which is 3 percent, would still be too high. Over almost 2,905 people that were hired, that would relate to about 87 people. That, in my opinion, is way too high in terms of the numbers being hired by this government not based on merit.

Even if that number were half that and you had 44 or 45 people who were hired not based on merit, that's still too high. That's unacceptable. I'd like the minister's comments on that and, also, maybe the minister's commitment that another sample would be done — and asking the Merit Commissioner to do another sample, perhaps a larger sample, on '05-06 hirings.

Hon. I. Chong: Again, let's be as clear as we can be on the record. The random audit size was chosen by the Merit Commissioner for whatever reason she decided. How she chose the randomness of that is based on a method as approved by professional audit standards. If the Merit Commissioner at that time had chosen a smaller size, the randomness of that would again have been followed on the same methodology. If it were larger, the same thing. It's the randomness of it.

What I indicated to the member, though, is that had the size been increased or decreased, there could have been some very different results. Rightfully so, as he's indicated, it could have been higher, and it could have been lower. I'm not here to debate that, because that is not what occurred. We have 39 that the Merit Commissioner looked at, and she has reported out that 97.4 percent were based on merit — 38 out of 39. That's

what we have. Further to that, indicating that six of those were cases where there were some flaws…. I've acknowledged that as well, and I've also acknowledged that we will work to ensure that we have higher standards of rigour and transparency. It would be an objective, an important objective particularly for the Public Service Agency, to see that number go down. There is always room for improvement.

When the member speaks of asking whether I will ask for a larger size, I have to say that that, too, is something that is not up to me. The Merit Commissioner is, in fact, an independent officer of the Legislature. The Merit Commissioner, in the next report that is prepared, may decide to do even a smaller sampling. Or the Merit Commissioner may decide to make it as large as the member suggests. But whatever size is chosen, the randomness of that will still be consistent with the professional standards required to ensure that it provides the consistent level of audit that takes place when a random sampling is done in order to prepare a report. If the Merit Commissioner chooses, in a further report, to change the size, the Merit Commissioner is certainly permitted to do so — but not from direct interference from this minister.

H. Lali: Actually, the answer to the hon. member from Kamloops is no, I didn't. But I do have an interest in that.

Hon. Chair, I'm not asking the minister to interfere with the independence of the Merit Commissioner. If the minister were to tell the Merit Commissioner how to do their job, that would be interference. That's not what I'm suggesting.

As minister, the minister has the legislative authority and the mandate to ask for certain information. That is not interfering in any…. I'm just asking the minister if the minister would perhaps ask for another sample for this year's hiring, so we can have a better understanding of how, as an opposition critic, I can work with the minister to see how we can improve that hiring process. Maybe if I could get some of those guidelines for the professional audit standards…. The minister's staff could probably even get them over to my office. I would appreciate that.

Before I move on, just a quick question on the one person who was hired without merit and the six who have been hired under flawed staffing processes. Could the minister elaborate on these cases? Also, if the minister could tell me: does the merit review also include all government hires? For example, does it include temporary employees and contractors? If, for example, the Premier's office contracts with Norman Stowe and Pace Communications, as media reports indicate the Premier has, would this be subject to the Merit Commissioner's report?

Hon. I. Chong: I apologize to the member. I'm just trying to seek clarification before I provide him with a response. He was referring to whether the merit review applied to all appointments. I'm just trying to determine: does he mean the audit? There are two distinct areas here. Is he referring to whether the audit that is done by the Merit Commissioner applies to particular cases, or is he asking whether the merit review applies? If I can get that distinction….

The merit review process applies to a complaint by any bargaining unit employee who is not satisfied by the explanation supplied by their deputy minister. That's where the merit review process is applicable.

H. Lali: The second part of my question, which was the first part…. Under the Merit Commissioner's report, with the 39 random sample, there's one person hired without merit and six others under flawed staffing processes. I was asking if the minister could elaborate on these cases and tell me what these examples were — what was flawed and also why the person was hired without merit. What was the rationale? What was the reason?

Hon. I. Chong: I do not have the details of those specific cases. Those remain with the Merit Commissioner.

H. Lali: The partner of Diane Rabbani is Gary Cowan, who until recently was a B.C. Buildings Corp. director and worked for 18 years for Marathon Realty, which is the same development company that the Premier once worked for as well. He was hired. He had a salary of about $15,000 per month for the government's Fast-Track program that he was hired for.

In the previous question, when I asked if some of these contractors and temporary employees that were hired, if the review would include all these hires…. I guess I also want to know, with this sort of hiring, like that of Mr. Cowan's, would it be reflected in the Merit Commissioner's review as well?

Hon. I. Chong: The audit process that is available and done by the Merit Commissioner applies strictly to Public Service Act employees.

H. Lali: In other words, someone like Mr. Cowan would not be considered under the Merit Commissioner, is that correct?

Hon. I. Chong: What I am saying, and I want to be clear…. The member is asking about a specific individual. What I'm saying is that the Merit Commissioner audit process applies strictly to Public Service Act employees.

H. Lali: Well, we know that Mr. Cowan was hired under contract. It's either yes or no. All I'm trying to

determine is whether, in terms of the Merit Commissioner's role to make sure that people are hired on the basis of merit…. I understand the minister said that if they're public service employees, they're covered. But I'm trying to determine if, indeed — for people who are temporary employees or contractors such as Mr. Cowan — that would also be covered in the purview of the Merit Commissioner.

Hon. I. Chong: Again, I'll try to be clear. When I said that the Merit Commissioner audit process applies strictly to Public Service Act employees, I thought that the member would understand that those are Public Service Act employees. He has indicated several times that this individual was hired under contract, so that would not be a Public Service Act employee. Again, to be very clear, any person hired on contract would not be included under the Merit Commissioner audit process.

H. Lali: Would the minister have knowledge of who would cover that — which ministry perhaps, or some other officer of the Crown who would cover contractors? Is it something that I would have to go through the Premier's estimates in order to find out about Mr. Cowan's appointment as a contractor?

Hon. I. Chong: I don't have any information that I can supply to this member regarding where he may wish to further request information regarding this particular contract, other than the fact that earlier today he had already asked the Minister of Economic Development. I would suggest that that would be the first place he might want to further canvass this particular issue.

H. Lali: Thank you. I shall do that accordingly as well. Now, Ms. Rabbani departed very quickly under some unknown circumstances. I was wondering if the minister could enlighten us as to what the reason was for the departure of Ms. Rabbani?

Hon. I. Chong: When governments restructure for any variety of reasons, they often will examine their leadership team, their executive, who are there with them in their senior positions. At the same time, the executive and the leadership team themselves will take a look at where they're headed. In this particular case, Ms. Rabbani had a review and decided to tender her resignation, which our government accepted.

H. Lali: Was there severance paid to Ms. Rabbani, and was she entitled to any?

Hon. I. Chong: Yes. She did receive severance, and she was entitled to that.

Hon. I. Chong: I am advised that Ms. Rabbani was entitled to 15 months' severance. That amounted to $240,067.

H. Lali: I just want to be clear. She was paid 15 months' severance, which amounted to $240,000. My question is: how long had she worked for the government in that position that would entitle her to $240,000 severance?

Hon. I. Chong: Ms. Rabbani was hired in August 2002. When she left in June 2005, she had been with the government for almost three years. Accordingly, her entitlement was based on that.

H. Lali: Was she on a term contract? What was the end date? When would the contract have ended?

Hon. I. Chong: When Ms. Rabbani was originally hired in August 2002, she was hired as a deputy minister. When the member asked about the contract, as a deputy minister there isn't a contract per se. But as he is aware, her confirmation as Merit Commissioner came about after the select standing committee had confirmed that. That was in May '04, and the contracts for the commissioner's role would ordinarily be for three years.

H. Lali: So the contract for the commissioner would ordinarily be for three years. Could the minister give me a start date and an end date as to her role as Merit Commissioner?

Hon. I. Chong: Ms. Rabbani, as I say, had first entered public service as a deputy minister, and that was in August of 2002. Her role as Merit Commissioner…. She was formerly acting Merit Commissioner through an order-in-council on December 11, 2003. As the member is aware, a search had commenced then for a Merit Commissioner. That took place, and as a result, her appointment as Merit Commissioner was then confirmed on May 26, 2004 — which the member is aware of, as he has already stated earlier.

H. Lali: So Diane Rabbani was Merit Commissioner, basically, starting as acting Merit Commissioner to the time of her resignation, from December 11 to June of this year — about a year and a half. I'd just like the minister to put on record that Diane Rabbani started with the government as deputy minister in August of 2002. Then on December 11, 2003, she was appointed the acting Merit Commissioner and on May 26, 2004, full Merit Commissioner and resigned in June of 2005 — for a total of three years or almost three years.

Hon. I. Chong: He does have the correct time lines, because I know he's written them down. But what I think may have confused some of the statements he's made is that he thought that Ms. Rabbani moved from one position to another. She was hired as a deputy minister, as I have indicated, in August of 2002, and she left government in June 2005. So for almost for three years she served as a deputy minister and for

H. Lali: I thank the minister for that clarification. Actually, I knew that. I had read it somewhere. Somewhere along the line of questioning, I might have got a little confused. I got too excited.

I want to ask the minister: is Diane Rabbani's severance on par with other deputy ministers, or did her position as Merit Commissioner commit the government to a different level of severance?

Hon. I. Chong: The answer is no. The severance is done in accordance with the PSA act.

H. Lali: So if Ms. Rabbani goes and finds another job, does she have to pay back any of that severance, or does she get to keep the whole thing as she walked out the door?

Hon. I. Chong: As I've indicated to the member, the severance pay is provided in accordance with the PSE act. Generally, when it comes to severance, it is only required to pay a portion of that if, in fact, the individual returns to the public service within a particular time frame.

As an example, for Ms. Rabbani, she had a 15-month severance entitlement. If, in month ten, she decided to return to the public service, then five months would be required to be repaid. If she stayed away from the public service for the entire 15 months, then of course, she would return and start her commencement date once again.

H. Lali: Did Diane Rabbani receive additional salary or benefits for the two positions? Or was she paid benefits and salary at the deputy minister level?

Hon. I. Chong: I'm advised that Ms. Rabbani was paid at the deputy minister level.

H. Lali: Was the deputy minister's salary that she was receiving higher than that of the Merit Commissioner? The two were independent positions. She was working full-time as the Merit Commissioner. Would the salary be the same for both positions, or was the deputy minister's salary higher than that of the Merit Commissioner — if they were two independent positions with two people?

Hon. I. Chong: Ms. Rabbani was paid one salary for fulfilling two roles. The salary that she received — the $167,000 annual salary — is applicable to the deputy minister level.

