Hansard -- Monday, October 24, 2005 p.m. -- Vol. 3, No. 4 (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		1077

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		1077
	Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 2005 (Bill 14)
	Hon. W. Oppal

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		1078
	School libraries
	J. Horgan
	Bank robberies in Vancouver
	R. Sultan
	Homelessness
	S. Hammell
	Work of Dr. Shafique Pirani
	J. Nuraney
	Victoria's Chinatown
	R. Fleming
	Worker safety in forest industry
	D. MacKay

Oral Questions		1080
	Implementation of recommendations to resolve teachers labour dispute
	C. James
	Hon. S. Bond
	Terms of reference for industrial inquiry commissioner in teachers labour dispute
	J. Horgan
	Hon. M. de Jong
	J. Kwan
	Government policy for child death reviews
	A. Dix
	Hon. S. Hagen
	D. Thorne
	Call for reinstatement of independent children's commissioner
	D. Thorne
	Hon. S. Hagen
	Review of children's deaths by chief coroner's office
	R. Fleming
	Hon. J. Les
	L. Krog
	Responsibilities of property owners for private railway crossings
	D. Chudnovsky
	Hon. K. Falcon
	C. Wyse
	S. Simpson

Point of Privilege		1085
	J. Horgan

Second Reading of Bills		1085
	Civil Forfeiture Act (Bill 13) (continued)
	K. Krueger
	M. Karagianis
	K. Whittred
	S. Fraser
	Hon. J. Les

Committee of Supply		1092
	Estimates: Ministry of Forests and Range and Minister Responsible for Housing
	Hon. R. Coleman
	B. Simpson
	N. Macdonald
	C. Evans

	Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		1122
	Estimates: Ministry of Agriculture and Lands (continued)
	B. Ralston
	Hon. P. Bell
	M. Sather
	N. Simons
	J. Horgan
	R. Austin
	D. Chudnovsky
	S. Fraser
	Estimates: Ministry of Transportation
	D. Chudnovsky
	Hon. K. Falcon

N. Macdonald: It is my pleasure to introduce my constituent assistant, here from Columbia River–Revelstoke. Her name is Joy Orr, and she has with her, her infant daughter Ainsley. If you hear a baby crying, that is a Columbia River–Revelstoke cry. Each one of us that is here realizes how much the constituent assistant does, and for me I'm very blessed with an extremely capable woman who makes the office work. Please join me in making her feel welcome.

Hon. S. Bond: It is indeed a pleasure today to make several introductions. I want to introduce members of the first Learning Round Table, which will be taking place here this afternoon in Victoria.

Some members of the Learning Round Table will be late, but I have been assured they will be here perhaps partway through question period, so let me introduce them now: Kim Howland, president of the B.C. Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils; Debbie Desroches-Fulton, who is the secretary. We have Penny Tees, president of the B.C. School Trustees Association, accompanied by Dr. Lee Southern, the executive director.

En route and hopefully arriving during question period or before are Jinny Sims, president of the B.C. Teachers Federation, accompanied by Susan Lambert, Irene Lanzinger and Ken Novakowski. Here in the gallery already are Sheila Rooney, president of the B.C. School Superintendents Association, with Wendy Lee, the executive director. And also en route are Tom Hierck, president of the B.C. Principals and Vice-Principals Association, and Les Stakowski.

We know that it will be a wonderful opportunity to dialogue this afternoon, and I ask my colleagues to please help me make them very welcome.

C. Wyse: It is my pleasure today to rise in front of the House to recognize CAs from Cariboo South and from Cariboo North. Given the nature of our constituency, we share some resources up in our part of the world. Indeed, I would ask the House to make welcome Larry Day and Mark Woons.

J. Nuraney: I have the proud privilege to introduce some guests in the gallery today. We have a well-respected leader of the Ismaili community and my mentor, Mr. P.K. Pirani, who is accompanied by his son Dr. Shafique Pirani, of whom I will be speaking a little later on, and his wife Sally, whose dedication and support is critical in the work done by Shafique.

We also have in the gallery an entrepreneur par excellence, Mr. Sadru Ahamed, and I also have a friend and lawyer, Mr. Jalal Jaffer. May I ask the House to please make all them feel welcome.

G. Coons: I'm pleased to introduce a friend of mine from Burlington, Ontario — somebody I went to school with and played hockey with. He works for Pfizer Canada. He's a director of national accounts, dealing with consumer health care. He's here in our wonderful city on business. Please make my good friend Bill Mennie welcome.

M. Polak: Today in the House we have a longtime resident of my riding of Langley, Mr. John Hof. Would the House please make him welcome.

J. Yap: It's my honour to introduce to the House a couple who have become tireless advocates for stronger measures against the scourge of street racing. Dr. Chris Ng and Mrs. Therese Ng are the parents of Richmond RCMP Constable Jimmy Ng, who lost his life two years ago in a street racing incident.

They graciously attended this House when we had private members' statement time this morning, when the statement with regard to street racing was debated. Would members please join me in offering a warm welcome to Dr. and Mrs. Ng.

I. Black: I have two introductions to make today. First is Mr. Dave Sinclair, who is the command second vice-president of the B.C./Yukon Command of the Royal Canadian Legion. He was observing our discussion this morning with respect to Motion 34, pertaining to saluting our veterans and educating our youth on their sacrifices.

The second introduction I would like to do pertains to two extraordinary teachers — both of them retired — who have a combined 60-plus years of service to our youth and have touched, by my math, a little over 12,000 young lives. They also happen to be my parents. Would the House please make Ellen and Stewart Black welcome.

Hon. R. Neufeld: We have in the gallery today three gentlemen from the Cement Association of Canada: Derek Townson, vice-president; Robert Sloat, director of business development; and Larry Baloun, VP sales and marketing, B.C. Lehigh Northwest Cement Ltd. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. W. Oppal presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 2005.

Hon. W. Oppal: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 14. This bill implements the commitments made in the September throne speech to use the Legislature's obligation to appoint an Electoral Boundaries Commission this session to address the challenge of electoral reform to its ultimate conclusion.

The bill gives the 2005 Electoral Boundaries Commission two specific tasks. The first is to recommend to the Legislature boundaries for electoral districts under the current electoral system.

Secondly, it will recommend to the Legislature boundaries for electoral districts under the single transferable vote system recommended by the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform. With the intent of protecting northern representation in the Legislature, Bill 14 also gives the commission the necessary flexibility to recommend electoral boundaries up to 85 electoral districts under our current system or up to 85 members under the single transferable vote model. The commission will be required to recommend the same number of members under both systems.

In order to accommodate the extended mandate, the 2005 commission will receive extended time to produce its report. The commission will issue the first report no later than August 15, 2007, and the final report six months after that date. It should be pointed out that those dates are set in order to accommodate a federal census that will take place in 2006. In order for the commission to have at its disposal and rely on the necessary data that will come for that…. The dates have been set in order to address those issues.

Finally, in order to assist future commissions to have timely access to future census data, the bill provides that commissions will be appointed within one year of every second general election as opposed to the current requirement that they be appointed during the first legislative session following every second election.

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

Bill 14, Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 2005, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

J. Horgan: Today, October 24, is National School Library Day. I want to take this opportunity to speak briefly to the House about the importance of National School Library Day. It was first proclaimed at the summit of school libraries held in Ottawa in June of 2003 by Roch Carrier, the National Librarian of Canada.

The first National School Library Day was held on Monday, October 27, 2003. National School Library Day also coincides with International School Library Day, which was proclaimed in 1999. The aim of this special day in Canada and around the world is to draw attention to the importance of school libraries in the education of our children.

Why are school libraries important? Well, we all have fond memories of our youth and fond memories of our children in our school libraries. For some it was a place of solitude and refuge; for others it was a place of excitement and adventure as every page turned brought new worlds of excitement and wonder. My boys Nate and Evan are both avid readers, and sometimes I think our house looks like a school library.

Research has shown that students achieve far greater outcomes when they have access to school libraries that are well funded, curriculum-based and have strong school library programs with professionally qualified teacher-librarians who work collaboratively with classroom teachers. In addition, students become much better readers when they have access to a school library and books to read.

In this time when our public system is under such pressure and scrutiny, it is important for us to never forget the importance of school libraries and the role that they play in our children's lives. Let's pledge today, National School Library Day, as we work to keep our school libraries open, to keep them properly staffed and adequately funded for all our children.

R. Sultan: Last week on the North Shore, three apparently drug-intoxicated men smashed their van through the front door of the Bank of Nova Scotia, pointed a shotgun at terrified tellers and drove off with the money.

Bank robberies have become so commonplace in Vancouver that they are no longer news. We have over one a day, twice as often as four years ago. When it comes to bank robbery, we're number one. For our population that's seven times more often than Toronto, eight times more often than Edmonton and nine times more often than Montreal, which we used to call the bank robbery capital of Canada.

Why is this so? The Canadian Bankers Association says that Vancouver has more of the underlying factors that contribute to crime in the first place, such as drug addiction, but a compounding factor is weaker judicial response when offences occur. According to the CBA, conditional sentencing and probation occur at a rate two to seven times more often in Vancouver than other cities. When sentences are actually imposed, according to the CBA, median jail times are typically half of what they are in our sister cities.

In today's Province newspaper under the headline, "Drug addiction is no mitigation for bank robbers," Mr. Mitchell from Nelson writes: "It is no wonder addicts and other criminals flock to B.C…." Alcohol use is not a mitigating factor on the highways. Why should drug use be a mitigating factor in the bank? This stuff will not impress our Olympic visitors in 2010. It's a criminal

S. Hammell: Recently, the Greater Vancouver Homeless Count found that the number of homeless doubled over the past three years, and the number of homeless seniors grew from 51 in 2002 to 171 in 2005. In Surrey the homeless numbers increased by 134 percent.

I want to give life to these statistics by speaking of a person I met first in a former life. This man has many challenges and moves from employment as a day labourer to living on the streets and back again. However, he has one constant, and that is his determination to maintain a relationship with his growing son. I have watched this man deteriorate physically over the years and now, due to an altercation at his worksite, his leg is permanently damaged, as it was not attended to immediately.

At the best of times, this man has difficulty managing his life. He has difficulty filling out the forms and the documents we expect from those who are marginalized and want assistance. He is, for a multitude of good bureaucratic reasons, on the street and homeless again despite desperate efforts to keep the suite that he had rented.

My question is to all in the House. Is it right or good enough that our mentally ill are on the streets? Is it right or good enough that our elderly are on the streets? Is it right or good enough that those who cannot cope are on the streets? I know there is a notion that there is a deserving poor, but my thesis is that in this rich province, no one deserves to be homeless. It is in our best interest to house those on the margins and to support those who, for a variety of circumstances, are at the bottom of the economic ladder. But those reasons are for a future private member's statement, and I just thank the House for listening to my concerns.

J. Nuraney: There are about a thousand children born with club feet in Uganda each year. Seven years ago Dr. Shafique Pirani, an orthopedic surgeon at the Royal Columbian Hospital, decided to return to Uganda to offer his expertise. Dr. Pirani's family were victims of the unjust measures taken by the tyrant Idi Amin and had to leave Uganda 30 years ago. In spite of this injustice and the traumatic experience suffered by his parents, Dr. Pirani returned to Uganda.

In the company of another British Columbia doctor, Dr. Norgrove Penny, he initiated the application of the Ponseti method and trained local doctors to treat the children with club feet. Several hundred children have been treated and their lives improved. Children with club feet become what is commonly called "crawlers" in that country. The work of Dr. Pirani and his associate have made it possible for these children to walk again. Dr. Pirani's work is well recognized by CIDA, Rotary International and other international organizations. He has since been invited to other countries like Malawi, Madagascar and India where his projects are well underway. In today's world, these are in my opinion the true Canadian heroes.

R. Fleming: It's an honour to bring the House's attention to a significant celebration occurring this evening at the Royal B.C. Museum. Tonight's event will profile Chinatowns in eight Canadian cities.

Victoria's Chinatown, which I'm privileged to represent in my constituency of Victoria-Hillside, is a vibrant and exciting part of this city's cultural life. Victoria's Chinatown holds a very significant place in the heritage of Canada and North America as the central hub of the Chinese immigrant experience on this continent.

This evening the Victoria Chinatown Lioness Club welcomes award-winning writer and archivist Mr. Paul Yee, who will be presenting his latest book, Chinatowns in Canada. Mr. Yee is perhaps best known for his award-winning children's work, Tales from Gold Mountain: Stories of the Chinese in the New World. He is also known for his well-received book, Saltwater City: an Illustrated History of the Chinese in Vancouver. He is a recipient of many writers' awards, including the Governor General's Literary Award and the B.C. Book Prize.

Mr. Yee's work addresses such themes as racism, alienation and the New World versus the Old World. His original stories are set in the mid- to late-1800s when goldmines beckoned and workers were needed to build the Canadian and the American railroads. These stories inhabit the great historical movement that Paul Yee interprets so well — the immigrant experience.

The place of Victoria's Chinatown in Canadian history will be explored this evening. Many people do not realize that Victoria's Chinatown was the first and for over five decades the largest Chinese community in Canada.

There will also be someone very special to the Chinese Canadian community paid tribute to tonight. Mrs. Bessie Tang, who many in this community knew simply as Aunt Bessie, passed away unfortunately on October 17 at the age of 85. Bessie was a force for kindness and knowledge in Victoria and was loved by many. Bessie was the unofficial storyteller of Victoria's Chinese community. She will be greatly missed by all.

Those who are with us in the gallery and members of the House that can gain leave from their caucus Whips can still buy tickets to tonight's event. It begins at 6:30 p.m., and it's at the Royal B.C. Museum.

D. MacKay: I rise today to speak about Healthy Workplace Week. It is a special week set aside each

year to increase awareness about the importance of workplace health to personal and organizational performance. It is a reminder that a healthy workplace is a necessity, particularly in a province such as British Columbia where so many workers make a living in environments that are potentially dangerous if not properly monitored.

The B.C. Forest Safety Council indicates that there have been 34 fatalities in the forest industry to date this year alone. A recent report from the forest industry indicates that there are, on average, 25 deaths in the forest industry each year.

Forestry is an important industry for the riding of Bulkley Valley–Stikine, and this is of concern to me. The number of deaths that have already occurred this year is entirely unacceptable. We have to remember that these are not just numbers on a piece of paper. They are real people — lives cut short, children left fatherless. When put in that context, it is staggering and tragic.

Healthy Workplace Week reminds us that we all have a responsibility to resolve these issues. I'm proud to say that this government is committed to finding solutions. Our Labour Minister and Forests and Range Minister have met and will continue to meet with representatives from the industry to address this unacceptable situation. It's going to take everyone working together to have a meaningful impact.

I encourage all British Columbians to recognize workplace health and safety and to implore employers and employees alike to ensure safe and healthy workplaces.

C. James: My question is to the Premier. Can the Premier explain what lessons he has learned from the government's dispute with B.C. teachers?

Hon. S. Bond: We are pleased that today, most importantly, we have our students back in classrooms in British Columbia. It's become, and it becomes increasingly, and it certainly has reconfirmed for all members in this House the passion that people in British Columbia feel about public education…. As we move forward now we have the opportunity to work, beginning this very afternoon, with partners to ensure that our students in this province will receive and continue to receive the excellent education they deserve.

C. James: I think it's very important for all of us to take a look at our history so we don't repeat our mistakes. Judging from the answer I received, I don't think a lot of examination has gone on in that area. The government's dispute with teachers caused enormous disruption and uncertainty for families across this province. The deliberately confrontational approach of this government created the conditions for this dispute. We've seen those conditions created by this government over and over again with teachers, hospital workers, doctors, forest workers, government employees, transit workers and Crown prosecutors.

So my question again is to the Premier. Will the Premier admit that his approach doesn't work and that his government has to change its confrontational approach to the people of British Columbia?

Hon. S. Bond: I think it's interesting that when we talk about history lessons, they seem to have stopped about four years ago. In fact, let's look at a system that for over 12 years in this province has simply not worked. Let's talk about the issue of leadership. Not once — not once — during this period of time did the Leader of the Opposition actually stand up with us and call for members of the B.C. Teachers Federation to obey the laws of British Columbia. Let's talk about leadership.

C. James: One lesson — and it's very clear from the answer just received — that this government should be taking is to be straight with British Columbians. After months of telling the public that there was more than enough money in the education budget, the government discovered the fact that classrooms are overcrowded, that students with special needs do need more support and that, in fact, parents are seriously concerned about the challenges in the education system.

The Minister of Education has implied that the money saved as a result of the government's dispute with teachers will go back to school boards. We heard the Premier say — and he is on record — that the money saved will be used to in fact implement Vince Ready's recommendations. So I would like to ask the Premier to explain how his government intends to fulfil Mr. Ready's recommendations and where it intends to get the money.

Hon. S. Bond: At least the Premier is on record. We were incredibly clear on Friday. We accepted the recommendations that Vince Ready laid before us as the opportunity to look at a new and more productive relationship — not unique to this government. Certainly, the history of teacher bargaining in this province has been a challenging one. We look forward today to a new opportunity, the beginning of a round table, an opportunity to have the dialogue that's essential. Despite the comments from the Leader of the Opposition and how negative they might seem at this point, we're optimistic that will make a difference.

TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR
INDUSTRIAL INQUIRY COMMISSIONER
IN TEACHERS LABOUR DISPUTE

J. Horgan: On October 19 the official opposition asked the Minister of Labour a series of questions with respect to the role and function of Mr. Vince Ready. At that time the minister said that Mr. Ready had been appointed October 6 and was fulfilling a role as an industrial inquiry commissioner under the Labour Code. We asked the government repeatedly if they could clarify what Mr. Ready's mandate was, and at every turn the minister twisted. On Friday Mr. Ready wrote in his own report: "On October 17 my mandate was expanded to include facilitating a return to work, in order to proceed with the other terms of reference of the IIC."

My question is a simple one to the minister. Why did he not trust British Columbians with that information?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, the member and I agree on one thing: all of the material is there for the members and for the public to judge. The terms of reference under which Mr. Ready was operating from October 6, which is the date actually that he was appointed…. The member knows that, because I tabled those terms of reference here in the House. Of course, his comments in his report, where he acknowledged having begun that work and discovering that it was impacted in a very negative way by the fact that the parties — one of them, at least — were engaged in illegal strike activity compromising their ability to speak. He asked for and sought permission to conduct the work necessary to try to remedy that situation.

J. Horgan: We asked for and sought some clarification from this government on where they were going — from pillar or to post. We asked very clearly of the Minister of Labour what the role and mandate of Mr. Ready was, on the 19th of October. You chose to ignore that question; you chose to not inform the people of British Columbia what the plan was at that time.

Again, a simple question to the minister: why wasn't he straight with this Legislature? Why wasn't he straight with the people of British Columbia on October 19 when we asked him a direct question and he did not answer it?

Hon. M. de Jong: I must say that at times I'm perplexed by some of the questioning and some of the issues raised by members on the opposition side of the House. Are they angry that Mr. Ready conducted this work? Are they angry or disagree with the proposition that he was asked to fulfil a role as an industrial inquiry commissioner? Are they angry? Do they disagree with the fact that that work is going to continue? Whether this member wants to acknowledge it or not, Mr. Ready's work is only partly done. I hope this isn't true, but you could make a good argument that the easy part has just happened. He's still got to work with these parties to rebuild a broken negotiating structure. So I don't know; they're either for Mr. Ready or against Mr. Ready. I know what I'm for. I'm foursquare for having students back in school today.

J. Kwan: The critic for education called on Mr. Ready to intervene when the dispute was at its height as a result of this government's inaction — as a result of this government's provocation of the issue before us. The Minister of Labour was asked a specific question several times on Wednesday, October 19 about whether or not the terms of reference for Mr. Ready had changed from October 6. He willfully provided wrong information to this House.

Will he admit today that he was wrong and, in fact, Mr. Ready was asked by the government to intervene — and hence, the resolution of the teachers dispute?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, the member hasn't, but I will read from his report: "On October 17 my mandate was expanded to include facilitating a return to work in order to proceed with the other terms of reference of the IIC."

Now, I don't know what part of what I said in this House contradicts that. It's a fascinating line of questioning. I would have thought that members on that side of the House, despite our political difference, would be celebrating the fact that Mr. Ready was successful, that he can continue with his work and students are back in school today.

A. Dix: Can the Minister of Children and Family Development confirm that in July of 2005, the ministry changed its process for case reviews of death and critical injuries of children in care? Can he confirm that his new policy eliminates the right of independent reviewers to make recommendations?

D. Thorne: On September 19 the Minister of Children and Family Development stated in this House: "I can say categorically in this House that this ministry is more open and transparent than any other ministry of its kind in Canada and probably the United States and Europe as well."

Mr. Speaker, there have been six reviews now into the death of one child and now, under this minister's own watch, a quiet change to the sign-off policy for child death reviews that totally eliminates any accountability. How can this minister stand by his original statement?

Hon. S. Hagen: I took the previous question on notice. I'll take this one on notice.

D. Thorne: My question to this minister is: will he please stand up in the House today and do the right thing? Will he give the people of this province the assurance that he is putting an end to this culture of cover-up that his government has created and finally, once and for all, bring back the children's commissioner?

Hon. S. Hagen: I can say categorically that we are not afraid of asking the tough questions about whether or not the ministry is doing the top job we ask it to do. That's why we've appointed a review panel to have a look at what the ministry does and come back with any recommendations. I don't know how you could be more open than that.

R. Fleming: I have a question relating to the chief coroner's office. This side of the House has obtained a document from the chief coroner's office. The document reveals that the chief coroner's office has had changes to its investigation practices that have resulted in a reduction of the number of autopsies and toxicology examinations it carries out and that this was as a direct result of this government's budget cuts.

As a result, the chief coroner has instructed that only a reasonable presumptive cause of death would be required for a full autopsy in place of a definitive cause. A change was also made to the policy concerning coroner recommendations so that any language that was fault-finding is now prohibited. My question is for the Solicitor General. Was he aware of this consequence of the government's budget cuts?

Hon. J. Les: The chief coroner of the province is clearly on record as having said that no child's death in the province has gone unreviewed as a result of the transfer of those responsibilities to the coroner's office.

R. Fleming: That's an interesting assurance, because the chief coroner has stated that the funding that was shifted to him from the children's commissioner for its new child death responsibilities was used towards funding a database manager and also a research officer and, finally, a manager for training, disaster and forensic programs.

My question is again for the Solicitor General. Why did he not see fit to correct the Minister of Children and Family Development a few weeks ago when he told this House that every child's death is always subject to a full coroner's investigation and that it's not an option?

Hon. J. Les: When the chief coroner of the province assures us that no child's death is unreviewed as a result of the transfer of those responsibilities, I take that at face value. Indeed, I am confident that all those deaths are being appropriately reviewed.

L. Krog: The Solicitor General has said that no case goes unreviewed. Yet the office of the coroner is an ancient one with significant responsibilities. The coroner's mandate is to answer who, when, where, how and by what means any deceased person in this province died.

It's my understanding that the direction in the document referred to says quite simply: "In those cases where a full autopsy is not required to meet our mandate and the family wants an autopsy for their purpose, they should be directed to the nearest pathology department to arrange for this private autopsy at their expense."

We know that children have died in the care of the ministry. We understand all of this. It appears that the work that was done by an independent children's commissioner has now been shifted to the coroner's office. The coroner's office has had its budget cut. How can the people of British Columbia be satisfied that children's deaths in this province are being properly reviewed by the coroner when his funding is not appropriate?

Hon. J. Les: I repeat again, as I said a few moments ago in response to the question of the member previous, that the coroner has made an assurance to all British Columbians that there are no issues with respect to lack of review of child deaths in British Columbia.

L. Krog: Out of protest and outrage at the circumstances, some British Columbia physicians are now refusing to sign death certificates for unexpected and unexplained deaths. In light of this information and in light of the minister's responses to the question, my question to the Solicitor General is this. Will the Solicitor General commit to this House that in future, the deaths of all children in British Columbia will be the subject of full autopsy and full and appropriate reviews by the coroner's office?

Hon. J. Les: Clearly, I cannot stand in this House and suggest that every child's death in British Columbia should result in a complete autopsy. The chief

coroner makes those decisions on a case-by-case basis and, I assume, very appropriately. If the member opposite has any indication that other professionals in British Columbia are not discharging their responsibilities, I would be happy to receive that information from him.

D. Chudnovsky: On Thursday, under pressure from this opposition, the Minister of Transportation admitted in this House that the tone of the letter from CN to private crossing landowners was "totally unacceptable." This is in marked contrast to his earlier statements, when he refused to take a leadership role on this issue. Now that he's finally speaking out, will the minister state whether he believes British Columbians should sign the contract with CN?

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm not sure I fully grasp the nature of the question. One thing I can tell the member is that he should be very confident — in fact, excited — about the fact that as a result of the CN–B.C. Rail partnership, we now have hundreds of millions of dollars of private sector investment in the railway.

We now have huge private sector investment in the port of Prince Rupert, which is going to open up that area as one of the great ports in British Columbia. We've now got tens of millions of new tax revenues to communities up and down the B.C. Rail corridor. It's part and parcel, I think, of the fact that this is what happens when you have a government that recognizes that the public interest is actually in the ownership of the railbed and the tracks. It's the private sector that is there to make sure they make the necessary investments to ensure that our economy can grow with that kind of private sector investment.

D. Chudnovsky: Clearly from his answer, the minister believes that private land owners are to bear the brunt of the privatization of B.C. Rail. Does the minister believe that private land owners should be on the hook for the government's privatization plan? Or will he join this opposition and the Canadian transportation authority and advise British Columbians not to sign the contract with CN?

Hon. K. Falcon: I do owe that member an apology. I misunderstood. I thought you were talking about the original CN contract.

The member is referring to the rail crossing issue. What I would say again to the member — and I think this is very important to note…. I quite candidly said — and agreed with the member — that I actually thought the tone of CN's letter was inappropriate, and I have no hesitation in saying that. However, the substance of the letter does not change.

In fact, B.C. Rail, when it was under Crown ownership and operating as a Crown railway, undertook improvements to those rail crossings in 1996. They billed the appropriate landowners, as they do the cases of improvements to rail crossings, and because of political interference, many of those bills were not paid nor collected. Under section 103 of the Canada Transportation Act, it has always been the case right across the country of Canada that if there are improvements to railway crossings, those improvements are to be borne by the landowners. Nothing has changed.

C. Wyse: When it sold B.C. Rail, the government took steps to protect its own interests but refused to protect the interests of average British Columbians. That was a political choice that this government made.

The revitalization agreement between the government and CN is clear. Article 10.1 states: "The tenant shall be solely responsible, at its own cost, to effect replacements, rehabilitation, reconstruction and upgrades." Article 11.4 states: "The landlord shall have no obligation to make any repairs."

Can the minister explain why the government, as the landlord, made the choice to protect itself from maintenance and operating expenses but subjected average British Columbians to CN's bullying tactics?

Hon. K. Falcon: These members keep going on about this, but again I tell them that nothing has changed.

Hon. K. Falcon: But I'll tell you what has changed. What has changed is that British Columbians are no longer on the hook for over a billion dollars written off when it was a Crown railway. What has changed is that we have $185 million in the northern development fund for northerners — for the benefit of northerners, with decisions made by northerners — that is going to improve the province. What has changed is that we finally have a government that recognizes there is tremendous opportunity in the port of Prince Rupert. Under our Premier's leadership, we've actually got almost $100 million of investment in the port of Prince Rupert. Finally, what has changed is that we actually have a private railway company, CN, now investing tens of millions of dollars to the benefit of communities and property taxes that were never paid under B.C. Rail.

C. Wyse: It's not just operating and maintenance costs. The government protected itself from insurance and liability expenses but allowed CN to go after land-

owners for those very same costs. Why did this government make the decision to leave landowners with the bill for their broken promise?

Hon. K. Falcon: Again, I would remind the member that actually nothing has changed. The member should look right across this great country of Canada and find that under section 103 of the Canada Transportation Act, that's always been the case. It has actually always been the case, except in British Columbia where we had governments — particularly the previous NDP government — that loved to interfere with the operations of the railway and would not allow the railway to make the proper economic decisions.

As a result of that kind of interference, not surprisingly, taxpayers had to take it on the chin with over $1 billion being written off on that railway. That wasn't right then. It wouldn't be right today. Those appropriate fees that are directly related to the improvements of railway crossings are, of course, the responsibility of the landowners, whether that's a private land owner or the local government. That has not changed, and it will not change anymore.

S. Simpson: Again to the Minister of Transportation. The first time this issue was in the House, this minister stated that he was comfortable with this agreement. Then last week he said that he felt the tone was totally unacceptable. The minister's confused responses demonstrate a clear lack of leadership on his part and a lack of leadership by this government.

My question to the minister: did he really believe that his government would be able to sell off B.C. Rail, off-load all of the financial and legal costs onto private land owners and walk away without being held accountable?

Hon. K. Falcon: I have sat on this side of the House, and from the very beginning, when we entered into this arrangement — an arrangement with enormous benefit for British Columbians — I have listened to members opposite try to grasp any straw that could somehow justify their opposition to this deal.

Let me just remind that member opposite: $1 billion in revenue to the province; paying off half a billion dollars of B.C. Rail debt that was put in place as a result of that government's mismanagement — which will save taxpayers, by the way, over $30 million a year in interest costs alone; $185 million for a northern development fund; almost $100 million of investment into the port of Prince Rupert; tens of millions of dollars in new taxes; property tax revenue to communities up and down that rail line.

Those are all tremendous benefits for British Columbia. That member should go and actually talk to small communities and talk about the kind of benefits they're receiving and ask them whether they think that was an appropriate trade-off.

S. Simpson: What I would tell this minister is that I have been talking to people around British Columbia, as we have on this side. We've been talking to communities, talking to taxpayers. What they tell us time and time again is that this minister and all of his colleagues on that side don't stand up for them.

We will stand up for taxpayers. We will stand up for communities. You failed time and again, minister.

I guess my question would be…. On a recent CBC Radio program, one of the landowners affected by this was quoted as saying: "The B.C. government got a billion dollars when they sold my railroad. What do I get? I don't get any benefit from having the railroad go through the middle of my farm."

He went on to say: "Why doesn't my government in B.C. look after my interests in this matter?" So what we know is that while the government clearly covered its own assets on this, they haven't listened to British Columbians. They haven't looked after the interests of British Columbians.

My question to the minister would be this. Why didn't the minister take steps to protect private land owners in this issue and prevent British Columbians from having to foot these financial bills and from being bullied by CN?

Hon. K. Falcon: The short answer is: because nothing has actually changed. In fact, that member should actually go do a little homework. In 1996 under that member's governance, when they were responsible for B.C. Rail, B.C. Rail undertook improvements of all the rail crossings right across British Columbia.

They sent out invoices to the landowners to ask them to pay their share, as has always been the case. Just because that member may have interfered or that member's government may have interfered and said, "Oh, better not allow that. People are complaining and not wanting to pay. So we're going to interfere and not allow them to pay — and therefore add to the substantial…."

Hon. K. Falcon: That leadership, Mr. Speaker, led to over $1 billion being written off of taxpayers' dollars on B.C. Rail. It was wrong then, and it would be wrong today.

Hon. M. de Jong: During the course of question period — and I think I'm following the rules of the House in waiting until the completion of question period — the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant inadvertently, I'm sure, made comments that might be construed as having suggested that I had misled the House previously. I know that would not be her intention, and I do ask that she withdraw those comments now.

J. Kwan: Mr. Speaker, if I offended anybody in this House, I withdraw those comments.

J. Horgan: I rise at this earliest opportunity to reserve a right of privilege. I believe that the comments made by the Minister of Labour today and also on October 19 may have breached my privilege, and I reserve the right to come back and present my case at an early opportunity.

Hon. M. de Jong: In this chamber I call continued second reading debate on Bill 13, the Civil Forfeiture Act, and in Committee A, continued estimates debate, for the information of the members, of the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands.

K. Krueger: It is my privilege to stand and continue the debate on second reading of Bill 13. Members of the public who are watching the activities of this House today may have seen and hopefully did see the debate last Thursday when the former Solicitor General and present Minister of Forests rose and gave a spirited account of the activities of this government in its first term in office, while he served as Solicitor General, in fighting crime in this province and protecting the victims and potential victims of crime. It is a record of which this government is justifiably proud, and I believe that as we continue these efforts, the members of the opposition….

Mr. Speaker: Could the other members just please keep the noise down. There is a member speaking.

K. Krueger: I believe that the members of the opposition are pleased — it's obvious they are, on this bill in particular — to join with us in that fight. I'm not going to speak long, because I think it has become clear to us, as I have listened to this debate, that we are unanimous in this House in our endorsement of proceeding in this direction.

I am particularly fond of part 6, section 27 of this bill, which sets out how the payment out of the civil forfeiture account will occur. It discusses the funnelling of the proceeds into compensation of eligible victims, prevention of unlawful activities, remediation of the effect of unlawful activities and other prescribed purposes including the administration of this act. That will be some small measure of justice to at least some of the victims of the heinous activities of criminals in this province that we all love on both sides of this House. I think it is clear that everyone is supportive, and they should well be.

There was a notable example early in our first term in office of some of the problems that were leading to the success of criminals in this province. It was not far from where I live, in the little community of Merritt. We heard about it in Kamloops immediately, and we grieved about it. A beautiful young woman named Cherish Oppenheim was picked up by a criminal and sexually assaulted and murdered.

It turned out that man had been in RCMP custody earlier that night, and he was unlawfully at large with an outstanding warrant. They didn't know because they were operating with outdated equipment and computers that didn't give them the information they needed in real time. He was allowed to go free on the streets because the RCMP didn't know they had a legitimate reason to detain him, and he rewarded that opportunity by killing an innocent young woman.

The former Solicitor General brought in a state-of-the-art computer system called the PRIME-BC system so that that should never happen again in British Columbia. That's the sort of thing we can do when we work together and listen to the experts who are proud to serve in our public service and who help us come up with the means to stop criminals in their tracks, to protect their potential victims and to deal with the potentially awful consequences of things that they would like to do and that they scheme to do.

We're going to keep up our crime-fighting activities as a government, and we're going to enjoy the support of the opposition in these things, because these are the right things to do. This is a bill that steps up our crime-fighting activities. I'm not going to recount the Minister of Forests's — the former Solicitor General — chronicle of achievement, but I do want to commend him and the present Solicitor General, as well, for this determined fight against what really are the forces of evil at work against childhood innocence and the innocence and goodness of a society in this province we love.

I want to commend the army of public servants who helped conceive, prepare and implement the approaches that this government brought on in its first term and continues to bring on presently, particularly with the legislation before us. The battle we and those public servants are engaged in is not like the battles of

wars of times past, when both sides fought with honour. There's only one side with honour in this battle, one side with goodness and one that fights for the right, and it doesn't include the kinds of people that do the kinds of things with which they buy the assets that this act is pursuing.

The prize over which we fight is the flower of a generation — our children, our grandchildren — and the very type of society that we want to live in and that we do live in, in British Columbia, because we have not lost this fight. Some days it feels that way to the public when they read about the horrific things that are happening to people on our streets by virtue of the greed and the avarice of the kind of rotten people that make crystal meth, that peddle drugs, that create the traps that young people and others throughout our society are falling into. We also fight to protect and restore as much as we can the sad and ruined lives of people already enslaved by the tentacles of organized crime.

The people against whom we in this House must fight to defend the vulnerable are motivated by greed and personal vanity. They are perfectly willing to kill children and countless random victims, to disable people, to ruin their lives, to destroy them — all for the sake of money and flashy living. This legislation hits those people in their soft spot — the only thing they really care about, the only soft spot they actually have — and that is the ability to show off something they never should have had in the first place, to satisfy that vanity, to give them money and the things that it can buy for them.

We all have sad vignettes, I'm sure, from our constituencies, from the lives of people we know and people we've heard of. There was a young man in Kamloops, where I live, who was loved by his friends. He was very popular in his high school. He was loved by his family, and he had a good home and a good family. One day he committed suicide by putting his throat on his father's table saw. You think: how could anyone be that dismayed by their life that they would commit suicide in such a painful and brutal way and leave something so awful for their families and their friends to deal with? That young man had been caught up in a web of drug dealing, selling drugs to his friends and not being able to collect the money, and being deeper and deeper in debt to pushers and to the whole stinking network behind them. He saw no way out. He was ashamed of what he had been drawn into, and he couldn't see any way out. And that's what he did.

There have been others who have committed suicide for the same reasons. We hear of incidents, and it's all too frequently…. The young girl here in Victoria, 13 years old, thought she was buying Ecstasy and bought crystal meth and died as a result. This horrible drug can addict people when they've used it once, when they didn't even know they were using it, and do such awful things to their lives. People make that stuff and sell it just so they can buy things to show off with. Every one of us knows of families and individuals who have been hurt, crushed, shattered by criminals who care only for money. This legislation makes clear the response of every member in this House that we will not allow such people to profit, to live high on the blood and misery of innocent victims.

I was on the government committee that reviewed this legislation during the last term in office. As the Minister of Forests said, we put this bill up for the public to have a look at over the summer, through the election, and brought it back now in its current form — the current Solicitor General having dealt with the issues that were raised.

I was on the government committee which reviewed the original legislation, and I asked the former Solicitor General about whether the government had considered using some of these assets seized from criminals as is done in some other jurisdictions. I was part of traffic safety programs in the education system in the past, and I looked at what other jurisdictions were doing around the world. Some will seize things like fancy cars that might attract the interest of young people and then use them in the police programs, reaching out to talk to them — having secured their attention — about the dangers of things like using drugs and dealing drugs and getting involved in various types of crime.

So I asked if we were prepared to consider that at all. I admired his answer, and I'm proud of his answer, which was that British Columbia doesn't want the ostentatious belongings of these criminals. We don't want their fancy homes; we don't want their flashy cars. We don't want anything that they've prized above the health, the happiness and the well-being of our citizens, especially our young ones. We will seize those things and sell them and use the money to help victims and do the things that part 6, section 27 sets out.

One of those things is to pursue those criminals until we have them locked up once and for all, put away where they can't hurt people anymore. We don't put the criminals who manufacture crystal meth or other drugs or those who import and distribute them or enslave their victims in prostitution and degrade their lives in any better category than the vermin who raped and murdered Cherish Oppenheim. Their activities are disgusting and sick and deplorable, and we'll deprive them of those things that they have appallingly prized above the lives of other human beings. We will sell those things, and we will use the money to put them in jail.

I know we've got the unanimous support of the House, and I'm looking forward to seeing this legislation passed into law.

M. Karagianis: I stand today to speak in favour of this act being proposed. Like many of the previous speakers, I understand clearly the inherent nature of the Civil Forfeiture Act and why it is a tool that is very effective. My past experience in the municipality of Esquimalt and working very closely with the police

there has certainly shown me that policing does need more tools with which to come to grips with organized crime.

We've certainly seen the results of some of that, and the fall of some of that, in my community over the years and have had to deal with the problems as a result — whether it be petty organized crime from gang members or whether it be a larger and more sophisticated organized crime network that deals with drug distribution. My community, like none other in the region, has suffered at the hands of criminal behaviour.

I also agree with the fact, and the statement and sentiments expressed here by previous speakers, that criminals should in no way be allowed to profit from their activities. It is unfortunate that we are all victims of those profits by organized criminals. The time that I have spent working with police in my community and certainly with the very successful amalgamation has shown me that we need to give more support to police and more tools for them to use to their advantage in pursuing these criminals.

I do, however, know that the devil is always in the details, and certainly we'll be looking forward to going through this clause by clause and debating the specific language around this. I do have some concerns with some of the language here. I know that a previous speaker, the Minister of Forests and Range, said that there had been extensive efforts spent to make sure that the language was right, and yet going through it, I do still see some terms and clauses and phrases in here that give me some concern and that I would like to have some security around the long-term implications.

Perhaps it's because I come from municipal government that I'm always worried about the liabilities around some of the language here, and I do know that often in enforcement, language is where the rubber kind of meets the road. So, I will be looking to go through, during the committee debate, the actual specifics of the language clause by clause.

I do have some concerns around some aspects of the actual forfeiture clauses — that's 11 through 13 — not so much on how it affects the actual criminal and the seizure of any of their homes, boats, cars or any other personal belongings, but I think of one other victim that we often overlook, and that's often sometimes the families of organized criminals. The fact that a family has a member who is involved in organized crime is not always necessarily something that they can control and is often something they may not be fully cognizant of.

I have some concern, in reading all the language around forfeiture, around wives and children who may, in fact, be impacted by the seizure and are then are left either owing mortgages or are left homeless or having their possessions removed. I don't see in any of this language enough protection there. Perhaps that will come out in the debate, but it does concern me. I do know, from seeing the impact on families, of some criminal behaviour where families, children, and wives often are very innocent sometimes to the actual, full implications of what the chief earning person in the house brings in or how those funds are achieved. I would want to be very cautious that families don't become victims themselves of this forfeiture and seizure.

I guess the other thing that gives me some concern and that I would like to have some assurance around is the whole language around victims and how proceeds are going to go to victims. You know, one very tragic case, which is very well known by everyone here and probably most people in British Columbia, is the Nicholas Johnson case which occurred in my community. In fact, in looking at any remuneration to go to that family or that victim of violent crime, we see that there's very little recourse — any moneys that may or may not be gained from those people who committed that crime. Although not big, sophisticated organized crime, those were petty organized gang members that perpetrated that crime on Nicholas Johnson. Again, it's how the money flows through to victims; it's how that whole program works. I would like to really be assured in the language there again that some of that is really spelled out.

You know, the experience of communities with traffic fines has been sometimes a bit questionable, maybe less than satisfactory all the time. Communities at UBCM are letting their voices be known about how traffic fine revenue has been delivered to them. Again, I think government's got to be really clear on how that program is going to work, really spell out how the money is going to go to victims, how that is going to be dealt with over the long term as well.

The other thing I alluded to here was liabilities for municipalities. Municipalities, in fact, are responsible for policing. Ultimately, at the end of the day, liabilities out of any of those actions often can come back to municipalities. I can already see clever legal minds thinking about how municipalities become responsible for forfeitures or seizures of property that upon appeal or at some later date may have been found to be inappropriate. Maybe they were done hastily.

I did hear some speakers in the House talking about the fact that there doesn't have to actually be a criminal charge laid before some of these seizures can take place. That concerns me greatly. It concerns me that municipalities as the masters of policing may, at the end of the day, end up bearing some of the brunt of that. I have seen in the past that when a good legal action starts, it's like a scorched earth policy. Everybody sues everybody in sight.

Certainly, if we have seen that properties have been inadvertently seized and maybe later upon acquittals or appeals — or even a mistake in justice, because it does happen — it turns out that those properties were seized, liquidated and, in fact, there may have been some error in that process along the way…. I wouldn't want to see municipalities and their police departments get caught in the way of that because of a law that is really aimed at a specific aspect of criminal behaviour. Those things concern me greatly.

Consultation, I guess. I would like some assurances of the kind of consultation that has gone on in putting this together. I know that many speakers from the other side of the House have been very enthusiastic about this bill and have said it's a long time coming. It may be, but again, you know, the devil is in the details. I don't want to find us later having to go back and revisit how this legislation was written because we weren't careful enough at the beginning. B.C. Civil Liberties has called into question some aspects of the language of this and the process around this. I think that is a little caution, again, that we should all be paying attention to.

The recent Florida gun law has become a little bit of an absurd kind of news item. Last week, I think, there was a lot of speculation on the fact that a law has been written that says if you think someone is going to do damage to you, you're allowed to shoot them. There was a lot of speculation; some of it was fairly absurd. But it was also very disturbing that legislation had been put into place, for I'm sure very good reasons, that has turned out now to have some very morbid and unpleasant aspects of it that can be used in a court of law at a later date.

I remember listening to some debate on the radio over it. I think one speaker said: "What happens if you've got two people who both think that they're going to do damage to each other, and now we have duelling occurring over that gun law?" Sometimes you can see where a law has gone a little bit too far, and then it goes off into a kind of theatre of the absurd. I don't want any laws that I'm involved with in this House to go too far or not to go far enough. There are a number of aspects of this act that do concern me, and some of those I will be speaking to and questioning at the appropriate time.

However, the general purpose and intent of the act I agree with absolutely. I agree with the fact that criminals should not in any way be allowed to profit. I agree that if we can use this as a tool to further implement civil obedience here in this province, that's always a good thing. I have seen in my own community the results of drug abuse, the results of violence against young people and certainly the insidious and heinous crystal meth problem that is currently kind of a scourge here in our province. I've seen all the results of that.

Whatever it takes to get to the people who stand at the top of that pyramid and that hierarchy and manage that crime below them, then I say: let's do it. Let's just make sure that we are protecting all of the people along the way, especially those most vulnerable — the direct victims and the indirect victims like the families. I will actually be voting in favour of this moving to the next level.

K. Whittred: I, too, am very pleased to rise in the House today to support the Civil Forfeiture Act. I was very pleased to hear the member opposite speak in support of the act, and I was also pleased to hear her say that she was going to be very studiously looking at the wording and context of the bill during committee stage. I'm very pleased to hear that, because certainly, we on both sides of this House want good legislation at the end of the day.

There probably isn't a single person in this House that has not been touched by some degree of crime. We all recognize the feeling of being violated when that happens to us. I recall that a number of years ago my home was broken into. I'm pretty certain that it was a young person or young people — and the police agreed — probably looking for things to fuel their drug habit. Whoever it was, was quite clever and only took things that were gold. Now, we are not a wealthy family and do not have a lot of gold in the house, but you'd be surprised how much gold can be accumulated by, you know, the gold chain you wear around your neck, your grandfather's keepsake gold cufflinks, your father's gold Masonic ring, these sorts of things — all of which have more sentimental value than real value.

There is the feeling one has, at the end of the day, when your baby locket is stolen and you know it has gone to somebody and that that gold is going to be melted down for a fraction of the cost, and at the top of this pyramid is probably organized crime. I think there isn't anyone in this House who doesn't say that somewhere along that chain of command, there should not be profit for this particular activity.

The scenario that I've described is, I think, a good example of how drugs ruin people's lives for their own financial gain. In this process, public safety is often at risk. What this bill does is try to say to the victims that somebody should pay for that crime and that you should have some sort of restitution for the victims.

I'm pleased that this last spring my government introduced this bill and put it out as an exposure bill. That's a process we've tried to use since we introduced reforms in the House and have had two sittings. I have to say I think it works very, very well. We're able to put out legislation. It can go out to the parties that are knowledgable about the bill, they can come back with their recommendations, and appropriate revisions and changes can be made.

This bill is very easy to defend on a number of levels. It authorizes that someone who makes profit from crime will lose their property, that this is an instrument of unlawful activity. It goes on to say: "Let's take the profit out of this illegal activity." It further goes on to say: "And let's use that money to help to repay victims and, also, to introduce preventative initiatives to try to deter crime." That is one of the things that I think I like the best about the bill.

Now, many of my colleagues and members opposite have spoken about the bill in terms of sort of the larger crime aspects. I would like to take a few moments and speak about this bill in the context of the community. This bill didn't just appear as one piece of legislation in isolation. It is, in fact, part of the government's plan to increase and improve public safety.

One of the areas that I've had a great deal to do with over the years has been the area of seniors. I've

worked very closely with the organization to eliminate abuse of seniors and so on. I think perhaps all of us are offended equally when we hear of scams that target our elderly population.

Recently my constituency actually sponsored a workshop put on by the Better Business Bureau specifically for seniors on how they can try to not get involved with scams and so on. We have to remember that at the top level of all of these scams is probably a big organization that is reaping huge profits. Nearly always these scams are around some sort of con artist. There is, of course, the one that we all know about, the so-called pigeon drop, where someone is contacted and you're informed that you have won a large amount of money, and all you have to do is to send them a bit. This is in good faith, and this is so that you can get your really big prize. We know of people that have been out tens of thousands of dollars on those kinds of scams.

Another one is the one that's called the bank examiner, where elderly people, and sometimes people who are suffering from a wee bit of dementia, are contacted, and they're told that this is a representative of a financial institution, and they're looking for a crooked employee. It's only going to take a little bit of money to find that person. Again, people are bilked out of their savings.

Then there's the door-to-door salesman that comes around saying that they are in the neighbourhood and want to do a free inspection of your property. Maybe they say that they've just finished doing a job down the street and they've got some materials left over. People fall for that and get taken for many, many thousands of dollars.

Another that I've heard about personally from a friend of mine is a bogus health and wellness products scam. I actually have an elderly friend in Edmonton, and she's quite a well-off woman. But she was contacted by, theoretically, someone that was going to come and care for her for a price, and this turned out to be a price that went into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. I believe that the family may very well still be involved in legal action trying to get around that particular scam.

Then there's the one that we're all very aware of right now, and that is identity theft. I was recently on a holiday in Europe — in fact, this last summer — and while I was gone, my family got a phone call. Of course, I didn't know about it, but it was from the bank that I have my credit card with. They were notifying me that my number had appeared on, apparently, a list of someone that was dishonest and collecting credit card numbers. It luckily had not been used, but that is an example of how vulnerable we are. I like to think that I am a very careful person about that.

These are all examples where somewhere in that scam is a big organization, probably organized crime, that is going to make a great deal of money off the profit of people that get taken to the cleaners, so to speak.

Now, within the context of our public safety plan was the announcement last spring that there were 215 additional RCMP officers. This was part of the crime-fighting strategy. There was an additional $122 million invested in policing, correction and courts over the next several years. In my own community that translated into two new police officers.

I'm also happy to say that another part of the public safety plan had to do with the return of all traffic fines to municipalities. In my community that has resulted in what were called community safety initiative grants, and this is one way…. Every community has been enabled to use those funds in different ways, and in my community, much of those additional moneys were put into community safety.

I was fortunate to be able to attend a meeting last, oh, probably June, I think — possibly early July — where the community of lower Lonsdale had come together to deal with the crystal meth problem and other problems related to crime that existed in the eyes of people who lived in that community. I have to say that it was a very interesting meeting. It was a very rewarding meeting, because it was one of the few meetings I'd been to in some time where it was a true community endeavour. It was truly people that lived there who had a genuine concern.

Out of all of that process and all of that concern, a group was formed. They were able to go to the city of North Vancouver and apply for a community safety initiative grant which would enable this community organization to move forward and to work with the community police, with the social planners at city hall and with the people that are involved with addictions at North Vancouver's Lions Gate Hospital and the Crystal Meth Task Force. Hopefully, over the next several months they will be able to work on finding some solutions.

Another part of our public safety plan was to increase support for women's programs and to combat violence against women. I'm very pleased to read into the record — and I really do want to read this letter into the record, hon. Speaker, because it's written by Maureen Gabriel, who is the executive director of Sage House. She is the person that runs the programs for North Vancouver, and she says:

She goes on to explain. She says: "We would be distressed if women who need the services of Sage House or Stopping the Violence counselling programs

thought that these services were no longer available on the North Shore." I wanted it read into the record that in fact, these programs are very much alive, very much intact, and that they, too, are part of our larger public safety plan.

Another part of the public safety plan was a commitment to fight crystal meth through education, enforcement, policing and the Meth Watch program. I've already touched on that a bit to illustrate to you how, in my community, the moneys that were raised from the traffic fines have been used in that regard.

In conclusion, I wanted to give some indication about how this actually gets down to the community level and how it is part of a larger public safety plan that includes everything from the bait car program to road safety.

We have improved standards around road safety so we can take and impound vehicles involved in street racing. We have improved the graduated licensing program. I am pleased that we are adding to our toolbox, if you like, for improving public safety in the province — the addition that we're going to ask criminals to help to not only not profit from their crime but to actually pay something back to the victims and to add to the coffers for programs that will prevent crime.

S. Fraser: I, too, will be speaking in favour of Bill 13. I've listened to this debate over the last week, and as the member opposite has mentioned, there's been a number of examples, often personal examples, that everyone has felt regarding crime. They're often emotional, and that brings a sense of realism, I think, to this House.

However, as legislators, we must also try to remain objective. I hear comments which I empathize with about B and Es where the picture of the youth, drug-induced, breaking in…. There's an outrage when your own personal possessions are disrupted or your personal space is invaded. It's understood, but to be clear, it's not always what we think it is. Sometimes people commit crimes because they are poor or because they're hungry. Some of us have been lucky enough to avoid those situations, and that's good. But as long as we have systems in place that exacerbate the difference between those that have and those that have not, we will be exacerbating those conditions that create crime and, to some extent, exacerbating the conditions that create drug abuse.

I think we should be mindful of that too. We all look for the big enemy, but crime has been with us for a long time. We must look at all policies in this House to make sure that we're dealing with all aspects of crime.

I will be speaking in favour of this bill, but to some extent I do so reluctantly because I feel somewhat rushed here. No one could argue against the merits of taking away the proceeds of criminal activity, especially when brought into the context of organized crime or examples like the Hell's Angels. No, Madam Speaker, with these examples there is no argument, especially if the bill is looked at in this context. However, I have some more subtle concerns with this bill, and I hope they can be dealt with at committee stage. That's why we have this process. So I will voice those.

When anyone is speaking of removal of civil rights or reducing the burden of proof or of punishment based on balance of probability, we as legislators must, I think, proceed somewhat with caution. We must look at the worst-case scenarios of those changes to ensure that the system and the legislation, if you will, cannot be used inappropriately or emotionally or be abused in some way. That, too, would be a tragedy and in my mind would be a crime.

There are places in the world that do not provide the protections of the law that we as Canadians and as British Columbians often take for granted. I do not believe that as much emphasis has been placed on ensuring that this legislation is not used for the wrong reasons or wielded as punishment or wielded for political reasons. Lessened rights can sometimes open the door for these things, and we've seen examples of that in other jurisdictions in the world.

I've heard from members in this House, on the other side of the House, last week of their support for the bill. I respect their opinions, but I found the reasons that they gave somewhat disturbing. One member spoke last week, and I got a quote out of Hansard. He says:

Well, I have to tell you: rehabilitation, in my world, doesn't work. You don't rehabilitate somebody.

Madam Speaker, when it comes to issues of crime and punishment, when the purpose of the legislation is only to punish, to deny the world of rehabilitation or to get around the rule of law or the standards of the courts, red flags, I believe, should be popping up. Again, I'm speaking in favour of this bill.

The member went on to point out that section 18 of the act allows that "…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 of all charges."

Now, I assume that being mindful of their civil liberties, the hon. member was raising a cautionary flag here, but that was not his rationale. The concern of the member was…. The rationale concerns me. The member went on to say: "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."

I think as legislators we have a role to play that is mindful of all aspects of criminal law and not just getting the bad guy. There are many people in the prov-

ince concerned with protecting civil liberties, and those have been mentioned — many organizations in this country and in the world. These are civil liberties that Canadians have fought and died for. Those concerned may feel uncomfortable with legislation that is enacted for the right reasons but without being mindful of all aspects of the reason of having the criminal law.

We see in this province more policing being provided — 250 new officers, and that's no doubt needed — and more resources for those police officers, and that, too, cannot be argued with. We also see legislation like this bill that gets around — potentially, if we're not careful — things like civil liberties, reasonable doubt and guilt under the law — the law, Madam Speaker. When this is combined with cuts to correctional facilities, cuts to court workers, cuts to legal assistance and closed community courthouses…. When all that is combined, we as legislators might be missing the big picture.

Having this venue to discuss these issues, I think, is healthy in creating a bill that is mindful of all of our civil liberties, because we don't want to risk those. This bill does not go far enough, or at all, towards addressing victims or victims' rights.

Now, the benefit payouts in the 2000-2001 year for the crimes and victim assistance programs were more than they were over the last 20 months. There was more paid out before the new, improved program was brought in, so I think maybe there were mistakes made in the new program dealing with victims' rights and assuring victim assistance.

I don't think the new law was scrutinized in that respect well enough to actually provide for what it is meant to provide for, which is victim assistance. The victims haven't decreased, but the assistance has. We must take that in context and think of that when we're looking at this bill.

We also see no movement towards restorative justice. There are some really innovative examples of restorative justice. As the member across has mentioned, there are victims in crimes — in B and Es and that. There are examples, even in this province, where restorative justice systems are used that bring, in coordination with the RCMP and local police forces, the perpetrator of the crime and the victims together. There is restitution for the victims, and there is actually a form of rehabilitation for the perpetrator of the crimes. So there are other systems out there. I know members are all aware of that, but I see that somewhat lacking in just looking at this bill in isolation.

In closing, I support the bill, but I ask the House, in the future…. I as a member feel that I was put in the position of having to support a piece of legislation that may put in jeopardy the basic rights of British Columbians. No matter how noble the causes are for the bill, it makes me feel uncomfortable not to have the time to personally consult with the public or my constituents and to learn of the concerns of other groups concerned with civil liberties and hear those points of view, too, because they're important, and to allow for amendments if necessary.

Now, the committee system that comes next…. I'm hoping that system will be open to allow for amendments, if necessary, to ensure that civil rights are protected, also, in this law. The public deserves nothing less. It is so easy to take away rights, no matter what the rationale. It's much more difficult to get them back.

Hon. J. Les: It's been an interesting several days as Bill 13 has been in second reading. First of all, let me say that I appreciate all of the comments made by the various members of the House who have commented on this bill. I think the comments have largely been constructive, and I'm heartened by the fact that apparently, as I read it, all members of the House at this stage are in favour of the general principles of the legislation. I look forward to the committee stage of this bill.

Just in closing my remarks, I want to underline once again that what the House is considering is, in fact, civil law in this bill. It is not criminal legislation. I've heard some references in discussion at second reading that…. I think there's some confusion around that point. I think, as we go into third reading, members may want to take that into consideration.

This bill is simply another tool that removes the incentive to commit crime in British Columbia. It ensures that when people are involved in illegal activity, they are going to be less likely to be able to retain the proceeds of that illegal activity and, in fact, will have to forfeit those proceeds of the crime.

This legislation is not a substitute for criminal prosecution. However, it is also important to realize that decisions pursuant to this legislation are still going to be made in the courts. I've heard references to the balance of probability being, perhaps, a lower standard. It is an appropriate standard for civil proceedings, but any decisions made in terms of forfeiture are going to be made by the courts. The director of civil forfeiture is going to have to make the application to the courts for the property to actually be forfeited.

There's been some speculation, as well, as to what would give rise to proceedings under this act. I think I heard somebody say that if somebody has accumulated some considerable assets — maybe a very nice house or maybe a very nice car in the driveway of that house — that ought to give rise to proceedings or, at least, to the director of civil forfeiture moving in on that property to see what's up. I want to assure you that simply the accumulation of wealth is not a suspicious consequence. As a matter of fact, I as a member of this House celebrate the fact that people accumulate wealth. I know that for members opposite it is sometimes a trigger to start taxing, but in and of itself, the accumulation of assets is not a bad thing.

However, we need to keep clearly in mind that the trigger for the operation of this act is the commission of unlawful activity. Where that activity is established, the act then takes over and the remedies laid out in the act are pursued.

It is also not an act that lays out further assistance specifically to victims of crime, nor does it get into a complete iteration of restorative justice, for example. This is an act about the operation of civil forfeiture and how that proceeds in the province of British Columbia — for the first time and, I think, very appropriately.

Some of the discussion that I've heard has been, I think, very good and very focused on the act. Others have tended to look at sort of tangential issues that are not clearly the focus of the act. As we go through committee stage, I am sure that we're going to be able to enlighten some of the various sections of the act that apparently have caused confusion.

For now, I'm very pleased that members of the House support the principles of the bill. With that, I'm pleased to move second reading of the bill.

Hon. J. Les: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 13, Civil Forfeiture Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Abbott: I call estimates debate: Ministry of Forests and Range and Minister Responsible for Housing.

Opening the estimates today, this ministry's focus is twofold. It is forestry and housing. Forestry is to protect the public interest and provide leadership in the protection, management and use of the province's forest and rangeland. On the housing side it's for safe, stable and affordable housing for British Columbians, with programs ranging from the residential tenancy office to emergency shelters to social housing to other programs as they evolve.

Today we are going to begin with forestry. The Forest Service was established in 1912. The Forest Service is the main agency responsible for the stewardship of 47 million hectares of provincial forest. The Forests Ministry has 3,224 full-time-equivalents on staff and a budget of $647.9 million.

The core business areas for this ministry include, first of all, protection against fire and pests, which is managing wildfires to protect provincial and Crown land investments in the forest land base. Without fire protection, about 500,000 hectares of productive forest would be lost annually. On October 4, 2005, a new national wildfire strategy was developed with the expertise from British Columbia and has been adapted by all Canadian provinces — something that we as a jurisdiction should be proud of, because we were the leaders of that on a national basis.

With regard to pests, there are all kinds of pests in our forests, Madam Chair. The one we talk about the most these days is the mountain pine beetle, which we'll expand on later and which I'm sure we'll discuss during estimates. There are other bark beetles: the spruce beetle, the Douglas fir beetle, the western pine beetle, Dosistroma and gypsy moths. As well, the Forests Ministry is responsible for sound forest stewardship. Sound environmental stewardship of the forest resources to ensure their use in a sustainable way is one of the goals and objectives of this ministry.

We manage the range issues with regard to invasive plants, in cooperation with other ministries; land alienation; and forest encroachment on grasslands. We evaluate the range practice and restore damaged rangelands under our range in stewardship and grazing. Under compliance and enforcement, we uphold B.C.'s laws protecting forest and range under the Ministry of Forests and Range jurisdiction. For example, we enforce environmental practices and enforce revenue and pricing legislation governing removal, transport of timber and forest crimes like theft, arson and mischief.

Through the forest investment side, we have the forest investment account. Some stumpage revenues are invested back into the land base to ensure that we have productive forests for future generations — for example, restoring watersheds. On the pricing and selling of timber, we ensure that the province benefits from the commercial use of forest assets. We provide a fair pricing system and effective allocation of timber harvesting rights.

In the next area we also have B.C. timber sales — offering through auction a significant portion of the provincial allowable annual cut to generate pricing and cost data. This drives market-based pricing on the coast and provides competitive access to timber for industry.

The ministry has some key priorities. There's the forest revitalization plan of 2003, which has continued on its implementation. These were very significant policy changes, the most substantive in over 50 years. Reallocation was a cornerstone of the plan, aiming at providing new opportunities for British Columbians, with 20 percent of the long-term replaceable logging rights being reallocated — about 8.2 million cubic me-

tres. Over half of that volume has been transferred, and the remainder will be available by March 2006.

The B.C. forestry revitalization trust — administered by a board made up of major licensees, contractors and workers — set eligibility criteria for that, and $125 million was set aside. To date, $16 million has been paid out to impacted workers and contractors. Increased timber volumes, available competitively through B.C. timber sales, are on track to issue sales totalling over 15 million cubic metres in 2005-2006, up from nine million cubic metres in 2001. They will award the first two new community salvage licences shortly. We've created an expanded community forest opportunity for 29 communities since August 2004 and continue to work for the delivery of those programs to those communities.

There are some issues that face the ministry, of course, not the least of which is the ongoing trade issue with the United States with regard to the North American Free Trade Agreement, which has got some interesting issues attached to it and negotiations that go on and on and on. We are in what we refer to as Lumber 4 in British Columbia. We have been working hard to try and find solutions both on a national and provincial level so that we can go back to the table with the Americans, should the opportunity arise. Now, we have no idea whether that is going to be available to us or not.

Basically, what we do with this issue is we try and take a leadership role in supporting the federal government — seeking an ability to get back to the table and seeking resolution — while we pursue litigation at the same time. We will still return to the negotiating table to pursue a long-term resolution to this dispute should it arise. But we want to avoid…. The most important aspect of whatever we do is the plan…. Our position is that we would not only like to find a solution here — which would deal with the litigation side and not having to do it — but we'd also like to avoid further disputes down the road. The objective in any trade deal, as we make it, as we go forward, will be that we will avoid Lumber 5, which is something that our producers would rather not have to live with.

In the interior of British Columbia everybody knows that we have an infestation, the largest in B.C.'s history, affecting seven million hectares — as of the fall of 2004, 283 million cubic metres of timber killed by the mountain pine beetle. It's an interesting thing when we talk about the first aspect of us being part of a national wildfire strategy as a ministry and then recognizing the fact that in 1905, British Columbia had 300 million cubic metres of mature pine in our forests, and today, a hundred years later, we have 1.2 billion.

We know there are two things that deal with this beetle on a natural basis. One is severe cold — at this particular time of year the temperature in British Columbia has gone up 2.6 degrees in the last 100 years — and the other is fire, which we put out. As a result of our own management of our forests, we allowed our mature pine to grow from 300 million cubic metres in 1905 to 1.2 billion cubic metres in 2005.

We have a five-year action plan developed with input from a Ministers' Community Advisory Group representing first nations, environmental groups, community, forest companies, contractors and universities. For the federal government agreement, we have dedicated $200 million over the next three years to many tools and tactics, including fuel management treatments for communities and first nations located in mountain pine beetle–infested areas, controlling the beetle spread in parks and areas along the outer edge of the infestation, economic development and diversification planning for impacted communities and first nations, research and development of new wood products and markets for our forest products and fibre, and research on forest stewardship principles and preventative measures.

Funding to support communities. We committed $185 million in the Northern Development Initiative Trust and $50 million in Southern Interior Development Initiative Trust funds. Portions of those are for mountain pine beetle. Funded regional and communication associations include the Cariboo-Chilcotin Beetle Action Coalition and the Omineca Beetle Action Coalition.

The first nations, which I met with a month ago at a summit in Prince George, put forward a beetle action plan of their own. They have requested funds, which they will receive, to be able to work through that plan and have it ready by the spring of 2006. Also, we will be addressing their issues as we come through that as they work with the communities in the Cariboo-Chilcotin and other areas affected by the beetle for the long-term plans and strategies.

The allowable annual harvest rates have been increased 14 million cubic metres per year in the hardest-hit areas. Forest for Tomorrow program, starting at $26 million in this year's budget to address reforestation issues where industry is not operating, is going forward, working with scientists, industry, communities, the Canadian Forest Service, universities, licensees, first nations and others on research activities and to plan for our future forests.

With regards to first nations, which this ministry touches on a great deal…. First, government is to set aside revenue-sharing funds for first nations. We committed to increasing first nations participation in the forest sector. Since September 2002 we have signed agreements with 94 first nations to provide access to over 15.2 million cubic metres of timber and to share forest revenues of over $106 million. That includes direct awards and forest and range agreements. Under the new relationship, we're committed to working with first nations on improving forests and range agreements and also finding ways to make those work better. We've created and expanded forest opportunities for 29 communities since August of 2004.

With regards to forestry, we have so many issues facing us as we go forward. We know, for instance, that we have some technological and efficiency upgrades

that are going to be required, both in our coast and interior, in order to make our industry competitive. We know we're facing challenges in the pulp market internationally and worldwide with regards to that fibre and that waste product of forestry being able to be used by the industry — and to find other markets for it. As a result of that, we have issued some additional licences recently that will see pellet plants built in the interior of British Columbia in four communities with an investment of $110 million, and we're now working with a number of people with regards to oriented strand board opportunities in the region.

On the housing side, all programs related to housing are consolidated under one ministry to provide seamless, continued homelessness and home ownership…. We have 96 full-time-equivalents on staff and a budget of $207 million for that side.

Ninety-two percent of the budget is transferred to B.C. Housing for subsidies and operation of social housing in British Columbia. B.C. was recently appointed the co-chair of the federal-provincial-territorial ministers responsible for housing and will host next year's housing meeting with ministers across the country in June of 2006.

We have the responsibility for 15 pieces of legislation, ranging from the Building Officials' Association Act to the Commercial Tenancy Act, Residency Tenancy Act, Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters Act, Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act and others. Housing is divided into three core business areas: housing policy, building and safety policy, and residential tenancy office.

I will, at the beginning of housing debates, go into more detail with the other aspects of housing, but since we're going to start out with the Ministry of Forests, I think I'll stop my remarks there and look forward to questions from the opposition with regards to the ministry.

B. Simpson: This is a very large ministry with lots of changes over the previous four years. So there's lots here, and with the minister's forbearance, what I'd like to do is kind of start at a bigger level and then kind of drill down. This ministry was reorganized somewhat. Housing was rolled in, but there were some other reorganizations that took place with the new government forming. I'm wondering if the minister would inform me of what other changes have been made to the ministry, particularly in the area of forests, as a result of this last cabinet change and his appointment as minister.

Hon. R. Coleman: With the exception of housing…. Some people still ask me how that ended up here. The recreation programs which formerly were in the ministry, like the forestry campsites, were moved to the Ministry of Tourism because we felt that there was a better synergy there, and an MOU was signed with that ministry with regards to that. The grazing licences were brought over from Land and Water B.C. to this ministry because of more of a focus on grazing. Some indirect issues with regards to grazing also came into the ministry from the Ministry of Agriculture.

The rest of the Ministry of Forests has, basically, stayed the same throughout. Obviously, sometimes you move responsibilities — with regards to beetle — to one group or another or some operational stuff internally, but the structure of the ministry has basically stayed the same otherwise.

B. Simpson: Have there been any areas of responsibility that the ministry has given up as a result of other ministries changing? I'm thinking specifically — you've mentioned the recreation sites, which I'll come back to — of land-base issues, land-base planning activities, anything to do with Crown lands and anything to do with the interface between the Ministry of Agriculture and the ministry's range obligations. I can tell the minister there's some confusion out there about how the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Forests and Range line up.

Hon. R. Coleman: Basically, we took some inventory back from what I guess you would say…. It used to sit with the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management. It moved to Agriculture and then moved to us on the transfer through. It's basically forest inventory that shouldn't have been there to begin with — on Crown lands.

Land-based planning, for the overall look of land-based planning, sits with Agriculture. Obviously, we do the forest planning and the forest management side of that. That hasn't changed.

The range stuff has moved over to us to try and give better focus to it. That's why we recently hired a director to head up a department — that was, frankly, welcomed by the B.C. Cattlemen's Association — as the appointee that we decided to go with there. That individual will maybe start to get rid some of the confusion on the range side. Certainly, on the other side, we work on land-based planning with the Ministry of Agriculture.

B. Simpson: One area of particular concern — which, as the minister's aware, the B.C. Cattlemen's Association has raised, among others — is: who owns invasive plants? In the ministry's service plan, on page 3, it indicates that the minister has a renewed emphasis on the health, restoration and management of rangelands and Crown forage. On page 7 it states that the ministry champions integrated provincial responses or strategies to address serious threats such as invasive plants. Then on page 37 it's got a measure of area restored to open forest and grasslands — in particular, an area designated as an area degraded by invasive plants or ingrowth of trees.

I can tell the minister that there's a lot of confusion out there about who owns the invasive plant strategy.

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, I guess we all own the invasive plants. I don't think any particular ministry or landowner would like to say they own them.

Our measures, our involvement, on invasive plants is this. The overall coordination for the invasive plant strategy in B.C. is the Ministry of Agriculture. They work on a coordinated response with a number of ministries, including Forests, highways and parks. Highways has it on the highway corridors. Parks has it in the parks. We have it on the forest lands and on some of the rangelands. Then there's also where they interact with other agriculture aspects.

The Weed Control Act basically delegates responsibility on the land base to agencies throughout government, so it allows for that delegation so that we have the delegation on our land base. We try and do a coordinated budgeting process with Agriculture. In the meantime, we'd like to try and be a little bit ahead of it on our end, because we think we may have, in some cases, a bit more information than some other ministries have. We're a bit more aggressive on it.

Certainly, right now there's an overall coordinated approach taking place with the Ministry of Agriculture with the four ministries.

B. Simpson: I take the minister's point on "own." He's right. I was looking for the lead agency.

The invasive plant issue, as the minister well knows, is a significant issue and a significantly growing issue. I did take my questions into the Agriculture and Lands estimates as well, and I can tell you that the minister had to sit and spend some time trying to figure out whether he led the issue or not. In fact, he informed me that he had responsibility for the Weed Control Act. Of course, we discussed which weed we were talking about.

But in this case, with invasive plants, it does require a coordinated approach. Because it's not sitting in anybody's plan, my concern and the concern of many of the constituents in my area is that it's not being dealt with appropriately. So what does the ministry's service plan mean when it says that this ministry will champion this initiative? In what way is the word "champion" being used in this particular instance? What kinds of things is the ministry going to do to address invasive plants specifically within the domain of the ministry?

Hon. R. Coleman: At the resistance of breaking into the song that just went through my mind…. The invasive plant issue is one that when I sat in government for the previous four years, probably being a lower mainland MLA at the time…. I didn't really have an understanding about it until it was explained to me, and I realized how many invasive plants are even in the lower mainland of British Columbia, in some of our creeks and streams and areas like that.

The Ministry of Environment, the ministry of highways, the minister responsible for parks, us — we're all involved in this overall strategy. I think when we say that we want to champion it, it is because we want to make sure that we as a ministry, because we have such a large amount of the Crown land base in our ministry that we have operational relationships with…. We don't hold the title to the land, but we have these tenures and what have you that we manage and coordinate on the land, and we felt it was important that we identify in our service plan that we were going to be one of the champions with regards to invasive plant strategies in British Columbia.

We have an ongoing biological program within the ministry that does review and research on these types of plants and these aspects. We work with so many stakeholders that this can affect that we felt we needed to be at the table, as much of a champion as anybody else. So that's what we're doing. We are obviously, in our budget presentations, going forward and reading the budget presentations that come out of some of the regions of the province identifying with some of the stakeholders that have identified concern about the investment in invasive plants. We'll do our best in our budget, as well, with regards to this issue.

We will be very forthright with the minister responsible and ministry responsible that we want a coordinated approach on the land base on invasive plants, because it needs to work for all of us. It's no good for one of us to take care of invasive plants in one area of our jurisdiction only to have them grow from somewhere else. I know going back through history on this that we worked very hard to get to that coordinated approach, identifying which ministry had responsibility for the Weed Control Act, identifying which one would be the coordinator. The other ministries will champion, basically, the fight against invasive plants.

B. Simpson: Again, it's easy to speak in generalities. As the minister well knows, when you look back in history around the mountain pine beetle, people would suggest that if we were having this discussion back in the early '90s, we might be having a similar conversation around the generalities of, well, somebody's going to take care of it.

I'm curious what specific steps the ministry is going to take to make sure this is going to be taken care of. In particular, what performance measures would the ministry establish? The only performance measure I can find in the ministry's service plan is an after-the-fact performance measure. On page 37: "Area restored to open forest and grassland" is an after-the-fact. It's a rehabilitative measure that we go in and do something after invasive plants have already taken over a site.

I want to come back to that one, but my question is: why is there not in here a pre-emptive performance measure or something that would indicate that the ministry is committed to measuring itself against a proactive approach to invasive plants, either under the

forest health and stewardship component or under range, stewardship and grazing? There doesn't appear to be a measure to deal with that.

Hon. R. Coleman: I guess the pre-emptive measure is that we're spending millions of dollars this year in our budget on invasive plants, obviously to remove them off our land base. In addition to that, the Ministry of Agriculture will be setting the targets and objectives on the coordinated approach for us going forward. We would then as ministries have the responsibility to meet those targets. As we meet those targets, we also will have to meet the budgetary pressures they may bring with regards to how much and where and how much we're spending versus other ministries.

As the member knows, a few years ago it was thought by some people that a couple million dollars invested in invasive plants might do it. Now I think this ministry is probably spending close to double that by itself with regards to invasive plants. The same can be said for other ministries.

I am not quite sure we would draw the same parallel as we would to the mountain pine beetle because of some of the protections that could have taken place differently back then. But this, certainly, is something that is way up on the radar screen now in government. The Minister of Agriculture will come back to us, as I understand it, with specific targets that we as ministries will have to reach and to achieve.

B. Simpson: Is there a date that we can expect those targets to be tabled, and will those targets be tabled publicly?

Hon. R. Coleman: I think through the budget process coming into 2006 you'll see the additional funds in the ministry. Attached to those, as we come through into 2006, will be some objectives that will be outlined. I don't have a problem with publicly tabling objectives and the finances that go with them. However, the invasive plant strategy is not here.