H. Lali: I'm just trying to determine, if she was solely the Merit Commissioner, what her salary would be compared to that of a deputy minister — if they're both the same? Or is there a differential?

Hon. I. Chong: I'm just trying to ensure that the member has as much information on this as possible. I'm not trying to be elusive. I just want to state that the one salary fulfilled the two roles because the two roles were combined as a result of the act. There was not a provision in the act for a separate salary payment. That's why I was trying to be as clear as I could that there was one salary allocated for the fulfilment of the two roles, based on the act.

H. Lali: In terms of the public service, there are severance levels that are set. What role, if any, does the Merit Commissioner actually play in setting those severance levels?

H. Lali: I had a question, but it just slipped out of my mind. If I remember, I'll have to come back to it.

I just want to move on to severance in general. In a discussion of severance for former B.C. Liberal government staffer Dave Basi, the former Finance Minister indicated that Mr. Basi's sizeable severance would be paid out by the Public Service Agency.

Through to the minister: has the agency paid out the full amount of Mr. Basi's severance? If so, how much was it?

Hon. I. Chong: Thank you, Madam Chair. I always appreciate your smiling face as we start.

Through you to the member, I just wanted to provide him with some information with respect to the role that the Public Service Agency plays in regards to severance. Our responsibility, our role, is to administer severance payments. In so administering, what we are asked to do is assist in helping to calculate the amount, based on the start date and end date — things of that nature. We also ensure that the application of the severance payments is consistent. This is for anyone who is entitled to severance. We ensure that that application is consistent. We make those calculations. That is what we're able to do in terms of administering that.

In this particular instance we don't have the specifics of this particular severance. If the member is looking to find out if that has been done, I would have to see if staff can get that information and find out whether or not that has been through the system. But that's not here at this time.

H. Lali: Perhaps the minister could maybe clarify for me the reason that you don't have this information

— perhaps because the RCMP have seized the records for Mr. Basi's severance and other items related to it.

Hon. I. Chong: As I've indicated, the role of our agency is to administer the severance payments — that is, to provide the information on the calculation and then to ensure that the application is consistent. That is the reason why I don't have the specific information he's asking for. I'm suggesting, though, that if that's what he is looking for, we can see if we have the calculation in the office as to what the amount should be, if we've been requested to provide that. That's where we are in terms of this particular situation.

H. Lali: I was just trying to determine if that might have been the reason why the records are not available — because they may have been seized by the RCMP, not….

Hon. I. Chong: As I've indicated, this agency, in its responsibility and roles, deals with the administration of the severance payments. To be clear, we do not pay out severance in terms of our budget, so the dollars don't come out of our budget as such. We do the administration.

If the member can clarify specifically what he's looking for, we may be able to try to collate that information. If he's asking with respect to severance paid as a result of those who have taken early retirement and through restructuring or with respect to deputy ministers — any variety of combinations of things he's requesting…. It's because we don't actually have…. We are not the ministry that has a budget that pays out all the severance. We do the administration thereof.

If the member has some specific requests as to what he's asking for, we can endeavour to find that for him. I'm not sure whether that is even possible. It would be quite an onerous task because it involves every other ministry. I hope he wouldn't be asking us to do extra work or to have staff do extra work if it's not what he's after.

H. Lali: Just getting back to Ms. Rabbani, the minister said, and I wrote this down, that the deputy minister's salary that Ms. Rabbani was paid was at a deputy minister's level. That's $167,000 a year. When I asked for the severance package, I was told by the minister that for 15 months, it was a total of $240,000. When I look at the $167,000 per year, that works out to less than $15,000 per month. But when I look at the severance of $240,000 over 15 months, that works out to $192,000 per year.

I'd like to know what the discrepancy is here in terms of the severance being paid. Why is the severance on a monthly basis about 15 percent higher than the salary that Rabbani was making?

Hon. I. Chong: As the member is most likely aware, that difference would be the benefits side of the calculation.

H. Lali: Could the minister tell me if the severance paid for deputy ministers under the Liberal government…? Is there a difference between a person who resigns as opposed to a person who is fired?

Hon. I. Chong: I want to ensure that I have the phrases correct, because I'm not an HR expert, and it's important that it is clearly stated.

When an individual is fired with cause, there is no obligation to pay severance. When an individual is fired without cause, and that can occur when there is not a proper fit — people are just not appropriate, but there's no really specific cause — then in those cases severance can be paid as well. In cases where there are resignations and they have been negotiated, that, too, can be an avenue where severance is paid. I do want to state that this has been a policy that's been in place with our government and with the previous government.

H. Lali: I have two questions, and I'm going to roll it into one. What is the difference — I don't care if the minister prefers to use a percentage figure or a dollar figure — between the categories that the minister has given: somebody who is let go with no cause versus a person who resigns? Is the level of remuneration still the same, or is there a differential, and what is the differential in terms of a percentage or a dollar figure? That's the first question.

The second question I have, and I'll go slowly, is that…. The minister said that where there is a situation where resignation occurs where it's negotiated, then severance is paid. Can the minister clarify for me under what circumstances was the departure of Ms. Rabbani? Was she fired? Did she resign? Did she resign with negotiations that took place, and what was the nature of those negotiations?

Hon. I. Chong: I'll answer the last question first. Maybe that would be easier — in the case of resignations that are negotiated. I'll go back to my earlier comments, where I indicated that at times when government restructures and looks at its leadership team and its executive support, there can be a determination to make some adjustments or changes. At the same time, the leadership team, as well as the executive support themselves, can take a look at whether there is a commitment to continue or to go forward.

Where a discussion takes place and it's determined that there isn't a desire to continue, then there is an opportunity where we can negotiate a severance package and a severance amount. That is what happened in this particular case, where through a resignation there was a negotiated severance. I hope that provides some background.

The other question that the member had asked was in regards to the percentage or dollar difference of these various scenarios. In the act the maximum stated that can be calculated as severance is the maximum, but there can be changes to that maximum — usually in a diminishing value, not increasing. The maximum is the maximum, but there have been instances where the courts have indicated that you can take a look at circumstances such as special skills, age and employability, and sometimes those factors can in fact reduce the amount of severance that is there. But there is a maximum that is provided for in the act, and that maximum stays.

H. Lali: I guess that really doesn't answer my question. I'm just trying to determine if there was a difference between the severance pay to somebody resigning or somebody being fired. All I'm trying to determine is if there is a difference if somebody is fired with no cause versus somebody who resigns with negotiations, and I'm assuming there were negotiations because of this restructure with Ms. Rabbani. If that's the case, I would like the minister to go on record and state that — if it was the case that this was a resignation negotiation. Basically, what I'm asking for is the difference in the dollar or the percentage value between being fired with no cause and resignation negotiation.

Hon. I. Chong: There is no difference other than those factors that I provided to the member. There can be taken into consideration age, employability and skill set. They can make a difference to what that severance amount can be.

H. Lali: So in accordance with the comments of the minister, would those be then considered in both instances, the scenarios that I've laid out — the age, employment, skills, etc., that the minister mentioned?

H. Lali: One final question that I asked about earlier, the Dave Basi issue. It's not specifically Basi today, but has the RCMP seized any records from the ministry, and if so, what records?

Hon. I. Chong: To our knowledge — and I'm presuming he's referring to the Ministry of Community Service or the Public Service Agency in this case — no, the Public Service Agency does not hold employee personnel records for ministers' assistants.

H. Lali: I'm going to switch the line of questioning now. I think the member for Kamloops–North Thompson will probably be the happiest person in the Legislature today. He said he found my line of questioning very boring, so I'm going to bring on something a little more exciting for my fellow member there from the neighbouring riding of Kamloops–North Thompson.

During the 2001 election and prior to that, and also during the 90-day era and in the New Era document, the present government had indicated that they would pass merit employment legislation to restore a professional non-partisan public service, appointed strictly on merit and not on patronage. I want to talk about that for most of the remainder of my estimates.

I would like the minister to actually tell me — in terms of the Public Service Agency — what kind of stats do you keep in terms of equity hiring?

Hon. I. Chong: As the member probably knows, we do maintain some statistics, so if he's looking for something in particular, maybe he could put that on the record, and we can see whether we have that information with us or if we'll have to get back to him.

H. Lali: Yes, I'm particularly interested in employment stats in terms of the equity groups. These would be visible minorities, aboriginal, women's groups and persons with disabilities. I would like to ask the minister if her ministry has collected those statistics on a month-to-month or a year-to-year basis over the last four years.

Hon. I. Chong: With the Public Service Agency, we know that every new employee who is hired receives a survey to complete, which is voluntary. That survey does provide information to help us identify those specific four groups, as the member indicated. But because this survey is voluntary, the statistics that we do have, which we do collect, may not be 100 percent accurate if a person chooses not to return the survey to us. This has been in use since the 1990s, and we continue to use it. So, as best as possible, we maintain that information. But, as I say, because it is voluntary, I would suspect that it is not 100 percent accurate simply for that reason.

H. Lali: During the 1990s the public sector ministry reports used to come out giving details on hiring, promotions and the total number of employees by equity groups. That took place in the 1990s. I'm just trying to determine from the minister if that is still happening under the Liberal government since 2001.

Hon. I. Chong: As the member knows — because he stated it at the very beginning of his comments, and I agreed with him — the objective is to ensure that the public service is a place where employees' valuable work and important work and service will continue to be of value for those of us who depend on them. It is because of the makeup of our public service, the diversity of our workforce, that we do continue to see that value. We continue to promote diversity. As a result, we do continue to collect that statistical information. As I've indicated, it is not 100 percent accurate.

I believe the member's question, though, is around whether that reporting still takes place. The collection of the data still continues to occur, but I am advised

that the reporting may not have been kept up to date. I take the member's thought on that and am presuming that he would like to see that continue. That sounds like a good idea.

We can see whether that reporting can take place through our website rather than through an annual service plan reporting, which is once a year, or whether we want to have the material out every month. Things have changed now. There is access to information in a different way. If it makes more sense to have a reporting of that nature posted on a website, we may consider doing that. I appreciate that the member has raised this important aspect.

H. Lali: So I take it that there is no reporting done of these stats that are compiled. I just want to share with the hon. minister that the federal Employment Equity Act…. I understand that the federal government has legislation that requires compliance by their ministries and by their Crown corporations. Reporting progress under the federal Employment Equity Act is for all government departments and the Crowns, as I mentioned, and regulated sectors such as banks, telecommunications, etc.