I would expect that that question should be asked of the Minister of Agriculture directly. Certainly, I will talk to the minister about how we would do that, because I think it's important that people on our land base know what our involvement and commitment to the land base is.

B. Simpson: With respect to the Ministry of Forests specifically, I'm being told that one aspect of invasive plants' impacts on our forest lands is the extensive biomass. They grow very quickly. They can take up a lot of biomass, a lot of weight. On the snow load, they are killing off and have the potential to kill off plantations quite substantially.

Is the ministry doing any work in that area to examine that and, in particular in light of how much we need to regrow the plantations, how many openings we have — how many plantations we're going to have? In light of mountain pine beetle, this could be a substantial issue that's specifically within this ministry's domain.

Hon. R. Coleman: I'll harken the member back to my previous comments that we have an ongoing biological program in the ministry, which is always ongoing with regards to forest stands and reforestation. Our first objective, obviously, is to try and biologically control these without having to use invasive chemicals that cause some difficulty to some people on the land base. That's where our first objective is.

We had set standards, as the member knows, on reforestation with our licensees. They have to bring their stands to a certain level before they actually achieve their credits or their completion on the land base. We work with those licensees through our ongoing department with regards to the biological side of these things to control them so that we have ongoing information as to how we can keep our standards in place and protect against the incidences of these invasive weeds.

The member is right that these things can grow quickly, and they can be a real pain. That's why we have the ongoing programs to go with it. It's sort of like a daily or annual fight with the invasive plants on the land base.

B. Simpson: Thank you to the minister for that. As he knows, one of my constituents is a leading proponent for us to do much more on invasive plants. I'll be able to take those comments back, and we'll be looking for the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands to bring something forward.

Switching tacks, then, still under the guise of reorganization of the ministry, the minister mentioned that recreation sites were taken out of the ministry. I would like to understand the rationale behind that decision.

Hon. R. Coleman: There's been longtime advocacy that wildland recreation should be under one umbrella with tourism. Tourism supports culture, so have it underneath them. But even though they have it under them, they're still located in our Ministry of Forests offices.

Under an MOU the staff are basically the same staff. It's just that now they tie into the larger recreation and tourism goals for the province, because they have everything from the sites like ski hills and what have you for recreation development right through to campsites and other recreation activities under that ministry to promote. It was just felt that it really wasn't the core business of this ministry to spend its time managing recreation sites when it should be managing the land base.

B. Simpson: My understanding of the rationale behind forest recreation sites being in the ministry in the first place is that it had to do partially with fire management and maintaining locations where those who were recreating in our forests would curtail their

use of fire. Given that it has switched out of the Ministry of Forests and Range and over to Tourism, first off, my question is: is that correct — in my understanding of that? Secondly, how does that integrate with the ministry's fire plan in locating fires in those recreation sites and managing them, with that overarching purpose of limiting sites in which those activities occur?

Hon. R. Coleman: Basically, it's, in part, to integrate the various tourism and recreation sites, programs, and to take a more holistic approach to tourism and recreation management on Crown lands, so the actual use of the site is tourism. At the same time the reason they're housed with us is because we still have the initial attack crews that are coordinated with that group, with regards to forest sites, that are in our ministry. We also have the forest warden program, which we continue to operate with regards to the forest management. They seem to integrate very well. The transition has been fine, and it seems to work well.

Before, you had a ministry that was sort of managing some campgrounds and was really using them for the purposes that the member describes. We're saying that we're going to use them for the purposes, as far as the initial attack, the forest warden program and that sort of thing. But to coordinate them into the overall recreation package of British Columbia for tourism — where they are, how they're located and who might maintain certain aspects of it — we felt was better coordinated in Tourism.

B. Simpson: I just want to pause here and ask if the minister would introduce his staff and their roles, please.

Hon. R. Coleman: I apologize for that. Actually, I usually do that. I guess with not having been able to give all four budgetary items, up to whatever hundred-millions of dollars it was, I forgot that.

On my left is Peter Fuglem. Peter is a director within the ministry in the protection program. Behind me is Tim Sheldon. He is an assistant deputy minister. Tim is on the operations division side of the ministry. On my right is the deputy minister, Doug Konkin.

B. Simpson: Thank you to the minister and the staff. Thank you for your time in helping guide me through this — and the minister.

One thing I note, though, is that in that restructuring of the recreation sites, the ministry is maintaining enforcement. Again, on the service plan, on page 8 under "Compliance and Enforcement," it says "enforcing rules governing the use of forest recreation sites" remains with this ministry. If the Forest Service is out there, if they're going to do the compliance and enforcement, if we're going to be…. Through the fire warden process, through the forest protection process, we've got some obligations around there.

Again, then, why were those sites removed from under the domain of the Forests Ministry? It seems like you've fractured it up even more. Now you've got that issue of coordinating other agencies, rather than having them all housed in one agency. Why maintain enforcing the rules and the other functions and hive off just where they're located or…? Cleaning them up, I guess, is all that's been hived off.

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, the policy and packaging for forest recreation sites sit with the Ministry of Tourism. That's because it's into the integrated tourism side. It wouldn't make any sense, when we're already out on the land base on the compliance and enforcement, for them to create another body of people that would do compliance and enforcement in those areas. What we did was sign an MOU continuing to provide that service to the land base.

It's actually not a bad integrated approach. I mean, you're actually integrating one aspect of government, as far as the creation of opportunities and jobs and tourism activity, and being able to take forest sites and put them into a larger package to promote them with things like tourist information centres and things like that, which this ministry never had any ability to do as far as marketing these sites. We were basically the managers of the land base, and these things grew out of the growth in the forests, as far as forestry was concerned.

To maintain our stewardship of the compliance and enforcement on the land made a lot of sense. It actually gets us some more efficiencies for the same people that we have and allows for a better promotion of the opportunities for back-country tourism within the overall, global context of the province.

B. Simpson: The other reorganization of the ministry, as the minister pointed out, is Housing. If I understand correctly, the deputy minister is for the Minister of Forests and for Housing, so the deputy minister has both those portfolios. Is there a rationale for bringing housing under this ministry?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, the Deputy Minister of Forests concentrates on forestry. He is the deputy minister responsible for the overall ministry, but we have Associate Deputy Minister Lori Wanamaker, who is on the Housing side and who does most of that stuff. They coordinate on the budget process and communicate to each other.

The reason housing is here, hon. member, is because I was the Housing critic back in opposition many years ago. I had some particular initiatives and thoughts about housing that I guess I expressed one too many times. At a point in time, when we were making the changes in the ministries, the Premier decided that it was time to send Housing here as well. So that's why I have the two portfolios.

B. Simpson: I guess that's a "be careful what you wish for." Is that what it is?

Thank you for the overview on the reorganization. We will certainly be monitoring. As the minister's

aware, there are a number of people who are concerned about recreation sites and how that is going to roll out and whether or not it's going to fall between the cracks. So I'm sure the minister will be paying attention to that and, hopefully, will be monitoring that. As I've already indicated, there is a high level of concern around invasive plants. Those are two areas that I think we need to monitor closely as we go forward here.

Switching tacks now, in terms of an overall metric, on page 28 of the service plan there is a key outcome called "Sustainable Forest Land Base," which is defined as the "area of provincial forest land in millions of hectares." That area of sustainable forest land base maintains itself throughout the projected time period out to 2008. I want to spend a little bit of time around that because, as the minister already indicated, the ministry is obligated to take a leadership role. I want to understand what that leadership role looks like relative to forward stewardship and maintaining that sustainable forest land base. First off, how is that calculated? How do we know that that number is what it is, and how do we know that it's going to stay the same throughout that projected time period?

Hon. R. Coleman: We set those based on data from the ministry's annual allowable cut database as of January 1 of each year. The measure of 47.8 million hectares on January 1, 2003, reduced to 47.7 million hectares in 2004 reflected the updated inventory information that we get as we do our inventory assessments.

This is one of those key outcomes that we try and sustain as a ministry. There are things that government does at different times, which have an impact on it that are outside our control. For instance, the Crown could decide that an area of provincial forest lands in the millions of hectares could be expected to be removed for a park and no longer allowed for forests or agriculture — or Crown land sales if they were to happen in any particular area.

So we do it based on historical data. We base it on our ability to do the measure, which we do continually through our assessments from the data in the ministry. That gives us the timber supply areas that we have. Then for the purpose of this measure, we deal, basically, with the Crown land that is in our timber supply. That's how we set the annual allowable cut and the manageable amount of the forests.

We have so far over the years been fairly close on that. There are today, I think, over 12 percent of B.C.'s lands now in parks. I'm sure there may be more coming. There are some other things that could affect this. There could be land claims issues that may affect that number. But we're fairly comfortable that we're being conservative enough to handle that data.

B. Simpson: Does this sustainable forest land base…? In the service plan it seems to use different terms for it. It says, "The key outcome pertains to the area in the provincial forest land which reflects provincial land use decisions," and then it says later on in that same paragraph that what was updated was based on updated inventory information. What is defined as productive was part of that and then, as the minister already indicated, protected areas and treaties.

So that question of productive land base — is that the key criterion in determining the sustainable-forest land base, whether it's productive or not?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, you're close. I mean, when we talk about what is an economic forest and the economic aspects of it and the allowable cut being from a database and the measures we apply to it…. The chief forester basically defines the definition of a productive forest, and that can change.

As the member knows, the evolution of forestry has been everywhere from the time of horse logging through to where we have timber stands today that we wouldn't even have thought — in some jurisdictions — of cutting ten or 15 years ago, which we now do with heli-logging. So he bases that both on economic value and on the biological aspects when the chief forester looks at that and makes that inventory determination as to what is defined as productive.

B. Simpson: Again, one of the things I'm trying to understand here is that number remaining fixed, and yet it seems to me that we're positioned to have more of the forest land base alienated for a whole variety of reasons than we ever have before. I'm looking for where that's taken into account.

As an example, in the Peace just now, as the Minister of Agriculture and Lands said, they have a nice problem. That nice problem is the amount of oil and gas exploration going on, the amount of wellheads going in. But each time those go in, we have seismic lines going in that are alienating portions of the forest land base. We have wellheads going in. My understanding is that there's about a four-hectare opening around wellheads that we lose from the forest land base. So that's one example of alienation of the land base.

To the minister: what other sources of alienation are there, and are we not in a position where large portions of our sustainable forest land base are threatened with significant alienation that's not taken into account by pushing this out to be the same for the next four years?

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, first of all, I've had this conversation to some degree with the Minister of Energy. What a wellhead takes out of the entire tenure and land base of British Columbia is like the prick of the end of a needle as far as our land base is concerned. So it's not the type of thing that has a significant impact on the land base. The chief forester takes a long-term view, and he looks at where established change is going to take place in alienation. When you see larger alienation or change, it usually has something to do with a park, a change to permanence in some pasture

land versus reforestation of that land for long-term use of the forest and other forms of alienation that can take place.

The history of this has been by doing that and offsetting it and looking at the changing economics of forests and the use of the fibre and where you might log versus where you might not have thought it was part of the area you would call for…. A sustainable forest land base in the past has always offset the long-term change like parks and alienation by the changing economics, and that's where the balance comes into effect.

B. Simpson: Well, one wellhead may not take lots out. If we're going to proceed there with seismic lines and wellheads, then I think over time that needs to be looked at. According to the Minister of Agriculture and Lands, that ministry is going to take a look at that and is conducting what the minister referred to as a cumulative impact study.

I can tell the minister that when I met with the directors of the Association of B.C. Forest Professionals, they also indicated that many of their members are concerned about the amount of alienation that's going on up in that area. So it is an area that people are concerned about, not only how much may be alienated but the nature with which some of those practices are going on, and I'll talk about that a little bit later on.

Again, if we look at the sheets on page 28, there's a metric down there of healthy forests which is measured by the percent of annual harvest area with soil loss due to the establishment of permanent access roads. It's a five-year rolling average that says about 5 percent will be lost. I'm not sure how that 5 percent loss doesn't impact the figure above it, if it's 5 percent per annum and in particular since it's a five-year rolling average, and we know we have allowable cut uplifts everywhere. We have more roads, more access, going in everywhere. If the minister could help me to understand how that figure, which is a permanent conversion, doesn't impact the sustainable forest land base.

Hon. R. Coleman: The 4.4 percent in '03-04 and the 3 percent in '04-05 were actual. The chief forester, being conservative, has projected out 5 percent into the next year three years. But that's taken into account in setting the number at the top, the 47.7 million — sustainable forest land base — because as some goes out, some comes in. Some roads get decommissioned and get reforested, and he takes that into account as he goes through, but it's not subtracted off the 47.7 million cubic metres of the area of provincial forest land and millions of hectares — sorry; millions of hectares versus millions of metres. However, that is already out of there before he sets that number. That's one of the numbers he uses in establishing the sustainable forest land base, and that's taken out before he sets the number at 47.

B. Simpson: With the number of roads that are going to go in over the next little while, I guess I'm wondering if that five-year rolling average makes sense, given that we're going to be having more roads go in. I know there's a push. If you read the MLA report as they went around for the pine beetle and other reports, there's a push for more permanent roads to go in and to not decommission roads — so to have a permanent road structure on the land base. However, I'll take the minister's word that it's offset there.

We've got the seismic lines; we've got permanent roads. Does that number above take into account things — as it indicated on the other page on sustainable timber productivity, on page 27 — that are losses to fire and pests, which are "unsalvageable"? We've got total area lost to wildfire, which I'll come back to, but sometimes those wildfires, if they're hot enough, cause sterilization of the soil and then alienation through that. If we're going to see a rise in catastrophic fires and more areas under fire, will we not then have to project that we're going to lose more of the land base as a result of those catastrophic fires and the sterilization of the soil? It's another point of alienation that we haven't seen at the order of magnitude that we will see or might see.

Hon. R. Coleman: The member is right. That could happen, but it hasn't. So he goes back to each area of the forestry — the chief forester does — in establishing the area of provincial forest land in millions of hectares for a sustainable forest land base based on the information that exists today. If there was a really big fire that burnt very, very hot and basically burnt off the topsoil and killed that, then in his next year, when he would be reviewing where he's going to set his cut or his sustainable forest, he would take that into consideration.

When that happens, he does that. If there is something that takes place that has that effect on it, he does that. What he does now is go back to each area of the ministry, each area of the land base, and he reviews that to determine what the sustainable basis of the land is. He does regular reviews to make sure that he's basically looking at economic offsets, changes in what governments may have done with regards to parks and other forms of alienation, and determines this number as a sustainable number, or the number that he has.

That can change. We could have a fire that isn't major, one that doesn't burn off the topsoil, and get a situation like we had in the area where the Shuswap Nation took a million cubic metres of fibre off and exported it. They couldn't sell it here, but they did manage to take it off. Now that's being reforested, and it's regenerating itself too. If it was the type of fire that got that hot so that it would destroy the topsoil, then we'd have that situation to take into account when it happened.

B. Simpson: Do we know, in the case of the Kelowna fire, what proportion of the Kelowna fire caused alienation of the land base? That one was a very hot fire.

Hon. R. Coleman: That Kelowna fire had a number of dynamics to it that I'm sure the member is aware of.

First of all, it started in a park, and most of it was in a park, so it wouldn't have been in the sustainable forest land base to begin with. There were some outside areas of the park that did burn. We've already started the forest revitalization there. It hasn't had an impact on our ability to regrow there. We didn't see a fire that did that in that particular location.

B. Simpson: Does that statement include the parks portion as well, where we didn't see anything in the parks portion that we lost?

Hon. R. Coleman: We don't track forests in parks, because we don't get to use them as the sustainable forest land base. I do know there were some that wouldn't have been sustainable even within the park, because there were some landslides that came as a result of some of the breakdown in the root structure in that park. Particularly on the higher slopes in the park, there were some difficulties.

Because nothing had been done in parks for a long time, over many, many years — probably ten or 20 years or in this case over 30, I think — the fuel on the forest floor there was substantial. That's why that fire moved, with the help of some wind, to become its own weather system, almost, at one point in time.

I'm as much aware because of the emergency preparedness side of that, but we do know there were some things that happened later on with slides and stuff like that from the integrity of the dirt, but not on the land base that we're dealing with.

B. Simpson: We don't have an answer on the proportion of that. Again, as the minister has already indicated publicly, we've been lucky the last two fire seasons because of weather. We'll get into the fire and fuel management strategy shortly, but I think it might be prudent for us to know how much land alienation we may get if we get more of these catastrophic fires.

Let's flip to another one. There's lots of discussion that in the Okanagan, where we've had significant successive years of drought, persistence in our forest management practices there of large openings, large clearcuts — particularly going after beetle stands and making the openings larger — makes us susceptible to a conversion to grasslands. In that area there is lots of data to suggest that that may be what happens. We may be alienating, by our forest management practices, large sections of that land base.

Is the ministry looking into that? Do we have studies that indicate yea or nay on that? How is the ministry responding to that claim?

Hon. R. Coleman: Just to clarify for the member. In the size of a hectare…. By forest fire size, the Okanagan park fire wasn't that large by B.C. standards. We know that. I mean, the reason why it was a cataclysmic fire was because it interfaced with a community and burnt over 300 homes and put people's lives at risk and caused the evacuation of some 30,000 people, which was the second-largest evacuation in Canadian history and done without injury or death to any individuals.

The member might also know that there was a fire in the Okanagan last summer where the fuel management around an area of the community was the reason it never interfaced with the community, even though it was as close to residences and could have been just as active with regards to residences, because they had done some of the cleanup in and around some of the subdivisions that is necessary to protect homes.

With regard to the member's issue on grasslands taking over stands, I'm advised that can't happen with us because the licensees have a responsibility to get the reforestation to a certain level. If it's a clearcut that's been done, we monitor that, and our expectation is that they perform on the land base.

There is also, if we look at — and we'll come back to that, as well, a little bit later on — the amount of NSR on the land base, and the fact that it's growing…. They're areas that are not under the licensees' obligations, and the ministry made specific changes to the licensees' obligations — its own obligations — with respect to NSR. So if we have large tracts of land that are NSR, they're not under anybody's obligation and there is the possibility of conversion to grassland, then those areas become susceptible to that conversion.

There's also data to suggest that if you combine that with an invasive plant species, then it's an opening for the invasive plant species to come in and run amok. In the Okanagan area, in particular, the data is suggesting that our forest management practices down there may indeed be accelerating two things: (1) conversion of forest to another ecosystem because of drought and because of the shift in biogeoclimatic zones and (2) opening up areas for significant growth and expansion of invasive plants.

What I'd like to know is: is the ministry looking at that? Does it have plans to examine and deal with it? It pertains explicitly to the one metric we're looking at, because — what I'm being told — that potential is a significant area of the land base in full conversion and being alienated from forest land.

Hon. R. Coleman: The automatic thing we do in the ministry is this. Whether it be a natural disaster, a clearcut or a road, the first thing we do when the work has been done is grass-seed, to get something growing on the land that isn't an invasive plant.

There was always that bit of argument or discussion back before, between some folks, of what should be left for pasture land for grazing versus what should be reforested for forestry. We do both. Our objective is to get on the land base before any other thing that could be invasive grows on it, so that we can protect our land base long-term from that situation.

As the member knows, there's always been some deficiency in what are not sufficiently restocked areas

of our forest, which we continue to add funds into to continue to reforest those areas of the province as part of our management of the land base.

B. Simpson: So do I take that as a no, the ministry is not looking into that? My question is: are we studying that phenomenon? Do we have resources on the ground that are looking at what other entities are telling us is a potential conversion on a fairly dramatic scale of our forests in the southern region of the province, particularly through the Okanagan-Similkameen, through the Merritt area, to other than forests?

Hon. R. Coleman: The answer is yes. It's on our radar screen. We're dealing with it. We deal with it when we reseed the grass, when we do the reforestation, when we work with our companies. If there's a study that specifically answers the member's issue, we will see if it's there, and we'll get a copy to him.

But the reality is that we're aware of what he's described, and that's why we get on the land base very quickly and seed grass first. That's why we get in there and reforest. That's why we put the standards of performance on the companies that want to operate on our land base.

Are there areas where there may have been deficiencies long before this government and previous governments got on the land base in the Okanagan-Similkameen? Yeah, there are, and those are not sufficiently restocked areas that we're trying to deal with on the land base on an annual basis.

B. Simpson: Let's switch from drought conditions to standing water. The ministry recognizes on page 17 of its plan, the second paragraph under the table…. The widespread loss of lodgepole pine is what it starts with. It says: "…serious implications for water tables, stream flow regulation, erosion, water quality, fisheries, forest fires and wildlife habitat."

What I'm being told is that out on the land base just now, where we have significant standing dead lodgepole pine stands, we are now experiencing standing water where we didn't experience it before. That standing water is going to cause all kinds of grief for us in terms of determining where we log and how we log, what used to be spring stands or no longer spring stands. Now they've converted to winter stands, etc.

One aspect of standing water is that in areas where that water is standing and there are lots of mineral salts, we can cause the loss of soil productivity as a result of the leeching of those mineral salts into the soil. Is the ministry looking at that? Again, these are large tracts of land that we're talking about, large tracts of land that now have a significant shift in their soil ecology. Are we looking at the implications of that for, again, alienation of forest land base?

Hon. R. Coleman: That's why we're investing money in ecosystem restoration. That's why we're investing money in research, and the member is right. Four years ago when I was talking to people in 100 Mile House, they were concerned they'd have enough water to be able to have drinking water for their community, to be sustainable as a community. We had a drought. Then we see more and more beetle-kill trees die. Of course, they're not growing, so they're not using water. So we're seeing the water table come up. Ironically, one man's disaster becomes another man's prize, I guess, in some cases. One thing that happens can always offset into another issue with regards to it.

We're aware of the issue that the member talks about. We know, as we look at our sustainable forest land base, that how we are going to harvest in the future is going to change in some of these areas simply because of how he describes it. Trucks can't get in there at the same time of year as they could have in the past. How we get the fibre out is going to change. The minerals that may bubble up as a result could have an effect on that sustainable forest land base going forward. The chief forester will monitor that and take those particular areas out of that forest land base and, at the same time, look and see if there are any other economic opportunities on the land base somewhere else.

There's no question that this 200-some-odd-million cubic metres of pine that is no longer growing has a significant impact on the land base. Anybody that kids themselves any differently would be crazy. At the same time, anybody that thinks there is a tomorrow switch that can be flipped, which is going to fix that problem, is in a bit of dreamland.

I think this is going to take a coordinated effort with research, with ecosystem changes in how we manage that forest base, how we get on that land base and reforest as quickly as possible, what we use the product for and where it's sustainable and where it's economically viable and where it isn't, whether we go in and take something out that has no economic viability because of the environmental importance to the future of the forest land. All of those things have to be measured as we make these decisions going forward. I look forward to all of us working on that as a challenge, because it is one.

B. Simpson: I agree with the minister that we can't flick a switch and make it better, and that's not what I'm suggesting at all. What I'm trying to get at with all of these is: do we have the horsepower in the Ministry of Forests to deal with the range of issues that are confronting us on the land base throughout? We haven't even begun to talk about forest health with respect to pests and disease yet or fire as a specific issue and what we're doing around fire.

Is our inventory data sufficient, and is our inventory approach now taking into consideration all of these things that I pointed out? I'm sure there are many more things that have a significant potential impact to alienate large portions of our land base that we've not experienced before. So do we have the horsepower within the ministry to do that?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, I think we do have the horsepower. But when we talk about horsepower with regards to this discussion, we have to take into account not just the horsepower of the ministry — which I think has done some exceptional work on getting some ecosystem and research done and on preparing ourselves on how we're dealing with the land base — but also with our academic institutions and our research people both at UBC and the University of Northern British Columbia and those areas, and our relationship with communities both at the local and regional level as well as at the federal level.

I think we have to look at this not as the horsepower of an individual ministry that may be the lead on the file but as the horsepower of an entire government and its opposition and every member of the Legislature. I think that B.C. has the horsepower. We have the horsepower in the ministry to coordinate, operate, set the standards, achieve the goals and coordinate the people who do the jobs we need done in particular areas with regards to the land base, irrespective of whether it's forests, economic opportunities or other changes that may take place on the land base. We as a province will have to have the horsepower as people.

I think that the biggest piece of horsepower we have is the people in the areas that are affected. In addition to the ministry having the financial wherewithal, the horsepower, the plans and the operational people to do the job we want them to do as we move forward and set new goals — to go and achieve those resources through our budgeting process obviously — we also have this incredible resource which is, as the member would know because he's been around the forest industry, the people that are involved in the industry and in these communities. I find it absolutely remarkable how adaptable this industry has been in the last hundred years as products changed and how they found new products and found new innovations, R and D, and technology to deal with issues. I think it's going to be the same here as long as we coordinate the future, work together and drive towards the same goals. I think we'll all be successful in the end.

B. Simpson: To the minister: again, generalities are easy to state. What I'm trying to get at is how exactly are we going to begin to address these issues, specifically with the Ministry of Forests and Range being the lead agent? As an example, how many hydrologists does the ministry have on staff?

Hon. R. Coleman: We will get you the number of hydrologists we have on staff. The deputy doesn't have that number right here, so he will provide that to you.

We have completed gap analysis on all the issues and the land base — everything from the ecosystem issues to others. We are funding that gap analysis. One of the synergies with other funding sources, for example, is the FIA forest services program. The budget is currently $10.5 million, which will support 167 projects and extension activities in 2005-2006.

Six projects with $342,000 in FIA-FSP funding are directly related to addressing knowledge gaps associated with the mountain pine beetle. We are funding those gaps. That research is ongoing and working with the communities. In addition, federal funding supplied to the mountain pine beetle initiative is also being administered in cooperation with Natural Resources Canada, which continues to support that research.

I guess there's the short term when you're dealing with the fibre supply dying. There's the research that's got to identify what the issues are on the land base, what the gaps are that you've got to fill. You then identify each gap as it comes along to look at how you're going to fund that and manage that. Then you look to the future of what you're going to do on the land base once there's no longer as big an application for, let's say, spaghetti mills on the land base, and it's moving over to OSB or something like that.

I think that as I've reviewed the plan and we put the people in place, including the people that are running the beetle file, we see more and more progress being made because of the focus of people in coordinating all of these different funding sources and the gap analysis, so that we can be successful.

B. Simpson: I don't recall — and it might be because of my memory — anything about a gap analysis in the Ministry of Forests service plan. If it's not there, where is it referenced? Where is the gap analysis? Will it be a public document? What's the process for developing it? Under all of this, the minister keeps talking about a coordinated effort on this. Who's coordinating this? Who's taking care of this?

Hon. R. Coleman: The gap analysis. The deputy advises me that there's probably something we can provide you with. It's not part of the service plan because it is part of the ongoing business of the ministry, so gap analyses are performed on a regular basis.

We've identified the lead person on the emergency side of the Beetle Action Plan, and we have people in place who are coordinating the relationship between all ministries, plus the people that have been identified from other ministries as coordinators as well. We are quite comfortable with that. I've seen already, since I've been in the ministry, how that coordination, even prior to putting that team in place, has improved dramatically as we've focused some additional resources on that.

As for the member's previous question, we have seven hydrologists on staff, and we hire consultants in addition to that.

B. Simpson: With respect to the staffing, it would also be helpful if we understood other classifications that have been retained by the Ministry of Forests and where that expertise is located — entomologists, pathologists, riparian specialists, along with the hydrologists, wildlife biologists, soil scientists, silviculturists and ecologists — within the Ministry of Forests. We

don't need to deal with that in here, but it would be helpful if we understood what the expertise is within the ministry and where that expertise is located.

Let's go back to one area that we talked about, and that is the fact that all of our discussions here around a sustainable forest land base and sustainable timber productivity, healthy forests, etc., are based on our inventory. Does the minister believe that the current state of our inventory is sufficient to do adequate planning on the ground and to have reasonable security that these metrics that we're working with are, in fact, based on reality?

Hon. R. Coleman: The first thing I want to do is caution the member on thinking that by identifying a particular person hired and working full-time in the ministry, we solve a problem with regard to anything to do with bugs, weeds or whatever the case may be. Sometimes the best process for quick action is when you identify a problem and hire an outside consultant. You hire an expert who has a PhD — in particular, in entomology, or whatever the case may be — that may be available to do some work. I don't think you should measure the ability to identify that — even though we'll give you the list — by the number of people who might be "working in the ministry," because I can tell you that companies and the ministry engage consultants all the time.

With regard to the current status of our forest inventory, we're comfortable with it, but we always think it can be improved.

Now that it's come back to the ministry — we're quite happy about that, to be honest with you — we're actually targeting some additional funds to improve our inventory management and how we're doing that inventory. We're improving our science and data around forest inventory, because there are technologies available to us today that might not have been available 20 years ago. So we're doing that work.

We think we're going to continue to improve on our confidence in the forest inventory over the next couple of years, now that we have the responsibility for the inventory back, which used to be, I believe, in Sustainable Resource Management. They may not have had the same focus on the forest land base that we do, and we think it's a better fit for us to have it.

B. Simpson: Again, one of the reasons I raise that question is because I don't see anything in the service plan that reflects that reality, that reflects that transfer back to the ministry of those obligations or that reflects the fact that there may be some questions about the inventory that we're working on and that we need to update our inventories.

Hon. R. Coleman: That's reflective of the fact that we got this halfway through the year, so it will probably have a different focus in the service plan in '06-07.

B. Simpson: Yeah, that's somewhat of a reasonable argument, but one of the reasons why we have an updated service plan that was tabled in September was to allow ministries to adjust. I would direct the minister to The State of British Columbia's Forests report on the first indicator of ecosystem diversity, in which the chief forester points out that under the inventory, it states explicitly: "Forest cover inventories available in B.C. do not enable reliable analysis of trends in forest area and species composition. Forest cover information is incomplete in areas where the highest proportions of former older forests have been converted." It talks quite explicitly on a number of occasions where inventories are not sufficient.

Again to the minister. We have a lot of metrics based on some assumptions that we're making, based on data that have been gathered, and yet in The State of British Columbia's Forests report it points out that those inventories are, maybe, not sufficient. The minister's already indicated that work needs to be done around that, so what explicitly? Where would I explicitly find the plans and the details of how this inventory gap is going to be addressed? What staffing, what dollars, what steps will be taken?

Hon. R. Coleman: Over the next three years: '05-06, $3.2 million; '06-07, $4.5 million; fiscal '07-08, $3.2 million — for $10.9 million. This activity will address the challenge of providing up-to-date timber and non-timber inventory information for resource managers, given the rapidly changing dynamics of the forest as a result of the mountain pine beetle infestation and other activities. That means we're going to monitor forestry resources through imagery and on-the-ground verification. We're going to monitor other resource values. We'll be doing some base mapping and land status updates.

The member wants to know what we're doing. That's what we're doing, and that information will end up in the hands of the chief forester, who will update his sustainable forest land base. Hopefully, that information tells us that we have more of a sustainable forest land base than we think we have, and then maybe we can have some good news around forestry.

B. Simpson: It would be helpful to me if the minister told me what he was reading from.

Hon. R. Coleman: It's a public document. It is the federal funding implementation plan, page 16 of the public document that was released when we outlined the federal funding.

B. Simpson: That's what I surmised. So you led into the next question I was going to ask, and that is: why are we using federal money that was supposed to be for buying pine beetle mitigation to offset the ministry's inventory gaps?

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, first of all, we have money in our base funding for a forest inventory too. This is in

addition to and in recognition of what I anticipated was the member's concern about the change in the forests' makeup as a result of an epidemic. It has been agreed to by the federal government, so it's not exactly like we're going out and spending money we haven't had them agree to on the $100 million. If we spend $10.9 million on this on the federal side, we have $100 million matching from us. We will put ours into forest health, ecosystem bases and reforestation — part of the overall plan.

Whatever dollars we get, we're coordinating them with the best intelligence base we can and with the best outcomes we can. When we put together the plan on the $100 million for the federal government…. If the member will recall, the federal government said it would like to see a plan for the first $100 million before we talked about the second $100 million. So they agreed to the first $100 million, and now we're going after the second $100 million.

B. Simpson: I plan to explore the federal money in more detail later on, because I do have questions around how it was apportioned. It's my understanding that the money was given before a plan for utilization of that was necessarily tabled. My question is: if we've got inventory gaps on the land base, if we're admitting that we have inventory gaps on the land base, why are we using federal money that was assigned for mountain pine beetle activities for an inventory gap that should be provincial dollars and that should be a provincial responsibility?

Hon. R. Coleman: I'll try and explain this. We have base funding for inventory gaps. We do that work all the time. In the province today we do have a mountain pine beetle epidemic, which the member is completely and totally aware of. That is changing the face of that area of B.C.'s forests at a rapid, rapid pace. By agreement, we said to the federal government: "One of the things that's affecting our planning and how we're going to deal with mountain pine beetle is what that inventory looks like and evolves to over the next three to five years." They agreed to put some money into that, which allows us to be able to know where it's spreading the fastest, what fibre is at the most risk, what roads we need to build to get into it, where we might want to do a tenure — all of the aspects that may allow us to manage the epidemic.

You can't just manage the epidemic because somebody thinks you should go cut the trees at X, Y and Z. You need to do it because you do an inventory. I want the member to understand that we're already doing the gaps. We were already doing the gaps. We've been working on gaps for years. It's part of the ongoing funding and budget of the ministry, so let's be clear about that. This is an additional gap.

Earlier in this debate the member said that he had a concern about the loss of what might be the number with regard to what we call the sustainable land base. He wanted to know if we are identifying those areas where there may be these problems. Well, he and I both know we don't have to drive very far up and down the Cariboo Connector to recognize that we have some problems. We have to identify what those gaps in inventory issues may be.

In coordination with the federal government on funding, we're trying to maximize the best use of all dollars. One of the things that we agreed to was that we would increase some of our inventory research in that particular area of the province so we can perform at a higher level on the land base. That's all part of a strategy to deal with the mountain pine beetle. It would be like saying: "Well, let's not take satellite imagery of the area every three or four months and find out what's dying." We need to know that, so we can actually plan the management of the forests.

The member wants to know: why are we not using provincial money? Because we have federal money, and that means that's $10 million we can put into forest health and other issues — to deal with inventories and help communities in their economic issues — that we don't have to spend. We do know, either us or them, that we're coordinating some money to go into doing this.

If we don't do it, we will fail the communities in those areas by not actually tracking the inventory, the issues and the spread of the mountain pine beetle.

B. Simpson: Well, to a certain extent I feel a little bit like we're closing the gate after the horse has left the barn. The allowable cut uplifts for most of the areas impacted by the mountain pine beetle have already been given. There are already reports by Martin Feng and others around how much of the land base is impacted, how much of it will be standing dead. So we have a lot of that information already.

I'm not sure where the minister is pointing to in terms of the leading edge of this. Are you talking about the B.C.-Alberta border? Is that what we're mostly monitoring? It's my understanding from reports that I've read that we already know that significant portions of the pine are already 90-percent dead. We know where those stands are from previous inventories and allowable cut determinations. So $11 million going into tracking where the beetle's going doesn't seem to be a viable use of this money when we have a lot of work to do on the land base, as the minister already pointed out.

The minister will have to have forbearance with me…. To understand why we are now doing this inventory projecting forward, when the minister in previous comments…. And the science is already there to say most of our pine is already engaged in this. We know where the pine stands are. We know where they're going to be dead. So why do we have to take pictures of them?

Hon. R. Coleman: Good data is always essential to good forest management. The activity addresses the challenge of providing up-to-date timber and non-

timber inventory information for resource managers, given the rapidly changing dynamics of the forests as a result of the mountain pine beetle infestation.

The funding will only support inventory work that is incremental to current activities and is specifically aimed at beetle infestation issues and mitigation analysis work. The focus will be on current inventory measurements to support a more accurate snapshot in time of what timber volumes and non-timber values are being affected by the infestation. This early, periodic inventory information will aid spread and mitigation control planning and support decisions to increased harvesting — because we're not finished with the uplift — as well as to manage other non-timber resource allocation decisions.

This program will include aerial photography, inventory and data management on affected first nations interest areas, which they've asked for. Inventory work will occur under the four main categories, which were, as I said before: monitoring forest resources; monitoring other resource values — that goes back to some of your ecosystem issues on standing water and all those issues; base mapping; and land status updates.

Future funding will focus on longer-term needs to reinventory affected areas and develop new baseline information for ongoing timber supply analysis to support allowable annual cut determinations in the ongoing management of non-timber forestry resources.

The ministry continues to do gap analysis on a regular basis. It deals with the gap analysis of the entire province of British Columbia's forests. It does have a crisis facing it, as we all know, in one area of the province, which is going to take additional resources to manage. This is one of those additional resources and one of the additional pieces of data that is going to help us to do that. I think it's money well spent, because I don't know how anybody can think that the rapidly changing dynamics can be analyzed today and forgotten about tomorrow.

It is a rapidly changing dynamic. We're going to have changing looks of the land base. We're going to have changing water tables, ecosystems, forests. Who's dead; who's red; who isn't? All of those things are going to change.

It's not just the Cariboo-Chilcotin up into Fort St. James. We also know this affects right down through the Okanagan into the Merritt forest district, where we are in the early stages of, let's say, some inventory loss, but we do have some inventory loss. On top of all that, we still have to know where we can move to try and mitigate the issue as we move along.

I think it's pretty clear that this activity is an incremental addition to assist us on gap analysis, on inventory in an area of the province that is outside the normal operating mandate and cost of a ministry. Normally, we would be doing normal inventories, but we wouldn't be losing 200-and-some-odd million cubic metres of fibre to one infestation under normal circumstances. So it's not a normal allocation of dollars simply because it's not a normal circumstance.

Again, for reference, what is the name of that document that he is reading from, and where can I find it?

Hon. R. Coleman: It's the mountain pine beetle federal funding implementation plan. I'll be glad to send one to your office.

B. Simpson: I'd like to close off this line of questioning prior to the break with an overarching concern. I'd like the minister to inform the House where climate change fits into the Ministry of Forests service plan.