Now that's real leadership. It's regarding hiring. It's compiling stats and also doing reporting. We did that in the 1990s. It was a directive from the cabinet for all ministries and Crowns to be able to do that — to actually compile these numbers and do the reporting and have a progress report.

I want to ask the minister, first of all, if that is still continuing. I think I gleaned from the last answer that it isn't. If it isn't, why was it discontinued?

Hon. I. Chong: Prior to the recess the member for Yale-Lillooet had asked questions regarding reporting. I'm able to provide him with the following information with regards to reporting in specific employment categories or distinct employment groups.

Our government has introduced some new rigours and greater breadth to performance reporting through our service plan process. As the member is aware, our service plans, which we put out every year with our budgets, identify measurable performance criteria. At the end of every fiscal year we then have our service plan reports, which report out on how well we've done on achieving those performance criteria.

Perhaps we should also, though — and I heed the member's suggestion — include diversity figures in those reports. We can certainly look at that. But I do want to let the member know that I am proud, and I hope he will be too, of the fact that in one specific category — that is, in the area of women — the percentage of women in the public service has in fact increased. We know that in 1990 it was approximately 55 percent and by the year 2000, 57 percent. And now, in 2005, we're at 59 percent.

As I say, those statistics are collected. Again, I appreciate the member raising it. If there are more ways we can report information of this sort, we can see what new tools and new ways we have to provide that information. As I say, ten years ago websites weren't used, and information was not readily available. We can certainly take advantage of that. Maybe that is an area that we can suggest more and more departments use and take advantage of.

H. Lali: In terms of the four families that I mention: women, aboriginal, visible minorities and persons with disabilities — these four groups. My question to the minister: why has the government stopped reporting on the progress on employment equity? What is the government actually trying to hide? That's what I want to try to find out. Is it because there is a lack of progress that is taking place? I know she's talked about figures for women here. I'll get to that more in a minute.

There are still three other groups: the aboriginal, the visible minorities and persons with disabilities. I'm just trying to figure out why it is that the government is not publishing these reports any more. Is it because they're trying to hide something?

Hon. I. Chong: Well, I hope the member isn't trying to get controversial here. I've indicated, in one area, that we have information. I indicated to him, as well, that I would endeavour to provide more information, if that's what he wants to do.

Also, clearly, our government has introduced new ways of providing information using the tools that are now available to us through our webpages, which provide more information than ever before in any government. We are looked upon by jurisdictions across Canada as having that much information posted. We can continue to do that. I take his suggestion. Maybe advising other departments and ministries' agencies to do the same — to take advantage of their website….

When we formed government in 2001, we took a look at putting service plans in place — three-year rolling service plans or three-year budgets with service plans — where we have targets, measurable performance criteria and benchmarks. We continue to do that. We will continue to do that. The member suggests that we should include those groups in the area of diversity. It certainly should be an area that I would like to see included as well. I will see how our department, our ministry is able to include that.

It's important that we keep information. It's important that we have the statistical information. We have that. It's not 100 percent, though, because as I've indi-

cated, it is voluntary — the services that are provided to employees. So they're not 100 percent accurate. If the member suggests that we will put out information that may not have all that information and then criticizes us for not having 100-percent-accurate information….

We have to find the best ways to communicate some of the information that he's asking for. We will endeavour to do that. I take his suggestions that we can do more in this area, and we'll look at that. I hope the member is satisfied that he's made his point on that. That has been a good suggestion.

H. Lali: The minister has not, obviously, answered the question. I asked for some specific information, and that specific information is not forthcoming. She talked about some figures, and that was the figure for women from 55 percent to 59 percent. I've asked for the other three groups, the other main groups in the equity category: aboriginal, visible minority and persons with disabilities. I would like those figures.

I would like the minister to give me the general labour force numbers for British Columbia for those four categories: women, aboriginal, visible minorities and persons with disabilities. I would like the minister to give me the provincial labour force numbers — not the federal ones, but the provincial labour force numbers, the general labour force numbers — for those four categories. Then I would actually ask the minister to provide this committee the information in terms of the performance of this government as a result of their merit employment.

What I'm specifically asking for is just two things: the general labour force numbers as provided by the provincial labour force, not federal, and secondly, the performance of this government in the last four years.

Hon. I. Chong: I appreciate the member's clarity. That wasn't made clear at the outset of his questioning. Now that he has stated what he wants, that's helpful. I will endeavour to have my staff put that information together for him.

But I would caution him that when he gets his information…. He wasn't actually clear on whether he wants it — I gave him the years of 1990, 2000 and 2005 — for every single year or broken down month by month. I hope that's not what he wants, because that would be quite an onerous task. I'm hoping that he will allow us to use some discretion as to the intervals that we use. If that's fine, that's what we will endeavour to provide him. But again, I would caution him when he does receive the figures not to suggest that there aren't improvements in some categories where his expectations are.

The labour force changes. People make choices on whether they want to work for the public service or whether they want to work in the private sector. With the economy growing as fast as it is, with opportunities that exist there, I can tell you — and as has been said all this week during Small Business Week — that there are more and more women who are becoming self-employed, more and more women who are opening their own businesses and operating them. In cases like that, it's difficult to attract women into the public sector when they see opportunities in the private sector where they have more opportunities to balance work and family life. I know that from many of my friends.

In cases like that, you may see some numbers that change dramatically from year to year or from intervals of years. It also would depend on how the economy is doing. I am pleased to see that we have to this point seen an increase in female participation. We will get the other information to the member.

H. Lali: It really seems that out of the four categories I've mentioned, the one area where there's obviously progress that has been made, according to the minister, is the category of women. I am a little bit dumbfounded standing here trying to understand why the minister doesn't have the figures for those other three categories — aboriginal, visible minorities and persons with disabilities. If indeed those figures are available, why is the minister not providing them? Why does the minister have figures for only one category?

I am trying to determine from the minister, first of all, if the collection is taking place. Second, if the collection is there, why is there is no reporting taking place?

What is this minister doing in terms of monitoring the progress — or the previous Liberal ministers in the last four years — to see that people who are in the disadvantaged categories of women, aboriginal people, people of colour, visible minorities, Indo-Canadian, Chinese Canadian, Latin Canadian, African Canadian, people of East Asian origin, as well as other parts of the world that would be considered in the visible minority category, and also persons with disabilities…. Those numbers are not being provided by the minister, and I'm wondering why the minister would have one set of numbers and not the other three.

Hon. I. Chong: I don't know how I can say it more simply to the member. I will get that information to him. I had this information because during the recess my staff was able to access some information very quickly. The other information they may need to get back and find for the member, which is why I've offered to provide that information to the member. If the member accepts that, that's wonderful. If he doesn't, well, I'm sorry. The offer is still there. I'll provide it to him.

H. Lali: Obviously, I'm not getting the numbers for the categories that I've asked for, so maybe I'll make it a little simpler for the minister. In terms of executive and middle management positions, I would like the minister to provide me with those figures — those senior positions in government. In terms of a percentage, how many people from those four categories — women, aboriginal, visible minorities and persons with disabilities — would hold those positions at the executive level and the middle management level in terms of the pub-

lic service? That's what I would like from the minister. I want to see if there's progress that has been made from the year 2000 to the year 2004. Obviously, 2005 is not completed, but till 2004. From 2000 to 2004 is there any progress that has been made in terms of making sure…?

I want to read for the record, in July of 1996 in the throne speech debate the hon. minister, when she was a member, said: "I ask this government" — referring to the NDP government at the time — "to recognize the need for a merit-based public service, and I dare them to have the courage to support such legislation." That's what the hon. member said back then in 1996.

I want to know if the minister is still committed now to that kind of strength of statement that she made back then and if she can provide the breakdown of those numbers in those upper management positions in terms of the executive and the middle managers for those four groups I've outlined.

Hon. I. Chong: Again, I tell the member that we will endeavour to get to him the information he is requesting. If he wants a more full briefing, we offered that to him, and we will offer that to him again if he wants more information as to what he wants specifically. I appreciate the fact that he has at least indicated what he's looking for. My staff have made note of that, and we will get that information to him.

I am confused on how he has linked what he has just requested in terms of information back to the merit legislation and a Merit Commissioner. Be that as it may, he's asked the question as to whether I support merit-based legislation. Yes, I do. We have merit legislation. We have a Merit Commissioner process in place, so I think that evidence speaks for itself.

H. Lali: Well, let me just go back in history for the hon. member to even before the time the hon. member actually got elected in 1996. Between 1991 and 1996, when we brought in equity legislation and some amendments that we brought in, in terms of equity hiring…. Both before 1996 and also after, each and every time it was the Liberal opposition at that time who voted against it and voted against it en masse. They said that equity hire was quota-based, which it wasn't, and that they wanted something with some new terminology — merit legislation, as they called it. That's how they wanted to have it done, because they said the NDP was going to actually somehow circumvent the merit process and actually bring in people who were not deserving of those positions.

As a matter of fact, when you looked at those categories of women, aboriginals, visible minorities and people with disabilities…. Especially if you looked at the visible minorities category, those people who came from other parts of the world who were deemed to be visible minorities had higher educational experience than the general population. Yet in the public service, in terms of those positions that were being gained, they were not keeping up to the percentage of the general population that that visible minority group held. So obviously, we brought in legislation, and also amendments to the legislation, to promote the hiring of people from those equity backgrounds because there should be merit in the system.

What the Liberals said back then was…. They spoke against it because it was a quota system. Then they wanted to bring in merit legislation. When they got into office in 2001, they realized that that merit legislation already existed under the equity legislation and those provisions that were provided under that legislation by the New Democrat governments over that ten-year period. But they voted against it. They made much ado about that. They said they were going to somehow do a better job than the NDP government was doing, and what we're finding right now is that it's exactly the opposite. It's gone backwards.

Instead of providing the information we need, this minister is actually putting an iron curtain over it. All I'm asking is: tell me, tell this committee, what kind of progress has been made by this government in the last four years in terms of the promises that they made in making sure that people from those four groups were going to get their positions based on merit. That's all I'm asking the minister, and the minister is refusing to do that. Maybe the minister might do that now and tell me indeed if they've gone backwards or if they've made progress on this.

Hon. I. Chong: Again, with respect, I hope that the member is listening, because I have stated more than once now that I will endeavour to get the information to him. That is not hiding anything. I will endeavour to get the information to him. I have stated that I do not have this with me at the present moment with the staff that is with me. I don't know how many times I have to say that. It will be forthcoming. I will give that to him. I didn't know how he wanted that information represented. Now that he's given us some idea, because he has put that on the record as to what he wants, I'm at least able to have our staff put together the data that he's looking for.

But again, I caution him on this. Putting together this information…. Statistics that we do have, which are based on voluntary surveys from employees, may not be 100 percent accurate on that basis, but based on what we have, I am prepared to provide it.