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm tempted to give the short and not the long answer, but maybe I'll just give the long answer.

First of all, they did a change of team behind me. Henry Benskin, the assistant chief forester, is now in the House. He deals with climate change. I don't know if he was clairvoyant and knew you were going to ask the question or what the deal was, but it worked out just fine.

The chief forester is who deals with climate change in the ministry. They have a climate change team. Basically, the ministry is committed to following through on actions outlined in B.C.'s climate change plan. Climate change will have a significant impact on the province's forest and range resources over the next 50 to 100 years, we think, but we don't know how exactly. I don't think anybody would have predicted the mountain pine beetle and the temperature change in the last 100 years, necessarily.

The impacts include changes in forest and range productivity and in species distribution and an increase in fire severity, pests and disease, which we've all talked about already today. The impacts on forest and range resources in communities will vary by region, and it is difficult to predict the scale and timing of climate change and events. I guess we would all be geniuses if we could predict it. But we can't. The ministry is involved in climate change research to evaluate impacts on forest and range health and productivity, in collaboration with the federal government, other ministries, universities and the Canadian Institute for Climate Studies.

The ministry is identifying adaptation strategies to mitigate these risks and take advantage of opportunities. The ministry staff are participating in workshops to increase awareness in forest communities of potential impacts and adaptation strategies.

B.C. forests are a net sink that remove carbon from the atmosphere, offset greenhouse gas emissions and provide a significant contribution to helping Canada — once we determine Canada's involvement in the Kyoto protocol and how the provinces fit into that….

Noting the time, Madam Chair, I would move that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

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

Hon. B. Penner: I call continued debate of the estimates of the Ministry of Forests and Range and Minister Responsible for Housing in this chamber, and for the information of members, including the Opposition House Leader, who is waiting with bated breath, I call continued debate of the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS
AND RANGE AND MINISTER
RESPONSIBLE FOR HOUSING
(continued)

B. Simpson: We closed off before the break talking about climate change, and my question was very explicit and specific. Where is climate change contained in the Ministry of Forests service plan?

Hon. R. Coleman: There is no explicit reference to climate change in the service plan. We have in our budget, in the treaty improvement program and also in another resource area of the budget, funds allocated in research for climate change. I don't think it's necessary to read out the climate change aspect for estimates debate that I read out prior to the break with regard to the items I covered before that.

B. Simpson: The minister referenced the document he was reading from, and again, I'd like to know where that document exists and where I can get that summary.

Hon. R. Coleman: You could get it from Hansard now, because I read it out in its entirety before the break. If the member would like me to read it out in its entirety again, I can.

It's basically a note that's provided…. Traditionally, there's estimates information provided for the minister on all variety of issues, and this would be the one I referenced prior to the break with regard to that. I read into the record all the points with regard to climate change of that particular document prior to the break.

The minister mentioned prior to the break that the document he read in is taken from or an adjunct to the government's climate change plan. For the record, that climate change plan was tabled in December '04, prior to the Christmas break, which really calls into question how seriously the government is taking climate change and why it tabled it at that time, when it would fly below the radar.

It is also the same climate change plan that the Suzuki Foundation, which just tabled a report called All Over the Map, rates as "weak."

One of the things in there, which is the foundation for the government's climate change plan, is that our forests are carbon sinks. How do we know that that's still the case, given all of the things that are going on, all the things we've already listed — the number of tree species that are impacted, the number of trees that are decaying, our susceptibility to fire, the questions of drought, etc.? How do we know that our forests are carbon sinks, which, again, is the foundation of the climate change strategy? You'd think we would want to know that.

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, first of all, I was at the federal-provincial ministers' conference in Saskatoon, where it was acknowledged that British Columbia was still a sink province with regards to carbon sinks. That comes out of a national sink committee, which has representatives of the provinces, the territories and the federal government on it. There are specialists on that committee who use the best data, including what's going on, on the land base today, to determine the level of sinks for Canada and to identify the regions of the province that are sinks. We're still determined to be a sink.

B. Simpson: In that study was the determination forward-looking or was it current and past?

Hon. R. Coleman: My understanding is that they factored in the mountain pine beetle and its future in determining whether we had sinks or not.

B. Simpson: Thank you for that. I appreciate the update on that. Again, are there documents there that are available to the general public, and if so, how do we access them?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yes, there are, and we will endeavour to get them to the member.

B. Simpson: At one level I feel like it's a tennis match — member, minister, member, minister. Anyway, I'm a little punch-drunk.

I'm still a little bit flabbergasted that we don't have something explicit in the Ministry of Forests' service plan around climate change. My sense is that that is an oversight.

There was a workshop held in Revelstoke in April of this year, in which the implications of climate change were made quite explicit and, in particular, our need to identify vulnerabilities and potential adaptation measures. Some of the things pointed out at that conference are, for example, that before the end of the century, cedar will likely be nearly gone from southern B.C., and weeds will likely take over as forest cover is lost.

It indicated that the implications for silviculture are enormous, as efforts to match species and seed types to ecosystems will become problematic. It speaks of an increase of 75 percent to 120 percent in areas burned. It also talks about the fact that we are seeing anomalies in pests and diseases. If they are ones that would normally attack older trees, they're attacking younger trees, and vice versa.

It goes on to state: "Employees of the Ministry of Forests, in particular the director of the tree improvement branch, expressed pessimism about the ability of government to respond to the need for climate change adaptation strategies, as there is great resistance to making changes to forest management objectives, regulations and operational plans." That refers to the discussion we had earlier: should we be continuing clearcut logging in areas like the Okanagan?

Then the Ministry of Forests research branch representatives stated: "We should be now assessing forest vulnerability to climate change and developing adaptation strategies, and we should be looking at things like identifying new areas for conservation, fire protection around communities" — which I know the minister can point to us doing — "improving biodiversity protection, revising stand management techniques, seed zones, species selection and rotation ages." The bottom line is that from that conference it was clear that the spectre of climate change should turn forestry on its head and result in strategies that include managing for deciduous trees instead of conifers, creating wide buffers around forest communities, planting of diverse species, limiting clearcutting, and salvaging of dead and dying trees.

Again, in light of climate change, in light of the significant impacts it's going to have within the domain of the Ministry of Forests and Range, why does the service plan not have plans, resources and metrics embedded in it to deal with climate change?

Hon. R. Coleman: Not everything that needs to be done in our forests has to be in the service plan. In actual fact, because we have somebody that's responsible for climate change in government, we work with them, and that's what we're doing now. The chief forester and the Forest Service division management team have a team of people that is working on climate change.

Their scope is to identify and summarize the existing knowledge of the potential impacts of climate change on B.C. forests and range resources, and key vulnerabilities and opportunities for these sectors, in consultation with other Ministry of Forests staff, other government agencies, industry and academia; key knowledge gaps and climate change adaptation options that could be implemented in the near term and access to related policy barriers and opportunities in resource and funding requirements; climate change adaptation options that could be explored over the long term; key knowledge gaps with respect to these options and opportunities for addressing these gaps.

We're going to identify the items in Weather, Climate and the Future: B.C.'s Plan of relevance to the ministry. We're developing recommendations for addressing them and reporting progress. We're developing a communication extension strategy for raising awareness of the climate change impacts, mitigation measures and adaptation options with the division of the ministry and our clientele. We're maintaining a close working relationship with the Ministry of Environment's climate change section, which is responsible for the provincial government's overall climate change policy. The member might want to ask that minister in his estimates about that policy, because he has the service plan responsibilities for it. We're establishing linkages within the ministry, with the forest sector organizations involved in climate change adaptation research and with other provincial and national forest sector organizations with an interest in climate change adaptation.

We're ensuring that our ministry's interests are represented, where appropriate, in those meetings and on that committee with the Ministry of Environment, and in the national adaptation policies as well. We're keeping the chief forester apprised of matters of interest and concern to the ministry. We're going to identify potential mitigation measures that the Ministry of Forests could implement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change. We have deliverables and timetables that we're putting to that as we work through this process, which will become available as time goes on.

The workplan, just for the member's knowledge, is that we had terms of reference in June, and impacts and assessments in August. We're reviewing action items of relevance to the Ministry of Forests and to the Ministry of Environment now. We are identifying potential mitigation practices as we go through this. We're identifying persons and parties that we need to add to develop generic information in addition to stuff that we need to do — how we're going to extend that, how we're going to have the final report and the recommendations on climate change as part of our participation in the process with the Ministry of Environment.

B. Simpson: If I understand it correctly, the Ministry of Environment is the lead agent and has account-

Hon. R. Coleman: Yes, the Ministry of Environment as it exists now is the responsible ministry for the climate change plan. We report into that. We do our work in consultation with them. We had people from the ministry at the Revelstoke session, as well, who took information from that. The time frame for that plan of adaptations or actions, I would suggest, could best be asked of the Ministry of Environment.

B. Simpson: I will do that — go into the Ministry of Environment estimates — and we will seek that.

I still, for the record, believe that the omission of climate change in the throne speech, the budget speech and the Ministry of Forests service plan is a gross oversight. If you look at it, there are things in the service plan that are derivatives of climate change; mountain pine beetle being one of them. Therefore, an explicit reference within the Ministry of Forests to climate change, I think, ought to be there.

Does the minister see that this may be something we can look forward to in the service plan for next year — where that will become an explicit strategy and the public can have some surety that climate change implications on how we manage our land base within the jurisdiction of this ministry will appear in that service plan?

Hon. R. Coleman: We're going to await the process — the outcomes of what the Ministry of Environment does from our work and everybody else's work on climate change and comes back with — as to what goals and directions they're setting with us in government, whether it's relative to a service plan or an overall climate plan for government. I suspect that if the member believes that climate change is at the level it should be, it should be a provincial plan on climate change. Whether that will flow through to certain service plans, as it does sometimes…. That is a possibility.

By the way, Madam Chair, just for the record, I have changed the back bench — moved one to the front bench. Gary Townsend, the executive director of the operations division for the Ministry of Forests and Range, is now one of the staff members in the chamber.

N. Macdonald: I'd just like to thank the minister and staff for giving us the opportunity to ask some questions. I've met with the critic. What we'll try to do is make sure there's not overlap. If there is any repetition, I apologize.

We're going to try to stick, with my questions, to things that I'm hearing in the riding. The riding that I represent comes from Revelstoke through Golden, down into Radium, Canal Flats and Skookumchuck, and there are a variety of mills. I just want to recognize that it's a very complex ministry that the minister is in charge of, and it is an industry that is absolutely crucial to the area that I represent.

Now, in our area some of the businesses are doing very well, but there are some issues that come up. I just have questions around them. Some of the challenges, then, are a combination of the softwood dispute, which has been around for a long time; the low cedar prices, which, while many of the industries are doing well, affect in particular the Revelstoke operation; and the high stumpage and expensive logging; as well as habitat issues. I'll be touching on those as I ask these questions.

The first question I'd like to ask is around stumpage rates. In 2001 there was some talk of ending waterbedding effect. I'm sure that's something that the ministry is still giving a great deal of thought to, especially with what's happening with the beetle. The impact on some of the operations is pretty severe, as stumpage rates in the north impact stumpage rates in our area. Perhaps the minister could comment on that and just explain: what moves are in place to end that waterbed effect?

Hon. R. Coleman: You're right. It is a complex ministry, particularly when it comes to the calculation of stumpage and the waterbed. I remember hearing about the waterbed for the first time when I toured a mill in Revelstoke, in opposition, in about 1997. They explained the waterbed at that particular point in time. We're working on how we can deal with the waterbed.

In the meantime, though, we did do a pricing adjustment in August. It was something I did after speaking to a number of the interior mills throughout, particularly, that member's area and the members' areas down through Nelson, Creston and the East Kootenays. A number of them are affected by the waterbed, particularly because of the mountain pine beetle. We did a $2 adjustment. They were looking for a little bit of a higher one, but they were thankful for the adjustment on that end.

They are also significantly impacted — the member is correct — by the softwood dispute. The disproportion…. Well, there's not a disproportion. It's just that they have a lot of money sitting at the border. Some of these companies have been getting hit exponentially because of the fact that they do a particular value-added product, and they're not taxed on first-mill rate. They're actually taxed on the value of the fibre when it hits the border.

The member for Nelson-Creston's riding has a window-box operation in Creston, for instance, that gets hit pretty hard with the softwood. Whether it's stumpage or not, that needs to get fixed for their economics to work. The stumpage isn't actually the biggest issue they face. It's what they're being charged on a percentage, at the border, on the value of what they're trying to ship across into the U.S., which is one of the reasons we'd like to find a solution to softwood.

We've made it pretty clear that we would like to find solutions. I've worked pretty diligently with the ministers across the country in the last three, four months to get to what I think is closer to a position that may be negotiable if we get a chance to get back to the

table. I'm not shutting the door to litigation; I'm not shutting the door to other opportunities that may exist for us. It's a pretty live file right now. Although I have some ideas on it, I've obviously kept those fairly tight with the other ministers, because the last thing I want to do is think that the guys south of the border might know what I'm prepared to talk about or what we might want to negotiate.

I do believe that a decision will have to be made in the not-too-distant future, though, at the national level, through the federal government in this country. If we're not going to get to the table and not going to get to a softwood solution, what are we going to do for those companies that are under significant stress because of deposits? I think that's a discussion that may or may not take place in the short term, but certainly, in the medium term it has to take place.

I think there's a huge amount of stress in your community and other communities through the Kootenays and for other distributors and manufacturers in other areas of the province on this file. Because of the length of time it's been out there, it's just continuing to push that pressure button more and more. I think that we as the jurisdictions across this country need to recognize that we need to find a long-term solution to this thing, avoid Lumber 5 and have a trade deal. We've made that pretty clear. Whether we can get there, I think we'll know in the not-too-distant future.

N. Macdonald: I was told you'd be familiar with the file, and I really appreciate how familiar you are with it. Essentially, we are talking about the Revelstoke area. The stumpage is one issue. As you said, there's still an interest in that being addressed even more, but you're familiar with it, and you know through them what their interest is in that regard.

The other issue I would like to raise, particular to that area, is around habitat and around the impact, possibly, of federal legislation — but also in terms of decisions we make, in particular, around caribou. There were questions around the resources that have been put there in terms of studying caribou, in terms of working with mitigation, perhaps.

What sort of resources are you putting there? Are you considering putting more in? Basically, how much information do we have? Do we have enough information to make sure that decisions that are made are based on the science?

Hon. R. Coleman: Welcome to my world. The one thing you find out about when you're the Minister of Forests is all the other competing interests on the land base that have an impact on your ability, frankly, to find what would best be described as economical ways to get on the land base for the people who want to log and mill and ship fibre in B.C. On the species-at-risk side, which I think the member is talking about, the Ministry of Environment deals with it. We have research people on staff to try and deal with the species-at-risk stuff in our ministry. At the same time we're pretty much the advocate for the common-sense solutions on the land base to protect the future of our forests. It's certainly one that we're alive to.

The caribou is a good example from the member, because in his particular area the caribou are evidently at risk, but in some other areas they may not be at risk. It's a challenge to balance that off with the other competing interests on the land base. We find that it takes quite a bit of work sometimes to balance those competing interests.

N. Macdonald: I was the mayor of Golden during the time when there was upheaval around the mill, and of course, I'm always cognizant of how that impacts a whole community. When we went through it, the job protection commissioner was in place. Of course, with forestry, so often you're dealing with provincial decisions that have impacts.

The question is…. There's not a job protection commissioner, but if communities step into a position where there are issues, what sort of capacity does the ministry have to pull a group together and look at the factors that are creating problems that relate to the province and try to deal with them? Do you have something in place that's similar to a job protection commissioner? What sort of capacity do you have to deal with a company that may find itself in that situation?

Hon. R. Coleman: I apologize to the member if I didn't quite get the question right, so the answer may not sound right. I heard him mention a mill in Golden, and we were talking about species at risk and how the responsibility of the Ministry of Environment has impact on that, and that can have an impact on fibre supply. I suspect it was more along the lines of: we don't have a job protection commissioner any more. There could be some argument for what was some good work and not so much good work done by that commission over the years, and I don't think I want to get into those debates here.

I do know the process is that if there's a fibre supply in an area and there's somebody that is interested or has an opportunity, we try and get involved at the ministry level, at the senior level, to have the discussions with the proponents to try and find solutions for them. There are a whole bunch of mitigating factors on the forest side, as in any other business side, that have an impact on what sometimes causes a mill to go down. Sometimes it's fibre supply. Sometimes it's cost of production. Sometimes it's age of equipment. Sometimes it can be overfinanced with financial institutions, and it can't carry itself — those sorts of things.

I know that for the ones I've looked at recently, we've tried to find creative solutions within the ministry to try and assist in making certain things happen that would be good on the land base for economic opportunities in our communities. We're always open to

that and try and get there, but there is no sort of playbook for how forestry evolves community by community.

N. Macdonald: I guess where the question comes from is that there are a number of factors that are outside of the control of individual companies. You had talked about probably the most crucial one — and to be honest, it's very difficult for any provincial government to deal with — which is softwood. I guess you have companies that are small, independent companies with as much as $40 million tied up at the border. As you talked about, it makes everything incredibly complicated. Then, on top of that, you have issues around stumpage. You have issues around habitat that further complicate the business.

One other issue that I'll ask about is the area in Revelstoke, north of Golden, where you have what has been called the interior wetbelt. There was a report, the Saunders report, which was put together, I think, in the '90s. I think Howard Saunders is still around here. What sort of things is the ministry doing? I know that this has been out for a long, long time, but what sort of things is the ministry doing to recognize the very high cost of logging in that area and having that perhaps reflected within the stumpage system or another system?

I know it's been talked about for a long time, so people within the ministry will be aware of it, and perhaps you are as well. What sorts of things are being done to take that into account?

Hon. R. Coleman: The Saunders report predates everybody over here, so we don't have the specific answer to that question. I do know that we try and adjust our stumpage costs relative to the cost of how the fibre is harvested.

In areas where it's tougher terrain, we'll give a larger discount for things like roads and that type of thing, depending on the form of logging that takes place. We will look at that for the member — and get back to him with some additional information — to see whether there's any history that we're not aware of here. Maybe I'll phone Jimmy Doyle and ask him if it predates his time as the Forests Minister.

Hon. R. Coleman: But he was there, and he did estimates. I don't know if we ever asked him about the Saunders report.

Not to be flippant about it, but it would be unfair for us to try to answer the question when my officials don't have the familiarity with what might have flowed out of it. We'll look at what flowed out of it, and we'll get back to the member.

N. Macdonald: It does predate him. What it builds a case for is that interior wetbelt, the additional costs and how they need to be recognized within stumpage. For that northern area, in particular, you've got those four things, all of which touch on provincial regulation. All of them are of crucial importance to that particular mill. As you know, with this industry it is the hub for the community. If the industry is not healthy, then it has implications for the whole community that are pretty profound.

Around stumpage, you have companies that have huge amounts of money tied up at the border. Has there been any thought within forestry as to how these companies are supported while the process goes on of solving the softwood dispute?

Hon. R. Coleman: We try to work with the companies on that. If we were to, in our stumpage rates, somehow be deemed to put a subsidy against the countervailing duty, we would just open the entire trade war and trade discussion up to a whole different level of argument. We've tried to balance it off on how we manage the forests, and we do our stumpage — we keep it fair and so it's economical as best we can — within the realm of trying to get to sort of a market-based system for the interior down the road, because they didn't want to move on it as fast as the coast did when they moved on it.

The countervail is there. We're expecting something on the 28th with regards to a decision that's coming out of, I think, the Department of Commerce that may have some impact on this file in the next week or so. We don't subsidize stumpage to offset duties that are involved in a trade dispute, because if we did, the argument that the U.S. tries to make — that we subsidize our forest industry — would then be made for them. That's not something we're about to do, because that would put the long-term health of the forest industry at significant risk.

N. Macdonald: Just a final question about the connection of fibre to the community. That has changed in recent years. Do you have any thoughts about how that has worked?

Certainly, the idea that fibre would be milled locally and would be worked locally…. I know that it's a complex industry. Nevertheless, people within a community…. Revelstoke is one that worked very hard to make sure that they had control of the resource around them. Have you had a chance to reflect on whether that's working, and do you recognize the importance of the fibre, the resource, being tied to employment within the community?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, we recognize the value of the forest jobs all over British Columbia. I think one of the challenges is that in the next three to five years we're going to be asked, as a province and as a forest culture, to ask some significant questions about fibre supply, its location and how it's milled. We're probably going to have to look at the fibre basket of British Columbia as a provincewide fibre basket, because there are challenges we face.

In Europe particularly, you have the high cost of harvest, plus you have…. The high cost of harvest goes with transportation. Fortunately, Revelstoke has some rail access — and so does Golden — and that gives it some advantages. It attracts people, as far as wanting to stay there, rather than truck it a long distance and try to put it into a mill somewhere else.

We have issues where we have mills in certain areas of the province, particularly the southern interior, where the cut — because the annual allowable cut has not actually gone up; it has to go down because of how it's been harvested over the last number of years — is putting some mills at risk because they don't have any logs to cut.

At some point in time we're going to have to ask ourselves a question, if we have an oversupply of logs in one area of the province: do we allow those to be milled in another area of the province and allow the healthy fibre to grow in an area of the province where it's not under infestation? Those are the tough questions we face. I do believe that the resource is there for the communities. That's why we have 29 community forest opportunities extended to communities around the province, why we're processing those with what we think will be an economic model so that they're actually sustainable for those communities.

One of the things we found on some of the community forest stuff is that we'll award a community forest licence, and when we put our costs and forest restrictions and all the things on top of it and stumpage, to the point where they say: "Well, we can't make any money for our community by actually logging this stuff…." So we're doing a review of that now with regards to those costs. I think we're actually embarking on a fairly dynamic one-to-three-year period on how the forest sector is going to look for the rest of our lifetime, in the next three years.

B. Simpson: I just want to check with the minister. I know that you had someone from protections branch here earlier, and I'd like to move on to fire.

B. Simpson: Okay. In the meantime, maybe I'll ask some preliminary questions and see, and if not, we can pause for a few minutes.

With respect to fire, in the service plan under "Sustainable Timber Productivity," it has: "Total area of Crown forests lost to wildfire annually." Could I could get an explanation of "lost to wildfire"? Is that the total area that is actually engaged in the fire, or is it just the area that, after a fire has gone through, is what we would book as lost or non-productive at that point? What does that metric actually mean?

Hon. R. Coleman: It is the amount that the fire burnt within the perimeter of the fire that's measured after the fire is put out.

B. Simpson: Thank you for that clarification. So is that figure used to calculate or determine resources that will be applied and funding implications for fire? As you can see in the service plan, it projects, going forward on a five-year rolling average, 85,000 hectares. Is that figure then used to do the subsequent planning around resources needed, budget allocation, and so on, for fire protection?

Hon. R. Coleman: If we understand the question the member is asking us, we have an estimate of how much annually we lose. Then we attach a budget for it for fighting the fires. That budget is notionally, as I remember correctly…. It's a ten-year average that we use as the planning dollar for the actual budget spent on forest fires, and that is applied to the budget.

Basically, what happens is that it's a bit like an emergency preparedness vote. It's like a notional access to contingencies if we have a bad fire season, and that goes into the further future budgeting averages with regard to fire. You can get years where you get exceptional costs and other years where you get less cost, so it's an average.

I think exceptional years are taken into account in and out of that averaging so that you don't get to where you're overbudgeting. I do know that if the fire season goes on…. I can remember 2003, because I was on the other side of this coin, on the emergency side. I knew, because I was on the emergency side, how much we were burning in budget and in forestry on a daily basis as well. There was never a question that if the budget went over, we wouldn't go back to contingencies and continue to do the job of forestry, but the budget is basically set on what are the best averages to set the budget.

B. Simpson: The minister is interpreting my question correctly. You need a foundation projection to kind of do your resourcing strategy around. I appreciate the clarification on how to deal with anomalies.

However, I have from the protection branch website a table that says in 2003, the actual total area of fires was 264,733 hectares. The actual shown here is 50,615. For 2004, I show an actual total area of 220,468, and the actual shown on the table here is 63,540. I'm not sure what the difference is between what's on the protection branch's website and what's in the Ministry of Forests service plan.

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, in the service plan it goes from 50,615 — total area, Crown forest lost to wildfire in hectares — to 63,000 and jumping to '05-06 and '06-07, to 85,000, because we're taking into account the five-year rolling average. That's why it goes up.

Secondly, the website refers to area burned, but that's not forest lost. Sometimes that's grasslands and not forest, so the actual hectares of forest lost is different than the area burned.

B. Simpson: That's helpful again. Part of my question, though, is whether or not…. I mean, in some circumstances, five-year rolling averages may not give

you the ability to actually determine what your resource requirements are. If I'm correct, the protection branch still fights those fires even if it's not forest lost. Even if it's grasslands and whatever, the protection branch is still involved.

There's a substantial difference between the last two years, which are in the order of magnitude of 250,000 hectares engaged, and a projection of 85,000 on a rolling average. From a budgeting consideration, I'm wondering whether or not it's better to actually take that metric and switch it to actual projections, do your budgeting around that. Then you may not be as susceptible to the ups and downs. If anything, you may be susceptible to what we had this year — a light fire year — and you've got some savings.

I'm questioning the validity of the metric, given that we seem to be on an upward trend, and the rolling average doesn't show that. Therefore, if the resourcing is on top of that, it gives us a false impression of what the resource requirements might be.

Hon. R. Coleman: We have a budget for forest fire fighting. We have our basic complement of resources and our special crews for going in, and those people are all a constant. That's a constant part of the budget. The ten-year average in working the way we have has always worked as a pretty reasonable estimate. I don't think anybody would want to see us putting half a billion dollars into forest fire fighting when we didn't need it and then having to, let's say, move that money into the wrong area at the end of the year because it was a budget surplus that maybe should have been in operation somewhere else. I do know that this has worked pretty well as far as a way to average our budgets and stay pretty close to the mark.

In addition to that, we have agreements back and forth between jurisdictions across the country with our wildfire strategy and with closer jurisdictions to us. You'll read every fire season where — in some cases, like this year — we had attack crews or support from air attack tankers, whatever the case may be, in a place like Ontario helping them. They will come to us when we need help from them. We think that pan-Canadian and north-south, we have a pretty good set of resources that we have basically shared and averaged across our capital costs by jurisdiction rather than them all having to maintain, for lack of a better description, an air force to do a job that we may not need this year or next year or five years from now but may need it once.

I've looked at this part of our ministry, and I think they have a pretty solid historical averaging. They've got a pretty solid budgeting process. If you ever get an opportunity to tour any of our tanker bases or go through this portion of our ministry, whether it be Victoria or elsewhere in the province, you will find that this is a highly capable, professional group of people that really do seem to have their numbers in line. They work within these averages, and they have not flagged to me or to the deputy at any time that this system isn't working for them. So I'm pretty comfortable with the way we handle this part of the budget.

B. Simpson: I agree with the minister. I think, if anything, the 2003 fire showed us how capable these resources are. The minister has raised the question of the protection branch, the crewing and what not. Was the fire protection branch restructured with the ministry restructuring, and if so, were their FTEs reduced?

Hon. R. Coleman: No, this was not affected whatsoever from the ministry's restructuring. As a matter of a fact, if anything, we added more resources into fire as a result of the Filmon report.

B. Simpson: The restructuring also implies changing how the resources are allocated and how they're on the ground. It's my understanding from my own area that there was a collapsing of resources in a regional model to a more centralized location. I've certainly had some queries as to how effective that is where outlying areas then don't have first response capabilities. They have to rely on those areas.

Also, I have some queries around whether or not we bring the crews in early enough, that we're actually starting to crew up and do training during the early part of the fire season. In particular, given that climate change is causing the fire season to start earlier and earlier, there have been calls to bring the crews in even three months earlier — do some of the work that needs to be done around their training, use them for fuel management strategies and education of landholders who are in the interface.

Have those discussions reached their way into the ministry? If so, is the ministry planning on doing anything about that?

Hon. R. Coleman: The first thing I should clarify is that what was centralized was the decision-making process. That was done in 1994 and 1995. What we didn't centralize were the crews. The crews are still located in 64 locations around the province, and the reason we did the centralized decision-making is because…. Well, for a number of things.

I would imagine technology and satellite imagery allowed us to make quicker decisions as to how we would action a fire, because basically it allowed for quicker and more centralized and more seamless decision-making. Depending on weather, as we look at our forests in any season, we will bring on crews earlier. We do know that evidence in British Columbia is beginning to appear that the length of the fire season is growing by about one day per year over the past 20 years. We take that into account in planning for our fire seasons.

B. Simpson: Part of my question was: how does the ministry respond to those generalized requests and

queries? The one day is, for example, a generalized summary of what's happening with the fire season. But in certain locations — for example, in the Okanagan where you're in the midst of a severe drought — it's not one day. You're dry all year round, potentially. Your fire season is all year round, yet we still have an older way of bringing crews on based on an older way of looking at fire seasons.

How is the ministry evaluating that in light of the realities that we're confronted with rather than the methodologies that were used in the past of designating a fire season, crewing up for it and attacking it? Plus, how does the ministry respond to people's requests for looking at things differently?

Hon. R. Coleman: I'll tell you. I've met the people in the Okanagan, and those guys could tell you what the fire season is like probably better than anybody else on the ground because they've been doing it in some cases for over 20 or 25 years.

However, we do have weather tracking systems and fuel management systems in place, and we have fire weather stations around the province. There are 220 fire weather stations around the province that we use to track these issues and collect data with regards to what's on the ground. Our guys are pretty good at this actually. I guess you could say that's why the pine beetle was allowed to grow so well over the last hundred years, because we just keep getting better and better at it.

B. Simpson: I will get to that last comment momentarily, because it is part of the question that I have about restructuring. The minister raises a very critical point, and that is that we do have a lot of institutional memory, and that institutional memory is resident in a few key people who are greying. You're doing it so gracefully as well, by the way. As with all organizations, plans to retain that institutional memory have to take priority because we're going to lose it.

In this particular case, it's my understanding from people on the ground that we have a lot of senior people who are within five years of retirement. I know in one case in Quesnel, for example, we had a fire boss who did retire, and it was a scramble to get somebody to replace him with the kind of knowledge and experience he brings to the table.

How susceptible are we to that? What, if anything, is the plan that the ministry has? Again, there's nothing in the service plan to indicate…. I would suggest it's a generalized trend throughout the entire ministry, and I don't see anything in the service plan that points to whether or not we're examining that institutional memory and retention of it.

Hon. R. Coleman: We have succession planning in all areas of our ministry, including this area. In a particularly difficult season it's not uncommon for us to do like policing is done — where we bring back people on contract who have retired from government, who have additional use and who we may be able to put on a file in a particular fire season or whatever the case may be. We would probably continue to do that in the future, just like we've had to do on some other significant investigations that we've had provincially.

Madam Chair, if I could ask the indulgence of the House to have about a five-minute recess, please.

B. Simpson: The minister was referencing police as an example of an area where this has to be taken into consideration. It's my understanding that both the RCMP and the Vancouver police are struggling with this. In fact, the figure I've been given is that the Vancouver police now has 80 percent with service under three years. It is a huge challenge for us, and I wish the ministry well in its succession planning. I did that for the corporation I worked for, and it's no mean feat. I hope they're successful in that undertaking.

The minister mentioned the Filmon report, and I'd like to turn to that now. In order to do that, I need some clarification on some comments that have been made around the Filmon report and the intent of that report. It's my understanding that the intent of engaging Mr. Filmon, and I read from his report directly, was to "evaluate the overall response to the emergency and make recommendations for improvement in time for the next fire season."

That next fire season would have been the 2004 fire season. Was that intent fulfilled?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yes, it was. As a matter of fact, there were 100 new firefighters and two new water–air tankers before the next fire season.

B. Simpson: There was more to the Filmon report than adding some capital equipment. There were 42 recommendations. So I'm asking the minister: were all 42 recommendations implemented prior to the 2004 fire season, which was the intent of engaging Mr. Filmon?

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm not going to go to the question here. We committed to implement Filmon. We've implemented Filmon. If the member thinks after reading this report…. Either he hasn't read it, or he should read it to understand that not all of Filmon had to be implemented by the next fire season.

The Filmon report covered a vast array of recommendations, including how emergency preparedness would integrate into forest fires, including things like controlled burns — which don't always happen prior to the next forest season; they actually happen after the

So what the government did was committed $46 million with this ministry alone to deal with the Filmon recommendations that affected this ministry. All of the Filmon recommendations that could be implemented prior to the forest season that actually dealt with fighting forest fires and that could be done were done.

In addition to that, the funding then went forward to deal with a number of other needs. Like we said, there were an additional two firefighting aircraft and a hundred additional crews right away. A million dollars was provided to the Union of British Columbia Municipalities for communities to begin development of community programs, community wildfire protection plans, and an additional $2 million was provided for fuel management pilot programs as well as other aspects with regards to fuel management. An additional $4 million was made available that fiscal year for operational plans for fuel management treatments.

Then we also added in another $25 million that went to other aspects with UBCM in other areas. In addition to that, we gave them money to work with regional districts, because one thing we learned in 2003 from Filmon was that there were a number of regions and municipalities in B.C. that were decidedly lacking in their emergency preparedness plans. So we gave money to UBCM for that. As well, we started training seminars through the provincial emergency program, which all had to do with Filmon.

Filmon was actually a pretty dynamic report. It was driven by getting Mr. Filmon to review the 2003 fire season, expanded the mandate to look at our emergency preparedness. There were a number of things that Filmon said at the time he made the presentation to cabinet, in open cabinet, and he was certainly highly complimentary about how we fought forest fires in B.C. and how our emergency programs worked. He was highly, highly complimentary. I saw that work firsthand as a minister on the emergency preparedness side at the time.

We have fuel treatment projects underway and ongoing. There will be more to be done. We will see, hopefully, an improvement in some of the planning in municipalities, because it's very key — that's part of the Filmon report — that they would take care of their fuel management around the interface areas, where communities interface with the forests.

To try and couch that this report said everything had to be done by the next fire season is unfair to the report and unfair to the depth of the commitment that's been made by every ministry and interagency in the government of British Columbia to move forward on Filmon. Frankly, there wasn't one recommendation of this report that we said we wouldn't do or wouldn't fund, and there's not one that we're not doing and not funding.

B. Simpson: However, in this case, language is very important. Language in public debate and the language of the public documents that are created by the government is very important. While I appreciate the lecture and the warning, I will tell the minister that I have a personal vested interest in this, because my brother was a lieutenant on one of the crews that was trapped in the interface on the Friday evening when two crews were trapped. For four hours we did not know if he was alive or dead. So I don't need to be told how difficult this is, and I don't need to be told how well our fire crews fought this.

My point is that this government has stated on two occasions that all of the Filmon report recommendations were implemented. First, in this government's platform, it states: "Implemented" — past tense — "all 42 Filmon firestorm report recommendations to reduce the risk of wildfires." There's no delineation or differentiation in that statement about what should or could or might be implemented. The minister's own service plan update states, again: "Implementation of all Firestorm 2003 report recommendations" — as an already-done.

My question to the minister is…. Forget the fire season issue. Have all of the Filmon report recommendations been implemented or not?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, I'm sorry your brother was behind the lines. I know that must have been difficult. At that time communication was very difficult in that entire area because we had propane tanks blowing up. We had smoke. We couldn't see communities from the air. We had people that we'd evacuated, and we couldn't even tell them if their house was still standing. We had a whole bunch of risk with some firefighters and some forest crews, as well as some RCMP officers, that we tried to risk-manage at the time. All I can say is that I thank the Lord that we didn't lose any lives of anybody from the public or any of our fire crews. We lost two people during that entire fire season in a helicopter accident, who were doing some water work — and some guys from a water-tanker incident over in the Kootenays.

That's not what I'm here to debate. "Implemented" doesn't mean you're finished. Implemented means you've implemented. Have we implemented the Firesmart program? Yeah. Has every community done and completed their work on their Firesmart program? Probably not. But have we implemented that recommendation of Filmon? Yes, we have.

Have we implemented the fact that we're going to lead the strategic plan development with regards to emergency preparedness? Yeah, we've implemented that. Is it finished? It will never be finished. Anybody who thinks that once you write an emergency plan that it's not a living document is kidding themselves about emergency preparedness.

When we say "implemented," we did. We implemented every single one of the recommendations of the Filmon report. We attached dollars to it. We, basically, for lack of a better description, gave them the opportunity to implement in their relationship, like the Union of B.C. Municipalities, on a number of issues. They

worked with us on that, and we felt, in consultation with them, that they might be the best delivering agency for certain aspects of the Filmon report.

But we have implemented the Filmon report. We will continue to implement the Filmon report, because it's not finished. It won't be finished until we have the interface in communities across the province — having done the work that they need to do to protect their communities on interface. Even then, I'm sure we will get a fire season that will teach us another lesson, and there will be other implementation we'll have to do in addition to that.

B. Simpson: Well, I think that those are interesting semantics. I think if the minister puts himself in the position of the public, who want some surety that we have done the due diligence around the Filmon report, then I think there is a call here for more careful use of language.

Be that as it may, one of the questions I have is, for example, in the Filmon report. One of the things that could have been acted on immediately was emergency communications. As the minister is fully aware, in the Spences Bridge fire we had a breakdown in communications, which was exactly the nature of the breakdown in communications that we had at the Kelowna fire. In that circumstance, there was a call by a number of members of the media who were interveners in the Filmon report, who stated that they needed to be brought in early. Those individuals claimed that it was proof that an area which, in reporting to the Auditor General in May was supposed to be complete, had failed again.

To the minister: that's an example of something that was reported as complete — did not work. What is the process for ongoing evaluation of the Filmon report recommendations, even those ones designated as complete?

Hon. R. Coleman: I think the member's got the wrong fire in the wrong place. We didn't have a breakdown in communication on the Spences Bridge fire that I understand or that we've heard of. We did in Oliver, on an interface fire earlier in the season around the same time as Spences Bridge, and that happens.