The member goes on to discuss the NDP's legislation versus our legislation — the differences. Well, we brought in merit legislation. We brought in a Merit Commissioner. The Merit Commissioner, in fact, put out a report. From that it indicates that 97.4 percent of the hires, based on that audit, were merit-based. It wasn't 100 percent. It wasn't perfect, but 97.4 percent on any other level would be ranking a pretty high grade, probably an "A" — maybe not an "A plus," but pretty high.

I'm satisfied that the legislation we have and our Merit Commissioner that we have in place are fine. We will continue to make improvements, as has been pointed out. The information the member has requested I will endeavour to provide, if he will allow

my staff to get back after the estimates are completed to compile that information for him.

H. Lali: I want to thank the minister for making that commitment to providing the information. I look forward to the information.

Before I sit down, final thoughts. I hope the government has not abandoned equity hire. Also, in terms of the reporting, the compiling of the reporting and the monitoring that has to take place, when the NDP was in government…. She wanted to know why this is so important to me. As a member of a visible minority, just like the hon. minister is as well, these things are important to us, because if we don't raise this issue in the House, along with other colleagues who may or may not be from these equity groups, then obviously, who else will? That's why I do this with a passion.

I want to thank the minister for her commitment, but I have this one final question that I need to ask, and that is in terms of the hiring panels. On the hiring panels that the government has, what kind of representation is there from those equity groups? That's my final question, and then I'll turn it over to the minister to close the debate. If she can provide me that information…. Unless there are people from these four groups that I've mentioned — women, aboriginal, visible minorities and persons with disabilities — who are on those hiring panels, you're not going to get the composition of equity that you're looking for.

When we were in government, towards the last three years our cabinet gave a directive to every minister and every Crown corporation that equity had to be reflected in terms of the hiring process that took place. I hope the minister will make a similar commitment to make sure that her government will follow through on the commitments that have been made.

Hon. I. Chong: I'm advised that the hiring panels comprise, generally, the directors who are there to fulfil the particular competition, and that those who are there are really best able to assess merit. The hiring panels are people who are best suited to ask the questions and to find suitability for those particular vacancies that exist.

I appreciate that the member speaks with passion, because that is important in these kinds of issues. I also want to just share with him that we do take very seriously the diversity of our province and the representation that exists. In all areas that we are able to have direct influence on, that does occur.

I can tell you from experience on the recent Premier's Council on Aging and Seniors Issues that we tried to get representation of seniors from around the province, from all different backgrounds, from different ethnicities. We endeavoured to do that. Not everyone applies. When the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform was established, it was the same thing. We tried to get the diversity. We're not always successful, because not always do we get interest from people in those four specific groups the member mentions. We can always do more. We will always endeavour to do more.

Hon. Chair, I'm not sure if that's the last question that the member has to ask. If so, then I think we'll be ready to call the vote on Vote 21.

Hon. I. Chong: With your indulgence, before you call the motion to recess, I just wanted to take this last opportunity to thank all the members of the opposition who have been involved in Vote 20, Community Services, and Vote 21, the Public Service Agency, for their participation. We have had vigorous debate. All those requests that have been asked for by opposition members — their information will be provided to them.

I also want to take this opportunity to thank all the staff that have been with us throughout this time for all the support they have provided. I appreciate the efforts that everyone has made to make sure that these estimates have been thoroughly canvassed.

Hon. P. Bell: I'd like to start out by introducing staff that I have with me here right now. I have, immediately to my far right, Mike Lambert, who is the associate deputy minister for the integrated land management bureau. Almost immediately behind me, slightly to my right, is Larry Pedersen, who's the deputy minister for the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands. To my left is Warren Mitchell, who's assistant deputy minister for the Crown land policy division.

I'd like to start out by just commenting a bit on, particularly, the new ministry and the mandate we have. My goal as the new Minister of Agriculture and Lands is to enhance the economic development and environmental sustainability of agriculture and the food sectors, while delivering a high-quality, safe food product. My mandate includes the management of

My first priority was to reorganize this exciting new ministry and to form the new agency, the integrated land management bureau, which is quickly becoming known as ILMB. With our very capable and committed staff, it will work to support an expanding agriculture and food sector and lead in the development and responsiveness of the strategic Crown land tenuring framework.

Front Counter B.C. natural resource opportunity centre is also part of my responsibility and falls under the integrated land management bureau. Front Counter B.C. really is going to change the way that the natural resource–based businesses pursue and develop their opportunities in British Columbia. What's so unique about this new venture is that it will actually make it easier for people to find out information about natural resource–based business opportunities by simplifying the application process. The first centre opened in Kamloops this past September 16, and it's already responding to the needs of clients, who have told us that they want a one-stop shop.

Our goal is to improve services and help small and medium-sized natural resource–based businesses get started and operate smoothly. We intend to open up offices in Nanaimo and Prince George in early 2006, and then we'll be continuing to expand into Surrey, Cranbrook, Williams Lake, Fort St. John and Smithers late in 2006 and early in 2007.

From the land management component of the ministry, we're working towards a new future for land planning in the province, with upcoming land and resource management plans. We're currently engaged in government-to-government negotiations with many different first nations around the province. We're working with all parties towards historic land use management agreements for a number of areas in B.C. These include first nations, local governments, non-government organizations, industry and other key stakeholders. These will be fair and balanced plans and include all affected parties.

Some may say that this process isn't moving fast enough, but big decisions are not always easy to move quickly. These plans affect many different groups, and each of them must be allowed to voice their concerns and issues. This is a very complex issue, and coming to an agreement that's fair and balanced and reasonable is going to take some time.

Strengthening partnerships with first nations through recognition, respect and reconciliation, and working with first nations are top priorities of this ministry. These plans are going to require a lot of hard work and a lot of compromises on the part of all parties. I'm very optimistic on where we're going with these land use plans, and I think we're headed in absolutely the right direction.

The future of agriculture in B.C., in my view, is very bright. My objective is to actually get new young people engaged and involved in the industry. I think we have some good strategic plans that will lead us in that direction.

Right now I have the ministry working to identify barriers to new entries into the system and to expansion of existing operations throughout the system. We're going to bring some real focus and energy to agriculture in B.C. so that we lead the way throughout North America. A global outlook is important to take, and we're really looking at this industry from the perspective of how we can be competitive globally.

We'll be releasing an agriculture plan later on in 2006 or early 2007. That will be the work of the parliamentary secretary — the member for Delta South. She'll be working along with many MLAs and will be asking, clearly from the opposition, for support in that endeavour as well.

The key objectives that we're going to be looking to here are increasing profitability of individual agricultural operations and retaining more dollars inside the farm gate. We want to increase access to capital and encourage investment in the industry. We want to improve access to Crown land. We want to encourage and facilitate research and development to ensure that we're producing the right profitable products for the industry.

A thriving agricultural sector will support many more jobs and a strong economy throughout British Columbia. I know that for some of the members opposite, it's going to be key in developing diversity in their particular regions as we move through the mountain pine beetle challenge.

I want to talk for a few minutes about aquaculture, because it's always a hot topic in British Columbia. It's absolutely clear from our perspective: we want to lead the world in sustainable environmental management, with the best air quality and the best fisheries management bar none, and we're taking some significant steps in that area. This goal is not going to be achieved overnight and will require input from all stakeholders, including the opposition. To that end, we've taken an unprecedented step by asking the opposition to chair a special legislative committee on aquaculture in the hopes of generating new ideas and innovations that will lead this province to meeting the goal of the best fisheries management bar none.

In addition, we've previously committed $5 million to the Pacific Salmon Forum led by former federal Fisheries Minister, the hon. John Fraser. The opposition-led committee will work closely with the Pacific Salmon Forum and others to identify viable improvements to our aquaculture industry. I welcome feedback from both groups and look forward to a candid, fact-based discussion on this file in the near future. We all want to see healthy wild salmon stocks thriving in British Columbia coastal waters for generations to come.

The mountain pine beetle is a huge challenge for us in the province, but it also presents opportunities. The Mountain Pine Beetle Action Plan sets out seven broad strategies for mitigating impacts of the epidemic and encourages the agricultural sector to operate at its

maximum capacity and to grow where feasible. There are significant expansion opportunities for agriculture, range and agriforestry in mountain pine beetle–impacted areas. The Ministry of Agriculture and Lands is working with other agencies and agricultural interests and other stakeholders to determine which Crown lands are suitable for conversion to agricultural use. I'm not talking about foregoing forestry for agriculture. These are two economic drivers, and the diversity of the two of them working together will really help our communities thrive.

We can take this unfortunate situation and turn it around. It's an unprecedented problem, and sometimes thinking outside the box and putting ideas forward is exactly what it takes to search for solutions.

The bioproducts industry is a very interesting industry. On September 14, in the minibudget, we set aside $20 million a year for innovation in the biotech industry. The biotech industry really holds great promise in British Columbia. Some examples in the agricultural industry are fruit pumice; waste conversion to food ingredients; conversion of herbal products into oils; growing hemp and converting it into products such as textiles, fibres for furniture coverings, etc.; utilizing fish and marine waste to convert into fertilizers; the new Omega 3 egg, an example of a functional food, a food product with established health benefits far beyond basic nutrition; and working with canola products to create different lubricants and biodiesel.

In conclusion, I'm looking forward to working with all members of the House, opposition and government, in the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands and the integrated land management bureau. Working together, we'll build a sustainable food and agricultural system in British Columbia that's part of the province's environmental and social fabric, and we will provide the best management of Crown land resources through integrated planning and allocations for the right benefits of all British Columbians. Working together, B.C. will have a bright future.

B. Ralston: I thank the minister for that opening statement. I'd like to refer first, at the outset, to the accountability statement. I take it from the accountability statement on page 4 that it's an expression of the principle of ministerial responsibility and that you are accepting responsibility for what's in the service plan and its implications. Is that correct?

B. Ralston: This ministry is a recent creation as a result of reorganization, and I'm wondering if the minister can give a brief history of the component parts that form the new ministry as some of the…. It seems to have been stitched together fairly recently.

Hon. P. Bell: I'd certainly be happy to. Obviously, key components would include the old Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. We have removed a couple of small components of the freshwater fisheries and moved them over to Environment, but largely, that remains intact. The Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, the planning functions and so on that were associated with that, and much of the old Land and Water B.C., not including the components that would involve water tenuring, did go to Environment as well — in a nutshell, most of the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, most of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fish, and about two-thirds of Land and Water B.C.

B. Ralston: Can the minister explain what the policy rationale was for this configuration?

Hon. P. Bell: This was really an attempt to bring together the functions in a way that made more sense for the management of land in British Columbia. The sense, as we moved through the planning process, was that many of the functions that resided in the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management fit nicely with Agriculture. Taking Land and Water B.C. into a new form of entity was something we believed was necessary to facilitate moving forward with the new relationship with first nations in the province and having effective tenuring mechanisms here.

B. Ralston: I gather from the material that Land and Water B.C. was wound up, effective September 30, 2005. Is that correct?

Hon. P. Bell: Actually, Land and Water still exists as an entity but only as a shell, and it's in a wind-up period. All of the dollars and FTEs and everything else that was associated with it were transferred inside the ministry as of September 30, 2005.

B. Ralston: I'm reading from page 13 of the service plan, just confirming that it is accurate: "Land and Water B.C. will be wound up September 30, 2005."

There is a reference to the transfer of resources. So we're in that period ending March 31, 2006, when all those assets and resources will be transferred to Crown land administration. Is that correct?

B. Ralston: What was the policy rationale for winding up Land and Water B.C.?

Hon. P. Bell: The positioning of the new entity that is in place, the Front Counter B.C., which is part of the integrated land management bureau, is a much broader tenuring format. It issues far more forms of tenure. It's a new delivery model. It allows for a single window–type model for small and medium-sized businesses. So really, we took the old Land and Water

B.C. and built on it — took the best components and actually built it into an entity that is far more client-responsive. As I said in my earlier comments, it's also more clearly aligned with the new relationship, as well, in our ability to consult in a meaningful way with first nations.

B. Ralston: The focus of Land and Water B.C. appeared to be more primarily focused on the sale of Crown lands. I'm wondering: would that focus change in the new configuration, or will that still be an important component of the new configuration?

Hon. P. Bell: It will continue to be part of the mandate of the new entity. However, it is far more diverse in terms of the type of tenuring that will be done through the new entity. It will have many other forms of leases and tenures and that type of thing. We will still have land transactions included in the new entity.

B. Ralston: Would the minister be able to provide an assessment of Land and Water B.C.'s execution or fulfilment of a mandate to sell Crown land? Was it successful in that regard or not?

Hon. P. Bell: Land and Water B.C. met all of its objectives that were previously laid out, and on the basis of that, it met all its obligations.

B. Ralston: Will that component of Land and Water B.C. then be transferred or merged into the new configuration without any changes, given what the minister has described as the apparent success of that operation?

Hon. P. Bell: I'm sorry; we may have to do this twice. I may not get to fully answer the member's question, so I ask in advance for his tolerance if he wants to come back with a second question in this area.

It is still within the mandate of the new entity to transact lands. However, the targets are under review, and we are looking at that particular issue closely. We do factor in different considerations far more broadly, such as species at risk, first nations and any other components that more clearly align us with the new relationship.

I'm not sure I answered your question. I'd be happy to give you more detail if you need it.

B. Ralston: In the service plan the key strategy that's noted is to "lead the development of a responsive provincial strategic Crown land tenuring framework." Is that any different from the mandate of Land and Water B.C.?

Hon. P. Bell: It is, in the sense that targets may change. There are different forms of tenure that we're considering, and with the new relationship with first nations now, there is a new level of consultation and combination that's taking place around the province. So that does change the context of the work that would be done by that particular group of folks.

Hon. P. Bell: The target for this particular agency has been reduced from the previous $73 million to $23 million, and really, that's being done because we're viewing the Crown land base as a broader asset and thinking of it both in terms of how we deal with treaties, with first nations relationships, around the province and ensuring that we bring that full-value package into account when we are looking at Crown lands.

B. Ralston: Can the minister advise if the $73 million that he refers to is derived largely from the sale of Crown land, or is it from other specific revenue sources?

Hon. P. Bell: The member is correct. It is largely the sale of Crown land that was the previous target of $73 million.

B. Ralston: Notwithstanding what the minister said earlier about the success of Land and Water B.C. in fulfilling its mandate, is the reason for lowering the target that the sale of Crown land under the previous target was deemed to be excessive?

Hon. P. Bell: No, not at all. In fact, priorities change over time. We are working very hard to develop a firm relationship with first nations around the province. We understand that land is a big part of the priority of those relationships, so we are just being cautious and ensuring that we proceed in a way that works for first nations.

B. Ralston: Would it be fair to interpret the policy shift, then, as a more prudent policy in relation to the disposal of Crown land, given its potential use as currency in ongoing land negotiations with aboriginal nations?

Hon. P. Bell: Certainly that is one of the reasons for the shift, but there are others, in terms of aligning with the other great goals that we have outlined as part of this government's long-term strategic plan.

B. Ralston: The record by which Land and Water B.C. accounted for the sale of assets, I gather…. I'm looking at Hansard for May 5, 2004, pages 10892 and 10893. The then minister was responding to a question from the member for Vancouver-Hastings. I'm going to read the response to the minister, and I'm just going to ask some follow-up questions. "The sales are public knowledge, and we'd be happy to put together a list of the purchasers for the member. If she had some additional analytical work she would like done around that,

we'd be happy to provide that for her, as well, if she's looking for that greater level of detail."

My question to the minister is: given that Land and Water B.C. is now wound up and there's a beginning date and an end date, will the minister commit to providing not only this information — which I'm sure was provided, given that the minister made a commitment to it — but the record of all the sales of Crown land from the beginning of the land and water corporation's existence until its end?

Hon. P. Bell: We'd be pleased to provide that to you. In fact, there's an audit that will be done of Land and Water B.C., and we'd be happy to provide you with a copy of that audit upon completion.

B. Ralston: Just so that it's clear what I'm seeking: I'm seeking, in a comprehensible form, records of individual sales, including the price and the name of the purchaser or purchasers. Is that part of the commitment that the minister is making here today?

Hon. P. Bell: Sorry, I just wanted to check and be clear on that. There is, as the member will know, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and within the structure of that act, whatever we can provide to the member we would most certainly be happy to do. I think that probably he'll find he will have everything he needs with that.

B. Ralston: Just so I'm clear, then, is the minister saying that under the rubric of this procedure he's not willing to provide that information and that he is asking me to make a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act? Or have I misinterpreted it?

Hon. P. Bell: No. The member can consider the request done, and we will provide that information to you.

Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as I'm sure he knows, there are statutory deadlines for the provision of information upon request. Will the information that's been requested here be provided in the same time frame as in the Freedom of Information…? I believe there are 30 days to respond initially, and there is a mechanism for appeal if there isn't a response in that time. I'm asking the minister: will he commit to provide that information within 30 days?

Hon. P. Bell: That is a very large ask. I'm not sure we have the resources to turn it around as quickly as that, but we will do everything within our ability to get it to you as quickly as possible, and we will certainly offer the member updates on a regular basis as to where we are at on the delivery of that commitment.

B. Ralston: If I can be helpful, in this response in the estimates debate of 2004 there was reference in fiscal '02-03 to 187 sales and in '03-04 to 132 sales. With respect to the minister and the resources of this ministry, that doesn't seem like an inordinately difficult request, given that it was probably already prepared for those years. You're looking at the '04-05 one to complete it all. I'd prefer that the minister give an unqualified commitment to provide that information in 30 days, if he's willing to.

Hon. P. Bell: I'll repeat my last answer. We will do everything we can to deliver the information to the member as quickly as we possibly can. In the event of any delays, we will keep him fully briefed and informed on what the time frames are that we're dealing with.

B. Ralston: Just so we're clear, then, who is the senior official responsible for Land and Water B.C. and the records contained therein at the present time?

Hon. P. Bell: The official immediately to my right, who I earlier identified as Deputy Minister Larry Pedersen, would be happy to ensure that that is delivered upon.

In the service plan it's noted that the ministry will "review and develop, as necessary" — I'm reading from the passage there — "a current pricing policy to ensure the province receives optimal value from specified Crown land transactions." Could the minister advise: what is the ministry's current pricing policy?

Hon. P. Bell: The principle of fair market value is the one followed within the entity. Fair market value is established through an independent appraisal of the property. If there's disagreement on the part of the purchaser, then there is a second appraisal done by the purchaser on the property as well. A review is made at that point.

B. Ralston: Beyond the requirement of an independent appraisal, is there anything else in the policy? Or is that the policy in its totality?

B. Ralston: I'm going to take it from that response, and perhaps the minister can correct me if I'm wrong, that there's no intention to review this policy, given its stark simplicity.

Hon. P. Bell: No. In fact, as the member read earlier in the service plan, there is the intent to review the policy around Crown land pricing. That work will be done this year.

B. Ralston: Has the minister received advice that the province has not received optimal value from speci-

fied Crown land transactions? Is that the motivation for a review of the policy?

Hon. P. Bell: No, I have not, but it would be the prudent thing to do to ensure that the policy is kept up to date on an ongoing basis. It would make sense for us to review that policy and ensure that the Crown is receiving fair compensation all the time.

B. Ralston: The minister may be aware that Land and Water B.C., in recent years prior to its dissolution, was viewed by some in the community — and I'll give you some specific examples shortly — as engaged in aggressive attempts to sell large tracts of public land.

Does the dissolution of Land and Water B.C. represent a recognition of the apparent harm that this has caused to many communities by aggressive attempts to sell public land despite local opposition?

Hon. P. Bell: No. In fact, we're very proud of the record of this government. If you look around the province at the economy and what's occurred, moving from what was characterized as a dismal decade in the '90s to a dynamic decade by the Royal Bank just the other day, to the lowest levels of youth unemployment that the province has ever seen, to incredible strength in the economy, where the province is leading the economy of Canada right now…. In fact, all of the ready evidence clearly demonstrates that the decisions that were made were accurate.

As I said earlier, the shift that we are making in terms of our policy on Crown land reflects a number of strategies, not the least of which would be our approach to first nations relationships and environmental values around the province.

B. Ralston: Most of that, I suppose, is to be expected but is really beside the point.

I'm wondering if the minister is familiar with the Lac des Roches and Birch Lake application to sell Crown land? Apparently, the dissolution of Land and Water B.C. was celebrated in that community. I'm wondering if he can advise me of the status of the Lac des Roches and Birch Lake application, which would have seen several hundred properties built on this relatively remote area along the highway between Kamloops and Cache Creek.

Hon. P. Bell: That is a spectacular part of the province, as the member's colleague will know. I've driven that road a number of times — some beautiful spots.

We understand that there was a tremendous amount of controversy from the owners of property in the region. We are still moving slowly ahead on this project, but we are prepared to sit down and ensure that we do everything we can to meet the objections that the community has brought forward. Slow, steady progress. We're not moving ahead with anything rapidly on this particular issue. We do know it is controversial, and we want to try and do everything we can to meet the existing property owners' needs.