Oftentimes it can be because of the sophistication of the local emergency planning folks. What we did immediately is move some communications people in there to address the issue, like we did in Kamloops in 2003. It can happen. All the preparation, all the training and all the work you can put into this — you can get some communication breakdown.

The communication breakdown in that case was with the media, who always have a concern that they should be on the fire and be there in the middle of it when we're going to protect life and safety first. In some cases, they don't want to listen to that. But in that place, the communication was of some concern to us. Some of the communication with our residents was of some concern. We, as we always do in an emergency situation, did a postmortem to go through that to see how we can recommend that it gets fixed in the future.

I don't believe that you're ever going to get it 100-percent perfect. We know that on the communication side we worked with media as we came through Filmon. We know how it changed and improved as we came through the Barriere fire into the Falkland fire and into the Okanagan fire in 2003. Sometimes you get people who are focused on protecting life and property first who don't want to communicate at other levels or may not see that as important, which is what happened to us in 2003 and is one of the issues we tried to address through Filmon.

All of that's part of the ongoing training of those regional districts and local small governments on emergency planning, so they have an understanding of it. Some of those areas may or may not have gone through the training at the time they should have or had some ongoing people or some change in personnel. That can happen. But on the Filmon implementation we put that in place. We put it in place with UBCM. We put it in place through the provincial emergency program. But I don't believe…. My understanding is — at no time have I seen anything that there was a concern over Spences Bridge on the communication side — that the concern was in one fire last summer in the Oliver area, and I know that the different programs were going to address that locally.

B. Simpson: Well, I stand to be corrected whether it was Spences Bridge or Oliver. My fuzzified brain remembered it as Spences Bridge. As the minister indicated, there were fires occurring at the same time. My point, however, is that in the Filmon report the recommendations around communications were made that all of the parties who needed to be involved in redefining the communications protocols would be brought into a consultation process and that out of that consultation process would flow corrections from lessons learned in the 2003 fire season.

The indications as a result of the Oliver fire were that the media certainly was not involved in any consultation process that derived the communication strategy and the go-forward state.

Secondly, it was more than just the media who were not apprised. The individuals who were working on the ground, who were marshalling the individuals in and out, were telling people they could go to their homes while the RCMP were going door to door asking people to leave their homes because an evacuation order had been issued. That's a significant and fundamental breakdown, and my understanding is that that was to be rectified.

That is one of the things that is stated as complete under Filmon. Yet it was a fundamental breakdown and a replication of some things that occurred in the 2003 fire season. So what has been done subsequent to that to do a more adequate consultation process to make sure it doesn't happen again?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, on the ground it was fixed pretty quick. For the first day or so there was

some concern. One of the issues with it was setting up meetings, which we always do in these situations. The media can come and listen to the fire boss, listen to the police, listen to the emergency preparedness and that sort of thing.

At the same time this particular fire, as I understand it, was also on some first nations land. Through Filmon, as the member knows, one of the recommendations was to get them up and running on emergency preparedness as well. We're working through that, and it probably gave us a bit of an example of some cross-jurisdictional issues. We debriefed after that incident. We learned from it. We've had meetings as recently as today about this to see how it can be improved as we work through it with the first nations communities. I know from emergency management that's the best model. You do have situations like that now.

I also know how live emergency orders and the different levels of them — which are basically notices and warnings and then orders and alerts — are pretty dynamic. It is quite conceivable that somebody could be told that they could go back into their home, which happened in a case in Kelowna, and winds shift and within an hour somebody's knocking at your door saying: "You know what? You've got to go, because something's happened." That could easily happen in that situation. I will check with the debriefing on this for the member on that particular incident, but I suspect that's what might have happened.

I'll never forget the day I was going down the hill into Kelowna with the Premier of the province, and the lake at Kelowna in the morning was like glass. The Premier asked me: "What do you think?" I said: "If it stays like this or we stay under 10 kilometres an hour for wind, we'll probably get ahead of this thing."

By six o'clock that night, we had 60-mile-an-hour winds. We had a fire moving faster than we could move. The opportunity to create a fireguard at one point was presented to me as the Minister Responsible for Emergency Management, where I could have bulldozed nine $500,000 homes to get a fireguard. Couldn't get in there fast enough to do it, and we lost the whole subdivision. I do know in that case they didn't get hours. Some of them were on alert. They'd just been told that and were given orders within half an hour of that because of the shifts. So that dynamic is always easier in my experience to second-guess after the fact.

I believe that debriefing is very important to see how those communications worked. I believe anecdotal comments with regards to what happened sometimes are not as valuable simply because I know that somebody has to make a split-second sometimes, and that split-second decision is made for the preservation of life first. Sometimes somebody doesn't think they were given enough notice or whatever.

Well, I guess, so be it, because in those dynamic circumstances, when you're facing a natural disaster — and I would think, particularly, in the Okanagan in the summer of 2005, with the memory of the summer of 2003 being very fresh in everybody's mind — some people might have pushed a little sooner than they thought they would. Would I fault them for that? No, I'd rather they do that than not make the decision — from an emergency side.

We have debriefed on that file. We've looked at what happened there. I don't think you can point back to Filmon and say nothing was done because there was a breakdown on a particular file at a given time.

B. Simpson: The point I was referencing — and again, I don't think it's helpful to back-and-forth on this — was a simple breakdown in communications. One order had been given to one group, and an order had been given to another group, and they were conflicting orders at the same time. So there wasn't a change.

However, I think that in light of time constraints, I would ask the minister if he would be kind enough to arrange for me to get a briefing on what implemented — not implemented process for the Filmon report…. I have questions around UBCM's role, questions around fuel management. There are still lots of questions out there around the Filmon report and what the implications are, and I'd like to switch to another line of questioning. If I could get a briefing arranged on this, then I could switch to something else.

Hon. R. Coleman: To help that, I would ask the member to maybe submit to us what portions of the Filmon he wants to spend time on, because we do have people from the provincial emergency program involved in parts of it, the Union of British Columbia Municipalities.

He could actually write to them himself, and I'm sure they would give him an update on their ends of it. We can certainly give you an update on our ministries with regards to Filmon. It may be worthwhile to ask that the comprehensive briefing go to the lead ministry that probably dealt with this as a major aspect of it, which was Solicitor General under the emergency preparedness act and the provincial emergency program.

I would rather not give him half a briefing. I think it might be worthwhile if you could sort of identify the areas you want to have discussed so we could make sure the briefing was worthwhile, rather than just saying we'll do a briefing on the Filmon report. If you want a briefing on the Filmon report, read it, and then when you've finished reading it, ask us which ones we didn't do. We'll say: "Well, we've implemented all of them, and this is the stage we're at in each level of the implementation." That wouldn't probably be what you're looking for. I would suggest maybe that if you could just crystallize a little bit, we'd be happy to make those arrangements with the participating ministries.

B. Simpson: I'll follow up and do that. There's one aspect of Filmon that I'd like to get clarification on. Filmon pointed out a number of things that need to be done in order for us to do the fuel management and interface zones. I've spoken with some of the district staff in the Okanagan, and they indicate to me that

We can talk about fuel management interface zones all we want, if we don't change allowable cut implications, stumpage implications, operating area implications…. I was told by district staff in the Okanagan that they approached the major licensees to do this work, and they were flat out refused because all those things were stumbling blocks and still in the way.

It's my understanding that no action has yet been taken on those, and I'm not quite sure how we will get the interface fuel management work done until those are done. It's my understanding that those will be requiring legislative changes.

Hon. R. Coleman: We have a number of projects going with our crews around the province. As well, we have successful community projects in Logan Lake, Invermere, Merritt, Kelowna, Kamloops and Prince George that are dealing with this. Stumpage has not been a limiting factor in any of those projects to date. As a matter of fact, we've had a very good recognition of this.

This goes back to the member's description of implementation. I mean, you have a substantial number of hectares of land, potentially hazardous fuels within two kilometres of interface. Within those interfaces, you have to educate some communities to the fact that they're going to allow that kind of cut to take place within their interface. Some of them don't want to do it because they want to be together with the forest — I guess you could describe it — and put municipal rules up in the way of that…. That's an education aspect as much as anything else.

I don't know where the district staff comment comes from in the Okanagan Valley. I flew the Okanagan last summer and had pointed out to me a number of very successful projects in the interface that have reduced the risk in the Okanagan. One that was pointed out to me really reduced the risk in a local fire very close by. It's an ongoing project. It's going to be ongoing. We are going to continue to deal with the potential hazardous fuels within two kilometres of the interface around our communities. That's what we said we'd do, and that's what we're going to do.

B. Simpson: Just a follow-up on that. It's my understanding — and the minister can speak to what it was he saw — that there is interface management work being done around Kelowna. But it's because the city of Kelowna brought on a forester of their own and have been doing some of the work in the interface.

The comments that I was given were for the Vernon–Salmon Arm area, down in that area, where an attempt was made to do this through the licensees. That attempt failed because of some of those structural changes.

Again, I would ask the minister…. Filmon pointed out that the allowable cut change would have to be made. Filmon pointed out that the stumpage was a hindrance. I have been told by ministry staff that in some areas, that is the case. So is there a plan in the works to change that, and is my understanding correct that that will require some legislative changes as well?

Hon. R. Coleman: So far, we don't need to do legislation to do any of this. Most of it we can do by regulation. There may be one tweak that may be necessary in legislation, but we're not sure whether that's going to be required.

Some of the issues you'll hear from licensees out there is that what they determine might be working in the interface and reducing the fire risk, where we might determine that it's brushing and thinning and some other things…. They'd like to go take the merchantable timber out and get it for free, which isn't unusual for somebody who thinks they might be able to get a deal. That may be a stumpage issue, but we are, where it's necessary, taking out the fibre. Where it's necessary, we're recommending brushing. Where it's necessary, we're recommending thinning. We're doing that in cooperation with our own staff, who are helping a number of regional districts around the problem with regards to this.

I did visit the Vernon office of the Ministry of Forests some time back. This was not brought up as an issue to me. I will follow that up now, find out who in the ministry is saying that nothing is getting done. As far as I understood, people were pretty comfortable in that area that a lot of the things to do with Filmon were happening. It might be some licensee's interpretation as to what they think that fire protection should be, versus what our experts are telling us it should be.

B. Simpson: Again, just a point of clarification, because sometimes those things are ascribed to me. I never said that nothing was being done, and it was not related to me that nothing was being done. It was related to me that Filmon was correct — that there are issues around allowable cut and around stumpage that are preventing a substantial amount of work being done that's necessary to be done in that drought-ridden area. I just want to go on the record as clarifying that I did not say nothing was being done. It's just that those points were pointed out to me as needing to be done.

Minister, there were four subjects I wanted to deal with. I want to talk a little bit about proposed possible community forests in Nakusp and Slocan. I want to talk a little bit about jobs and quota distribution in the Creston Valley, and I want to talk a little bit about interface fire. I'll start in reverse order since you guys are already canvassing this issue.

My opinion — I need to put in a disclaimer here — doesn't need to represent my political party or anybody else on this side. I live up against the forest. I have fought fire for money, for a living, and I have thoughts about it. I don't actually have a tremendous

amount of sympathy with people who live in a pine forest that got started because it caught on fire, built their house there and think that because the road is paved, it will never burn again. It seems to me that it has burnt for one million years, and it will burn again.

I think that given climate change and what appears to be…. The minister said there's one day longer of a fire season every year. It would appear that periodic drought and fire are an increasing part of our societal experience here. Given all that, it feels to me like living in what we call the interface ought to begin to experience a regulatory regime similar to living in the floodplain. In other words, if you build there, you ought not to get insurance, you ought not to be able to rebuild, and you ought to be told before you buy the land that it's a fire zone, not a subdivision. We got there some decades ago in terms of floodplains. We now put in a designation, and everybody knows that it's buyer beware. But buyers understand.

My first question to the minister is: is the minister working with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs to advise people before they purchase and develop and build that they're living in a place that will likely burn in their lifetime?

Hon. R. Coleman: I think there are two descriptions there. One is where we refer to the interface, which is on the edge of an established community. Let's say it's Nelson, built up the hillside. Subdivisions are there, and we say: "If you're going to build a subdivision there today, you should make an interface area so that there's a fireguard between the houses and where the forest would be." Certainly, those particular areas are what we're trying to concentrate on.

Kelowna was the classic example where an established community had allowed for a very nice subdivision in an area. One of the nice things about the area was the trees that were left in and around the homes in the interface to the forest, which nobody saw as a risk until it started on fire. Those homes, though, did have insurance and could get insurance. On those aspects, part of Filmon was some review of insurance which was conducted with the Insurance Bureau of Canada as a result of some insurance work that was done by PEP and that continues to be done.

The other one the member describes is an unorganized area where somebody decides to build a house on a large tract of land where there are no services and builds it in the interface. There are situations where that occurs today, where insurance isn't being given, simply because of that risk.

The garnet fire in Penticton was probably a classic example of that, back in the 1990s. The garnet fire went up the Carmi area where there were houses built up the hillside on acreages overlooking the city and properties with marvellous views surrounded by trees. Some of the homes had insurance, and some didn't.

The government's concern has to be this. If there's an area of a province where we're having an organized and people are not aware of this, we have to be concerned about the impact on the emergency program vote with regards to where you can't get insurance, because the act says if you can't get insurance for an event…. Fire is an insurable event, so it never pays on fire to somebody who lives in an unorganized area. But if it's a flood or a mudslide or an earthquake — not earthquake, but those type of natural events — up to $100,000 from disaster financial assistance can be made available to somebody for their primary buildings. So there are balances there.

We do have a rural and forested province. The people who are making the choices, as the member describes, to go into those areas need to know the risks. When they do know those risks, then they have to be responsible. The member is right. Fire is the natural way of the forest regenerating itself. There's going to be a fire somewhere every year.

The thing that happens with fire now in B.C. after 2003 particularly — and it happened after Salmon Arm and after the garnet fire in Penticton and after the one in Kelowna in 2003 — is every forest fire for a short second or two is a story until somebody figures it's not going towards people, and then it's just a fire in the forest. The balance is: how do we protect communities by giving them standards that they can look towards to protect the interface fire of the communities and, at the same time, educate those people who are not in communities but are out in the rural areas about what they should be doing around their particular residences? That includes types of building materials, types of roofing. The types of sprinkler systems available now that we can put in place and that somebody can put on their roof in the case of a fire in their area to try and protect their home…. A lot of those things we've learned from 2003 on, and we've made that information available.

C. Evans: In the interest of brevity, I'm going to try and ask shorter questions so they don't lead to such a fulsome answer. The part of the minister's answer that I really liked is the part where he said: "So the people will know that they're building in an area that has historically experienced fire." Is the ministry working to put on maps the regions of the province adjacent to human habitation that are most at risk?

Hon. R. Coleman: They're available now in most cases through the regional districts today.

C. Evans: I want to talk about the East Kootenay trench as a specific risk area. It is not the area where I live; however, I have worked there. I think that traditionally, from Skookumchuck south was savannah, ponderosa pine and grassland. It is now, because we fight fire, filled in with Douglas fir grown on a dry site, which makes it overstocked and highly at risk of fire. In the 1990s there was a prescribed burning fund ex-

pressly for the trench in order to remove some of that tinder material and, at the same time, develop habitat for ungulates. Is there still such a fund?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yes, there is an ecosystem fund that's available. For the member's information, we did a prescribed burn in the trench last spring. There was a prescribed burn done there, and we've increased the annual allowable cut in that particular area to take care of the concern over the density of the fibre.

C. Evans: The minister is changing the subject a little bit, but I'm interested in the annual allowable cut.

Here's what happened all the years I ever logged over there. We had a nice allowable cut that included wood that was in the trench, and the companies went up on the hillside and used it to cut spruce. Does the minister have any guarantee that the allowable cut he increased is actually being used to reduce the density of the Douglas fir on the valley floor?

Hon. R. Coleman: My understanding is that it is partitioned, so it is limited to that area on the valley floor.

C. Evans: Can the minister tell us how much money is left in the fund? Is it his intention to carry on the prescribed burning when the fund is depleted?

Hon. R. Coleman: We'll get you the information on the amount that's left in the fund, but it isn't what actually drives most of our prescribed burning. Our prescribed burning program is mainly within the ministry itself, and it's part of the Filmon implementation stuff that we put money into, so the two or three go together. It's not isolated to the one.

C. Evans: Next question runs the risk of running up a little bit against the philosophical side. The interface question in my constituency, in the Slocan around Kaslo, up through Meadow Creek and Argenta, down Kootenay Lake towards Creston, all south of Nakusp and the Arrow…. In every case, human habitation is living up against the Crown forest. I think that politics — in other words, people's unwillingness, as the minister was talking about, to have logging going on next to their town or village; I shouldn't say in every case — is in many cases getting in the way of logical logging.

Those places that appear to me to be dealing with interface fire in the most pragmatic, commonsense and affordable fashion are those where there are community forests or woodlots adjacent to private land, because the net result of that kind of logging is a gradual removal of material and development of access that is, in the main, acceptable to citizens.

My question is: if the minister is mapping the risk zones of interface fire, has the minister given consideration to driving community forests and woodlot development into those areas as a way to develop a tenure system that will get the wood off, without having to pay for it, in the fastest possible way?

Hon. R. Coleman: There are a number of tenures we can use there, but certainly most of our woodlot and community forest licences are in and around communities, and we do derive some of that benefit now. We could, we feel, also target things like small-scale salvage into some of those areas, as well, and some of the other terms of licences that we have, too, as we move through that.

I think it's a very good question, hon. member, and I'm going to explore it further. My understanding is that we do a lot of that now, and if there are other tenures that could assist us in that, we'll look at them.

C. Evans: I'm moving fast, because I'm minding the time. I'd like to move to the question of community forests and expressly the application for community forests from the people of Nakusp. To inform the minister, I worked in the village of Nakusp for four years, about 2001 to 2005 — in other words, from the time I left here till the time I got back — and I had an opportunity to meet with the people who desire to have a community forest in Nakusp. I found them to be wonderful and intelligent, and all of them were either working in or were spouses of people working in the forest industry. So I spent some time with those folks, and I just want to give the minister a short history of their application before I get to my questions.

In November of 2002 the community forest group was formed in Nakusp with the intention of pursuing a licence. In April 2003 the group submitted a proposal for 60,000 cubic metres pretty close to the village of Nakusp. In April 2004 the former Minister of Forests spoke at a conference in Revelstoke and advised that 300,000 cubic metres would be assigned to community forests, which is less, I think, than 2 percent of the takeback in the province.

In June of 2004 the mayor of Nakusp and one member of the committee met the previous minister, who advised that Nakusp was at the front line and had always been at the front line for obtaining a community forest licence. Then in October of 2004, the community was advised that the entire takeback from TFL23 — that's the Arrow Lakes, Pope and Talbot's licence — had been allocated to B.C. timber supply. In October of 2004 the Forest Service advised that no such allocation had been made in TFL 23. In November of 2004 Pope and Talbot officials advised that, yes, their entire allocation was going not to community forests or woodlots or first nations but to the B.C. timber supply.

In March of 2005, just prior to the election, the previous MLA made an offer to the people of Nakusp for a 10,000-cubic-metre community forest. The group wrote a letter at that time advising that they did not believe that less than 30,000 cubic metres was economically sustainable in the interior wet zone.

Lastly, in April of 2005 a member of the group met with the Forest Service in the region, who reiterated

that it would be a political decision who received and when they received a community forest from the 20-percent takeback announced a couple of years ago.

So my first question to the minister is: have you at present allocated the takeback volume out of TFL 23 on the Arrow Lakes?

Hon. R. Coleman: We don't have that answer immediately available. We're endeavouring to get it as we speak, and if I have it before we adjourn at nine, I'll give it to you. If not, I will get it to you.

C. Evans: I am very much appreciative of the minister's commitment. However, I do not want him to "get it to me," because I appear to be the first chance that the people of Nakusp have to get an answer on the record that isn't hearsay or gossip. I would like it if, when we get the answer, we could read it into the record — maybe tomorrow in estimates — so I could give it to the people of the region. I appreciate that the minister might not have it; I see no obfuscation here. It's just that I want it on the record, because that's what they need.

My second question is… We don't want community forests that go broke or become sort of flaky social programs. We want community forests that can be run as businesses. Does the minister have an idea of the minimum volume required in the interior wet zone to sustain a community forest licence and be profitable?

Hon. R. Coleman: Through to the member: I wasn't trying to avoid the supply problem earlier, but you're asking for an answer for Nakusp and Slocan, because they both indicated into our call that they'd like community forest licences. I have sat down with a number of communities. Actually, I did 60-some-odd meetings during the UBCM, and I'll bet you a whole bunch of them were small communities about community forest licences.

What I can tell the member is this. I don't think there's a specific number. I think, with each one of these community forests, it depends on how they're going to operate and what they're going to use the wood for, where it's going to go to. But I do know this, and this is the work I've asked my staff to complete by the end of this month. How are we making these things work? One of the biggest complaints I got from community forests was that they couldn't make any money — it didn't matter whether they had 60,000 cubic metres or 8,000 cubic metres — because, they said, of all the costs that we were imposing on them with our stumpage system, our administration costs, what we're doing as far as their forest management and that sort of thing.

I've asked for, by the end of this month, a simpler formula for community forests so that we can make them economically viable at whatever the number is, so that they know what their number is to actually operate on a basis and know what it looks like in their marketplace, and so that they can say to themselves: "This is what our costs really are."

That is not something that we've done to date, and I did that as a result of the meetings at UBCM. I can tell the member that the goal is to find a way to have it simplified for community forests and what they pay so that they will be sustainably and economically viable. That's a goal that I've set out for the ministry and a timetable that we've set out for trying to achieve by the end of this month. It doesn't matter whether that's the community of McBride I'm talking to or Nakusp, Slocan or Fort St. James — whoever. I made that commitment that we would look at our formulas, our costs and what was realistically achievable for them, and said that we would try to achieve that so that they would have a better way to operate.

When I have a mayor sit across the table from me and explain to me that if he operates his community forest — and in one case, I think it was 60,000 cubic metres — he would manage to lose $100,000, I know that we've done something wrong with the formula to make them work and be sustainable. So I think it's important that we not just talk about what the fibre supply is that's sustainable. It really is what our expectation is and what cost we drive on to that expectation that makes it whether these things are realistic or not. And I want them to be realistic. I want them to be viable, so my goal is to achieve a formula that makes them viable.

C. Evans: I think I'm going to ask a simple, straightforward question. The community forest committee in Nakusp believes that the previous MLA was dispatched essentially to make them an offer to accept a 10,000-cubic-metre community forest allocation. They then wrote to the Minister of Forests with a business plan saying they didn't think that it would be profitable at less than a 30,000-cubic-metre allocation.

I think the minister is saying that their letter does not constitute…. They worry, then, that they lost, because they made a business plan. What I hear the minister saying — and all you need to say is yes — is that their application is still open. You are still considering the allocation of a community forest to the people of Nakusp, and their request that it not be less than 30,000 cubic metres has not precluded someday receiving some allocation.

Hon. R. Coleman: That is absolutely correct. They are still in the game. Their business plan submission does not affect the fact that they will or will not get one, and they can expect a definitive answer on the community forest licence within two weeks.

C. Evans: That was a lovely answer. Minister, would you care to repeat the same answer, substituting the village of Slocan for the village of Nakusp?

Hon. R. Coleman: Even given the fact that Slocan doesn't have as nice a hot springs up there, to the

member: absolutely. That applies also to the community of Slocan, and they will receive an answer within the next two weeks.

C. Evans: Last question in terms of woodlots. The community questioned the previous MLA about why the largest percentage of the allocation of the takeback went to B.C. timber supply. The gentleman informed us, or informed the community, that B.C. timber sales — is that correct? — has to sell a certain amount of wood because of our negotiations with the United States over the countervail. So my question to the minister: is it true that the allocation to B.C. timber sales is somehow tied to our attempt to work with the Americans over the softwood dispute?

Hon. R. Coleman: In some ways, yes. The B.C. timber sales was set up on portions of the takeback so that we would be able to put up fibre for bid and have a representative cross-section of the fibre in British Columbia to try and determine that we were in a defensible position on what we charged for our stumpage relative to what the fibre would be worth in the marketplace. Obviously, we did all of that to have ourselves in a defensible position on softwood.

As we've gone through, we've been able to use that on a number of occasions that we've had discussions with the coalition in the U.S. and with some of the different lumber groups in the United States. It will help us as we come through the most recent overtures that we're getting on softwood, because it will put us in a defensible position of jurisdiction as we look at the countervail and avoid Lumber 5. That's partly why B.C. timber sales was set up and partly why…. It was to put us in a position to be able to defend the position against the U.S. lumber lobby's contention that we subsidize our producers in B.C. by giving them favourable pricing in the marketplace.

C. Evans: Then would the minister agree or not agree that a community forest operator who sold all of their wood through log auction on the ground, rather than consigning any of it pertinent to anybody, would have the same effect as creating an open, transparent marketplace for the Americans and be as valuable as or more valuable to the minister than B.C. timber sales in making the Americans happy that there was a wide-open log market?

Hon. R. Coleman: That's conceivably correct. However, having said that, it would take me back to having to reassess whether I can give the fibre to a community forest at an economic level because I recognize the benefit to the community differently than I might on stumpage in the marketplace, which is the argument from other community forests. What they're saying is: "We can't pay the same price as the licensee or BCTS sales can, because we need to have an economic benefit for our community out of this, and because we're investing something at this level."

So the description is correct, except most community forests representation to me is in reverse. Their representation is: "We don't want to go out in the marketplace and just sell our logs, period. If we're doing that, at what you charge us for stumpage, we can't make a dollar."

They're saying: "We want to have a pricing that recognizes a community benefit." So that's what we're trying to get to for them versus what we do on BCTS and on our licensees.

C. Evans: Fine. That's good, then. I'm going to take the minister's answer to mean that if a community's business plan offered to put 100 percent of the wood on the market and to pay stumpage and then to track the price that people paid, it would be to the benefit of the minister, and it would not make the minister's job in dealing with the countervail any harder. It might, in fact, make it easier.

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, there's always that issue of arm's-length buying and selling and who got what price in order to put it on the market for sale. Yeah, I think the member's description is relatively clear on that aspect. However, at the same time, having said that, knowing the issues that are facing community forests…. I don't know one I could call tomorrow that would want to do that. They would want to do something quite different with regards to the jobs and the people that would work in their forests and in their community and that sort of thing.

If the member doesn't have any other questions, I would note the time, Madam Chair, and move the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

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

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

B. Ralston: Following the discussion that we had of the meat inspection regulation, which you had responded to the member for Nelson-Creston on, I've received some further questions from citizens in that area. I'd like to pose those on their behalf to you. Perhaps I can begin with the first one.

Given that some areas of B.C. and some livestock sectors — particularly poultry, rabbits, pigs but also small ruminants — have no slaughter facilities for which it would be economically viable to upgrade to the building standard required for provincial licensing, how does the government intend to ensure development of the appropriate community-based, financially viable meat processing infrastructure for those geographic areas and livestock sectors?

Hon. P. Bell: Thank you for the question. A couple of key points to make again. Of course, I think everyone in this House would continue to support that ultimately human health is the most important thing here. We have to ensure that the food products that are provided to the consumer are in fact safe to the consumer. With that in mind, a couple of points.

One that I did not bring up in our debate last week was that we have provided through the Ministry of Health an additional $300,000 through the B.C. Food Processors Association with the specific objective of developing some planning tools, a guide to meat inspection systems, some technical assistance and advice to individuals, and also an evaluation of alternative technologies including mobile abattoirs, which has also been the topic of our discussion. That is in addition to the work we are doing currently in my ministry with the Ministry of Health to try and develop some procedures and practical methods of dealing particularly with small animals, but collectively with animals.

We do understand the diversity of the geography in the province. We do understand that there is concern out there, particularly in smaller communities, and we're looking for solutions, keeping in mind that the number-one priority is human health.

B. Ralston: The minister has mentioned mobile abattoirs. That's something the minister had mentioned last week. But I understand that one of the ministries other than the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Health is going to require that those mobile abattoirs are permitted to stop and engage in their operations in what is called a docking station. The docking station requires running water, an appropriate method for disposing of waste and certain standards that will essentially require a substantial capital outlay. The alternative of going simply from farm to farm has been declined.

So I'm wondering how the government is proposing to resolve these issues arising out of mobile abattoirs and the necessity…. At least at this stage, it appears that they only stop at what are called docking stations.

Hon. P. Bell: To a certain degree this discussion is, I guess, theoretical at this point in that there are currently no mobile abattoirs in British Columbia. The particular regulations, or at least the thought around the regulations that the member refers to, are directed through the Ministry of Health and would probably be more appropriately addressed under the estimates of that ministry.

However, I will say that we understand all of the challenges around this. We are looking at the options of carrying capacities on these facilities, and we're looking for creative solutions to this problem. Keeping in mind that at the end of the day, and underlining all of this, the number-one priority is ensuring that human health is maintained and that an appropriately safe product is being provided to the consumer.

B. Ralston: I don't think anyone disputes that human health must be paramount, but on the other hand, that has to be reconciled with the economic viability of the small producers throughout the province.

The new meat inspection regulation — and this is a further question that's provided to me by a small producer — seeks to improve food safety by moving numerous small producers who are currently outside the existing meat inspection system into the existing licensing and inspection system.

My question to the minister is: what is the health record of those who are to be forced out of business, and how does it compare to those currently covered by the existing licensing and inspection system? Certainly, it's the view of small producers that there have been no complaints, no human health concerns raised by their operations as opposed to the larger scale, more industrial-style meat and particularly poultry production systems.

Hon. P. Bell: I guess there is a point of disagreement here, because I don't think there is any price that you can put on human health. In my view, we have to be very cautious about how we approach the issue of economics. A life, whether it's in urban British Colum-

bia or rural British Columbia, certainly is of equal value, and we have to be very careful with regards to our processes and practices around dealing with human health as it relates to this issue.

The question that the member asks is directly the responsibility of the Ministry of Health. I've already forayed a bit into that ministry, so I hesitate to go much further because that would be more appropriately canvassed under that ministry's estimates.

B. Ralston: I'm wondering if the minister is aware that the cost of inspection that's required to extend the meat regulations would be at $39 an hour, I gather — because these are on a contract provided by the federal agency. Is it not possible that the inspection cost could amount to a significant proportion of the daily value of production for the smallest producers? As the member for Nelson-Creston said on a previous day, it seems to be contrary to one of the stated objectives of the government in reducing unnecessary regulation. The cost of regulation would seem to be entirely disproportionate to the cost of production and, therefore, a waste of money.

Hon. P. Bell: The member quite rightly points out, as I indicated to the member for Nelson-Creston the other day, the rock and the hard place that this issue represents in terms of ensuring that you provide a safe, quality product for human consumption and, at the same time, allow small-lot agriculture to continue to function effectively in the province.

Very specifically, that's why we, along with the Ministry of Health, are working to develop regulations that still provide the result that we're looking for in terms of a safe product for human consumption and that still allow small-lot agriculture to continue to function. It is not an easy answer, and we do have until September of 2006 in order to continue to work to develop that until full implementation of the meat regs brought forward by the Ministry of Health come into play.

B. Ralston: This is, again, a question provided by a citizen, and because it arrived this morning, I'm not sure whether the act falls within the jurisdiction of this ministry or the Ministry of Health. But he's referring to the Food Safety Act. Section 23(4)(a) provides the possibility of regulations that differ for different classes or types of persons, food or food establishments, and sub-subsection (b) provides for different regulations for different geographic areas in British Columbia.

Notwithstanding the minister's earlier comments about a common standard, has the minister considered using these provisions to mitigate the impact of the new regulation where it would cause a shortfall of processing capacity and consequent disastrous effects on regional small-farm economies?

Hon. P. Bell: The legislation the member refers to does fall under the Ministry of Health and would be more appropriately canvassed under that ministry. But just to be clear, we do understand the challenges that the member is articulating today and the challenges that the member for Nelson-Creston articulated last Thursday, I think it was. We are cognizant of that, are trying to find opportunities to move forward and are eager to work with members on both sides of the House to make that happen. It is something that we're working on cooperatively with the Ministry of Health. Specifically, those questions would fall under the Minister of Health's area of responsibility.

B. Ralston: I thank the minister for his response, and I appreciate that he's prepared to initiate a process in this regard.

The other matter that I'd like to draw to his attention, which has been brought to my attention, is that many local restaurants in this region and in other regions depend…. Indeed, their premise of operation is that they buy locally produced food. That's one of the attractions and the successes of many local restaurants, both here and in other regions of the province. From what I've been told by chefs at these restaurants, if these regulations were to impact in the way that many fear they might, their basis for differentiation and economic success as restaurants providing regional cuisine would disappear. Is the minister aware of that link between the Ministry of Agriculture and rural economies and the perhaps more sophisticated urban economies that many urbanites would be more familiar with?

Hon. P. Bell: I think what the member is actually referring to started perhaps a month or so ago from the Powell River Farmers Institute, which issued a monthly newsletter that indicated there were some changes coming. To be clear, the only change that is occurring here is the one with regard to the meat regs. It's highly unlikely that any commercial establishment would purchase products that had not been at least provincially, if not federally, inspected.

The concern that the member is articulating, I suspect, relates to some information that started flowing. I received a number of letters. We have now actually distributed a letter — I think it went out last Thursday, if I'm not mistaken — to all the members of the House, and we've tried to circulate it broadly outside the House to give people the assurances necessary that they're going to continue to be able to purchase products as they have in the past.

So to answer the member's question, with the exception of the meat regulations, no changes. I would suspect very strongly that the meat regulations won't impact any local commercial operations, as they simply would not purchase anything that wasn't inspected.

M. Sather: In Pitt Meadows in particular, we have some issues with regard to diking and drainage. The last couple of years it seems that we've had quite significant flooding, more so than in previous years, and

there's been speculation about the causes of that. Some of the farmers I've spoken to have wondered about the paving of former agricultural areas, such as in the large CP intermodal yard that we have in Pitt Meadows. I don't think they're exactly sure what the cause is, although I understand the municipality there is engaging in a study to come to some understanding of what the causes are.

I was wondering: what is the minister's understanding at this point about the causes of flooding in our community?

Hon. P. Bell: I apologize; I should have introduced the officials I have with me today. Immediately to my right is my associate deputy minister for the integrated land management bureau, Mike Lambert. Sitting in the back row I have Harvey Sasaki, who is the assistant deputy minister responsible for agriculture. And immediately behind me is Warren Mitchell, the assistant deputy minister for Crown land management.

I have bad news and good news for you. The bad news is: it's not this ministry; it's the Ministry of Environment that has responsibility for that area. The good news is: their estimates haven't come up yet, and you'll be able to canvass it with that ministry when it does come up.

M. Sather: We'll look forward to canvassing that in the appropriate minister's estimates.

Turning briefly to blueberry farming, which is a big issue in Pitt Meadows, a big part of our agricultural industry. There have been issues recently with regard to labour, and the appropriate housing thereof has been one of the issues. It's getting more and more difficult, as the minister probably knows, to find workers for these positions, and our farmers have had to go farther afield. Whether it's that inability or unwillingness to pay the higher wages, they're not able to get some of the help that they need.

My understanding is that some of the farmers in our area are moving to the machine-picking equipment. A couple of them at least are doing that. This will, of course, have some effect on the labour market and also with regard to relations with neighbours, because those farmers then will be required to use more of the cannons to scare the birds, which can be somewhat of a contentious issue around Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows.

I was just wondering where the minister sees us going with regard to the use of manual labour versus mechanization in the blueberry industry.

Hon. P. Bell: The member quite rightly articulates a significant challenge that we're facing in British Columbia, and that is a booming economy that has driven unemployment rates so low that it's very hard to find seasonal workers, especially for specific positions within our agricultural industry. I appreciate the fact that the member recognizes what is, I guess, a good thing but what has created challenges for us as well.

As I understand it, there really is an opportunity for both manual picking and machine harvesting when it comes to blueberries. Typically, the higher-end market, the higher-quality products that are shipped fresh and direct to the market, tends to be handpicked as a result of damage that occurs to the crop from machine-picking. My suspicion is that that will continue to be the case going forward, that there will be that requirement for manual picking. I suppose that machine-picking for the low end of the market is likely to expand over time and that the efficiencies may be there to allow the lower-end part of the crop to come off the market and be prepared for frozen and longer-term consumption of that particular product.

I'm not sure there's a linkage between use of propane cannons — which is something that I am faced with e-mails on, on a regular basis — and whether you use machine harvesting or manual harvesting. Perhaps there's something I'm not aware of, but I'm not aware of a direct linkage.

I think there are huge challenges out there in front of us. As the member will know, the federal government has assisted with a migrant farmworkers program. I've spoken with a member of his caucus over time conceptually with the idea of expanding that program and encouraging people from India to apply through that program as well. I think there are opportunities there. It is one of the ongoing challenges that we're likely to have as long as the economy continues to be strong, which we hope is a very, very long time.

M. Sather: I'm informed that the issue, with regard to the use of machines, is that they're unable to place the upright stakes in there that they would need to have the netting cover the blueberries, which is what a lot of them use to avoid the birds. Thus, they have to resort to the cannons more.

I understood, I think, what the minister said with regard to both the manual and the mechanized sectors having a future. But I'm wondering: has the ministry done any analysis in this apparently changing dynamic as to the economics or the labour or any other factors in the analyses done of that by the ministry?

Hon. P. Bell: No, we haven't. That's not necessarily something we would engage in unless the industry associations were looking for a broader-scale study and review, in which case we might partner up with them. But at this point we haven't done any additional work on that.

M. Sather: Turning to another sector of the industry in my constituency — and that's the greenhouse industry — there are a couple of producers I've talked to that are moving to the cogeneration model, using wood pellets to produce hot water that they can apparently store for long periods of time to enable them then to heat their buildings more economically. With the rising cost of natural gas, that's become an important factor for them. These wood pellets, which I under-

stand are very small — the size of rice…. Does the minister have information on where they come from?

Hon. P. Bell: Actually, many of them come from my back yard in northern British Columbia. It is an industry that's expanding rapidly in northern British Columbia. It is a neutral method of generating energy to the environment in that you are taking a sequestered form of carbon that will deteriorate and reinserting that carbon into the atmosphere if the material is allowed to go to waste, as opposed to burning it and having the carbon go that way. So it is seen from the environmental perspective as being a net-neutral carbon generator to the atmosphere. In some countries, particularly in Europe, that's seen as a very positive thing.

We do think there are some unique opportunities. I've had the opportunity to visit some of the greenhouses that perhaps the member is referring to, which are utilizing cogeneration systems right now. Particularly, when you link this with the mountain pine beetle challenges that we're facing in the central interior part of the province, I think there are some good potential outcomes here as a result of this.

M. Sather: Does the minister then see cogeneration as becoming a major factor or methodology in the industry?

Hon. P. Bell: Certainly, within the structure of the environmental regulations that we currently have, there is an application for cogeneration. I've had an opportunity to meet with the greenhouse association, and they're quite excited about expanding this opportunity as well. I would hate to kind of crystal-ball it and say that it's going to become the major player, because who knows what's going to happen to gas and everything else. Certainly, there is a role for it to play and one that we think makes a great deal of sense.

With the combination of the greenhouse industry and what's going on with the forest products, I would suspect very strongly that you'll see some expansion of this within the appropriate rules and regulations that are in place to protect the environment and the quality of the airshed in the Fraser Valley.

M. Sather: Well, another industry that I would like to touch on briefly is the cranberry industry. We have a fairly large segment of Pitt Meadows that has converted from previous kinds of uses, like dairy farming, to cranberry growing.

They have had some problems with price over recent years, but I understand it's coming back somewhat in the last couple of years. My understanding is that there are some pesticides or herbicides that the cranberry industry in Canada is not permitted to use but that they are permitted to use in the United States — the reason being that the testing is not done here, as it's been explained to me. Does the minister have any information on what some of these substances are?

Hon. P. Bell: I feel like we've been touring all the same farms, because these different challenges have been represented to me as well. That's probably a good thing that we're talking to the same folks.

I did tour a number of cranberry farms; I think it was in July of this year. We were just trying to recall the name of the product, and neither of us can recall at this point. But it is a federal jurisdiction, the approval of these different products that are used for weed control. It's not a provincial jurisdiction. However, we have made representation to the federal government on the specific product as it relates to the control of different types of weeds within cranberry fields and asked them to try and expedite the process so that our cranberry growers can use them. We do have a very strong cranberry industry and growing cranberry industry, and it's one that we want to support and make sure is viable.

M. Sather: With regard to these substances, and I understand right now the minister doesn't have specific information on what they are…. But understanding that, does the minister have any concerns about their use?

Hon. P. Bell: The federal government is the one that does testing on all these products, and once they have made a final decision, we would endorse that decision. The question really is if that process can be expedited so that the cranberry growers know whether or not that is a viable option for weed control. The request we have made is to ensure that that moves along in a timely fashion so that our growers can make a decision on whether they can use that control method or whether they need to look at other options.

M. Sather: As the minister and most British Columbians are aware, we have had a considerable problem with BSE in terms of the effect on our trade. I understand that the border with the United States is now open for cattle under 30 years of age — 30 months of age. Not too many cows live to be 30 years, and I grew up on a farm. I know that.

There's been a considerable loss of some $5 billion to $7 billion in trade as a result of BSE. It has also had a pretty significant effect in my constituency on the dairy farms that we still have. They previously would get $700 or $800 for a culled cow; they're over the 30 months of age. But now they're getting only about $200.

I understand from attending the Pacific Northwest Economic Region Conference, where this issue was discussed, that American ranchers are now in favour of the ban but that the U.S. packing plants there are suffering. Two of the big packers in Canada are Tyson and Cargill, and I was wondering: are these American-owned companies?

Hon. P. Bell: Yes, both of them are American-owned. The price of culled cows actually has improved somewhat. The member may not have been aware of

this, but since the border reopened, we've seen about a doubling of price there. The culls are generally selling up around $400 now.

The member also points out something. He didn't ask a direct question about it, but with regards to the dairy industry…. Part of the dairy industry does rely on the ability to ship replacement heifers south across the border. That has been a reasonably profitable component of the dairy industry, and with the 30-month cap on age, that limits our ability to ship those replacement heifers. It's one of the things we're focusing on now in this province, and we're putting pressure on the federal government to prioritize the movement of replacement heifers and bred heifers as well. The answer with regards to Cargill and Tyson — there, I got it right — is that they are both American-owned.

M. Sather: The farmer I spoke to recently maybe hasn't sold any cows recently. He said he was getting $200, so maybe it has gone up since that point. The reason I ask, though, about the ownership of these two large packers is that I'm trying to understand if they would, in fact, then be suffering financially from a decline in packing that I understand has taken place in the United States.

Hon. P. Bell: Both of the plants that the member is referring to are actually located in Alberta, not British Columbia, so it's hard for me to comment on how they're doing. I understand that both are operating at full capacity at this point, and I understand that both were expanded.

Our priority really is to develop a niche slaughter industry in British Columbia. It's something we've been working hard at through a number of different funds and resources. It is very, very challenging when you have large plants like Cargill and Tyson, which slaughter up to 6,000 animals per day, in business. It's hard for us to be efficient, but we are starting to have some success stories around the province.

One of the things that I've asked the ministry to do is stay very focused on our ability to develop that niche processing industry to supply our needs inside the province. From a federal perspective, the strategy is to be able to maintain the level we need in Canada to provide our own requirements, which pretty well meets the supply. The supply and demand for Canadian beef is pretty well equal. We don't need to export a lot or import a lot if we consume only our own product. The reality is that we do export some and we do import some, but we want to put ourselves in a position nationally where we can meet our own requirements so we're not dependent on extensive international trade if we don't have to be. We're virtually there at this point now.

Both of those companies are in Alberta. It's hard for me to comment on their functionality.

M. Sather: Certainly, it has been expressed to me by operators in Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows that they're concerned about the lack of slaughterhouses. There is a small one in Pitt Meadows, actually, that's still managing to survive. We have one feedlot operator as well, and he expressed a lot of concern about lack of access. I think he said there's only one other in the valley.

Moving on to Japan, what is the current situation with regard to our relationship with Japan over BSE? Is it the same as with the United States?

Hon. P. Bell: Late in the summer there were some indications that Japan could reopen this fall. I can't provide you with the detail around those negotiations. That is federal jurisdiction. Japan's interest was in 20-months-and-under animals, specifically. There was some positive movement in that area. Clearly, with the reopening of the U.S. border, one would hope that we'll see the Japanese border open as well.

M. Sather: I had heard, also in the presentation at the conference I mentioned earlier, that Japan was willing to pay for the testing of beef. Have you heard that's the case in Canada — British Columbia?

Hon. P. Bell: We know that Japan is looking for 100-percent testing. We have not heard of any financial offers to compensate for the cost of doing that yet.

M. Sather: Also, in the United States, apparently, they're moving to testing on farms as opposed to at the abattoirs. Is that a direction that we're taking in British Columbia?

Hon. P. Bell: Technology around testing is changing rapidly right now, obviously as a result of the priorities of the global beef industry and the challenges we've been faced with, with BSE. We're not aware of any on-farm test at this point. Most tests can only be done after the animal has been slaughtered — that are conclusive, at any rate.

Things are changing rapidly. People are looking. There's a lot of money being spent to develop the technology for on-farm tests, because as the member said in his earlier question, if you're able to perform that test and offer 100-percent testing, it really does open up the market to a much broader area. A lot of research is going on in that area right now. There's nothing that has been proven beyond a doubt to be accurate for live animal testing. We're still, obviously, participating in that type of work.

M. Sather: I wanted to ask a couple of questions about the agricultural land reserve. I understand that we have a commission that's independent, but there were an unprecedented number of applications to remove land in Maple Ridge last year. In some cases council had ruled against the removal and been overridden by the commission.

We see a fair bit of speculation from some landowners who are clearly not occupying the land that

they've purchased, and we have some long-term landowners who are also interested in having their land removed. A lot of the agricultural land in Maple Ridge, or a fair bit of it, is on small parcels of land, and we often hear that these parcels are too small to be viable for agricultural purposes. I'm just wondering, in view of this: what does the minister see as the long-term future for agriculture in Maple Ridge?

Hon. P. Bell: I think that agriculture in Maple Ridge and throughout the Fraser Valley has a tremendous amount of potential going forward, as it has had history going into the past. I think things will change in terms of how the industry works, what products are produced and what can be done profitably. Who would have guessed a few years ago that we'd have the amount of cranberries, as an example — the member talked about cranberries earlier — that we do today? It would not have been thought of as a crop that was likely to have a dominant role in our agricultural industry. I have a lot of confidence in agriculture in the Fraser Valley, specifically in Maple Ridge.

The member should understand how the process works in terms of the agricultural land reserve, the Agricultural Land Commission and the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands. The Ministry of Agriculture and Lands establishes the policy framework that is then fulfilled at arm's length by the Agricultural Land Commission. It's very important strategically that you maintain that separation. I think the last thing that anyone in this room — or, in fact, in this building — would want to see is political interference taking place within the Agricultural Land Commission and the decisions that are being made there.

We establish the framework policy as the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands that is then delivered by the Agricultural Land Commission. That's how that process works. I think that from a policy perspective, we're going to continue to encourage the opportunities to maximize the value of the agricultural lands that we have in the province. That's the mandate we've established and will go forward with.

M. Sather: Certainly, I agree that agriculture is diversifying and that small parcels have a place in our future. This gives me some confidence that we can continue to have agriculture in Maple Ridge — where we have been, although it's not known, as large a producer as Pitt Meadows. We had $39 million in gross farm receipts, so it's considerable.

I understand, I think, the minister's point about the arm's-length of the commission. However, the regulatory framework that he referred to…. The legislation charges the commission with being responsible for protecting agriculture in the province. In that respect, I would think that the minister certainly has an interest.

On one other related issue, we know that there have been some large removals — 362 hectares, in my understanding, of viable raspberry and other multipurpose farmland — in Abbotsford. That was for industrial purposes, and that's where I'm going with this question.

We have had applications in Maple Ridge, as well, for removal of land from the agricultural land reserve for industrial purposes. It's a big issue in Maple Ridge right now. The official community plan process is underway. As we all know, there is an election underway, and that is one of the big issues: the need for industrial land.

What is the minister's view regarding these competing needs we have in communities like Maple Ridge? We've got the need for farmland, on the one hand, and the need for industrial land. How does he see that we can rationalize these and still protect farmland?

Hon. P. Bell: I should identify Colin Fry, as well, joining me now, who is the director of the Agricultural Land Commission.

I think it's more appropriate for me to comment on the policy structure as opposed to specific applications. We have mandated, within the guidelines of which the Agricultural Land Commission should review individual applications, the issue of community need and requirement. The way that process works…. It is not seen as being the highest level of priority when the review is done on that, but it is something they consider and factor in. The arability of the soils, the importance of the agriculture that's taking place, the history of the land — but community need, also, does get factored in to the equation.

The other thing I think it is important for the member to know is that the Agricultural Land Commission has been mandated to be proactive with communities, as well, and to consult with communities on their official community plan and to work with communities to ensure that decisions or requests that the community brings forward do make sense from the agricultural land reserve's perspective and to try and prioritize properties that are of a low value from an agricultural perspective.

So two pieces to the equation. Number one is that the commission is proactive in its review of the communities on developing those types of decisions. The second is that they do factor in community need in the requirements of the assessment. But that factor is not taken at the same level as some of the other decisions around the quality of the agricultural land that they're looking at.

N. Simons: Thank you to the minister in advance for answering my questions. My questions have to do with some concerns that residents of Powell River have over the new meat inspection regulations. I know you've covered that to some degree already. I'd just like to put it in the context of a community that is inaccessible by road — only by ferry — and whether or not that makes any difference to some of the answers you might give.

Let me just start by maybe addressing some of the concerns of the community. The newspaper in Powell River, the Peak, mentioned that people in the community were afraid for the future of their farms. The head-

line was: "Farmers fear effect of new rules; provincewide standards expected to be a burden on small operators." Has there been anything mentioned in, I guess, the last little while that would allay those fears?

Hon. P. Bell: I appreciate the question, and I know that Powell River has been, perhaps, the centre of where some of this communication started from. The member should be in receipt — or it should be in his office — of a letter from me outlining some of our response to those challenges. The concerns expressed by, I believe, the Powell River Farmers Institute, originally, really appear to be unfounded. We've reviewed all of the decisions and directions from this ministry, from other ministries, and we can't find anything that would stem back to some of the reports that the Powell River Farmers Institute brought forward — with the exception of the meat industry regulations, which we have talked about and that will clearly have an impact on small-lot agriculture and on remote communities. I'm happy to address that, but I want to alleviate the member's concerns in terms of any of the other issues. We're happy to work with the Powell River Farmers Institute and anyone else in order to make sure that communication flows forward appropriately.

In terms of the meat industry regs, I will repeat some of my earlier comments because I think they are important, certainly, as someone who comes from a rural part of British Columbia and whose riding spans, I think, 400 or 500 hundred miles — something like that. Very small communities at great distances in my riding — this is also a challenge and a priority. I think it's even more of a priority when it comes to small animals — rabbits and chickens — although it is an issue for everyone.

I had a very interesting meeting with mayor and council for Powell River at UBCM, and they brought a very creative potential solution forward that we're actually looking at right now. I haven't mentioned this earlier, but I will now. That was the potential for the utilisation of veterinarians in terms of both testing and providing abattoir-type services to the local community. We have noted that. We are talking to different groups to see if there's an opportunity to take that. As I've mentioned earlier, we're looking at the potential of mobile abattoirs. Not convinced that it's going to work, but I think it's certainly worth looking at.

More importantly, within the context of protecting human health, we're looking at all of the options of how we can allow small-lot agriculture to continue to function in a profitable way throughout rural B.C.

I respect that this is a challenging issue for any member that comes from rural British Columbia. It's something we're going to need to work hard on. We'll continue to extend the offer. I'm eager to accept submissions and look for opportunities on a cooperative basis. I don't think this is a political issue. This is an issue we just need to deal with.

N. Simons: Thank you for that answer. I'm sure that many of your words and statements will reassure the community in Powell River. As you know, my job is partly…. I'm charged with making sure that they're concerns are addressed.

I appreciate the fact that the possibility of mobile abattoirs, as complex as that might be, is actually something that the government is considering. I think that the indication that the hon. minister has just made — that the government is looking at creative solutions for this problem — bodes well for the people of Powell River. I'm sure they are going to be pleased to hear that.

There were some individuals who were raising the possibility of providing training and certification for small plant owners themselves to the same level as the government inspectors. Has that been raised?

Hon. P. Bell: Actually, that has been raised with us at a staff level in the field, and the member may…. If he looks back at Hansard, he'll note that, unfortunately, some of my answers tend to be…. That would be more appropriately canvassed with the Minister of Health. They are in charge of that legislation. We are working very closely with the Ministry of Health as an advocate for agriculture, trying to find our way through this piece of the equation.

Clearly, I am charged with the responsibility of ensuring that we have the appropriate taxation and regulatory regime to allow for profitable operations in the industry, and this is a key piece to that equation. I understand that it has been brought up at a staff level but hasn't proceeded beyond that at this point.

N. Simons: For the record then, the ministry is examining other creative solutions to this issue. I think that's a good idea. I think that not just Powell River but people in the lower Sunshine Coast, as well, will be pleased to hear that.

When concerns in the community talk about even small provincially licensed slaughterhouses going out of business, that adds another dimension to the concerns of…. I'm not an expert in the food industry as the hon. minister is, but do you see that as a potential negative impact as well? I see a look of confusion…. Talking about provincially licensed slaughterhouses and their viability.

Hon. P. Bell: I think whenever you go through change, there will likely be people who have concerns. That is, in fact, what we're going through — a period of change — right now.

Ultimately, in my view, the most important thing here is that we work from a results-based approach and that we ensure that human health is protected as a result of the product that is being sold in the marketplace. That has to be the priority — that we establish and then we find ways of doing it in an affordable model in small regional communities. That's what it all comes down to. Easy to say; tough task.

I will tell the member, though, that on November 9 there's actually a meeting scheduled in Powell River

with the Ministries of Agriculture and Health to review the possible options, to talk about what could be done with this issue and to try and find some creative solutions. I appreciate how proactive the member and the local civic leaders from Powell River are on this topic. I know it's a big priority for them.

N. Simons: The suggestion of the meeting in November. Are you trying to eliminate the middleman? Go directly. There are very strong supporters and leaders on top of this issue for a long time. I respect that as well.

The results-based way of measuring success, I would suggest, has been proven in Powell River, where they have been managing under the current system fairly well. I know that there's probably no room for the government to allow the status quo to remain for reasons that really have not been…. Nothing in Powell River and the Sunshine Coast has led to the need for these new regulations because of the physical geography of the area, it being protected from the mainland and from Vancouver Island. As much as results-based might be ultimately the way of measuring success, I would like to point out that Powell River has also been self-declared as a genetically free crop zone, the first in Canada, and I think that indicates the care and concern that the community has towards its food source.

If I may just switch tacks a little bit and ask about an issue that's affecting both residents of the upper and lower Sunshine Coast. That is the land use plan, the land and resource management plan. I respect that we will be meeting in the next couple of days over this, but just for the record, I'd like to know if the current government is in a situation where it will be able to state its intentions on pursuing a comprehensive land and resource management plan for the Sunshine Coast forest district, also known as the Sechelt forest district.

Hon. P. Bell: The member does quite rightly recognize…. I think it's Wednesday or Thursday that we're going to meet to discuss this as well. We have six different land use plans around the province that are in various levels of completion right now. Our priority at this particular point in time is, clearly, to get to completion on those plans, because until you have a completed functional plan that's being implemented, you don't get the benefits of the investment that you've made in the individualized plan. So our priority at this point is to get those plans completed.

The plan the member is referring to has been on the list of plans to move through the process for some time, but I'm afraid I'm unable to give the member a time frame under which that would take place.

Again, the member's council did present that as a challenge. I may be reading too much into this, but as I understand it, the request may be coming as a result of a few different operations in the area — perhaps an aggregate operation and maybe some forestry operations. Given the timing of what may be required to get to a land use plan, I'm thinking that it might be better to address the specific challenges as opposed to looking at the plan as the global solution for a few isolated problems.

I'm happy to meet with the member. It is on the radar screen, but the priority at this point is to get the six plans that we have out there completed. Then we'll start engaging and pushing more plans into the system.

N. Simons: Yes, I tend to agree that there are some current issues that are raising this. I just don't want the four years of my political career — let's say the first four years — to be dealing with little brush fires as they come up, and they all seem to have….

N. Simons: The hon. member for Nelson-Creston is heckling me. It happened throughout the campaign as well. However, I appreciate the fact that it could be on the horizon. I think that there is a cycle of development and protest that takes place, and I'm not alone in that in my constituency.

It has to do with mining exploration, forestry operations, but the immediate conflict is with potential tourism operations. Tourism is the future of the Sunshine Coast — resource industry as well. I believe that there's an appetite among both regional districts and each municipality, as well as both first nations on the upper and lower Sunshine Coast — I'm not counting up to River's Inlet — that already see the benefit of that. I do have some verbal assurances from industry that they would like to see something as well, because they don't want to be cast as the bad guys in situations like this. Nor do I want them to be cast that way, as economic development is important to the region.

I appreciate the response from the hon. minister, and I look forward to our meeting. Thank you for answering my questions.

J. Horgan: I'm pleased to participate in the estimates for the Ministry of Agriculture. I did get a copy of your correspondence, and I just want to add my voice and that of small-lot agriculturalists in the Cowichan Valley — their concerns about the regulations and how it's going to have a negative impact on their ability to carry on their operations.

I won't get too deeply into that. I've just been reading your comments from the exchange with the member — former minister — for Nelson-Creston, and I know that our critic had a series of questions as well. I just want you to know that the issue's the same on the Island, and particularly in the Cowichan Valley.

The member for Cowichan-Ladysmith, the local Member of Parliament and I have an agricultural advisory committee. It's raised every meeting, every month since I was elected, so I'm hopeful that this exchange that we've had during this estimates process has awakened the ministry and government — and particularly the Ministry of Health. I understand where you will be

I'd like to move on to agriculture and the schools. I know in our time in government there was an AgAware program, and I was wondering if that program still exists. If so, what are the functions?

Hon. P. Bell: First of all, I'd like to recognize that actually, the Cowichan area is very proactive in their interest around expanding the agriculture industry. I had an opportunity to meet with the EDO from the Cowichan Valley a number of weeks ago — perhaps a month, month and half ago now — and I'm very encouraged by the approach they're taking. I think the member has a very real opportunity for an expanded and growing industry in the Cowichan Valley.

Specifically with regards to the question of ag in a classroom, that still exists today, still functions in the same way that it had under the previous government. Certainly, I think that's one of the key initiatives, along with 4-H and fairs and exhibitions in the province. We need to look at starting to bridge what I refer to as the urban-agricultural divide, which appears to me to be widening all the time, particularly in the Fraser Valley, the Okanagan, southern Vancouver Island. It's a real challenge for us.

J. Horgan: I agree very much with the minister that agriculture in the Cowichan Valley is very much alive and thriving, but challenges emerge on an ongoing basis. As the member from North Shore, who I don't see at the moment, but I know was just here…. You can't solve all these problems the first week on the job, and I know…. Oh, there he is. My friend from North Shore, who's been here longer than anyone else, knows full well that it takes a long time.

J. Horgan: That's right. It was only four, member, but it seemed like ten, perhaps.

J. Horgan: Anyway, back to the point, and that is agriculture in the Cowichan Valley. I was unaware, but one of the first places in British Columbia to grow wheat was the Cowichan Valley. They developed rust early on at the turn of the century and never went back to it, but they're looking at it now as an opportunity, a historic agricultural opportunity. Certainly, any assistance that the minister could provide would be great.

But I'd like to go back to the ag awareness program, and particularly: how many dollars are we putting at that in this budget?

Hon. P. Bell: You wouldn't think it would be that complicated, would you, Mr. Chair? We had to do a little research. I'm joined now by Jacquie Kendall, who's the executive financial officer for the ministry.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Lands provides office space at our Abbotsford office, and we provide staff support for delivery. The Ministry of Health provides $50,000 per year, going forward in our budget years, that is actually delivered by the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands through to Agriculture in the Classroom. So the dollar value is $50,000 per year. It's actually part of the Ministry of Health budget delivered through us. We provide staff support and office space in order to deliver that program.

J. Horgan: I want to assure the minister that things were going smashingly until I stood up, so I take it as my responsibility — not yours or your staff's — for the delay. But I do think that, perhaps, rather than a series of questions on this beyond the obvious question, which is: is that an increase in budget or a decrease in budget from 2001…?

Hon. P. Bell: I only have the data back to '04-05 with me here. That is an increase from '04-05; '04-05 was $20,000. I was not here in 2001, but I'm advised by my staff that there were no dollars associated with the program prior to that period going back into the 1990s.

J. Horgan: The reason I've raised this question is that the agriculture committee in the Cowichan Valley that I spoke about has approached me in the hope that I would be able to generate some more vigorous agricultural activity at Frances Kelsey high school, which is an innovative, state-of-the-art school just north of the Malahat in a place called Mill Bay. Perhaps I could just get the minister to direct me to a staff person I could talk to so that I can advance this issue without taking up any more time of the committee with respect to agriculture and education.

I think it's a tremendous opportunity, as the minister said — 4-H and other community farm fairs in the fall, certainly the Luxton Fair in my community, the Cobble Hill Fair, in its 90th year this past September — for young people to participate in the agricultural economy and the agricultural way of life. In the Cowichan Valley in particular, we have this, as I say, state-of-the-art high school which could provide greenhouse opportunities and volunteer activities within that sector. So if the minister could give me a name, I would be pleased to take it up in person.

Hon. P. Bell: I was just thinking to myself how the member said that it's the 90th anniversary of the Cobble Hill Fair. When you look around this province, that is the history of the fairs and exhibitions in the province. You were mentioning earlier the member for

North Vancouver–Seymour, and I was thinking that he probably attended the first Cobble Hill Fair, although I can't be certain of that. I don't think he was an elected official at that particular point in time, although he may have been. I could be wrong.

I'd be happy to provide you with a name: it's Brent Warner. We will have Mr. Warner contact you personally. His name would be available through the global address book, but we'd be happy to do that. I think it's very important that we engage in this discussion, because it is for me one of the four larger issues I'm grappling with — the need to bridge that agriculture-urban divide and ensure that people in urban British Columbia understand the importance of agriculture in our province and what the values that are associated with it really bring to all British Columbians.

J. Horgan: I certainly share that view with the minister. In fact, Malahat–Juan de Fuca may well be the quintessential urban-rural constituency. I have, as I said, this vibrant agricultural economy and then the exploding communities of Langford and those around the city of Victoria. I would be more than pleased to work with the minister and his staff to advance those goals over the next four years.

I'll just conclude with a couple of questions about emergency preparedness. This may not be the appropriate time, but I want to take the opportunity while the minister and his staff are here. We've seen a number of hurricanes come through over the course of the fall, and we have our vivid memories of Southeast Asia over Christmas. It's been raised with me by a number of constituents from different parts of the community: what, if any, program is in place in terms of storing foods in the event of an emergency? As we know, we're a net importer. Certainly in the winter we're an importer of food. Does the Ministry of Agriculture work in concert with Emergency Preparedness to store foodstuffs? If so, where?

Hon. P. Bell: I'm advised that I actually have responsibility for feeding British Columbians in the event of an emergency, so I appreciate the fact that the member brings that up.

Hon. P. Bell: You wouldn't want to live off my fishing skills; that's for sure. We'd all be very thin by the time that got done.

But I am advised that there are high-level discussions going on at a deputy level right now, specifically on this issue, and it really is highlighted as a result of some of the catastrophes that have occurred. It's not something that has been engaged in deeply in the past, but it has become a priority, and we are working to develop something. I'd be happy to share that with the member at an appropriate time as that plan develops.

J. Horgan: Now you've intrigued me. The discussions weren't taking place until recently, and it's now at the deputy level, and your ministry has lead responsibility for a food plan in the event of an emergency? Or am I speaking too much out of turn?

Hon. P. Bell: I may have overstepped my bounds slightly, but we are part of…. The deputies are currently working on a larger emergency preparedness strategy being led through the Solicitor General's office. Our role in that strategy would be one of finding an appropriate model for providing foodstuffs as the lead agency on that front. It is very early in the development, and it's clearly a piece of work that needs to be done when one reviews some of the things that have occurred in Pakistan and the southern United States and so on over the last few years. It's important that we get through this.

J. Horgan: I agree with the minister that…. Again, I would have thought that there would have been something done before now, and I'm sure there has been. I appreciate that what the minister is saying is that that's being accelerated now in light of the number of issues that have been brought to the fore, whether it be in South Asia or the southern United States.

Again, I come back to this notion that we are net importers of food, certainly in the fall and into the spring. Does the ministry today have areas where they store foods in the event of an emergency, or is that something that is not taking place today?

Hon. P. Bell: Currently the ministry does not engage in any food storage. We do not have any policy or strategy or locations where we do that. What I would like to highlight, though, to the member is that the shifts in the agricultural industry are allowing us to become more and more self-sufficient, in fact, all the time. We currently have self-sufficiency of about 65 percent. We do produce close to two-thirds of the product that's consumed in the province, but with the advent of the greenhouse industry and their ability to produce crops year-round, we're starting to put ourselves in a position where we can produce non-traditional products on an annual basis.

The growth of the industry is a priority of this ministry, something that we're taking very seriously, and we're looking at what our opportunities are to provide the right regulations and taxation regimes for profitable businesses to operate in B.C.

J. Horgan: I'll just conclude by thanking the minister for his rapid responses until I stood up. I appreciate that, and I know the committee does. I do look forward very much to following up on this agriculture-in-the-schools issue with your staff. I fully support the minister. As I say, if there's anything I can do in the future over the term of this mandate to assist in that regard, I'm happy to do so.

Also, lastly, the deputy minister–level committee. I know that's in the purview of the Solicitor General, so I'll just bring it back at that time. The notion that we're increasing our self-sufficiency all the time as a result of

greenhouses — is there any other reason for that, or is it just the fact that our greenhouse industry is growing and, therefore, our ability to feed ourselves is increasing?

Hon. P. Bell: I guess the point I was trying to make was that technology is changing, and our ability to grow crops on a year-round basis has increased significantly as a result of those technological changes. Earlier on we were canvassing the issue of the use of cogeneration systems for energy production in the greenhouse industry, and there are interesting opportunities there.

British Columbia has a very, very interesting agricultural industry. It's incredibly diverse — 280-some different products that we produce commercially around the province. Some of them are constrained by weather, but more and more we are developing new technologies and new products. The Gala apple is just an example of a product that keeps much better than some of the older apple crops that used to be consumed in B.C. and that allows for year-round consumption of a B.C. product. I think that over time you're going to continue to see that shift. You're going to continue to see an expanded industry, and certainly that's one of the objectives of this ministry.

R. Austin: I would like to ask questions here specifically around aquaculture. I'd like to begin by thanking the minister for organizing the overview the other day and thanking some of his staff for coming and giving us a briefing. Just for the record, my understanding is that there has been a split where you've taken some resources and staff and responsibility from the ministry to the environmental ministry. Is that correct?

R. Austin: Could you just explain: specifically, what areas have been transferred over to the Ministry of Environment?

Hon. P. Bell: Everything, virtually. It's easier for me to tell you what hasn't been transferred. We have seafood development, aquaculture development and then the licensing processes and review of the facilities of the salmon aquaculture locations around the province. Everything else is with the Ministry of Environment.

R. Austin: Am I right in saying, then, that whatever is inside the pen is your responsibility and whatever is outside the pen, right now, is the Minister of Environment's responsibility?

Hon. P. Bell: I actually misspoke earlier. I said seafood development was the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands. I am incorrect. That went to Environment as well.

The member's description of anything inside the pen as the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands and anything outside as the Ministry of Environment's is somewhat accurate. The one exception to that would be with regards to shellfish aquaculture, which doesn't typically use nets, so that wouldn't be an accurate description in that particular situation. Aside from that one exception, the member is quite right.

R. Austin: The service plan states that one of the minister's responsibilities is supporting the agriculture and food sectors, and of course, that includes aquaculture as well as resource and risk management practices. Was this change made because there may have been a perceived conflict there?

Hon. P. Bell: The shift was actually done to align the core business strategies of the two ministries more effectively, where we have responsibility for food production as opposed to the regulatory regime and environmental regime that would fit more accurately in the Ministry of Environment.

R. Austin: The other day your staff gave me this graphic display of how the process works for approving new fish farms in B.C. I understand that it's a very complex process. Can I ask, first of all: roughly how long does it take from start to final approval to go through this process — on average? I understand it will vary from site to site, but on average.

Hon. P. Bell: There is a pre-application phase of the process, so I'm not sure if the member is including that or excluding that from the entire process. I think a fair assessment of the length of time it would take, from the time an entity enters the application until they exit, is in the order of two years, give or take.

R. Austin: Will this process be faster or slower now that some of the environmental aspects are dealt with by the Ministry of Environment?

Hon. P. Bell: Much of the time in the process is consumed by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the process that they go through, which is federally regulated. I don't expect there would be any significant changes in that, as the main time constraint currently falls outside the purview of the provincial government.

R. Austin: Could the minister please tell me how many FTEs were transferred over and the dollar figure that was transferred over to the Ministry of Environment?

Hon. P. Bell: I should also identify that I've been joined now by Al Castledine, who is the director of aquaculture development, and Duncan Williams, who is the manager for Crown land for Vancouver Island. In all, $1.187 million and ten FTEs were transferred to the Ministry of Environment.

R. Austin: Could I ask, with regards to support to various groups: has any money been allocated from the

ministry to support such groups as the Positive Awareness of Aquaculture? The reason I ask that question is because I did read a media report that suggested that they receive a provincial grant from the government.

Hon. P. Bell: Based on the staff I have with me today, we're not aware of any money that has been granted to that organization, but we will do a search to confirm that and provide that information to the member in due course.

R. Austin: Could I ask: if a licence has been granted for Atlantic salmon, is it possible for that licence to simply be transferred to another species? Or is there a process that has to take place before that is done?

Hon. P. Bell: There is a process that would have to be followed in order for a licence to be transferred to a different species.

R. Austin: Does that process take one back almost to the first stage again or…? The question I'm asking, really, is: is it easy once you have a licence for one species to simply, within a matter of a few months, transfer to another species? That's the question I would like to know.

Hon. P. Bell: The process that is utilized is that there is a review by the ministry biologists to see if there are any significant risks associated with the transfer of species. But it's also subject to consultation with first nations, so it's hard for me to provide the member with an idea as to the time frame that would be required. Consultation levels with different first nations can vary and can be extensive or can be approved over a shorter period of time. I apologize for not being able to indicate to the member whether it's a month or two or three, but the two key steps are a review by the biologist and then consultation with the first nations.

R. Austin: Can I ask the minister how much money has been allocated for this fiscal year to the Pacific Salmon Forum?

Hon. P. Bell: It's $2 million this year and a total of $5 million for the three-year period.

R. Austin: I understand it's only been in place for a few months, but what's been accomplished so far?

Hon. P. Bell: It should be clear to the member that the intent of the Pacific Salmon Forum is to have a body that really can operate freely and work within the terms of reference that have been set but also in a way as a broad-based entity that allows for a good level of discussion from all ends of the science. One of the real challenges that we face — and the member will find this out through his work; I'm assuming the member will be on the special legislative committee — is the variations with regard to the science that is presented all the time. There is a need to present a friendly arena for that science to be presented, and that was the intent of the Pacific Salmon Forum.

So far the Pacific Salmon Forum does report back with their annual reports. Clearly, that is a reporting mechanism. They have presented a draft work plan, and they've been doing extensive consultation with all different interested groups around aquaculture. They had planned to have a science forum last weekend. They were unable to get the attendance they were hoping for, so that's been delayed. The plan, as I understand it, is to still hold that forum.

I think it's extremely important that we encourage everyone that has an interest in aquaculture to attend that forum. It is the responsible thing to do, and it allows all of the different scientists to come together under one large tent and ensures that the material is reviewed. I think it will help the work of the special legislative committee, when it starts to engage, to have a body of that nature that it can utilize to look at and understand what the science is and have that broad-based science. It's extremely important. I think it can be a positive venue, but it's early on, and there is lots of work to do yet.

R. Austin: Can I ask the minister: how much is the ministry spending on laboratory tests related to fish farms — for example, with regards to sediment sampling for contaminants or testing shellfish near farm sites?

Hon. P. Bell: This really breaks down to three different areas that monitor ongoing aquaculture activities, so the member will have to direct some of these questions to the Ministry of Environment at that point. Sediment testing is done by Environment, and they do have associated resources to do that. The federal government does extensive testing, as well, on the sites.

Specifically with regard to the member's question, the budget line from this ministry as it relates to testing — and it is primarily focused on fish health — is $300,000. That is new funding, and it is intended to start building capacity within the ministry to do that type of work.

R. Austin: I realize the minister has not been responsible for this ministry until recently, but I would just like to get a little bit of background, historically. Can you tell me what the dollar figures of sales from aquaculture have been over the last four years?

Hon. P. Bell: I'm advised that over the last four years, the average has been about $260 million for finfish aquaculture and about $20 million for shellfish aquaculture, and I'm also advised there hasn't been any significant change. There have been years that are a bit better or a bit worse, but there isn't a trend line in one direction or the other, so it's not increasing or decreasing significantly. That's primarily a reflection of world

markets and what has gone on there. Shellfish aquaculture is seeing just a very slight increase on an ongoing basis, as opposed to finfish, which appears to be on a bit of an up-and-down ride.

R. Austin: Could the minister advise me as to what has happened in the employment area over the last four years? Has the employment gone up, or is it stabilizing? What's happening? I would like to have, maybe, a breakdown between those people who actually work on the farms themselves and those that support the industry.

Hon. P. Bell: Here lies one of the myths that I guess has developed over the last three or four years: that there has been this massive expansion of aquaculture in British Columbia. Certainly, if one were to read some of the media reports, one might believe that in every bay you pull into on the coast, there's a brand new aquaculture site.

Interestingly, in 2002, I'm advised there were 1,400 direct jobs and 1,400 indirect jobs in the industry. That's on-farm versus off-farm jobs. Today, in the most recent statistics we have, as of 2004, direct on-farm employment is 1,410 for an increase of ten jobs and in the off-farm employment, 1,405 for an increase of five jobs. Of that, women's and first nations participation is about 50 percent.

It's interesting, of course, that if one were just kind of reading media reports, one would think there has been this massive growth of the industry, when the reality is that it has been very stable over the last number of years.

R. Austin: Could the minister please advise me as to what some of the positive advantages are that British Columbia brings to the aquaculture industry?

Hon. P. Bell: Three very specific things. One is that the growing conditions we have in coastal British Columbia really support an aquaculture industry. We have the right type of environment. The coastal communities have a tremendous history of working on the ocean as well. Particularly, first nations communities are very comfortable working in and around the ocean and have good skill sets that are associated with the aquaculture industry. The third really significant piece is that proximity to the United States market allows us to ship fresh into the U.S. on a daily basis throughout the year. Those three key pieces really give us a significant advantage over some of the other jurisdictions around the world.

R. Austin: Can I take it from the minister's answer that the bulk of the finfish aquaculture is, then, sold fresh? Is a portion of it frozen, or is it mostly sold fresh?

Hon. P. Bell: Yes. In fact, the vast majority of our production is fresh. That is what the unique aquaculture advantage is. About 70 percent of that production goes into the U.S. marketplace.

R. Austin: Can the minister please advise me as to what methods are used for tracing the food once it's sold?

Hon. P. Bell: All the fish that is processed from our farms goes through different sorts of federally registered processing facilities. There is a definite process that allows you to track the product right through to the grocery store shelves. It really is where we need to go with much of the rest of our agriculture, particularly our beef industry, in terms of full traceability. It is very high-tech and a good-quality system that ensures the safety of that product.