B. Ralston: Can the minister, then, advise what the proposed amount of Crown land is that is the subject of this sale? When the minister says he is moving slowly, what does that mean? Is it intended that the sale be completed or not?

Hon. P. Bell: It is a continually declining number at this point in time. I don't have a firm number. I'd be happy to work with the local MLA on this project and have local staff work with him to ensure that we meet the needs of the residents in the area as well. However, we do think there's some value to this project, and there probably is an opportunity to create a situation where new people can enjoy that wonderful environment that your colleague from Cariboo South enjoys so frequently.

B. Ralston: Perhaps I can quote from an article in the local paper, the 100 Mile House Free Press, from one of the opponents of this application, who doesn't appear to have quite the same sunny disposition towards this application:

Is the minister saying — and I appreciate that he's offered to provide further detail — that a 228-unit strata development subdivision in the Lac des Roches area of the province is something that his ministry is enthusiastically welcoming and is consistent with the mandate of the ministry?

Hon. P. Bell: No. In fact, what I said is that we're working with the residents in the area. We want to make sure this project works for the local landowners and for any new prospective owners that might want to take advantage of the beautiful southern Cariboo.

B. Ralston: Just so I'm clear, when the minister is committed to providing further details, I am interested in the minister providing the following details: the amount of land in question and the status of the application; the name of the application or the applicant and the proposed details about the nature of the proposed development; the process of public consultation that Land and Water B.C. and its successor propose to engage in, if any; and what the target date is for the completion of this particular sale. Is the minister prepared to make a commitment to provide that information within 30 days?

Hon. P. Bell: In fact, I'll do better than that. As I already offered and will offer again, we'd be happy to

have the member for Cariboo South fully engaged in the process to ensure we meet the needs of his constituents in the community as well. That offer would be open to the member for Cariboo South, and we will work closely with him to try and create a development that makes sense for everyone in the area.

B. Ralston: I suppose the obvious question to ask is: does that willingness to work with the member include the willingness to contemplate that this development might not proceed at all?

Hon. P. Bell: There is a wide possibility of end results from this particular project, as I previously identified to the member. Certainly, that is one of the possible outcomes. I would be hopeful that we can find a happy place that people are comfortable with, where there is the opportunity for not just the existing residents to enjoy that beautiful scenery but also, possibly, some new ones.

B. Ralston: Just so we're clear for the record, then: the minister is agreeing. He said he wanted to go better than my request. I'm confirming, on the record, because I wanted to be sure that I understood him, that all of the things I have requested will be provided within 30 days. Is that correct?

Hon. P. Bell: That actually isn't what I said. What I said is that we would fully engage his colleague from Cariboo South in the process. If the member is insistent that he'd like the information within 30 days, we're happy to provide that to him, as well — just in the spirit of cooperation and warmth that a Wednesday night would bring to all of us here in the Legislative Assembly in British Columbia.

B. Ralston: I hope that warm and sunny feeling continues, because I have a number of requests that I'm contemplating. That's a good start to the first one, in any event.

Can the minister explain how the shift to the integrated land management bureau might affect applications already underway?

B. Ralston: The process for new applications, then, of a similar nature — would that process remain the same as well?

Hon. P. Bell: I want to be clear. I'm not sure whether the member is asking specifically with regards to Crown land sales or if his question is a broader question. If he could clarify that for me first.

Hon. P. Bell: As I said earlier, the process remains consistent with what it was in the past. We are gradually shifting to the new natural resource opportunity centre's Front Counter BC. But all current policies remain the same, as I said, with the exception of the targets that we reviewed already and that were canvassed a little time ago.

B. Ralston: Can the minister advise on the status of the Jumbo Glacier Resort application? I understand there was considerable public opposition through that longstanding process. Would the changes in the composition and configuration of the ministry affect that application in any way?

Hon. P. Bell: That file has been transferred to the Ministry of Tourism, Sports and the Arts and could be fully canvassed with that minister when their estimates are up.

B. Ralston: Just so I'm clear, does the application not involve the sale of Crown land?

Hon. P. Bell: Large tenures or large resorts of that type have been transferred to the Ministry of Tourism, Sports and the Arts.

B. Ralston: Then is there no oversight or no input from the Minister of Agriculture and Lands into developments of that type, particularly when they would appear to concern potentially large tracts of Crown land? Just so that I'm clear, is that what the minister is saying?

Hon. P. Bell: Just to be clear, it is large commercial recreation tenures. So Jumbo would be a very good example of that type of file that has been transferred to MOTSA, and others may as well. But it would only be a few of the larger files of that nature that would have been transferred.

B. Ralston: Could the minister then provide a complete list of those projects or applications for the sale of Crown land previously in Land and Water B.C. or within the Crown lands section that have been transferred to the other ministry in the manner that he described?

Hon. P. Bell: I'm informed that there are probably fewer than a dozen, and we'd be happy to provide that to you within a few days. I'm sure we can put that information together for you shortly.

I want to ask some questions about land use planning. In the service plan, on page 51, it notes that the minister will be reviewing and amending land use planning processes as a result of public consultations. Can the minister confirm that my reading of the plan is accurate?

Hon. P. Bell: I'm not sure I exactly understood the question, but I will try and respond. Consultations on land use plans around the province that we are currently engaged in are done by ministry staff and then reported back to me. Of course, that would be a wide variety of ministry staff, given that there are currently six land use plans underway.

I apologize if I haven't answered the question fully, and I would be happy to take a further question on it.

B. Ralston: As I understood the service plan, what's being talked about here is the process rather than individual applications. I can appreciate that ministry staff might be involved in reporting on individual applications, but this purports, according to my reading of it, to be a public consultation directed to the land use planning process or processes. That's what I'm interested in, on page 51 of the service plan, and I'm interested to know who conducted those consultations.

Hon. P. Bell: I just ask your tolerance. If you can point out exactly which line you're referring to, I'd be happy to try and respond to the question.

B. Ralston: I'll have to defer that momentarily, because I don't have the plan right in front of me. I'm going on the basis of my notes. I guess my question to the minister would be: given that there was a consultation process, were the results made public?

Hon. P. Bell: If I could just ask for the member's tolerance for a second. If he could clarify for me: are you referring to any specific land use plan or to the process of developing the plans?

Hon. P. Bell: The work was done by a previous Member of the Legislative Assembly, the previous member for North Coast for the 37th parliament, I think it was. The work was done at the request of cabinet, was advice to cabinet and has not been made public.

B. Ralston: I'm sure my question is obvious: will the minister commit to making the results of that consultation by a Member of the Legislative Assembly public?

B. Ralston: Can the minister explain why he's not prepared to make that document public?

Hon. P. Bell: It was advice to cabinet. It was requested as advice to cabinet and, as with all documents of that nature, it remains confidential.

B. Ralston: Just so I'm clear on the process, then, the member for North Coast in the previous parliament was commissioned to conduct a public consultation on land use planning in the province and that advice is not to be made public because it's a confidential cabinet document? Just so that I'm clear.

Hon. P. Bell: We may have to go back and forth once or twice on this. I'll try and be as succinct as I can. The previous member was requested by cabinet to go out and meet with different groups around the province to discuss the land use planning process. The member brought forward a report to cabinet, as requested. It is a cabinet document and remains confidential. However, the result of that cabinet document is what you now see in the service plan, which is a recommendation of a review of the land use planning process in the province of British Columbia. I hope I've answered as much of that as I can.

B. Ralston: Yes. I just want to reference page 51. The minister had requested a specific line. I'm going to read from it — page 51 of the service plan, beginning with the bullet "Review and amend land use planning processes as a consequence of public consultations in 2004." I gather from the minister's response that this was a report conducted by a Member of the Legislative Assembly, the member for North Coast in a previous parliament. Can the minister advise: was this particular member of the Legislature paid any additional money for carrying out the public consultations in connection with this report?

B. Ralston: Given the minister's response — obviously this member travelled throughout the province and consulted with various people — is the minister making a request for all receipts and expenditures in connection with the preparation of this report, including travel vouchers, meal allowances, minutes of any meetings and the instructions to him as to what he was to look for?

Hon. P. Bell: What I can tell the member is this. There is a normal set of rules and regulations that we operate under in this House. I'm sure the member was provided with the Member's Handbook when he was first elected, which outlines exactly what expenditures are allowed upon business travel of a Member of the Legislative Assembly.

To my knowledge, the previous member for North Coast, along with other members, travelled under their business expenses. However, we will commit to you to review those files. If there were any expenditures outside of the realm of normal business expenditures, which would be held inside the Legislative Assembly and reported in public accounts every year, or if there were any expenses paid through any ministry, we will provide that information to the member.

As far as the member's requests for notes, undertakings or any meeting notes, I am unable to provide those to him, as they are also covered under cabinet confidentiality as part of the request of the document for advice to cabinet.

B. Ralston: I believe the minister made reference to other members who may have travelled with the member for North Coast in this process. Was the member for North Coast travelling on his own in this endeavour, or were there other Members of the Legislative Assembly who travelled with him? Were there other members of the staff of the government of British Columbia who travelled with him throughout the province on this confidential mission?

Hon. P. Bell: Yes, there were other members. I don't recall off the top of my head who those were. We don't have that information here with us. If the member would like to know who else was involved in that process, I'd be happy to provide that to him. In addition, yes, there were staff that would have travelled on that as well. Again, I'm happy to provide that information to him. That may take some work to get through those files. However, any of the meeting notes or anything relating to the actual outcome of the process as a result of the document, being advice to cabinet, remains confidential.

B. Ralston: Just so I'm clear, then. The minister is committing to provide to the public through this process the names of those Members of the Legislative Assembly who travelled on this confidential mission?

Hon. P. Bell: I'd be happy to do that, and I think, actually, that it was public information at the time. I'm happy to go back. I'll just have to pull that information back together for the member.

B. Ralston: Can the minister advise of the dates when this project was initiated — this confidential mission — and when it was completed, given that it's referred to in this document as a public consultation?

Hon. P. Bell: I would be happy to provide the member with the dates of the committee's work — the start date, the finish date. Just to be clear, this was far from being a secret mission. It was in fact a series of meetings that were held. The only component of it that remains confidential is the report to cabinet, as are all reports and advice to cabinet.

B. Ralston: Given that the minister says — and I accept his word on this, obviously — that these were public consultations, were there any transcripts of these public meetings made that would be accessible? I know, for example, the Finance Committee just last week travelled throughout the province — a number of Members of the Legislative Assembly. Submissions were heard, and a transcript was taken which is available to members of the public.