R. Austin: I would like to ask a question with regard to the federal government. Is the relationship that the province has with the federal government, with regard to aquaculture, a positive one at this time?

Hon. P. Bell: I think it is. I have spoken with Minister Regan. My deputy, who is unable to be with us here today, is actually at a deputies' committee in the Maritimes and has plans to meet with the federal deputy on the aquaculture file. I think the federal government is willing to work with us. I think they're cooperative in terms of their attempt to work within the parameters of a cooperative relationship in British Columbia.

Being that I'm fairly new on the file, it's hard for me to say that they've actually delivered specific requests at this point. I certainly have a positive feeling about our ability to work with the federal government as it relates to aquaculture and, more specifically, the special legislative committee on aquaculture. The federal government has expressed a very real interest in the work of that committee and how they can support that work and be part of any shifts that take place in aquaculture in B.C.

R. Austin: The reason I ask that question is because, of course, a lot of the data that comes in to support whether a new licence is given comes from DFO scientists and fishery data that is not within the purview of the province. Could I ask the minister: does he believe there is a lot of controversy with regard to the science in regards to sea lice transfer?

R. Austin: What does the minister think is at the core of that? I mean, scientists are supposed to present the facts. Why is there so much dispute between scientists? Yeah, I'll leave it at that.

Hon. P. Bell: I'm not a scientist, so far be it from me to try and guess what is behind some of the science. I think the member will find, as the member engages

further in the special legislative committee on aquaculture, that this is a very emotional issue.

Coastal British Columbia, the British Columbia where the member lives — I guess the member is not quite on the coast but close to the coast — is a spectacular spot, one of the prettiest places anywhere in the world. Emotion runs high as it relates to unique animal species along the coast and to coastal heritage. You know, it is an emotionally charged topic for a lot of people, and sometimes that makes it challenging to ensure you really look at the credibility of all the science.

I think what's really important here — and I want to step back to the Pacific Salmon Forum we were canvassing earlier — is that we somehow encourage all the different science that's currently at play to come together underneath one tent, to really critically review each other's science and do the careful analysis and try and have some independent bodies. The Pacific Salmon Forum plays a role there, and I think the special legislative committee plays a role in that work, but somehow, we need to get the emotions down on this file and really allow for credible and careful analysis.

At the end of the day there are roughly 2,800 jobs, based on these numbers — plus some transportation jobs, I'm sure, that are associated. Some of them are in the member's riding. Some of them are in some of the other opposition members' ridings up and down the coast. I think everyone wants to see a sustainable industry that makes sense for British Columbia and that allows for employment, whether it be for first nations or others up and down the coast. Everyone wants to ensure that one of the objectives of this government, that we have the best fisheries management, bar none, is achieved. That's in everyone's best interests.

To answer the member's question, I think it's really because it's an emotionally charged topic and there's lots of visuals that come associated with aquaculture and salmon and wildlife and with coastal British Columbia. At the root of it, I think, is the challenge we all face.

R. Austin: Can the minister advise me as to how much money has been put into the sales and marketing or the promotion of B.C. farmed salmon, either directly or via marketing boards?

Hon. P. Bell: The provincial government has no funds that it utilizes for the marketing of farmed salmon, so I'm unable to provide him…. Perhaps the industry association does. I'm sure it does, but I don't know what the number would be. We could, I suppose, do some work on the Internet and search the different industry associations, but the provincial government doesn't provide any money for that.

R. Austin: Does the provincial government provide any moneys for funding other agricultural products?

Hon. P. Bell: Directly, this government does not fund any marketing activities. There is legislation in place that allows industry to create levies for different product groups, should they want to pursue more globalized marketing activity.

I think one of the things I'd just like to mention to the member, though, is this. In my view, we need to look not so much at marketing individual products as at marketing our industry. We have a great story to tell. I know that some of the other members in the room today come from agricultural communities, and they're very passionate about what those communities provide in terms of employment, in terms of the quality of life and the quality of the product we're able to provide. As a ministry and as a province, we need to step up to a different level and start talking about our industry, as opposed to individualized products.

I think organizations like 4-H and organizations like the fairs and exhibitions that operate around the province are great venues for just that type of activity, and I look forward to seeing what we can do to support that. Ag in the Classroom was canvassed earlier — another good program that really speaks to marketing agriculture in the province. That's where I'd like to see this go.

R. Austin: Can the minister advise me how much money has been spent on attending aquaculture industry conferences in the last year, trade shows or national-international forums — for example, Aqua Nor in Norway this past summer?

Hon. P. Bell: I can certainly talk about Aqua Nor. That's one specific event that was attended. I grappled with Aqua Nor for a while to make a decision on whether I should attend it or not, and I actually made the decision that I shouldn't. I thought it was more important for me to meet with local groups, and I've met with Alexander Morgan, Jennifer Lash and some of the Carr group recently and so on. I felt it was more important for me, rather than to take seven or eight days out of my life and go to Norway, to focus on B.C.'s industry, so I chose not to attend Aqua Nor.

We did send a total of three staff to Aqua Nor. It is probably the most important conference as it relates to aquaculture, and we had a booth there. I apologize for not having exact numbers, but the rough estimate would have been in the range of $20,000 to send those three staff. In addition, we funded 14 first nations members from up and down the coast at a cost of $80,000, so the total commitment to Aqua Nor was probably in the order of $100,000. That represented 14 first nations, who attended and reviewed the opportunities around aquaculture and what was associated with that, and three government staff members.

R. Austin: Could I ask for the names of the first nations groups or people who went to Aqua Nor?

Hon. P. Bell: I don't have that level of information here with me, but I'd be happy to provide it to you. It would just be a matter of a few days, and we could provide that information to the member.

Could I ask…? I understand that you didn't go there yourself but that some members of your staff did. What lessons did we come back with that we can take from the experiences in Norway and other countries from this conference?

Hon. P. Bell: Canada was actually the featured nation this year at Aqua Nor, and that was one of the reasons why I did grapple a bit with whether or not I should go. British Columbia represents, I think, two-thirds to three-quarters of the total production of Canada in terms of farmed salmon, so it was a tough decision for me not to attend.

I am advised by one of the members, Al Castledine, who did attend as our lead individual, that there were three key pieces — take-aways — that he found from that particular conference. One was that in Norway they're very, very engaged at a government level with the aquaculture industry. They're very supportive of it and looking for expansion opportunities.

The second point is they see it as their second-largest economic generator or are developing the industry to become their second-largest economic generator after oil and gas. They see it as being the primary economic generator after their oil and gas industry eventually wanes a bit.

The third key piece that he got out of it was that it is not as emotionally charged a topic as it is here. There are challenges and issues, and many of them are challenges and issues that he was aware of up and down coastal British Columbia, but it didn't appear as if the emotions were as high in Norway. Everyone recognized that they were willing to take the science and work with the science to create methodology that was appropriate to the industry and alleviate the environmental concerns that were presented.

R. Austin: Has there been any report written as a result of that conference? Did the first nations group write any reports?

Hon. P. Bell: A videographer attended as part of the first nations delegation. The videographer is preparing a video that will be available as a communications tool for first nations up and down the coast, and that will be shared with other first nations as well.

R. Austin: Can I ask the minister: has Norway also had to grapple with the difficulty of the relationship between farmed salmon and wild salmon?

Hon. P. Bell: Although the issues are somewhat different in some ways because you are dealing there with an Atlantic species versus an Atlantic species — and also the primary value in Norway, in terms of the wild fishery. is sport-caught fish — some of the other challenges are similar in terms of sea lice and so on. There is a balance there.

It's different on the other ocean, so there are different challenges and issues, and there are similar ones. But really, I think the thing to note here, and where we need to get to is: they've been able to get to a point where everyone is able to work together to create good innovations and strategies and to allow for an industry to function in a way that protects the environment and still operates at a profitable, sustainable rate.

They've been able to work through some challenges, have a good story to tell, and have been able to keep the emotions at a balanced level.

R. Austin: Are the majority of aquaculture sites in Norway open-net, or do they use closed containment over there?

Hon. P. Bell: There are 800 to 900 sites in Norway, and they are all open-pen, but there is some testing going on around other opportunities with regard to closed containment at various scales and levels.

R. Austin: The minister mentioned a minute ago that the Norwegian industry wants to expand. It's my understanding that the aquaculture industry around the world is dominated by, you know, three or four large multinational companies. Have there been financial problems within the aquaculture industry in the last few years that have forced the Norwegian government to support it?

Hon. P. Bell: Far be it from me to guess what's going on in Norway. I honestly don't know, and I was jokingly going to suggest that you canvass that under the Norwegian ministry, although we don't have one.

R. Austin: No, the reason I ask that question is because I understand that Norwegian companies are behind a lot of the sites in this country. So my next question, I guess, is when the minister states that the Norwegian industry wants to expand, given that there are 700 to 900 sites in a small country like Norway, that expansion presumably then has to happen in places like British Columbia. Is that correct?

Hon. P. Bell: I wouldn't presume to speak to where those companies want to expand, but I think the key principles of expansion really relate to two key areas: the risk the company has of having success on a particular site and their ability to operate, and the potential for reward or profit from that site in terms of their cost of operating. In terms of what jurisdictions they would locate their sites in, it would likely be those two key, critical decision points that they would be looking at in order to decide how to operate.

I will say this to the member, because I think this is important: the work of the special legislative committee really is intended to determine the future of the aquaculture industry in British Columbia. Although we're talking generally about aquaculture at this point and what the opportunities are, I don't want to pre-

suppose the outlook of what the special legislative committee is going to determine in their assessment and what the recommendations will be that will come back to me as minister.

I think it's very, very important work. There are all kinds of interesting opportunities around closed containment, especially in terms of different bag systems. I know there are companies that are doing some testing right now in British Columbia with floating concrete tanks in the ocean and different sorts of innovations. There's lots of good work being done out there.

With the special legislative committee, with the Pacific Salmon Forum and with a government that really has an open mind on this file and wants to see what can be done to create benefits for small coastal communities and protect the environment at the same time, I think we're in for a period of significant change in the industry, and I'm looking forward to that.

R. Austin: Could I ask again, with the experience that Norway has had, because they have been doing this for a lot longer than we have: are the aquaculture sites moved? Are they fallowed after a few years and then moved? How do they overcome some of the problems we have here with regard to waste material at the bottom of the ocean?

Hon. P. Bell: I should like to point out at this point that B.C. actually has some of the strictest regulations anywhere in the world around fallowing standards and so on, but in Norway, as in British Columbia, companies use rotational techniques with their pens. In B.C. we have, I think, 131 different approved sites — something in that order — and yet at any point in time there are typically only 60 to 70 sites up and down the coast that are active.

I think some of the work that the special legislative committee will be doing will be to ask the question: does it make sense, perhaps, to have more sites and less activity on those sites. Instead of having a rotation every second or third year, should they be fallowed for ten years? I'm not a biologist, so I don't have those answers, but I think those are some of the innovative things that we need to look at. Just from a commonsense perspective, I think they're worth analyzing and seeing if there's value to them.

In Norway, much as in British Columbia, there are standards. We have very, very high standards — the highest standards, in fact — around those issues, but they do rotate their sites. They do fallow for periods of time. One of the things that Norway is interested in looking at expanding into is alternative species such as cod and halibut. That's not something that we have really looked at with any degree of depth at this point.

R. Austin: Can the minister inform me as to how many fines have been levied in the last year for failing to clean up or remediate old fish-farm sites?

Hon. P. Bell: I'm going to try and give the member quite a bit of information here, so I'll just read through it. You can get it from Hansard, or we can provide you with a copy of it. This information is for the 2003 calendar year. I don't have the 2004 information yet; it hasn't been compiled. We're happy to provide that, but I think this will give you at least a framework or an understanding in terms of the licensing and compliance branch.

For the calendar year of January 2003 to December 2003 the licensing and compliance branch initiated a total of 488 different case files. The initiation process is not brought on as a result of a complaint; it's simply a decision that it's time to go and have a look at that particular area. Of those, there were 77 active finfish farms inspected in the province. There were 44 shellfish sites inspected. There were 181 cases pertaining to finfish aquaculture inspections and investigations, including escapement incidents. There were 93 cases pertaining to shellfish aquaculture inspections and investigations — this is relating to the 488 items.

The sum of all that was that there were 32 violation tickets and warning tickets issued to finfish, shellfish and commercial licence holders and, additionally, one warning letter. So it was 32 tickets and one warning letter, and that's a broad base. That's for all kinds of different sorts of compliance and as a result of 488 case files.

Hon. P. Bell: I don't have the fine amounts here with me, but there were 32 violation tickets issued, so one could extrapolate from that. In addition, I should make the member aware that there are three cases that currently have been referred to Crown counsel for charge approval. Those are currently before the courts and haven't been completed. That would be another level of compliance beyond that.

R. Austin: I'm reading from the service plan. This regards the section on performance measures, "Database of pathogens, antimicrobial-resistance and residues in the food chain and environment." It says here that the ministry is responsible for developing the database and environment baseline information.

My question to the minister is: are baseline data for sea lice necessary before approval of any new fish-farm licence?

Hon. P. Bell: The line the member refers to actually refers to agriculture and not aquaculture. Pathogens are related to land-based agriculture. The baseline data

around sea lice may or may not be required through the CEAA process, depending on the site right now, but provincially, we do not require that baseline data. It is provided federally through the CEAA process and shared with us.

R. Austin: Does the minister believe that having the baseline data for sea lice would be an advantage?

Hon. P. Bell: I think this, again, falls to the work of the special legislative committee. It's one of the interesting opportunities that exist out there. I think that with the work of the committee as it moves forward, innovative recommendations encompassing all of the bodies of science that outline what baseline data would be required…. I'd be happy to receive those sorts of recommendations.

It is an evolving process over the coming year or so — or, I guess, perhaps a bit more than that — that I look forward to engaging in and really creating a body of information that provides for the type of industry that works for the member's constituents and, in fact, all of coastal British Columbia.

R. Austin: If that information were to be necessary, does the minister believe that it would be the responsibility of the government to be the ones who found out that information?

Hon. P. Bell: The way the industry has worked — and this is, you know, regardless of whether it's the forest industry, mining industry, energy industry, aquaculture or agriculture — is that, typically, a proponent bringing a project forward has to provide that sort of data on an independent basis.

I don't want to presuppose what the determination of the aquaculture committee would be and what the recommendations might be — whether government should do that work or an independent verifiable source that would be paid for by the proponent of an application. I think the member's point is: would it be useful? I think that's the type of question that the special legislative committee on aquaculture should be asking and then making a determination based on that review.

R. Austin: Given how controversial this kind of data is, if it were left up to the proponents of the prospective site to go and get the baseline data, it would probably not be acceptable by those who don't want to see the aquaculture industry thrive in this province. By virtue of that fact, does the minister think that it probably would be better if the province itself was to get this data?

Hon. P. Bell: What the member articulates really is the nub of the whole challenge that we face with regards to aquaculture which is: we are at a point in time where no one seems to trust anyone else on either side of the equation, and that really comes back to the Pacific Salmon Forum and the principle of bringing all the science underneath one house.

Typically, when this type of thing happens and I'll use, perhaps, mining as an example.… A mining proponent brings a proposal forward and does the baseline work that is then verified through the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency or the provincial environmental assessment review process. The data is provided initially but is then verified through independent work that is done by either the provincial or federal jurisdictions. You know, we're kind of getting into dangerous zones here in terms of speculating what might and might not be the appropriate model to follow, but I can certainly indicate to the member that that is a normal business practice to follow in other industries.

The other option or opportunity that the member might be interested in, and I would certainly encourage the special committee to look at it as well, is independent third-party verification models similar to what the forest industry utilizes. Whether it's Canadian Standards Association, SFI or any of the various independent third-party agencies that review forestry practices, that may be a model.

So these are all interesting models, good things I think for the special committee to look at, to analyze and to see what can lower the volume that's out there right now and start to bring the partners together at same table. Just in the short period of time that I've been in this ministry, what I'm finding consistently is that, when you sit down with the parties — as long as they are not in the room together — they all seem very reasonable in their debate and discussion. They are passionate, but they're reasonable. But, boy, you get them all in the same room at the same time, and the fireworks just start.

It is one of the challenges…. I think trying to remove the politics from this debate by having the opposition chairing this committee and with the majority of members on the committee but having significant involvement by government as well and then having…. My responsibility, ultimately, is to make final decisions on the recommendations of the committee. I think this, hopefully, will lower that tone and create an environment where we can have an industry that works for the member and for all the individuals that live on this most beautiful coastline of British Columbia.

R. Austin: I want to echo, as well, the comments of the minister. It is very difficult. I actually had signed up to go to the conference that was supposed to happen last week — this weekend, actually — put on by the Pacific Salmon Forum. I changed my flight and everything and then found out that due to not enough people coming — and basically, it was one side not willing to come — the whole thing collapsed. So I hear what he says.

In fact, I was at a meeting of the industry just two weeks ago, the AGM in Campbell River, and one of the members who owns several farms there asked me why my party leader thought it was a good idea to put me

as the fisheries critic. I answered honestly and said: "Well, I've been working with dysfunctional families for the last four years, so maybe I have a skill set that I can bring to this thing."

I just want to ask a couple of questions specific to my riding of Skeena which, as the minister has commented, is not on the coast and doesn't have any fish farms there. With the Skeena River running through my riding, with there being several first nations groups who have a very large interest, a large sport-fishing industry, and the fact that it's just a very beautiful place… There are, of course, a large number of people who are very, very concerned about having new licences announced.

My question to the minister is this: could he tell me, first of all, how many licences on the north coast, both just south of the Skeena River — or the mouth of the Skeena — and on the north coast in general are in the process of being approved right now?

Hon. P. Bell: There are a total of 12 fish farms that have not been approved yet that are in the system right now. Of that, there is one that is in the northern part of the province, or in the member's general geographic area, and the one that the member refers to is located approximately 40 miles from the mouth of the Skeena River.

The other two that have been approved but are not yet in production are both some distance further away. Geographically, I would be pressed, but I would say probably in the order of 70 miles away. So the one that's still in the process: about 40 miles. The other two are about 70 miles, and the other two have been approved.

R. Austin: Are those sites all owned by the same operator, and do they require the approval of the third site in order to make it economically viable?

Hon. P. Bell: Yes, they are all owned by the same organization. I wouldn't presuppose to understand the economics of that particular company and whether or not they require one, two or three to be viable, so that would be beyond my ability to respond.

R. Austin: With the other two sites that have been approved, why have they not been utilized yet?

Hon. P. Bell: My understanding is those sites have been approved within the last year. There is a fairly lengthy process in order to get these sites into production. I think I indicated to the member earlier that there is a fairly long rotational period as well. I think we have approximately 131 sites on the coast, and there are in the order of half of them in production at any point in time. My math would say that half of three is somewhere around one and a half. So if they wanted to get into production, you would think they might have a couple of years of production ahead of them, as that is the growth period.

I'm not sure what the economics of the company are or how that would be viewed, but it is fairly recent history that those sites have been approved. I know the company does have an interest in more than three. Clearly, and that's been communicated through the media, their view is that they would like to be much larger than that in order for the economics to work on the north coast — particularly in terms of processing facilities, it probably is. You need some concentration to make that all work, but they haven't applied for more than the two that have been approved and the one that is still in the process.

R. Austin: Can I ask the minister: while the special committee on sustainable aquaculture is doing its work — and of course, we still have to determine how long this committee will run, but say it was to run for a year — is it the minister's view that other sites will be approved while this committee is doing its work or not?

Hon. P. Bell: Again, I would not want to presuppose the work of the committee and what recommendations may come from the committee. I am guessing that the committee will probably want to make a series of recommendations as opposed to holding the body of information until the end and then kind of making a larger recommendation, although I don't want to presuppose that work. I know we have a meeting scheduled sometime shortly. I'm looking forward to having that and discussing how that might work and what the challenges are around both existing and potentially new applications that could come forward. I recognize that those are all things the committee will want to talk about, and I'm happy to engage in that discussion.

R. Austin: While the committee is doing its work, though, would there be applications still approved before we'd have time to report?

Hon. P. Bell: Again, I'm eager to engage the committee in that discussion and find what the recommendations of the committee may be prior to us going further down the road. I don't think it's my view that is as important here as it is the view of the committee and the view of the scientific community around it.

I do think we want to be somewhat cautious of the message we send to investors. It has been a lot of hard work to get the investors interested in the province of British Columbia. I do think we want to ensure that we're working with the body of science and not making decisions based on raw emotions as opposed to scientific facts.

These are all discussions I'm happy to have. As the member may know, special legislative committees are normally Hansarded. The meetings are all…. A committee can certainly go in camera, if they so choose, but most of the meetings are public knowledge and fully Hansarded. Those are all discussions I'm looking forward to having and making presentations on, making

sure the committee has the resources and the scientific information they need to move this issue forward.

R. Austin: When we have our discussions later this week, if the committee requests a moratorium while it's doing its work, would the minister consider that?

Hon. P. Bell: The minister will review every request that comes forward to the minister. I do just want to kind of reinforce this one piece, though.

First of all, I don't want to rule anything out. I think it would be a mistake to rule anything out. Second, I think we need to make sure that we're not making these decisions based on raw emotion and, more importantly, politics. The whole objective of this process is to remove politics from this debate and ensure that the decisions are being made in a way that protects the interests of small coastal communities, protects the interests of the environment and respects the body of scientific information that's out there from both sides of the equation.

It's very easy to come into this debate with preconceived notions, because we all kind of have the notion that it's good or it's bad. It seems like, unfortunately, people are on one side of the debate or the other side of the debate. This committee is really intended to try and find that middle ground and see how we can work together and create an industry that makes sense.

If we are successful, in my view, this will be historic in terms of how this wonderful House works and functions — this House that is almost 110 years old, that we reside in and in which we have an opportunity to debate in a constructive way. If we are able to, for the first time, work together and really put politics aside and create a sustainable future for aquaculture, I think it is something we can all be very, very proud of, going forward.

I'm looking forward to the discussion. I'm looking forward to framing how we're going to move this issue forward. I just really would encourage the member and, in fact, everyone who presents to this that we need to put the politics aside on this issue and that we need to be constructive and find a way to build an industry that's good for everyone.

R. Austin: Just getting back, for a moment, to performance measures. Could the minister inform me as to who's responsible for reporting escapes? Is it the operator themselves, or are there tests that are done without letting the company know — just to ensure that these things are being reported properly?

Hon. P. Bell: The operator is responsible for reporting escapes, but there is actually a follow-up mechanism to that. Part of the 488 inspections that I was referring to is actually monitoring their reporting mechanism. The operator has to identify how many fish were placed in the pen and flowed through the whole system, and has to account for all the fish within the system. If there is any variation in that over time, that's intended to pick that up.

Of course, there are periodic inspections of the net pens done and so on as well. It is a self-reporting mechanism. It seems to be working pretty efficiently. We've had, I think, good results from it, but there is also an accountability mechanism through audits.

R. Austin: If the ministry discovers later on that the numbers don't match, presumably that's when we do an investigation, and that's when a fine is levied. Is that correct?

R. Austin: I just have another question that reverts to strategies around the resource use of water. I was just thinking: is the ministry doing anything to look at how we can use water, for example, that's used in hydroelectric power — whether that water can be used elsewhere before it goes out into the ocean? This has nothing to a do with aquaculture. This is just a question with regards to the ministry.

Hon. P. Bell: That would be one of the areas that was transferred to the Ministry of Environment and would be better canvassed when that minister brings his estimates forward.

B. Ralston: I think that concludes that area. I'm prepared to deal with a series of questions on the Agricultural Land Commission. If it's the pleasure of the Chair, then we'll begin at this time in that area.

Hon. P. Bell: Do you want to pass the other two — the ILMB and this one — and then we'll introduce that officially? Or do you want to leave the other one open?

B. Ralston: Perhaps we could leave the other one open, just so I make sure that I'm…. If that's agreeable. I think we are finished, though.

B. Ralston: Perhaps, then, if I can begin a series of questions on the commission. Perhaps I can begin first with the number of staff assigned to the commission. I understand it's 20 full-time-equivalents.

B. Ralston: Can the minister please advise what the jobs were of the people who are no longer employed by the commission?

Hon. P. Bell: At one point in time the Agricultural Land Commission also had responsibility for the forest

land reserve. That responsibility was eliminated, so a number of the FTE reductions related directly to that. In addition, there were a few research officers and some admin support reduced at the same time.

B. Ralston: Can the minister, then, please advise how many employees were specifically responsible for the forest land reserve? Were they transferred elsewhere in government, or were they simply laid off?

Hon. P. Bell: I'm told there were four to five FTEs in the forest land reserve. How that functioned was that it was actually moved over to the Private Managed Forest Land Act, which I have responsibility for in my ministry. It is now out and in that entity, which is funded privately by private managed forest land owners.

B. Ralston: The minister mentioned research officers. Can the minister advise how many research officers were laid off after the restructuring of the commission in 2002?

Hon. P. Bell: The research officers were reduced from a total of six to a total of four, for a reduction of two individuals. There was one administrative person, and the CEO is also gone.

B. Ralston: I'm trying to add up the totals here: four or five from the forest land reserve, two research officers and an admin support person. You said the CEO of the entire unit, then. Is that correct?

Hon. P. Bell: Those numbers are correct, and if the member would like more detail, we can provide more detail in written form.

B. Ralston: Given that the research capacity would appear to have been reduced by two of six, which would make a diminution of 50 percent, can the minister advise what the research capacity of the commission at the present time is?

Hon. P. Bell: I was gleefully thinking how I was going to catch the member on his mathematics, and I failed to listen to the last part of the question. So if he would repeat the last part, that would be helpful.

B. Ralston: There is a reduction, however one chooses to calculate the percentages. I concede it's 33 percent rather than 50 percent. But still, in a small unit that's a significant amount of work capacity. I'm wondering what the research capacity of the commission is, given the requirements of identifying land within the reserve and its suitability, given the flood of applications for exclusion. What is the capacity of the commission to respond to the applications before it, in a research sense?

Hon. P. Bell: To characterize the activity with the Agricultural Land Commission as being a flood of activity, I'm not sure would be entirely accurate. There are ebbs and flows within the applications that take place, but there certainly is no flood of activity yet at this particular point in time.

The service plan requirements, as articulated in our service plan, are being met. The time frames and objectives are being met, and the capacity currently exists within the Agricultural Land Commission complement of four research officers to maintain that level of activity.

B. Ralston: One of the acts that formerly was administered by the Land Commission was the Soil Conservation Act. I understand that was repealed in 2002, but the commission retains responsibility for applications for soil removal and fill placement. Is that correct?

B. Ralston: Can the minister advise what the mechanism is for enforcing complaints about unauthorized fill on farmland?

Hon. P. Bell: The Agricultural Land Commission works cooperatively with local governments to maximize the benefit of both monitoring agencies. Rather than just utilizing our compliance officers, we are also able to branch out and utilize staff from various municipalities, and we provide that same service. That seems to give us a reasonable number of resources to ensure what is required to monitor this.

B. Ralston: I'm quoting from a newspaper report — it's about 18 months ago — where a staff agrologist at the commission, Mr. Trevor Murrie, was interviewed in reference to: "Hundreds, maybe thousands of dumptrucks of fill have been dumped on a property at No. 8 Road in Richmond." And this may be unfair to that particular staff person, but I'm asking for a response from the minister in general terms. "'If he's gone beyond what's acceptable or reasonable, I don't know where we go from that exactly,' said Staff Agrologist Trevor Murrie. 'It's out of my hands.'"

The conclusion of this report was that the Land Commission no longer had a role in enforcing soil deposit on agricultural land at all. The minister mentions…. Well, I'll just leave that part of the question at that point.

Hon. P. Bell: Before I try and respond to your comment…. We're kind of treading into dangerous territory here, in that the Agricultural Land Commission does operate at arm's length from the ministry in its work. I think that is the appropriate model. We, as I commented earlier on, have responsibility for establishing policy and ensuring that that policy is communicated to the Agricultural Land Commission. The Agricultural Land Commission then establishes service plans and operates underneath those service plans to

fulfil the policy that is established by the ministry. We are starting to tread into dangerous territory when we start asking a minister who remains at arm's length from a commission about a specific site and whether or not the practices on that site were or were not appropriate.

I can tell the member that farm practices — and perhaps in this situation, I understand — do require different types of diking to take place in the event of cranberry farming, in particular, in order to float the cranberries at the end of the season. That is the methodology that is utilized to grow that particular crop. Different forms of diking requirements are available for blueberries as well. I understand that in this particular situation, the practice that was employed was perhaps not initially understood clearly and that there was a review of the practice done both by the city of Richmond and by ministry staff. I understand that the practice was accepted.

But again, I just want to highlight that we're kind of starting to tread into what I consider to be a bit of dangerous territory here when we have a minister commenting on specific case files. Really, our responsibility as a ministry is to establish policy for the Agricultural Land Commission and, I suppose, to ultimately hold the ALC accountable for their execution and delivery of that policy.

B. Ralston: I have one follow-up question, and then perhaps I could suggest that we recess for the dinner break.

I appreciate the minister's attempt to draw a line between policy and a specific case. While the commission may be independent, the financial resources to run the commission come from government, so one can accomplish indirectly a policy goal by starving the commission for funds. In this newspaper article, one Peter Dhillon is quoted. "Dhillon conceded the land commission has struggled under a mandate from the B.C. Liberals to cut 40 percent from its budget. 'There's a resource issue; there's no doubt about it,' he said." Does the minister agree with that statement?

Hon. P. Bell: The Agricultural Land Commission is currently meeting all of its service plan requirements and targets. I'm comfortable they'll be able to continue to do that at the budget level they have.

The Chair: Noting the time, this committee will recess until 6:40 p.m. today.

B. Ralston: When we left off, we were talking about the soil deposition on agricultural land, and my question is: given the response that has been made so far, can the minister advise, then, what is the role of the Agricultural Land Commission, if any, in enforcing regulations concerning the deposition of soil on agricultural land?

Hon. P. Bell: The old Soil Conservation Act was repealed, and the authority for this was put under the Agricultural Land Commission. There is a total of five staff that have responsibility for this area in some way, shape or form. They may have other responsibilities as well. The recourse for people who are depositing soil inappropriately can be anything from a stop-work order to a fine to a remediation order.

B. Ralston: Can the minister request reports or a statistical study of the number of times that there's been enforcement action in the last five years?

B. Ralston: Could the minister, then, commit on the record when that report would be available?

Hon. P. Bell: Actually, I think a review of Hansard would indicate that the member asked me if I was able to request a report. I don't believe he specifically requested. If that is the request, that would be a different question.

B. Ralston: Pardon me. I'll ask the follow-up question then. I'm going to ask the minister if the ministry can produce that report, and can the minister put a time frame on when it might be available?

Hon. P. Bell: I just wanted to clarify for the member, I had indicated the previous five years. That would probably not be an appropriate time frame, in that the Soil Conservation Act was repealed November 1, 2002. So it wouldn't make sense to go back prior to that date because there would be no enforcements under the ALC in that period of time. But we'd be happy to provide the member with details around each and every enforcement action since November 1, 2002, and we would be able to do that within a three-week period.

B. Ralston: Thank you, minister, for that commitment. In order that there be some opportunity to compare the efficacy of enforcement under the Soil Conservation Act, would the minister commit to providing three years back from the date of November 1, 2002, in order to have some comparable statistics of enforcement under the Soil Conservation Act?

Hon. P. Bell: I guess I should explain some of the details around it, because it will be very difficult for the member to achieve the objective that I think he is looking for, which is a comparison of the old enforcement regime versus the new enforcement regime. Under the old enforcement regime, each municipality would also have enforcement actions, and of course, that is not an

area of information that we would have available to us. We would, also, under the Soil Conservation Act, have various activities. But the body of action that took place under the old model was both at a municipal level and at a provincial level, whereas the new model is simply at a provincial level.

I think I understand where the member is trying to get to with this, and what I would suggest is that the member review the information that we make available within the three-week time window that I already indicated. If that's insufficient to meet his needs, or if he'd like to pursue this further, I'd be happy to sit down with the member at that point in time and try and get to the root source of the information. It's in everyone's best interest to ensure that this act is being enforced efficiently and that the protection of agricultural land is in fact in place.

B. Ralston: I thank the minister for that commitment then. Am I to conclude then that the new regime does not involve any municipal enforcement of soil deposition on agricultural land whatsoever?

Hon. P. Bell: Under the Soil Conservation Act, municipal governments were actually physically required to enforce inappropriate soil deposition or removal. Under the new act the ALC has that responsibility. Individual municipalities may or may not have regulations around soil removal or deposition, but each municipality around the province would enact their own bylaw, the difference being that the old model had a requirement for enforcement and in the new model each municipality would develop their own act as they deemed appropriate for their individual circumstances.

B. Ralston: Specifically, what section of the act would be enforced if unauthorized dumping on agricultural land took place? There's a reference in the material on the website to an application under section 20 that's required. I'm wondering what section might we be referred to, to know where an enforcement action originates.

Hon. P. Bell: Section 20 actually allows for an exemption of non-farm use under the act. In order for someone to deposit soil inappropriately on a site, they would require an exemption under section 20. If they did not apply for that exemption under section 20 and did deposit soils, they would be in contravention of section 20 of the act, and that's where the charges would be laid.

B. Ralston: The minister has anticipated my next question by his reference to charges. I take it that the statute would be the Offence Act, and I'm wondering how many prosecutions there have been under this section of the act since November 1, 2002.

B. Ralston: Have staff gathered evidence and forwarded it to Crown counsel, and prosecution has been declined? Or is it a question of not gathering sufficient evidence to meet the evidentiary requirements with respect to prosecution?

Hon. P. Bell: There is actually a third possibility that the member didn't indicate, and that is that no such offences took place during that period of time. Of course there is always that presumption of innocence, I suppose, that one might want to engage in — that we have individuals who care about the farm practices in the province.

The other issue I should present to the member is that there are, within the act, built-in administrative penalties that are utilized to encourage compliance with the act as opposed to simply an approach where charges are laid automatically. The good news is that the act has been enforced through the use of various sorts of administration remedies, and there has not been the approach to Crown counsel for any charges.

B. Ralston: Well, given that the level of construction activity — and I'm looking at this report here of hundreds of dumptruck loads supposedly deposited on farmland in Richmond 18 months ago…. My sense is that there's an increasing trend of a need to deposit spoil from construction sites in the lower mainland. I'm wondering whether that is indeed a trend, and are there additional staff assigned to monitor the consequence of that?

Hon. P. Bell: I just want to encourage the member to remember that our role in the Agricultural Land Commission as a ministry is that we establish the policy regime that is necessary. We provide the financial resources based on the request from the Agricultural Land Commission when they bring their service plan forward and when it is reviewed, and then, certainly, we ensure that they are accountable for their actions. But for us to get into extensive discussions about specific issues within the Agricultural Land Commission is probably edging in on a place that we shouldn't be going in estimates.

However, I will say that the Agricultural Land Commission is aware of this problem, and it is one of the consequences of a booming economy. Something that we haven't seen for a long, long time in this province is the level of construction activity that's taking place. Unemployment rates clearly have been reduced significantly, and the activity in the province has been fabulous for some length of time here right now. It is one of those challenges that come along with a prospering economy.

The Agricultural Land Commission is working with a number of the municipalities in the lower mainland right now to have a consolidated, coordinated approach to ensure that we don't lose any valuable agricultural lands to inappropriate soil dumping. There is an approach being taken by the Agricultural

Land Commission. It is a reflection of a prosperous economy, and we will be continuing to focus on that.

B. Ralston: First, a general question. Is the minister saying that because the commission operates, to some extent, at arm's length, there's no public accountability for the actions of the commission? I'm sure he's not saying that, so if the minister is not prepared to answer for the actions of the commission, then where might a member of the public go to get those questions answered?

Hon. P. Bell: To be clear, this is important for the member to understand how this interaction works. As a ministry, we establish policy for the Agricultural Land Commission, and we are held to account for that policy structure we put in place. We then have the Agricultural Land Commission act as an independent agency that implements that policy — not dissimilar to the way we would create a law and ask a police force and a judiciary to enforce that.

The accountability mechanism is very clear, in that there is an expectation of standards. That is clearly articulated in the service plan that's presented to the Legislature. There also is another mechanism that the member may be aware of. That's the select standing committee. It also has an opportunity to review policy and procedures around this.

The accountability mechanism is to ensure that their service plan standards are met — first of all, that their service plan reflects that they will be able to achieve the objectives that are articulated in there. Then the challenge of the ministry would be to focus on the policy issue.

If the member wanted to perhaps be critical of the ministry, the appropriate area, in my view, for him to be critical would be to say that we need to have stronger policy in the area of soil deposition. If that was the thought of the member, that would be my suggested approach to this line of questioning. I think that would be a better level of discussion than the discussion we're trying to have around a specific site in Richmond.

Hon. P. Bell: The commission is not self-funded. It is funded in the same way that many other entities, as I've already identified, are — the judiciary, the police forces around the province and so on.

B. Ralston: Given that the budget is not independent of government, what independence does the commission have if there's a decision, for example, not to fund more research officers that might be required or more officers to enforce soil deposition requirements? What's the recourse of the commission, other than to simply accept the decision?

Hon. P. Bell: Let's follow through the service planning process here, for the member's use. Clearly, the Agricultural Land Commission establishes its service plan based on the structure and the policy that we articulate through the ministry. They then bring forward that service plan with the request for resources that they feel are necessary to fulfil their service plan. At the end of the year they will produce a report that will indicate whether or not they have met their objectives. An evaluation is done on that. Then ultimately, I am held accountable for whether they have met their objectives as a whole.

What I guess I'm trying to indicate to the member — and I'm not trying to shift him off his topic of questioning here at all — is that from a ministry perspective, we look at the higher-level policy positioning of the Agricultural Land Commission. It is very dangerous to get into individual applications, whatever they might be.

I will give the member the example of Six Mile Ranch in Kamloops, where the Agricultural Land Commission had very clearly articulated a position that it was inappropriate to remove that land from the ALR, yet the cabinet of the day made a decision to pass an order-in-council — which was actually signed by the member for Nelson-Creston, if I'm not mistaken — that overruled the Agricultural Land Commission and removed that land.