This would appear to be a very important area. This is the land use planning for the province and one of the most important ministries in the government. I would expect there would be some record of the consultation process. So can the minister, first of all, advise that such a record exists, and secondly, if it does, can he direct me to it?

Hon. P. Bell: In fact it does exist, and as I previously outlined, it is advice to cabinet and therefore confidential.

B. Ralston: Can the minister advise if this committee, given the confidential nature of the report, met in camera or privately with any citizens of the province or from other provinces or from out of the country for that matter?

Hon. P. Bell: I apologize for taking so long to answer some of these questions, but I nor any of the deputies or assistant deputies here were involved in this process, so we are struggling a bit to get the detail. We're happy to fully pursue this for the member. Any information the member would like, we're happy to provide within the realm of the confidentiality of cabinet.

I am told there was obviously a series of meetings that took place around the province with different interest groups. Some of them may, depending on my colleague's definition, be referred to as in camera. I'm not sure. Some of them were more public. We're happy to provide the details and, in fact, a full briefing to the member at his leisure.

B. Ralston: Can the minister advise if any of the members of the public consulted in this process were those who at the time of the consultation had applications before the government or who now have applications before the government?

Hon. P. Bell: I'll respond as I did previously. Neither I nor any of the people I have here today were involved in the process, and we don't have that level of information. We would be happy to provide whatever information the member would like in the form of a complete and detailed briefing around this file within the realm of cabinet confidentiality.

B. Ralston: Can the minister advise when this confidential document that resulted from public consultation was presented to cabinet?

B. Ralston: Just so I'm clear, is the minister saying that the date at which it was presented to cabinet is confidential, as well, or that he will endeavour to find

out when it was presented to cabinet? It doesn't seem to me that the date at which it was presented to cabinet ought necessarily to be a concern, but if it is a concern, then perhaps the minister can make it clear on the record.

Hon. P. Bell: I will have one more go at this, Madam Chair. We're happy to provide everything within the context of cabinet confidentiality that we can possibly provide to the member, and that's as far as I can go on the file. I simply don't have the people here to provide him with the types of answers he's looking for this evening.

B. Ralston: Well, perhaps I'm mistaken, but the minister has sitting immediately to his right a very senior and respected deputy minister who has dealt with many cabinet documents, I'm sure. So I'm wondering if the minister can advise whether the date on which a document about a public consultation is submitted to cabinet is ordinarily and routinely a matter that's held in confidence from the public.

Hon. P. Bell: The member recognizes the quality of the deputy, in fact, that this ministry has, and I'm very pleased with his work. However, he was just a few short months ago an individual that had responsibility for B.C. timber sales and was the chief forester prior to that. He didn't operate at the level where he would have that knowledge to provide to you tonight. However, I will reiterate one more time that we are happy to provide to the member full and complete disclosure of everything that we are able to provide under the rules of cabinet confidentiality on this file, and to do so in a timely fashion that meets his schedule.

B. Ralston: Let me just try one final time, then. Is the minister prepared to commit to releasing — and I'm not accepting at the moment that this document is properly held confidential — a summary of the document, given that it's a public consultation on an important public matter of significant concern to a number of British Columbians and prepared entirely at public expense?

B. Ralston: Can the minister then advise what the process would be for reviewing and amending land use planning processes as a result of the advice that was received as a result of this confidential mission?

Hon. P. Bell: The ministry is currently undergoing a policy review as a result of the work that was done by the previous MLA, and we think that is an important thing to do. As the member will know, there are significant changes in the dynamics of the land base currently happening in the central interior part of the province with the mountain pine beetle. Values that were established at the time that that particular land use plan was done have changed. It may be appropriate to revisit that land use plan, and how we do that is, I think, an important strategy.

The policy work that is currently taking place is done with that in mind. It is a public piece of work that is going on and certainly something that we would encourage opposition members to participate in and provide recommendations to government on as well. It is something that we all have to live with. The member for Cariboo South lives right in the centre of a key part of the province that's being impacted heavily right now and probably needs to have that revisited.

B. Ralston: Given that the minister has described this as a public piece of work, will the minister commit to making public those documents that are being circulated and considered with a view to revising the policy — other than, of course, the confidential document prepared by the member for North Coast and other unnamed MLAs at public expense but held confidential from the people of British Columbia?

Hon. P. Bell: Again, in the spirit of cooperation — a whole new era in the Legislative Assembly in British Columbia — we'd be happy to engage the member in a full and detailed briefing and to accept the member's advice on any shifts that we make. It is a process that we are currently early on in. There's not a lot of work that has been done on this file yet, but it is an important piece of work, in our view, and certainly one that's appropriate to engage all Members of the Legislative Assembly in the development of.

B. Ralston: I appreciate the offer of a briefing, but there are other members of the public who are concerned about these issues. Ordinarily, one of the ways to engage their participation in the process is to release documents which might set out a policy direction. Is the minister prepared to do that? I'd invite the minister to reconsider the position he's taken thus far — that the document prepared by the member for North Coast is a confidential cabinet document — and have a review of it and think about releasing it in the spirit of cooperation to which he refers.

Hon. P. Bell: It's such a lovely place to work this evening. It's wonderful.

Let me get back to my point. It's very early on in the process of the development of this new policy. What the member points out may be, in fact, the approach that is chosen in the development, and I'll take his question as a recommendation, as something for consideration.

It is very early on in the process of developing this policy. I think it is extremely important that we engage the public and all interested groups in it, as we have done very clearly in the development of land use plans around the province. Unfortunately, as the member will find out from time to time, there are documents that go to cabinet, and it is important that the integrity of those documents is maintained. Clearly, the previ-

ous government during the 1990s.… I'm sure there were many cabinet documents that they held in confidence as well. That's just part of the nature of the business that we are in here.

I'm happy to work with the member early on in the process of land use planning. I think that working together, we can accomplish a tremendous amount.

B. Ralston: Perhaps we can leave to another day whether there are precedents for a publicly funded report by MLAs, who travelled at public expense, were paid by the public and consulted publicly, preparing a document for cabinet and then keeping that private and holding it back from the public in what is called a public process. I doubt that there are any precedents for that, but if the minister is able to point those precedents out to me, I'll defer to his knowledge in that area.

What I would like to do, at this point, would be to ask a question again based on the same page of the service plan. The ministry has an initiative to develop and apply area-based resource targets as an outcome of land and resource use planning. Perhaps, first of all, the minister can interpret that and explain what that means.

Hon. P. Bell: Targets are applied to a wide variety of values in all the land use plans, and actually, probably the best example of this particular…. I keep identifying the member for Cariboo South. I apologize. I'm not picking on the member in any way. Probably the best example of a great land use plan is the one in the member's riding in Cariboo South. The Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan has a wide variety of targets embodied within that land use plan, whether they're wildlife targets, tourism targets, timber targets and the like.

It is about ensuring in the land use planning process that you create the appropriate values and that you meet all those values through the land use plan. It seems to be working very, very well in the Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan at this point.

B. Ralston: Can the minister advise how the targets he refers to — and obviously, there are a broad number of targets — will be established? What will be the process for establishing those targets? Will this be the subject of confidential cabinet documents, or will there be a public process to determine these targets?

I'm happy to tell the member that the targets are established by government staff. The government staff do that in consultation with different interest groups throughout the province. The process is open and transparent, and all documents that are associated with the process are publicly available.

B. Ralston: Can the minister advise what the time line would be for the development of the targets he has referred to?

Hon. P. Bell: I'm happy to indicate to the member that the plans take some time to develop. In fact, the only one in the province that really is completed at this point is the Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan, the member for Cariboo South's riding. The other plans do take time. Often our targets are in the one-year to two-year range to establish those targets, but it is very challenging.

As I indicated, there is only the one plan that has actually completed this process. It's part of the implementation process of land use plans, and it's probably the toughest part of the whole process — really challenging. A lot of good work has been done. We've taken some of the key pieces of information out of the Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan, and we are trying to apply them in other parts of the province, but it's very, very difficult to execute on.

B. Ralston: In the service plan it also notes the ministry will "establish strategic land use plan implementation committees to maintain and increase local ownership of land use plans." That's on page 51 of the service plan. The minister just spoke of implementation. Can the minister advise when those committees will be established?

Hon. P. Bell: There are currently 27 different land use plans around the province. The implementation committees perhaps are represented in something less than a third of the total plans. We are currently in the process of creating plan implementation committees around the province, typically coming up on renewal dates of land use plans or as the land use plans come up for review. It is a fairly lengthy process. We do view it as an important part of the land use planning process so that we can take into consideration all of the challenges and dynamic changes that take place on the land base around the province as they are impacted by different forms of infestation, fires and the like.

B. Ralston: Can the minister advise how the membership of these implementation committees will be determined?

Hon. P. Bell: These committees are not one-size-fits-all committees. They're generally representative of the local communities. Really, we try and establish the committee on the basis of the interest in the local communities, largely, although there are stakeholders from outside the local community as well. It depends on the individual committee that's in place. We try and work with local individuals, particularly the individuals that originally sat on the LRMP process, and make sure we have a committee that is representative of the interests in the local area.

B. Ralston: Then is the minister saying — and perhaps he's not — that the membership of the committee

will be by invitation? Or can a member of the public volunteer? Who is eligible to join such a committee? I'm just interested in how such a committee might be comprised.

Hon. P. Bell: The way the original committees were established was largely — and I'm talking about the planning committees now, not the implementation committees — a process of people who were interested in what was going on in the land base, whether they be ranchers or trappers or environmentalists or loggers or miners or local politicians — whoever happened to be in the local community. People who had a specific interest in the land base tended to coalesce, and then the committee was established that way.

Most of the plans actually have a process of the appointments of the implementation committees built into the plan by the original individuals that sat on the LRMP. That is the way the majority of the implementation committees will be established. But in my experience in dealing with these committees, they are very inclusive. If people have an interest in sitting on the committee, they tend to be invited to the committee and to participate.

B. Ralston: I have some questions about land and resource management plans. The minister has made reference to those. According to the documents provided, there are special Treasury Board allocations for the implementation of strategic land use plans of $12 million in 2005-2006, $8 million in 2006-2007 and $8 million in 2007-2008. Can the minister, first of all, just confirm that my figures are accurate?

B. Ralston: Perhaps the minister can advise me whether my conclusion is correct here. It would appear that the ministry intends to have all six ongoing plans of this type completed or endorsed by cabinet by 2006-2007. Is that correct?

Hon. P. Bell: The service plan does clearly indicate that all six plans would be endorsed by cabinet by the end of '06-07. However, I do want to say that we are in the midst of government-to-government negotiations with first nations on many of the plans at this point. We've been very clear that we're not going to push these forward until we have support from the first nations.