Certainly, I believe we should hold the commission to account for achieving their service plans. That's exactly what we do. That's where the accountability lies. But it's on a more global basis, and I really do think it's risky for any ministry to start getting engaged in individual decisions. If the Agricultural Land Commission is being micromanaged at that level, I think it removes the integrity of the commission.

B. Ralston: Just a prelude before I ask a question. As the minister well knows, the provincial-interest clause was amended after the Six Mile Ranch application, so that step could not take place again. As for the former Minister of Agriculture, I'm sure he can answer for himself, but perhaps that's why I'm the critic and he's not, at this stage.

My question is, then, going back to the policy of soil deposition: has the commission presented a budget request for more staff to deal with what appears to be an emerging problem of soil deposition on agricultural land in the lower mainland, in the Okanagan and on the lower Island?

B. Ralston: The minister has made reference to the higher-level — if we can call them that — policy decisions. I want to ask the minister some questions about the structure of the panels that decide on removal or exclusion or inclusion applications from the agricultural land reserve. Can the minister advise of the process whereby panel members are appointed?

Hon. P. Bell: This government established a process through board resourcing, where reviews are done

of each individual regardless of the position that the person is being considered for, whether it's an Agricultural Land Commission or a health board position, Emily Carr — any of the various boards that are established in the province where it's done — where the individual's ability to function is checked against their criteria and qualifications. Then they are either approved or not. If the member wants to pursue exact detail around the board resourcing approach, that would be better done under the Premier's estimates, which is where board resourcing is located.

B. Ralston: What input does the Minister of Agriculture have in the selection of panel members?

Hon. P. Bell: We would do a final approval after the board resourcing office makes a recommendation.

B. Ralston: Has the ministry or the minister declined candidates recommended by the board resourcing office?

Hon. P. Bell: I have neither declined nor accepted any. I have not had any appointments since I've taken this position.

Hon. P. Bell: My understanding is that there have been two resignations from the panels and only reappointments to the panels over the last number of years.

B. Ralston: Those candidates forwarded by the board resourcing office — were they, presumably, approved by the Minister of Agriculture, or were there others who were declined?

Hon. P. Bell: Since I have been in this position, there have been no appointments or anyone declined. I'm advised that the only appointments over the last number of years have been reappointments, which are individuals who have been prequalified as a result of the work they had done on panels and then were appointed for an additional term.

B. Ralston: The minister has made reference to the nature of the commission and its quasi-judicial status in these decisions. One of the members of the south coast panel, Mr. Dhillon…. Former chairman of the commission, Mr. Paton — given Mr. Dhillon's history in seeking an exclusion of agricultural land for industrial purposes from the commission immediately prior to his appointment — said: "Perception is so important. No one should be put on any public body if there is any risk of them carrying baggage."

Does the minister agree with that comment about the issue of perception when it concerns members of the panel?

Hon. P. Bell: I think that all panel members should be — as any other government appointments — beyond reproach in terms of their integrity, or they should not be assigned to various positions. There are many, many different boards, panels and commissions around the province, so there are many individuals that get appointed from time to time. But I think a fundamental principle is to ensure that individuals are qualified and that there is no perceived or real conflict of interest in those individuals.

B. Ralston: Is the minister agreeing with the comment of Mr. Paton, then, or not?

Hon. P. Bell: I'm agreeing with the articulated position that it's critical that all panel members are above reproach. I will not comment on Mr. Dhillon. I have not met him personally, nor do I know him, nor have I seen his résumé up for reappointment.

B. Ralston: My question was about the statement I read by Mr. Paton. I'm wondering if the minister agrees with that.

Hon. P. Bell: If the member would reread that into the record, I would be in a better position to comment on that.

B. Ralston: This is the direct quotation from the newspaper article. "'Perception is so important,' Paton said. 'No one should be put on any public body if there is any risk of them carrying baggage.'"

Hon. P. Bell: I think I would support the general position that's being articulated there. The term "baggage" is not necessarily one that I would use. I don't believe it is a technical term that clearly identifies the purpose of the comment.

I think it should suffice to tell the member that, certainly, I do understand the importance of the integrity of any position. I think panel positions are extremely important. Those individuals have to be held in high esteem, and there clearly has to be no conflict or perceived conflict of interest in order for them to be in a position where they can sit on one of those panels.

B. Ralston: Mr. Paton said in the same article…. "While Paton does not know Dhillon personally or his qualifications, he said the province should have considered his past exclusion history and how that might look if he sat on the commission." Does the minister agree with that?

Hon. P. Bell: Again, I was not involved in Mr. Dhillon's appointment. I have not personally seen his CV. I

do not know anything about him, and I won't comment on whether he is or is not qualified at this time, as I wasn't responsible for his appointment.

B. Ralston: Is the minister not aware to any degree of Mr. Dhillon's past application on behalf of Richberry Farms in 2000 for exclusion of 2.5 acres in the Westminster Highway? Is the minister unaware of this controversy?

B. Ralston: As a result of reading it in the papers, has the minister made any inquiries as to the history of this particular point?

Hon. P. Bell: Let's be clear here. Mr. Dhillon was appointed for a period of time. If his reappointment comes due and if he asks or is willing to have his appointment extended, that would be the appropriate time for me to review the appointment. Mr. Dhillon, as I understand it, has not demonstrated any conflicting positions here, and I don't think it's appropriate for me to question his integrity, as it has not been challenged to me.

B. Ralston: Well, Mr. Paton clearly states his past history in pursuing an exclusion application before the same commission in the same geographic area and states that his issue arising out of that was an issue of public perception. Given even those minimal facts — I appreciate that the minister doesn't want to acknowledge knowing very much about Mr. Dhillon — does the minister not have a concern about public perception of the impartiality of the commission, particularly when they're making very important public policy decisions?

B. Ralston: The Vancouver Island panel has adopted a practice of allowing exclusions with the proviso that the applicant, usually a developer, contributes money — typically $50,000 — to government to do a land capability inventory. Is that a policy that…? First of all, is that indeed a practice of the commission that the minister is aware of?

Hon. P. Bell: I understand that that did occur on two occasions. The money actually flowed to Land and Water B.C., not to the ALC. That is not policy and not something that is taking place on a regular basis.

Hon. P. Bell: It's not part of the policy structure that we currently endorse.

B. Ralston: Would it be fair to say, then, that a policy direction has been given that this practice discontinue? Is that what I'm to take from the comments?

Hon. P. Bell: No, that hasn't been the case. Simply put, it wasn't something that was occurring on a regular basis. There were a couple of individual situations where there appeared to be some value to this, but my anticipation is that this would not continue on a regular basis.

B. Ralston: Bearing in mind that it's an independent body over which the minister doesn't have direct control, what assurance can the minister provide that this won't happen again, given that it operates at arm's length in the manner that the minister has described on many previous occasions?

Hon. P. Bell: Again, the member touches quite rightly…. I think he has figured out exactly how the relationship works between the two bodies. It would be a specific policy direction, if I felt that it was necessary to give…. If I thought there was an ongoing repetition of this sort of activity, it would be something I would look at in a future service plan and articulate as a policy for the Agricultural Land Commission. I'd be happy to review that in more detail, but it's not something at this particular point that I'm concerned is going to occur on a regular basis. If I was concerned, we would certainly have that discussion.

B. Ralston: I'm just a little confused, then. Why does the minister think it's not going to happen again?

Hon. P. Bell: The commission actually made a decision to drop the net benefit policy that they had been working with. The policy does not exist within the Agricultural Land Commission, and therefore, I have no concern that it would be utilized in the future.

B. Ralston: At a recent public seminar on the agricultural land reserve, a ministry…. I believe it was the commission official that advised that the commissioners of the land commission only meet as a group, collectively, once a year. Was the minister aware of this, and does he have any comments on that?

Hon. P. Bell: Yes, I am aware that they have one annual meeting. That seems to be an appropriate structure.

B. Ralston: Well, is it not the mandate of the commission to pursue provincial objectives with regard to agricultural land? I'm wondering how one can achieve a provincial mandate and provincial focus if there is simply one meeting annually.

Hon. P. Bell: There are — in this wonderful world of technology that we live in here today, of course — other means of communication. That's incredibly exciting. Even people watching us this evening…. Although I suspect if they're watching this on tape delay, it's probably around 11 o'clock or 12 at night. If you have

We do utilize teleconferencing about four times a year with the vice-chairs of each of the panels. That is then communicated down to the panel members. Then, if there is a requirement for other types of communication, that can certainly be made available through quarterly meetings, I should say, with the vice-chairs of the different panels or by teleconferencing.

B. Ralston: I understand that the previous structure, prior to 2002, was that commissioners who may have sat on regional panels were also commissioners of the provincial Agricultural Land Commission itself and that the present structure of regional panels means that members are appointed to a regional panel only. Is that correct?

Hon. P. Bell: Each of the individual panels are, in fact, regional panels. They are appointed by the commission. It is a provincial commission, but each of the regional panels has responsibility specifically for their regions. The vice-chair and the two panel members, of course, comprise and make up each of those panels.

B. Ralston: There are three members on the regional panel. Leaving aside the vice-chairs for a moment, would the two other members on a regional panel…? Would they ever meet as a group, in a meeting to which all regional panel members were invited?

Hon. P. Bell: The answer to that is that all 18 panel members do meet once a year. Then if there is a requirement at some other point during the year, they would teleconference. The member should appreciate the diversity of the panels. There are members on these panels from literally all parts of British Columbia, and to find a way to bring them all together on a more regular basis than once a year would be very challenging.

B. Ralston: I'm thinking of the south coast panel. Can the minister advise on the attendance record of the three panel members of that south coast panel?

Hon. P. Bell: I am going to presume that the member is looking for the attendance record at all the panel meetings, as opposed to the annual meeting. We don't have that information here with us, but we'd be pleased to provide that to the member. I would think we could do it in the same three-week time frame that we'd committed to for the previous piece of information.

B. Ralston: In my discussion of soil deposition, I neglected to ask some questions about soil removal. Can the minister briefly advise: what is the mandate of the commission when it comes to soil removal from agricultural land?

Hon. P. Bell: If the member wanted to take Hansard and replace "soil deposition" with "soil removal," he would find that my answers would all be consistent. The policy structure is very similar when we actually deal with soil removal versus soil deposition.

B. Ralston: Can I make the identical request, then, for records of enforcement action from November 1, 2002, under the new act — and three years back from that, under the Soil Conservation Act?

Hon. P. Bell: Actually, the member wouldn't even have had to request it. We would have provided it to him, as that fits under the criteria of the type of information that we would have provided under the previous request. Soil deposition and soil removal fall within the same act, and that's the type of information we would have been presenting. We're happy to do that, and that will be done in the three-week time frame.

B. Ralston: One of the key purposes of the Agricultural Land Commission is to preserve agricultural land. The commission recently issued a decision about an exclusion application in Abbotsford. I am wondering if the minister has any comments as to whether this decision, in his view, is consistent with the purposes of the act in preserving agricultural land or not?

Hon. P. Bell: After the decision had been made, I had the opportunity to go on the Agricultural Land Commission website, which I find to be very, very useful. One of the things that is probably most useful about that particular website is that there are aerial photos of all of the decision areas that have been made. When one reviews the aerial photos, one would think that the decision that was made by the Agricultural Land Commission was a balanced one. I think it was the removal of about 178 hectares and either decline or deferral of about 200-and-some hectares. From my observation of the aerial photos, it appeared as if they had protected the high-value agricultural lands. The lands that did not have either significant existing agricultural practices or appeared to be not as useful were the ones that had been accepted for removal.

B. Ralston: Just so we're clear, then, is the minister saying, in summary, that he agrees with the decision of the commission?

Hon. P. Bell: The member needs to know that I would not agree or disagree with any specific decision of the Agricultural Land Commission. That is not my role. What I do look at is the performance of the Agricultural Land Commission over a body of decisions, and that would be a more appropriate level of discussion for me to have in terms of giving direction to the Agricultural Land Commission. When I evaluate the performance of the ALC, I'm looking at a body of decisions as opposed to an individual decision.

B. Ralston: Has the minister had an opportunity to review all the decisions of the commission over the last

two or three years, and is he satisfied with the trend that it appears to indicate?

Hon. P. Bell: I have not reviewed all of the decisions. I am happy with and comfortable with the ones that I and my staff have reviewed.

B. Ralston: Can the minister advise: what is the status of the Barnston Island exclusion application at this point?

B. Ralston: Mr. Dhillon was quoted publicly in a local newspaper, the Surrey Leader, on August 7 as saying that he expected that the commission would give a decision in a month or two. That month or two has now expired. Obviously, that's within the purview of the commission.

Hon. P. Bell: I am not aware of what the time frames would be on the Barnston decision, nor would it be appropriate for me to pressure the commission into a speedy decision. I think we want the commission to operate in a way that it should as a quasi-judicial body. It would be inappropriate for me to interfere with that activity.

B. Ralston: Can the minister advise: what correspondence has he received from members of the public in the recent past concerning the reasonableness or not of this application?

Hon. P. Bell: This has been a topic of much correspondence at my office. Of course, I get correspondence on both sides of the equation: people advocating for removal and also suggesting that it would be inappropriate. The policy of my office is to forward all of that correspondence directly to the Agricultural Land Commission, as they have responsibility for that decision.

B. Ralston: Can the minister advise just what kind of volume of correspondence or e-mails we're talking about that have been forwarded to the commission on the pending Barnston Island decision?

Hon. P. Bell: I am guessing — and I hope the member isn't critical of me if I miss the mark here by some — but I would suggest that it is in the order of 50 to 100 e-mails and/or letters that I have received. As I indicated, there are people on both sides of this issue — clearly.

B. Ralston: I'm advised that as a result of the commission even entertaining this application, there is a waning public confidence in the Agricultural Land Commission and its ability to fulfill its mandate to preserve agricultural land in the province. One of the suggestions made by a prominent lobby group, of which Mr. Sands, a former long-time ministry employee, is a part, is that a moratorium on all exclusion applications from the agricultural land reserve be proposed.

Is the minister prepared to consider a moratorium on applications, including the Barnston Island application, pending a further public review of the extent to which the commission is achieving its objectives?

Hon. P. Bell: It would be presumptuous for me to suggest what the Barnston decision may look like. The Agricultural Land Commission operates, as he knows, at arm's length from my ministry. It is a quasi-judicial body. As I indicated in my earlier remarks not more than five or seven minutes ago, I have full faith in the commission and think that it's doing a good job at this point in fulfilling its mandate in the policy structure we've put in place for it.

B. Ralston: One of the concerns that's raised by many people is the regional structure of the decision-making process. While I understand the minister lauds the effort to regionalize the decision-making process, many others find that what has taken place there is that a very small panel, sometimes in the case of two people, makes a huge public policy decision with limited input and is particularly susceptible to pressures from local councils.

I'm wondering if the minister is prepared to address those concerns by undertaking a review of the regional panel structure of the Agricultural Land Commission.

Hon. P. Bell: I'd be happy to. I was just trying to be precise in my previous response.

The regional panels originally evolved as a result of a previous government. It's something that I laud. This province has incredible diversity. It is an extremely large province, and both the opposition members and the members of the government side have members from all over this province.

I would not presume for a minute to have people from Prince George making decisions about the agricultural land reserve in the Fraser Valley, and I know that people in Prince George prefer to have some input at the panel level into Agricultural Land Commission decisions in that region. The notion of having six panels where you have local individuals who really under-

I think it is absolutely the right model, and it's one I'll continue to support going forward.

B. Ralston: The minister makes reference to the change in the structure in the late 1990s. When the Agricultural Land Commission began meeting with smaller groups in various regions of the province in the late '90s, it was a different structure. All the commissioners remained provincial commissioners who had a provincial mandate and brought a provincial perspective and a collective broad base of experience to application decisions in each region of the province.

The present structure eliminates that provincial body and replaces it with six regional panels of three members each, which really takes us back to the situation under the old Environment and Land Use Committee some 25 or 30 years ago.

My question is: is the minister prepared to acknowledge that there may be some wisdom in that point of view and to commit to a review of that structure of the commission, given that the minister has said the mandate here is a policy direction?

Hon. P. Bell: No, I'm not prepared to do that, and I'll tell the member why. During the period 1998 to 2001 the Agricultural Land Commission removed 10,657 hectares from the agricultural land reserve. During the period 2002 to 2005, another three-year window, the Agricultural Land Commission removed 5,715 hectares, approximately half of the total land that was removed in the previous three years. Clearly, the mandate and the approach of this government is to protect agricultural lands. I can't say that was the case for 1998 to 2001.

B. Ralston: Can the minister advise of the approval rate in those two periods?

Hon. P. Bell: I'm actually glad the member brings that issue up, because it continues to support and build on the argument I have that more regional panels are better. In fact, during the period of 1998 to 2001, some 71 percent of the applied-for area was removed from the Agricultural Land Commission. During the period of 2002 to 2005 that was reduced to 66 percent.

B. Ralston: Just so we're clear, the source of these statistics is what, then?

B. Ralston: Then is the minister prepared to make a statement that the Agricultural Land Commission is fulfilling the mandate given to it under the act to preserve agricultural land? Is that the minister's conclusion?

B. Ralston: Just so we're clear, then, no legislative change to the Agricultural Land Commission Act is contemplated in the coming session of the Legislature?

Hon. P. Bell: Just to be clear, I'd appreciate it if the member would outline if he's referring to the session we're currently in or to next spring's session.

Hon. P. Bell: There is nothing planned for this session. There's nothing that I'm aware of planned for next session at this point, but that would be better canvassed when we have the opportunity to have some intimate discussion again in about four or five months — whatever that is, in February or March of 2006 — as that is a different service plan at that point in time.

D. Chudnovsky: Hon. Chair, good evening to you and through you to the minister and his staff. I just have a couple of questions that may bring together my areas of transportation and agriculture.

The minister no doubt is aware of the proposed or possible twinning of the Port Mann Bridge and the widening of Highway 1. Has there been any work done in his ministry around the potential for impact of such a project on the ALR in the valley?

Hon. P. Bell: I think I understood the question to be: has there been anything done in the ministry? And that's no.

I just checked, as well, to see if anything had been done in the Agricultural Land Commission, and there has been nothing done in that area either.

D. Chudnovsky: I wonder if the minister thinks such an investigation would be an appropriate work for the ministry to be doing.

Hon. P. Bell: I think that really is more appropriately…. We're not aware of what the plans would be around the Ministry of Transportation. It could be simply a twinning of the crossing.

To my recollection — and I'm just going back to my personal level of knowledge…. I don't recall a lot of agricultural land immediately adjacent to the Port Mann Bridge. But conversely, if it went out into the Abbotsford area or something, that would be a different issue.

Those would probably be better canvassed with the Minister of Transportation, and I think his estimates may be up next, actually.

D. Chudnovsky: I understand your suggestion to speak with the Minister of Transportation, which I'm looking forward to doing in a few minutes. We just want to make sure we don't get a situation where I ask

him a question, and he says: "You should have asked the Minister of Agriculture."

Let me pursue this just for a second — and I don't want to take too much time. But my question really wasn't about the issue that a highway goes in and we cut through a farm. That wasn't what I was getting to. What I was getting to was land use strategy and land use policy, and the impact and pressure on the ALR that might accrue as a result of various kinds of transportation projects — in this case specifically, the proposed twinning of the bridge and the widening of the highway.

That is to say, if you twin the bridge and you widen the highway, there's going to be more traffic. Traffic is going to be potentially drawn to the Fraser Valley. You draw the traffic to the Fraser Valley, and you get more development. You get more development, and you get more pressure on the ALR. That was the direction I was going in.

Perhaps that was understood, or perhaps I wasn't clear enough, but given that scenario, is that something the ministry would have a look at and try to make some judgments about — the potential impact on the ALR?

Hon. P. Bell: This is a fairly complex issue in terms of how this is all led, and there are a number of different parties that have a lead in this. Clearly, the GVRD also has some responsibility in this area in terms of planning smart growth and where that might take place and on how that is all going to work.

Our role in this would be to act as a support agent to the Ministry of Transportation around their planning on that. We would enter into the process at the request of the Ministry of Transportation and talk about the impacts to agriculture — how that might look, where it would take place, the issues around small-lot agriculture, larger expanses of agricultural land. The ALC would be engaged in that process as well.

Any decisions that would be made follow the same process with the Agricultural Land Commission that any other removal of lands normally would, so we would act as a support agent to the Ministry of Transportation for that planning process, along with other agencies.

D. Chudnovsky: That's very helpful. Thank you. I will finish with this and pursue the issue with the Minister of Transportation, but I'm eager to have a sense of the expectation of your ministry.

Certainly, one would expect the procedures that would be carried out, should such a project go ahead, would be the same procedures as normal. But it seems to me, or one would also expect, that the ministry would, in its projections and its thinking forward and its concern for the mandate — to protect agricultural land — have some sense of whether such a project would create pressure on the ALR.

It seems to me, just on the face of it, that it might be something the ministry is thinking about and planning for, and that's what I'm trying to get at. For instance, have there been discussions in the ministry? Are people concerned about it? If so, what have those discussions been? If not, do you anticipate such discussions?

Hon. P. Bell: I have probably nothing but bad news for the member. The first issue is that there have not been extensive discussions around this, because I think the project is simply at a conceptual level at this particular point in time.

Unfortunately for the member, the news gets worse, because the real area of responsibility for this is Community Services, and that minister's estimates have already been completed. I apologize that I can't create an opportunity for the member to go to that particular ministry and get more detailed information, but that's where the responsibilities would quite rightly lie. I would suggest that the member perhaps try and arrange for a meeting with the Minister of Community Services to discuss this further.

S. Fraser: Minister, as you're aware, there are proposed changes federally. I know this is a federal issue, but there's a provincial question I want to ask about with Canada's Seeds Act. The changes, as proposed, could potentially privatize the seed supply in Canada or move us a long way down that road.

As you're probably also aware, there have been a lot of petitions. There has been quite a public outcry about this, and there's tradition involved in this too. The changes, as proposed, could make it illegal for farmers and gardeners to trade or even reuse their own seed without, basically, paying for that privilege.

Has the government or the ministry or the minister taken a position on this to the federal government? Is there a role to play here?

Hon. P. Bell: The ministry has not yet taken a position on this issue. We do meet periodically as a group of federal and provincial ministers. I think we have a meeting coming up toward the end of November, if I'm not mistaken, and I'd be pleased to take the member's comments under advisement and make sure the position is debated at the earliest opportunity with the joint federal-provincial ministers.

In such a venue, is there room for representation from certain groups to be present? Is that appropriate, or is that representation…? Is what I've said sufficient representation for taking a position?

Hon. P. Bell: There can be applications made for people to attend and make presentations. It is challenging because of the nature of getting ten provincial, three territorial and a federal minister in the room. There are, obviously, a large number of people that want to make presentations.

I appreciate the member's comments, and I'm happy to take those comments forward. I'll have to discuss it further with my staff. It's not something I've spent a lot of time looking at, at this point, but I will ensure that it's represented as an issue, obviously, for some British Columbians at the next meeting, which I think is toward the end of November.

Vote 13: integrated land management bureau, $61,189,000 — approved on division.

D. Chudnovsky: Thank you, hon. Chair. Good evening to you and through you to the minister and the members of his staff. I'm looking forward to some time pursuing some questions about the operations, expenditures and programs of the ministry. I would ask the minister to have patience. This is the first time I've done this, and I'll do my best.

Just to look forward a little bit to how we might structure this discussion…. It was very kind of the minister's staff to meet with us, and we did have a short discussion earlier today. I will be dealing with most of the questions over the next period of time. My colleague for North Coast will be here sometime tomorrow, I hope, to talk about issues of ports and ferries. There are a number of other members who will want to ask individual questions, but let me begin, if I might.

I wonder if we could have a look for just a few minutes at the Estimates document. I'm looking at page 156, at the table at the bottom of the page entitled "Capital Expenditures." I note some significant differences between the 2004-2005 figures and the 2005-2006 estimates. I'm wondering whether the minister might be able to explain those rather significant differences.

Hon. K. Falcon: I must first of all start off by apologizing. I wasn't as fast on my feet there. I was going to make a few introductory remarks.

Hon. K. Falcon: No problem. With the forbearance of the member opposite, I will attempt to do both here. I will make a few opening remarks and then answer the question.

First of all, out of deference to the fact that I've got some staff here, I'd like to just briefly introduce the staff for the benefit of the members opposite. I'm joined by my Deputy Minister John Dyble, Assistant Deputy Minister Kathie Miller, Assistant Deputy Minister Peter Milburn, Assistant Deputy Minister Frank Blasetti and also Assistant Deputy Minister Sheila Taylor.

As the members opposite probably know, we set out a plan in British Columbia to try and chart a new course for the economy of the province. In particular, a big piece of that economic opportunity renewal was transportation. We recognize that we had some real infrastructure deficit challenges to deal with on the transportation side. We made a decision to move forward on a basis that would try and recapture some of the infrastructure deficit we were facing, but also recognizing that a key part of the revitalization of the economy of British Columbia was tied into how effectively we as a small, open trading province could compete with our competitors from around the world.

I think that over the last few years we've made some fairly significant strides, and that's been evidenced in a whole number of areas of the economy. On the port side, for example, we've seen expansion at Neptune Bulk Terminals in North Vancouver. We've seen that the port of Vancouver has undergone significant expansion — over $130 million worth of expansion. They've added new gantry cranes. New employment has been added to the Vancouver port. Additional planned expansion of the Delta port, which would be very significant for the province…. Surrey Fraser port has an investment of almost $200 million — new cranes, new jobs, new investment to ensure that they are able to meet some of the demands of the increased growth of China and India. CN and CP railways are making their own significant infrastructure investments, which is critical, because they obviously move a lot of the goods.

We've seen a $1.4 billion planned expansion that's well underway in the design phase and even, I believe, some of the construction phase at the Vancouver International Airport. We're very pleased with what we're seeing in terms of the multimodal aspects of the economy of British Columbia.

On the highway side, we are also making significant investments. I'm just going to touch on it at a very high level because we will probably have the opportunity to, hopefully, discuss more of these during estimates. The $600 million in the Sea to Sky Highway, which is a project I'm very proud of, is a project that is on schedule, on budget and will be completed by 2009.

Kicking Horse Canyon, which is a hugely important project in the province, is one of the key initiatives that we're undertaking as a government and where construction is well underway. We're hoping to begin phase two of that project very shortly.

Of course, the new William Bennett Bridge, formerly known as the Okanagan Lake Bridge, which is outside of the lower mainland, the most congested corridor in the entire province…. That's something that we're looking forward to moving ahead on and having that completed prior to 2010.

The Cariboo Connector is a very important vision for the province: to four-lane Highway 97 from Cache Creek to Prince George that will open up opportunities in the north, create some tremendous growth opportunities for the north and also deal with safety considerations and the movement of goods and traffic more efficiently along that corridor.

The Prince Rupert port expansion is something that particularly I'm proud of. This is an increased commitment by the province from $17.2 million to $30 million, which will be matched by the federal government. We will also see equivalent investment by CN in bringing about the containerization of the port of Prince Rupert.

We're also investing in something I feel pretty passionately about, and that's on the greener side of our ministry — the cycling infrastructure partnerships program. I'm an active cyclist, I'm an enthusiast, and I believe it is important that government show leadership in this area. We will continue to be investing. We have increased our investment from '04-05 of $1.3 million annually to $2 million for '05-06. Together with the projects that we have underway and with cost-sharing with municipalities and regional districts, we anticipate that we'll see about 50 kilometres of new bike trails in communities throughout British Columbia.

The airport side. We're also investing in smaller airports throughout the province, including major investments in the Abbotsford Airport, the Cranbrook airport, Comox Airport, and other investments in smaller airports like Kamloops, Pitt Meadows and Campbell River. These are because this province views airports as local economic generators that can create enormous opportunities if the appropriate business plan and strategic investment are put into place to realize the full potential.

Finally, I would say that border infrastructure is important because, at the end of the day, we are a trading province. Our ability to be competitive and seize the opportunities that we see, particularly increased container traffic coming out of Asia, is directly related and tied to our ability to move those products and those containers once they get to our ports. We know that over the next 15 to 20 years we will see an increase in the range of 300 percent in container traffic bound for North America from Asia.

The challenge is that there are other economies that also see the opportunities, including the ports on the U.S. west coast and also Mexico. Our opportunity, if we have the boldness and the vision necessary to seize that opportunity, is to ensure that we can increase the percentage of that container traffic that comes to British Columbia ports. The job creation opportunities are enormous. We're talking in the range of 50,000 potential jobs in British Columbia. Those are high-paying, family-supporting jobs. That's not to mention all the spinoff benefits that would accrue to the balance of the economy.

For us to do that, we must invest in strategic critical infrastructure to ensure that — whether those containers are moving by rail, by short-sea shipping or by road — they have to have the ability to move efficiently. That means we need to make the kind of investments we're making today: the widening, the four-laning of Highway 15, for example, from the No. 1 Highway right down to the Douglas border crossing — the fourth-busiest border crossing in the country.

That's why we need to widen No. 10 Highway so that we have continuous four lanes all the way from Langley right through to Delta, which creates, again, a very critical truck movement corridor connecting with Highway 15, Highway 91 and 91A and, of course, the 99.

All of these are part of a broader vision that we have in the province to ensure that we make those kinds of strategic investments. That's what the gateway program is all about, which I know we'll have the opportunity to canvass with the member opposite.

We look forward to investing in our transportation plans over the next three years $2 billion worth of direct provincial government investment, which will leverage well over a billion dollars worth of third-party investment, whether that's private sector, federal government or other levels of government. I think that what that tells us is that we are undertaking the most dramatic, massive, aggressive investment program we have seen in the province of British Columbia for decades.

On that note, that provides me the opportunity to just give an overview to my esteemed colleagues in opposition and to the listening audience out there. I will just take a few seconds here to gather the information on the question that the hon. member asked starting out.

Two primary issues there. The first is on the vehicle fleet. We've got a $3 million increase. Much of our heavy equipment vehicles are coming up for lease renewal. Is that the correct way of characterizing it? That's the biggest chunk that you will see there.

The second is that the primary amount of the balance is for upgrades to our radio repeater system. That's a system that allows us…. In very rural, remote areas where we haven't got ability for the maintenance contractors to stay in touch with each other, there is a radio repeater system in place that allows them to do so.

But the other thing I would point out for the benefit of the members is that in both '04-05 and '05-06 there are one-time capital costs associated with the construction of a new inland ferry called the Francois Lake ferry that is actually being built up in…. I forget the community. It'll come to me in a minute. It's being built locally to serve the small community up at Francois Lake, and that is something that has proceeded very,

very well. But those will be one-time costs that will not be in the out years of '06-07, '07-08.

D. Chudnovsky: Thank you to the minister for that. If I just might say, parenthetically, almost all of the general descriptions that the minister made in his opening are areas that we look forward to canvassing with him and his staff over the next little while.

I wonder if the minister could point more specifically to the places where the radio repeater system and the ferry that he has just described show up on these.

Again, I need to apologize. It's my first time through all of this. If we can look at page 156. I'm going to be referring to other figures in a minute. If the minister could just help me by showing me…. I think I have a sense of where they may be, but if he could just tell me where those two particular increases show up in the figures.

Hon. K. Falcon: You will find all of them on page 156 under "Capital expenditures" grouped under "Highway operations."

D. Chudnovsky: Minister, capital expenditures on highway operations increase from $12.79 million in '04-05 to $14.163 million in '05-06 and then decrease to $7 million and some change — serious change — in '06-07 and $4.234 million in '07-08. I wonder whether the minister could explain those changes for us, please.

Hon. K. Falcon: The big change is that in the out years we won't have to, for example, do the repeater radio upgrades because we'll have completed them. We certainly won't have to do the Francois ferry again because it will have been built and completed. We won't have the large-vehicle lease renewals, because those are typically on four- and five-year terms. When they come up for renewal, as many of them are here, we do the renewals, and then we've got nothing for the next four or five years.

D. Chudnovsky: The decision-making with respect to these expenditures to do the ferry at a particular time or the repeater stations…. Are those on a schedule that is predetermined, or are those decisions that are made by the minister or ministry staff on an ad hoc basis?

Hon. K. Falcon: On the vehicle side, as I mentioned, we have a schedule of when the lease renewals are coming up. We've got a manager that monitors the fleet and keeps an eye on all that. That's fairly straightforward.

On the ferries side, with the Francois Lake ferry, what happened there is a result of the beetle-kill that's being undertaken in British Columbia. There was a very strong recognition that there was going to need to be increased capacity on the Francois Lake ferry. So we went out with an RFP, a request for proposals, and ultimately were able to find someone right up in that neck of the woods that was able to construct that particular ferry for the government at a good price. We're very happy with that.

On the repeater side, with the radio repeaters, we have a radio group that is dealing with this situation. As I've just learned now — because candidly, I wasn't aware of this — the federal government has a requirement now, apparently, that we are required to narrow the bandwidth that is being utilized on the radio repeaters. That is why the upgrade is taking place — because of the federal government requirement to narrow the bandwidth we're using on the radio repeaters.

D. Chudnovsky: Minister, the estimates we're looking at take us to 2007-2008. If one were to graph the expenditures and the projected expenditures, they kind of peak in the period that we're in, and they kind of trough as we move along the period of years. Any sense of what we might be looking at in 2008-2009?

Hon. K. Falcon: That would, of course, be covered by our next year's estimates. We're doing the budget planning right now for the '06-07 to '08-09 budget years, so we're right in the middle of that process.

D. Chudnovsky: Thank you to the minister. He can be sure that we'll have a chance to talk about that next time.

Minister, the executive and support services estimates of expenditures show a different pattern. They are at approximately $1½ million in 2004-2005, decrease dramatically to $398,000 in '05-06 and then to $150,000 in '06-07 and then an increase to $560,000 in '07-08. I wonder if the minister could help us to understand those fluctuations.

Hon. K. Falcon: In '04-05 there was a significant expenditure, in the form of computer systems, in system development. That is a one-time cost that we don't see going out in the out years. The second part of that is that we also had some tenant improvements to some facilities. In particular, I'm apprised that salt sheds…. We still have a few on some of our ministry-owned worksites. Most are in the hands of maintenance contractors, but apparently we still have some where we've done some improvements to the salt storage sheds. That was reflected in '04-05, and that's not a number that will be going forward.

D. Chudnovsky: I'm sure that does explain the difference between the '04-05 and '05-06 numbers or goes some way to explaining that, but if I might reiterate, the estimate drops significantly again from '05-06 to '06-07 and then increases dramatically in '07-08. I wonder if the minister might continue the explanation to the ongoing years.

Hon. K. Falcon: The member is correct. In '07-08 you'll see a jump up to $560,000 from the previous

year, which was $150,000. That's primarily because we are planning to make some major tenant improvements to our Kamloops office. The Kamloops office right now, an office which I have visited on several occasions, is in a pretty decrepit old building. It's got asbestos issues associated with it, etc.

In the manner of good planning we're putting aside dollars in recognition that we are going to have to…. I don't believe we've fully made this decision yet, but we're looking at the alternatives available to have our employees either in a newer building nearby or what would be involved in doing a retro on the existing building, etc. Frankly, in good planning we are putting aside dollars to make available for that.

D. Chudnovsky: Well, that only leaves one year to go through. That's '06-07, where the figure drops to $150,000 from $398,000 the year previous, which I think the minister has explained. Then it rises to $560,000, which I think the minister has explained. So if the minister could help us with the intervening year, we'll have done that little section.

Hon. K. Falcon: The bottom line on that year, '06-07, is that we really just don't have much in the way of tenant improvements planned or necessary throughout the province. It's the same with system development or improvements.

D. Chudnovsky: In the 2003 budget the then Finance Minister said that transportation capital in the province would be expanded without any increase to the provincial debt. Last spring's budget indicated an increase of $180 million in additional debt for the Sea to Sky Highway P3. Both the capital and performance payment obligations of the Bennett Bridge project will, in addition, add to the provincial debt.

My question is: can the minister confirm for us that all capital expansion on P3s will add to the provincial debt?

Hon. K. Falcon: This is an area where we've actually…. As the member opposite probably knows, one of our government commitments was that we would move to generally accepted accounting principles on government books. This has been, I think, an exercise that all of us are extraordinarily proud of, because we have, as the Auditor General has said, the most transparent books anywhere in the country. That's just a preface that I want to put out there, because I think it's an important step in the right direction.

One of the results of moving to GAAP compliance, however, is that the accounting treatment has changed due to interpretations made with respect to being GAAP-compliant. One of the things that we know from the office of the comptroller general is that we must recognize the value of obligations and the assets on book on the current P3s that we've entered into to date. In terms of future potential P3s, the one thing we know for sure is that that would entirely depend on the nature of the P3, how the P3 is structured and, ultimately, how the office of the comptroller general views that P3.

D. Chudnovsky: Thank you to the minister for that answer. We on this side of the House and, of course, British Columbians know and understand that a central justification for P3s, historically and certainly in this province, was the notion — I would call it a notion, not a fact — that somehow the use of P3s as a strategy for capital expansion was a way to reduce debt. That was, as we all know and understand, a kind of accounting trick which the accountants are telling us not to use anymore. Perhaps trick is not the word to use, although some might use it. That strategy is no longer available to government.

We will certainly be pursuing this issue, because I think that the people of British Columbia need to know and understand — we certainly do on this side — just what it means to us — this strategy of claiming that because the expenditures weren't made in the direct provincial debt, that that debt somehow didn't exist. People on this side of the House and certainly across B.C. want to understand that and unpack that kind of strategy in some detail.

We will be looking — and I'm sure the minister won't be surprised — at all of the projects that he mentioned earlier to try to understand in some detail what in fact the justification was for the use of P3s, what it has become and what in fact the debt situation is. So we look forward to that process.

I want to thank the minister for his useful and frank responses to the questions so far this evening, and his staff. We will look forward to more discussion tomorrow.

I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion of the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands and progress on the Ministry of Transportation 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.