I can tell you that I'm very excited about many of the land use plans. I think we've got very good news. We've had some excellent staff in the ministry working on these land use plans, and I think people will be very pleased with the outcomes. First nations, government-to-government discussions are always challenging, and we need to ensure that we have the appropriate amount of time to complete those discussions.

B. Ralston: If I can interpret that response, the intention remains the same. But the minister is issuing a caution that it may not be possible to achieve those targets, given ongoing negotiations with aboriginal communities and nations. Is that correct?

B. Ralston: According to the service plan, the government intends to initiate and review other plans of the ministry as directed by government after 2007-2008. Is it the present intention of the minister and the ministry to continue this process in other areas of the province?

B. Ralston: I'm going to ask a series of questions about the status of each of the six current land and resource management plans that are before the government. Can the minister provide an update on the planning processes? We'll begin with Lillooet. I believe it is number one.

Hon. P. Bell: We're currently in the midst of government-to-government negotiations with first nations on Lillooet.

B. Ralston: I appreciate the minister's earlier caveat. Given the commitment, what's the likely possibility of that plan being concluded within the time horizon set out in the service plan?

Hon. P. Bell: At this point our best estimate is that we will meet the obligations of the service plan. We're very hopeful that we can do that within the context of making sure that we complete the requirements of effective government-to-government consultation with first nations.

Can the minister advise of the status of the central coast plan, bearing in mind…? The Premier has made a public commitment in a letter earlier this year — I believe it was post-July of 2005 — that this matter would be concluded sometime this fall.

Hon. P. Bell: Very excited about this particular land use plan. I think there is a real positive story evolving out of it. We are very close to completion of government-to-government negotiations with first nations, and I just encourage the member to stay tuned on this file. I think there's some good news coming down the road.

B. Ralston: I turn now to the north coast LRMP. Can the minister advise what the status is of the north coast plan?

Hon. P. Bell: Actually, it is identical to central coast — just on the completion of government-to-government discussions. Really pretty excited and very

B. Ralston: The next one on my list is the Morice plan. Just for those who may not be familiar with this part of the province, can the minister first advise what area the Morice plan covers?

Hon. P. Bell: The area is in the Burns Lake area but basically kind of runs from the Bulkley TSA to the west out to the Lakes TSA to the east. Again, that is at the very tail end of the government-to-government negotiations and looks to have a positive outcome.

B. Ralston: Just so I'm clear in locating it in geography, then — does that include the Ootsa Lake region to the south and the Francois Lake region to the north?

Hon. P. Bell: It is centred around Houston, British Columbia, and includes a portion of both Ootsa and Francois lakes inside that particular planning area.

Hon. P. Bell: I would be happy to repeat my earlier answer to the member's question, which was that it's in government-to-government negotiations and getting reasonably close to completion of that process.

B. Ralston: Can the minister advise how many aboriginal governments are involved in this negotiation?

B. Ralston: The next one on my list is the Sea to Sky plan. Can the minister advise, first, what geographic area that plan covers?

Hon. P. Bell: I'm going to take a stab at answering what I think may be the next question here as well. I actually had an opportunity to tour this part of the province, a spectacular part of the province and certainly one that people are very fortunate to recreate in when they have that opportunity. The area, roughly described as from Squamish to Pemberton, includes the Elaho, the Sims and the Callahan valleys. There are two first nations that are represented in the area, the Lil'wat and the Squamish. I hope I have anticipated those questions correctly.

B. Ralston: And again, the status of those negotiations and the likelihood of a conclusion of the plan within the time envisaged by the service plan?

Hon. P. Bell: I thought I was going to get all three questions. I apologize for making the member stand up a third time. It is in government-to-government negotiations, and we are hopeful that we'll have completion of this plan within the time frame as well.

B. Ralston: The sixth and final one on my list of LRMPs is the Haida Gwaii plan. I think many of us are familiar with the geography of that plan. Can the minister advise: what is the expected date of completion of that plan?

Hon. P. Bell: I'm going to take a stab at all three answers this time, to help save the member's legs from having to do this little thing we're doing here. First of all, he quite rightly assesses it as the Queen Charlotte Islands. Haida Gwaii is the planning area. It is early on. We have a consensus table agreed to at this point. That has now moved to government-to-government negotiations. It is very early on in the government-to-government negotiations. There is one first nation involved, and that's the Haida First Nation.

B. Ralston: The service plan notes that the ministry intends to "develop a first nations land use planning strategy utilizing protocol agreements for first nations participation in land use planning." Can the minister advise: is that anything different than the negotiations that are already ongoing? Is there some policy innovation that's contemplated in this language, or does it simply restate in other words what is taking place already?

B. Ralston: I would like to turn now to some questions in the area of the integrated land management bureau. I'm going to look at the service plan and some expenditures in the service plan that are estimated.

The service plan notes that estimated expenditures for Crown land administration jump from a mere $2.445 million in '04-05 to $30.151 million in 2005-2006, jump further in 2006-2007 to $39-plus million and then to over $40 million in 2007-2008. There is an increase in FTEs. Is this increase in expenditure and employees due to the establishment of the integrated land management bureau?

Hon. P. Bell: I would like to introduce my new employee who has arrived here, Jacquie Kendall. She is the executive financial officer for the ministry and for the ILMB. The question that the member refers to is driven as a result of a couple of key components, the first one being integration — bringing the Crown contaminated-sites funding into the bureau in '05-06. That will be the initial jump, then the roll-in of the half year of funding from Land and Water B.C into '05-06. The full year is reflected in '06-07.

It's a combination of the resources from the previous Land and Water B.C. and the dollars associated with Crown contaminated sites, and those have been

B. Ralston: Given that mal is a French word that means evil, I don't think you would want to use that acronym too often. I don't think that would be good for morale.

The Crown contaminated-sites money — can the minister advise how big a proportion of that budgetary amount it is?

B. Ralston: I thank the minister for that response. As I advised, a colleague will be asking some questions about the contaminated-sites area of the ministry, so I will pass that information on to him.

The operating expenses for client service jump from about $10.6 million in 2004-2005 to $26.5 million the following year. I'm wondering: given the size of that dollar amount, can the minister break this increase into more specific program areas?

Hon. P. Bell: I'm going to have a stab at this, and we may have to go back and forth a couple of times on it. This is largely a reflection of reorganizing how the dollars were flowing. In the move from $10.6 million to $26.5 million, $12 million of that is the previously identified number that the member spoke about in terms of resources to fund the land use planning process — the 12-eight-and-eight that he referred to earlier. The remainder is simply some reorganization — moving resources from the old Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management over to the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands.

B. Ralston: Can the minister confirm whether or not, if it's restated as like-to-like — there is an increase in expenditure in areas other than the land use-planning $12 million? Or is it comparable when restated without an increase?

Hon. P. Bell: I think I understand the question. The answer is: upon the dissolution of the previous Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, the resources were allocated to a number of different ministries including the Ministry of Tourism, Sports and the Arts, the Ministry of Environment, and the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands. My ministry received the bulk of those resources. The Ministry of Forests and Range also received resources. Resources flowed to a number of different entities.

I think the member's question was: did the dollars flow evenly in a way that they're represented? Were there cuts or additions to the dollars from Sustainable Resource Management? There was one minor change. That was the addition of slightly under $900,000 to fund the shift to the Front Counter B.C. natural resource opportunities centre in Kamloops. It was some one-time money to meet that initial transition process. Other than that, resources should be compared on an apples-to-apples basis between the previous budget and this budget with no other changes.

B. Ralston: I thank the minister, particularly for the metaphor. I think it's particularly appropriate for this ministry — apples to apples. It is late, and my sense of humour, perhaps, is not as sharp as it should be.

The estimated expenditures for resource information management are $40.658 million in '04-05 and $21.185 million in '05-06. That would appear to be a drop in the operating expenses of resource information management by almost 50 percent. Can the minister explain that change?

Hon. P. Bell: I have a footnote to a bunch of briefing documents here, which supplies that answer. I'll just read it.

B. Ralston: Can the minister advise, then…? I'm not sure of the answer here. Can he remind me whether the Land Title and Survey Authority is still contained within his ministry, or is it in another ministry?

Hon. P. Bell: The act and the responsibility for the act reside within my ministry. The authority is independent and at arm's length from government.

Hon. P. Bell: I'm going to take a stab at this and say it was within approximately the last 12 months, but it's certainly in fairly recent history here.

B. Ralston: Can the minister, then, perhaps briefly describe the manner in which it's constituted? The minister has described it as an independent authority. There have been recently constituted independent authorities in various ministries that have had some successes and some difficulties, so I'm interested in the structure of this authority.

Hon. P. Bell: The original board was established through the board resourcing office process for the authority. The member will note that there is nothing in the service plan or any dollars or budget lines allocated to the authority, and that it is truly outside of government. The board has representatives on the board from the legal community, from the land survey community and from other entities that have an interest in it. The board is accountable to the public and

produces an annual report. That report is available online or direct from the authority, and I'd encourage the member to speak with the board or have a review of the annual report if he wants more detail on the authority.

B. Ralston: I have one further question in this area before, perhaps, we can consider a motion to rise.

I take it there is a substantial reduction in the number of employees in the plan, and I take it that's explained by…. It flows as a result of the previous explanation about the nature of the reorganization. There's a decrease from 333 to 174 full-time-equivalents or employees.

Hon. P. Bell: The member is quite accurate. It is directly reflective of my earlier response regarding the resources. Some of those FTEs moved to different ministries. Some ended up moving with the land survey authority as well.

B. Ralston: I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion of the Ministry of Community Services and progress on the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands 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.


	YEAS — 32

S. Simpson	Evans	Fleming
Farnworth	James	Kwan
Brar	B. Simpson	Cubberley
Hammell	Coons	Thorne
Simons	Puchmayr	Gentner
Routley	Fraser	Horgan
Lali	Dix	Trevena
Robertson	Karagianis	Ralston
Krog	Austin	Chudnovsky
Chouhan	Wyse	Sather
Macdonald		Conroy

	NAYS — 39

Falcon	Reid	Coell
Ilich	Chong	Christensen
Les	Richmond	Bell
van Dongen	Roddick	Lee
Jarvis	Nuraney	Whittred
Horning	Cantelon	Thorpe
Oppal	de Jong	Campbell
Taylor	Bond	Hansen
Abbott	Penner	Neufeld
Coleman	Sultan	Krueger
Mayencourt	Polak	Hawes
Yap	Bloy	MacKay
Black	McIntyre	Rustad